Daniel 11:36-39

HOMILETICS

SECT. XLI.—THE WILFUL KING. (Chap. Daniel 11:36.)

The present part of the prophecy regards a king, power, or sovereignty, emphatically spoken of as “the king.” Some will have Antiochus Epiphanes still intended by this king. The great majority of evangelical interpreters, however, believe that the angel has already passed from that monarch and the empire which he represented, to that which was to succeed it, namely, that of the Romans, who are certainly introduced in a preceding verse as the “ships of Chittim,” and who seem to be the subject of that part of the prophecy immediately preceding the present. [322] The question is whether the Fourth or Roman Empire in general is here described; or, as in the vision of the Four Beasts we saw that empire represented by, concentrated in, and identified with, a little horn or special power springing out of it,—whether we are not also here to consider the same concentration and representative of that empire, or indeed the same little horn which is described in chap. 7. The similarity of the description in both places would seem to leave little room to doubt that the latter is the more correct view; and that in this Wilful King before us we see that power which, springing out of the decayed and dismembered ancient Roman empire, represented it for many centuries, having, like that empire, Rome as its metropolis and seat of government, its head being at the same time a spiritual ruler, the sovereign pontiff,—in other words, the papacy. Bishop Newton, after showing that the prophecy could not with truth be applied to Antiochus Epiphanes, remarks that the prophet now proceeds to describe the principal author of the persecutions that should still follow the Church. The term “king” or kingdom, he observes, signifies any government, state, or potentate; and the meaning of Daniel 11:36 he conceives to be, that, after the empire was become Christian, there should spring up in the Church an Antichristian power that should act in the most absolute and arbitrary manner, exalt itself above all laws, divine and human, dispense with the most solemn and sacred obligations, and in many respects enjoin what God had forbidden, and forbid what God had commanded. The power, he further remarks, began in the Roman emperors, who summoned councils, and directed and influenced their determinations almost as they pleased. After the division of the empire, this power still increased, and was exerted principally by the Greek emperors in the East, and by the bishops of Rome in the West. He observes also that this power was to continue till “the end of the indignation,” or till God should have “accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people;” and that it was an ancient tradition among the Jewish doctors that the destruction of Rome and the restoration of the Jews would fall out about the same period. Mr. Birks observes that some have referred the whole passage (Daniel 11:36) to Antiochus, others to an infidel king yet to arise, others to democratic infidelity in the Roman empire, and others to the popedom or the Christian Greek emperors; and that most divines, whether Fathers, Protestants, or Roman Catholics, believe that the same power or person is designed as in the Little Horn and the Man of Sin. Mr. Birks himself, like Mede and Bishop Newton, applies the prophecy to “the idolatrous apostasy of the Church in the latter days,” the Wilful King being identical with the Little Horn of chap. 7. We notice—

[322] “The king” (Daniel 11:36). Dr. Pusey observes that the characteristics of this infidel king are self-exaltation above every god; contempt for all religion; blasphemy against the true God; apostasy from the God of his fathers; disregard of the desire of women; honouring a god whom his fathers knew not; adding, that of all these only one in the least agrees with Antiochus, while the prophecy unmistakably corresponds with that which in the Revelation is still future (Revelation 13:11). But many believe that it also at least as unmistakably corresponds with the papacy, which is also foretold in the Revelation. “By the name ‘king,’ ” says Dr. Cox, “Mede, and others after him, understand the Roman state of power, under whatever kind or government; but it is more especially referred to Rome-papal, of which power the description is deemed peculiarly graphic. His despotism, blasphemy, and self-exaltation are clearly marked: and he was to prosper till the indignation be accomplished, or the ‘time, times,’ &c., the 1260 years, when the ‘wonders,’ as afterwards named, shall have an end.” Mr. Birks argues against the idea of Antiochus, or a single infidel and blasphemous king yet to arise, being meant by this king, on the ground that the marks of time in the prophecy fix the close of the vision far beyond the days of Antiochus, and the promised period of the Jewish restoration; that there is no proof that the Wilful King denotes one individual person; that since the fall of Jerusalem the Jews have been exiles from Palestine, and the West, even more than the East, has been the scene of their sufferings; that the Wilful King is not an open atheist and rejector of all religion; that his place in the prophetic history is between the return of Antiochus from Egypt, b.c. 167, and the events predicted in chap. Daniel 12:1, an interval of two thousand years, while the application of the preceding verses to the Romans as far as Constantine the Great would bring the prophecy to the time of the Vandal persecutions in Africa; and finally that the Wilful King is to prosper until the anger of God against Israel is accomplished. Calvin, who acknowledges the passage to be very obscure, applies it entirely to the Roman empire, not, however, considering it to be begun in the reign of the Cæsars; believing that the angel passed from Antiochus to the Romans, as God wished to support the godly under the troubles that awaited them till the time of the Romans, from whom, beginning with Pompey and Crassus, they continued to be harassed by many and continual wars. Mede, who with Calovius, Geier, and others, applies the prophecy to Antichrist, connects Daniel 11:36 with the preceding—“to the time appointed, the king shall do his will,” &c. Dr. Clarke things the prophecy may apply to Antiochus; but observes that it is well known that an Antichristian power did spring up in the Christian Church, showing itself in the Greek emperors in the East, and in the bishops of Rome in the West. Roman Catholic interpreters, as De Lyra, Hugo, and others, after Jerome and the fathers, understand by “the king” the Antichrist who is to appear at the end of the world, and to reign three years and a half. Œcolampadius and Melanchthon regarded him as both the pope and the Turk. Others of the Reformers, as Osiander and Pfaff, understand the pope to be meant from here to the end of the prophecy. Willet thinks all was historically fulfilled in Antiochus, to whom the prophecy specially pointed, though it has a typical application to the Papal Antichrist. Brightman, like Calvin, applies the prophecy to the Romans, and especially to the Roman emperors, the object of the prophecy being to show what would be the state of the Jews to all ages, till gathered into one fold with the Gentiles. Keil observes, that after the example of Porphyry, Ephrem Syrus, and Grotius, almost all modern interpreters, that is, in Germany, find here only a description of the conduct of Antiochus Epiphanes up to the time of his destruction; while of believing interpreters, some, as C. B. Michaelis, Hävernick, and others, regard the whole as having a typical reference to Antichrist; while others, as Jerome, Theodoret, Luther, Œcolampadius, Osiander, Calovius, Geier, and at length Kliefoth, interpret the section as a direct prophecy of Antichrist, the “king” being the little horn growing up among the ten kingdoms of the Fourth Empire, and described in chap. Daniel 9:26 as “the prince that shall come,” and introduced here as a new subject He remarks that the Rabbinical interpreters have also adopted the idea of a change of subject in Daniel 11:36; while his own opinion is that the reference of the section to Antiochus is essentially correct, and that the supposition of a change of subject is not established. He admits, however, that what is said regarding “the king” in Daniel 11:36, goes far beyond what Antiochus did, does not harmonise with what is known of Antiochus, and is expressly referred in the New Testament to Antichrist; but thinks that these circumstances rather show that “in the prophetic contemplation there is comprehended in the image of one king what has been historically fulfilled in its beginning by Antiochus Epiphanes, but shall only meet its complete fulfilment by the Antichrist in the time of the end.” By “the king,” Mr. Bosanquet also understands the king of fierce countenance mentioned in chap. Daniel 8:23, to which the prophecy goes back, after coming to Alexander’s kingdom in Daniel 11:4, in order to relate what shall be in the latter days, the great object of the vision; this king being, in his view, the personification of Mohammedanism, who literally destroyed the mighty and the holy people, putting an end to the Jewish kingdom of the Homerites in Arabia Felix, b.c. 627, after it had existed for some seven hundred years, the last remnant of the Jews as a nation.

I. The power itself. “The king” (Daniel 11:36). The term might either indicate a single individual ruler, as in the case of Alexander (Daniel 11:3), or a series of rulers—as in the expression “four kings which shall arise” (chap. Daniel 7:17). From the lengthened period of his predicted continuance, the term would seem here to have the latter meaning, and, like the Little Horn in chap. 7, to indicate an arrogant and blasphemous power that should rise in or out of the Roman empire. This, with most expositors of prophecy, we can only regard as, in the first instance at least, the papacy. The expression “the king” seems emphatic; and it is scarcely likely that it should be used to designate Antiochus whom the angel had introduced as a “vile person” to whom they should “not give the honour of the kingdom” (Daniel 11:21). The emphatic term might naturally be chosen to indicate a new power that should occupy a conspicuous place in the future history of God’s people. The type, which doubtless Antiochus was, appears now, as Archdeacon Harrison observes, to be lost sight of in the prophecy, and the antitype to be almost exclusively in view. According to the view of Christian antiquity, the prophecy is now occupied for some time at least with the description of that tyrannical and persecuting power already indicated in the Little Horn of the Fourth Beast, the description of which so closely corresponds with that of this Wilful King. The papacy or popedom may well be spoken of as “the king,” inasmuch as the popes not only claimed to be sovereigns, but sovereigns above all others however exalted, combining with a temporal sovereignty a spiritual jurisdiction which embraced all Christendom. It is justly viewed as the power to which the Apostle referred in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, as that which should arise in the Church as the result of an apostasy, or mystery of iniquity, which had even in his time begun to work, and which was only then withheld from fully developing itself by an existing hindrance which he does not name, and which, on the removal of that hindrance, would reveal itself, and continue until destroyed by the Lord’s second appearing.

II. Its character. “The king shall do according to his will” (Daniel 11:36). The leading characteristic of this power was to be absolute and arbitrary conduct. Of all absolute and arbitrary rulers he should be the chief. Antiochus acted as a type and shadow of this “king “when he commanded all the peoples under his sway to receive his laws and follow his religion. It is well known that the popes claimed, and for a time obtained, an absolute sway over the greatest earthly rulers in virtue of their assuming the place and authority of the Vicar of Christ, with power over both worlds, and possessing both the spiritual and the temporal sword, with a judgment that was infallible, and an authority that could set aside oaths and the most sacred obligations. The language of the Decretals and Bulls of the popes, to which the nations of Europe submitted for centuries, is, as Mr. Birks observes, that emperors ought to obey and not to rule over the pontiffs; that they owe an oath of fealty and subjection to the pope as their superior and head; that what the bishops of Rome decree ought to be observed by all; that it is permitted neither to speak nor to think differently from the pope; that he imparts authority to laws, but is not bound by them; and that he is made the head of the whole world. One example may suffice. Hume relates of Pope Paul IV., to whom Ferdinand, the brother of Charles V., applied for his coronation, that “he thundered always in the ears of all ambassadors, that he stood in no need of the assistance of any prince; that he was above all the potentates of the earth; that he would not accustom monarchs to pretend to a familiarity or equality with him; that it belonged to him to alter and regulate kingdoms; that he was successor of those who had deposed kings and emperors; and that rather than submit to anything below his dignity, he would set fire to the four corners of the world. He went so far as, at table, in the presence of many persons, and even openly, in a public consistory, to say that he would not admit any kings for his companions; they were all his subjects, and he would hold them under his feet; so saying, he stamped on the ground with his old and infirm limbs: for he was now past fourscore years of age.” Such was “the king,” the king with emphasis; the king that by his absolute will and arbitrary power was to rule and afflict the Church and the world for many centuries.

III. Its doings. Described in various particulars in Daniel 11:36.

1. “He shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god” (Daniel 11:36). Here we have especially that which connects this prophecy with 2 Thessalonians 2, and identifies this “king” with the man of sin there predicted. [323] For “every god” the Apostle has all that is called god; the expression, doubtless, referring to civil rulers, who are frequently so called in Scripture, and who are known frequently to have claimed divine honours. How far the Roman pontiffs have claimed this superiority is obvious from what has been already said. The popes have declared that their princedom is far more excellent than any human princedom; that the sacred power and authority of the pontiffs govern the rulers of this world; and that Christian emperors are bound to submit their mandates to theirs.

[323] “Magnify himself above every god” (Daniel 11:36). The allusion here, observes Mr. Birks, to 2 Thessalonians 2., is so plain that it has been recognised by every class of interpreters, from Theodoret down to our own day. Polybius, quoted by Bishop Newton, says that Antiochus in his public sacrifices and worship of the gods was more sumptuous and magnificent than all who reigned before him, and that in his solemn shows and processions he had the images of all who were called or reputed gods, demons, or heroes carried before him. On the other hand, Calvin observes that the Romans in their pride and lawlessness surpassed other profane nations, and did not even preserve a superstitious fear of God, making a laughingstock of all divinities, and ridiculing the very name and appearance of piety, which they only used for the purpose of retaining their subjects in obedience.

2. “He shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods” (Daniel 11:36). History relates that Antiochus commanded his statue to be erected in the temple at Jerusalem, and that be spoke very proudly; but it records nothing of his speaking “marvellous things against the God of gods.” The Roman pontiffs may be said to have done this when they claimed in their Decretals an equality with God, asserting that the pontiff cannot be bound or judged by the secular power, “because it is manifest that God cannot be judged by man.” They claim also in the mass the power of creating God out of a wafer, according to the well-known saying, Whom they create they adore. The blasphemous title is also known, and never repudiated, “Our Lord God the Pope.” Of the Man of Sin, the Apostle says, “As God he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” While enthroned on the high altar in St. Peter’s at Rome on the day of his consecration, he has the words of the ninety-fifth psalm blasphemously applied to him, Venite adoremus, “O come, let us worship.” [324]

[324] “Shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods “(Daniel 11:36). In reference to the blasphemous claims put forth in the bulls and decretals of the popes, as well as the conversion of the consecrated wafer into the divine being, Mr. Birks asks, “If these are not marvellous speeches against the God of gods, how can our imagination invent others which may deserve the name?”

3. “He shall not regard the God of his fathers” (Daniel 11:37). Antiochus, on the contrary, commanded all his subjects to adopt the religion of the Greeks, and the worship of his own gods, and was liberal and ostentatious in his religious rites. On the other hand, the ground on which so many seceded from the Church of Rome before the Reformation was, that the popes had changed the nature of Christianity, and that the pope himself was Antichrist. The Man of Sin was to be the outcome of a deep apostasy or falling away from the Christian faith; many departing from the faith and giving heed to seducing spirits (2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1). It is well known that, in the papacy, the appeal in regard to religious truth is not to the Word of God in the Scriptures, but to tradition and the Church; that much of the worship and religion enjoined by the popes is an importation from and imitation of paganism, of which the primitive Church knew nothing, of which the very first act on entering a popish place of worship, the use of holy water, is an example; and of which the pope’s own title, the Pontiff or Pontifex, the title of the high priest of ancient Roman idolatry, is itself an obvious instance; [325] and, finally, that the image of the Virgin Mary is a most prominent object in almost all papal churches, and that she is constantly addressed in hymns and prayers—things entirely unknown in the Scriptures and among the early Christians.

[325] Pontifex Maximus was the title of the high priest of the pagan idolatry of ancient Rome. It was borne by the emperors till Gratian, being a Christian, declined the honour, when it was given to and adopted by the Bishop of Rome. For further Pagan importations, see Hyslop’s “Two Babylons.”

4. “Nor shall he regard the desire of women” (Daniel 11:37). [326] The clause is acknowledged to be obscure, and the meaning doubtful. Nothing is known of Antiochus to justify its application to that person. One mark of the apostasy, however, which was to develop the “Man of Sin,” was “forbidding to marry” (1 Timothy 4:3); while one of the articles of the creed of Pope Pius V. is, “It is unlawful for ministers to marry.” The honour also that is given in the papal system to so-called vows of chastity, or vows of perpetual celibacy and virginity, is well known. Eusebius, quoted by Bishop Newton, says of Constantine, that he held in the highest veneration those men who devoted themselves to the monastic life, and almost adored the company of perpetual virgins. His example was followed by his successors; and in the fourth century clerical celibacy, like a torrent, overran the Eastern Church, and soon after the Western too. A writer in the “Quarterly Review,” quoted by Mr. Birks, says: “Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII.), a wise man in his generation, knew that the power of the pope through the clergy and over the clergy depended on their celibacy. We speak of the system, and we appeal to history. Perhaps the monkish institutes may have the excuse or palliation that they were composed in hard times and for hard men. But what sentences of unfeeling, unmitigated, remorseless cruelty do they contain! What delight do they seem to have in torturing the most sensitive fibres of the heart, in searing the most blameless emotions of human nature!”

[326] “The desire of women” (vet. 37). Keil observes that the old interpreters understood these words of conjugal love; the moderns in Germany, on the contrary, after the example of D. Michaelis and Gesenius, understand them of the goddess Anaitis or Mylitta, the Assyrian Venus, and refer them especially to the spoiling of the temple of this goddess in Elymais by Antiochus; while Ewald thinks of the Syrian deity Tammuz or Adonis. Keil’s own opinion is that the love of women is an example selected from the sphere of human love and attachment, for which even the most selfish and most savage of men feel some sensibility. Calvin thinks it refers to the duties of charity; Calovius and Geier, to conjugal love and honest matrimony; the former remarking that נשים (nasim) properly denotes not harlots but wives. Grotius, applying the words to Antiochus, thinks they mean that he will be touched with no pity for the sex. So Maldonatus. Polanus understands the clause to mean that he will not be moved from his purpose of disturbing religion by the prayers of his wives; and Piscator, that he will not suffer his wives to worship any god but Jupiter Olympius. Brightman understands it of natural affection, the thing most desired by women being to have their children in most honourable positions, while the Roman emperors cared nothing about having children to succeed them. Willet, applying the passage to Antiochus, understands it to mean that he will contemn matrimony; which he thinks may also be applied typically to the pope. Bullinger and Osiander apply it to the pope historically. Some understand the expression of Messiah, whom it was the desire of the women in Israel to bring forth. Dr. Pusey remarks: “Since it was suggested that the ‘desire of women’ might be their Syrian goddess Mylitta, the Germans have commonly adopted the explanation. Yet there is nothing in the revolting and also unnatural worship of Mylitta which should entitle that degrading worship to be called the desire of women. Nor can I bring myself to think that Daniel, in a picture of the sin of Antiochus, would mention the abstinence from such worship as a portion of that sin.”

5. “Nor (will he regard) any god: for he shall magnify himself above all” (Daniel 11:37). This could perhaps hardly be said of one who set up the statue of Jupiter in the temple, commanded all his subjects to acknowledge the gods of the Greeks, and was himself prodigal and magnificent in his worship of them. Calvin, applying the prophecy to the Romans, says they manifested a great contempt for God, while they maintained the appearance of piety. If the term “god” is here also to be regarded as denoting civil rulers, which is probable, we have already seen how strictly applicable the description is to the papacy. If the term is to be viewed in a religious sense, the prophecy may still be regarded as having its fulfilment in a system which sets aside the written word of God for human tradition, and which has had the obvious effect of preparing the way for infidelity in the countries where, as in France and Italy, it has ruled with greatest power and appeared in its greatest glory. The worldliness and ambition of the Roman pontiffs, it is well known, has been too generally such as to indicate a secret infidelity under all the outward profession of piety, openly expressed by Leo X., who is reported to have spoken of the Gospel as a profitable fable. [327]

[327] “Nor regard any God.” Keil and Kliefoth understand the clause to mean that he set himself free from all piety or reverence toward God, or toward that which is divine. Calvin, applying it to the Romans, says, they treated the worship of their deities simply as matters of business, being destitute of any perception of true divinity, and only pretenders to religion, while they manifested a gross contempt of God under the appearance of piety, and thought themselves superior to their gods. Grotius understands it to mean that he (Antiochus) will not regard the god of any nation, but will rob all he can; Piscator, that he will despise all religion. Brightman understands the term “god,” as in the preceding verse, as magistrates, but here, of domestic ones, though anciently established. A. Clarke says, “The mandates and decrees of the papal Church have been often in defiance of God and His Word, the Papacy magnifying itself above all power and authority in heaven and earth.” Boothroyd understands any superior, either magistrates or kings, who are called gods (Psalms 86:6), the papal power arrogating to itself the right of raising or abasing, crowning or deposing, kings at its pleasure.

6. “But in his estate he shall honour the god of forces (Marg., “Mauzzim,” or “gods-protectors”); [328] and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. 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” (Daniel 11:38). The only god whom the Wilful King was really and practically to acknowledge and honour is one here called “the god of forces,” or, as in the Hebrew and the Margin, “the god Mauzzim,” or “the gods-protectors;” apparently the same as the god whom his fathers knew not, a strange god. It is well known that one of the most prominent characteristics of the papacy is the place which it gives to the adoration and invocation of the Virgin Mary and the saints of the calendar, as well as the honour given to and the trust reposed in the relics of the martyrs, as so many strongholds and protectors,—things entirely unknown in the earliest ages of the Church. History informs us that in the fourth and fifth centuries it became common both in the East and West to regard not only angels and departed saints, but the relics of martyrs, as the defences and protection of the church that contained them. Basil speaks of a church being “fortified by the great towers of the martyrs,” and of the martyrs fortifying our country “like some thick towers against the incursions of enemies.” Chrysostom says of the body of Paul, “This corpse surrounds the city (Rome) as with a wall, which is safer than every tower and thousands of ramparts.” Hilary, in the West, speaks of the munitions of angels; while both East and West invoke the Virgin Mary as “the impregnable wall” and the “fortress of salvation.” One of the articles in the creed of Pope Pius V. is, that “the saints reigning together with Christ are to be invoked.” The Litany of Our Lady of Loretto begins with, “We fly to your patronage, O holy Mother of God.” She is addressed as the Refuge of sinners and the Help of Christians. Not only, however, was such worship, invocation, and trust unknown among the early Christians, the professed fathers of the Roman pontiffs, but the Church was expressly guarded by the Apostle against will-worship and the worshipping of angels; while among the signs of the apostasy of the last days are mentioned the giving heed to seducing spirits and to doctrines of devils or demons, a term not unfrequently employed to designate departed spirits. That the shrines of tutelary saints, as well as the images of the Virgin, are honoured and adorned with the most costly offerings is known to all who have visited Roman Catholic churches on the Continent. The ministers of the papacy have naturally been increased with glory, the pope imparting to them the power which he professes himself to possess, of creating the God whom the people are to worship, as well as of receiving their confessions and forgiving their sins; one of the articles of the creed of Pius V. being that sin is to be confessed to a priest at least once a year under pain of damnation. The choicest lands, too, as Bishop Newton observes, have been appropriated for the property of the Church and the use of those who minister at the altars of these gods-protectors.

[328] “The god of forces.” אֱלוֹהַּ מָעֻזִּים (Eloah Ma’uzzim), “god of fortresses.” Sir Isaac Newton understands the term to mean “strong guardians,” and applies the term to the souls of the dead, saints and angels, and especially the Virgin Mary; all being invoked and adored both in the Greek and Latin Churches as patrons, intercessors, and guardians of mankind, their shrines and images being adorned with the most costly offerings. Mede seems to have been the first to apply the term to the papacy, as denoting demons or god-protectors, which the Romans worship with Christ, namely, saints and angels; remarking that Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom, and others call the relics of martyrs towers and bulwarks, while Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret, and others call martyrs patrons and protectors. He remarks: “It is a thing not to be passed by without admiration that the Fathers and others, even at the beginning of saint-worship, by I know not what fatal instinct, used to call saints and their relics walls, bulwarks, and fortresses, i.e., Mahuzzim, in the primary and original signification.” Keil renders the expression, “the god of fortresses,” and observes that, as is now generally acknowledged, מָעֻזִּים (ma’uzzim) is not, with Theodotion, the Vulgate, Luther, and others to be regarded as the proper name of a god. He applies the prophecy to the future Antichrist, who, he thinks, is here said to regard no other god—but only war; the taking of fortresses he will make his god, and he will worship this god above all, as the means of his gaining the universal power he aims at. Professor Lee translates the phrase the “god of forces,” and supposes it to apply to the Roman emperors, Nero being the first of the series. C. B. Michaelis, Gesenius, and others, applying the prophecy to Antiochus, suppose Mars, the god of war, to be intended; while Hävernick, Ewald, and others, after Grotius, think of Jupiter Olympius; which, however, as Keil observes, were not gods unknown to his fathers. Calvin translates the word “strengths, or fortitudes,” observing that the god which the Romans are said to worship, namely, the Roman Jupiter, the prophet calls a “god of bulwarks” or of power; meaning that they claimed a divine power as their own, and acknowledged no deity but themselves. Geier and Vatablus read, “god of fortifications or strengths,” like Asina or Mars, a Syrian deity to whom this king would ascribe all his dignity and power. Mr. Birks thinks that the general feature of the expression is that of one chief and many subordinate objects of worship; the god, along with whom the Mauzzim are worshipped, being the Son of God, or the true God, but made the object of a heathenish worship, with many subordinate idols, degraded into an Eloah or chief patron-divinity, who shares his worship with many Mauzzim; and that the “most strong holds” here mentioned are buildings dedicated to these Mauzzim or tutelary deities. The Wilful King, he thinks, will pay honour to a multitude of guardian powers, and cause them to receive homage and costly worship from his people.

IV. Its continuance. “He shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done” (Daniel 11:36). The indignation is that of God against His people for their unfaithfulness to, and abuse of, the privileges bestowed upon them, and, in the case of Israel more especially, their rejection and crucifixion of their King and Saviour; the consummation determined (chap. Daniel 9:27); the wrath that was to come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thessalonians 2:16); an indignation that is still experienced in the “great captivity” which the Jews have been suffering for eighteen centuries, with which the indignation in the time of Antiochus was not to be compared. It is spoken of in chap. Daniel 12:7 as the “scattering of the power of the holy people,” which was to be accomplished, or completed and finished, at the time of the end. This indignation or righteous judgment was to be accomplished through human instrumentality; and that instrumentality was mainly to be this very power or “king,” who was therefore, like Pharaoh, to be upheld and suffered, or rather made to prosper, till that object should be accomplished. [329] That period is spoken of as “a time, times, and half a time;” the same period during which the Gentile Church was also to suffer at the hands of the same tyrannical and persecuting power (chap. Daniel 12:7, Daniel 7:25). The purposes of God must be accomplished—“that that is determined must be done;” and the time for their accomplishment is fixed. Till then the instruments for that accomplishment will be provided, preserved, and strengthened, without any consciousness on their part of being so used, while simply acting out the inclinations of their own depraved wills, and seeking the furtherance of their own selfish ends, for which, when the divine purposes shall have been accomplished, they will be called to account. To every persecuting power the voice of Omnipotence is, “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed.”

[329] How the Jews have suffered at the hands of the papacy is well known. Gibbon, quoted by Mr. Birks, writes in reference to Spain: “The intolerant spirit, since it would find neither idolatry nor heresies, was reduced to the persecution of the Jews.” And in regard to the Italians: “They respected the armed heresy of the Goths; but their rage was safely pointed against the rich and defenceless Jews.” “Of these (the first Crusaders) and of other bands of enthusiasts, the first and most easy warfare was against the Jews, the murderers of the Son of God; nor had they felt a more bloody stroke since the persecution of Hadrian.”

The Wilful King was not only to continue but to “prosper “during his appointed period. This purpose of God has been the secret of the mysterious continuance and more mysterious prosperity of the papacy during the past twelve centuries. “Four times,” says Macaulay (Essay on Ranke’s History of the Popes), “since the authority of the Church of Rome was established in Western Christendom, has the human intellect risen up against her yoke. Twice that Church remained completely victorious. Twice she came forth from the conflict, bearing the marks of cruel wounds, but with the principle of life strong within her. When we reflect on the tremendous assaults which she has survived, we find it difficult to conceive in what way she is to perish.” It was thus that while the mighty work of reformation was proceeding in the north of Europe, and in all the countries on this side of the Alps and the Pyrenees it seemed on the point of triumphing, a counter-reformation took place, carried on with equal energy and success. Hence the mysterious rise and progress of the Order of Jesus, a concentration of the spirit of the papacy, the main instrument in the great papal reaction. Till the appointed time of his decay and overthrow should come, the Wilful King was to be invincible. That time, however, was to come. In May 1514, the orator of the Lateran Council proclaimed that there was an end of resistance to papal rule, and that the whole body of Christendom was now subjected to its head, Pope Leo X. In October 1517, exactly three years and a half after, Luther fixed up his famous Theses at the door of the University of Wittemberg, which were to shake the papacy to its foundations. Three centuries and a half longer were to transpire before “the king,” divested of all his territory, was to cease to be a temporal ruler. But the time came. That that was determined was done. But the end is not yet.
We may pause to reflect—

1. How unsearchable are God’s judgments, and His ways past finding out! How mysterious that such a power should be permitted to arise in the Church, and to continue and prosper for so long a period!

2. No evil or calamity but is under God’s control. Evils in Church and state can only exist and continue by His permission and appointment, and will be overruled for His own glory.

3. Solemn responsibility connected with the possession of the Gospel. The misuse or non-acceptance of that Gospel, proceeding from want of love to the truth, the sin that gave rise to this fearful judgment upon the Church of the New Testament, as a similar sin had done with that of the Old (2 Thessalonians 2:9).

4. The power and malignity of Satan in contriving, preparing, and employing agencies for evil where they might be least expected. It is our comfort, however, to know that this power is counteracted by the still greater power of God, in controlling these agencies and overruling them for His own glory and the good of His people.

5. The extent to which human depravity may, under Satan’s influence, be carried, even in connection with the highest profession of religion and piety. Hence the constant need of the Psalmist’s prayer: “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”