Daniel Chapter 11b | Table of Contents | Daniel Chapter 12a

Daniel Chapter 11 continued (c)

Page 278
Ghost they elected the deacon Vigilius, who, by a bribe of two hundred pounds of gold, had purchased the honor. [32]
      The whole nation of the Ostrogoths had been assembled for the siege of Rome, but success did not attend their efforts. Their hosts melted away in frequent and bloody combats under the city walls, and the year and nine days during which the siege lasted, witnessed almost the entire destruction of the nation. In the month of March, 538, dangers beginning to threaten them from other quarters, they raised the siege, burned their tents, and retired in tumult and confusion from the city, with numbers scarcely sufficient to preserve their existence as a nation or their identity as a people.
      Thus the Gothic horn, the last of the three, was plucked up before the little horn of Daniel 7. Nothing now stood in the way of the pope to prevent his exercising the power conferred upon him by Justinian five years before. The saints, times, and laws were now in his hands, not in purpose only, but in fact. This must therefore be taken as the year when this abomination was placed, or set up, and as the point from which to date the beginning of the prophetic period of 1260 years of papal supremacy.

      Verse 32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
      A People Who “Know Their God.” —Those who forsake the book of the covenant, the Holy Scriptures, who think more of the decree of popes and the decisions of councils than they do of the word of God —these shall he, the pope, corrupt by flatteries. That is, they shall be led on in their partisan zeal for the pope by the bestowment of wealth, position, and honors.
      At the same time a people shall exist who know their God, and these shall be strong, and do exploits. These were Christians who kept pure religion alive in the earth during the
Page 279
Dark Ages of papal tyranny, and performed marvelous acts of self-sacrifice and religious heroism in behalf of their faith. Prominent among these stand the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the Huguenots.

      Verse 33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
      The long period of papal persecution against those who were struggling to maintain the truth and instruct their fellow men in ways of righteousness, is here brought to view. The number of the days during which they were thus to fall is given in Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Revelation 12:6, 14; 13:5. The period is called “a time, and times, and the dividing of time;” “a time, times, and a half;” “a thousand two hundred and threescore days;” and “forty and two months.” All these expressions are various ways of denoting the same 1260 years of papal supremacy.

      Verse 34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
      In Revelation 12, where this same papal persecution is brought to view, we read that the earth helped the woman by opening her mouth and swallowing up the flood which the dragon cast out after her. The Protestant Reformation let by Martin Luther and his co-workers furnished the help here foretold. The German states espoused the Protestant cause, protected the reformers, and restrained the work of persecution carried on by the papal church. But when the Protestants were helped, and when their cause began to be popular, many were to cleave unto them with flatteries, or embrace the faith from unworthy motives.

      Verse 35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
      Though restrained, the spirit of persecution was not destroyed. It broke whenever there was opportunity.
Page 280
Especially was this the case in England. The religious state of that kingdom was fluctuating, it being sometimes under Protestant and sometimes under papal jurisdiction, according to the religion of the ruling monarch. “Bloody Queen Mary” was a mortal enemy to the Protestant cause, and multitudes fell victims to her relentless persecutions. This condition of affairs was to last more or less “to the time of the end.” The natural conclusion would be that when the time of the end should come, this power which the Church of Rome had possessed to punish heretics, which had been the cause of so much persecution, and which for a time had been restrained, would now be taken entirely away. The conclusion would be equally evident that this taking away of papal supremacy would mark the beginning of the period here called the “time of the end.” If this application is correct, the time of the end began in 1798; for then, as already noticed, the papacy was overthrown by the French, and has never since been able to wield all the power it before possessed. The oppression of the church by the papacy is evidently referred to here because that is the only one, with the possible exception of Revelation 2:10, connected with “a time appointed,” or a prophetic period.

      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 marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
      A King Magnifies Himself Above Every God. —The king here introduced cannot denote the same power that was last noticed, namely, the papal power; for the specifications will not hold good if applied to that power.
      Take a declaration in the next verse: “Nor regard any god.” This has never been true of the papacy. God and Christ, though often placed in a false position, have never been professedly set aside and rejected from that system of religion.
      Three peculiar features must appear in the power which fulfills this prophecy: It must assume the character here delineated
Page 281
near the beginning of the time of the end, to which we were brought down in the preceding verse. It must be a willful power. It must be an atheistical power. Perhaps the two latter specifications might be united by saying that its willfulness would be manifested in the direction of atheism.
      France Fulfils the Prophecy. —A revolution exactly answering to this description did take place in France at the time indicated in the prophecy. Atheists sowed the seeds which bore their logical and baleful fruit. Voltaire, in his pompous but impotent self-conceit, had said, “I am weary of hearing people repeat that twelve men established the Christian religion. I will prove that one man may suffice to overthrow it.” Associating with himself such men as rousseau, D’Alembert, Diderot, and others, he undertook to accomplish his threat. They sowed to the wind, and reaped the whirlwind. Then, too, the Roman Catholic Church was notoriously corrupt in France during this period, and the people were anxious to break the yoke of ecclesiastical oppression. their efforts culminated in the “reign of terror” of 1793, when France discarded the Bible and denied the existence of the Deity.
      A modern historian thus describes this great religious change:
      “Certain members of the Convention, too, had been the first to attempt to replace Christian worship in the provinces by civic ceremonial, in the autumn of 1793. At Abbeville, Dumont, having informed the populace that the priests were ‘harlequins and clowns in black garments, who showed off marionettes,’ had set up the Worship of Reason, and, with a not uncommon inconsistency, organized a ‘marionette show’ of his own of a most imposing description, with dances in the cathedral every decadi, and civic festivals on the ‘observance’ of which he greatly insisted. Fouche was the next to abolish Christian worship; speaking from the pulpit of the cathedral at Nevers he formally erased all spiritualism from the republican programme, promulgated the famous order which declared ‘death an eternal slumber,’ and thus turned the key
Page 282
Picture on this page.
Page 283
on heaven and hell alike. . . . In his congratulatory address to the ex-bishop, the President declared that as the Supreme Being ‘desired no worship other than the worship of Reason, that should in future be the national religion!’” [33]
      But there are other and still more striking specifications which were fulfilled by France.

      Verse 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.
      The Hebrew word for woman is also translated wife; and Thomas Newton observes that this passage would be more properly rendered “the desire of wives.” [34] This would seem to indicate that this government, at the same time it declared that God did not exist, would trample underfoot the law which God had given to regulate the marriage institution. And we find that the historian has, unconsciously perhaps, and if so all the more significantly, coupled together the atheism and licentiousness of this government in the same order in which they are presented in the prophecy. He says:
      “The family had been destroyed. Under the old regime it had been the very foundation of society. . . . The decree of September 20, 1792 which established divorce, and was carried still further by the Convention in 1794, had borne fruit within four years of which the Legislature itself had never dreamt: an immediate divorce could be pronounced on the score of incompatibility of temper, to come into force within a year at farthest, if either of the couple should refuse to separate before that period elapsed.
      “There had been a rush for divorce; by the end of 1793 —fifteen months after the passing of the decree —5,994 divorces had been granted in Paris. . . . Under the Directory we see women passed from hand to hand by a legal process. What was the fate of the children born of these successive unions? Some people got rid of them: the number of foundlings in the Year V rose to 4,000 in Paris and to 44,000 in other departments.
Page 284
When the parents kept the children a tragi-comical confusion was the result. A man would marry several sisters, one after the other: one citizen presented a petition to the Five Hundred for leave to marry the mother of the two wives he had already possessed. . . . The family was dissolved.” [35]
      “Nor regard any god.” In addition to the testimony already presented to show the utter atheism of the nation at this time, we present the following:
      The “constitutional bishop of Paris was brought forward to play the principal part in the most impudent and scandalous farce ever acted in the face of a national representation. . . . He was brought forward in full procession, to declare to the Convention that the religion which he had taught so many years was, in every respect, a piece of priestcraft, which had no foundation either in history or sacred truth. He disowned, in solemn and explicit terms, the existence of Deity to whose worship he had been consecrated, and devoted himself in future to the homage of liberty, equality, virtue, and morality. He then laid on the table his episcopal decorations, and received a fraternal embrace from the president of the Convention. Several apostate priests followed the example of this prelate.” [36]
      “Hebert, Chaumette, and their associates appeared at the bar, and declared that ‘God did not exist.’” [37]
      The fear of God was said to be so far from the beginning of wisdom that it was the beginning of folly. All worship was prohibited except that of liberty and the country. The gold and silver plate of the churches were seized and desecrated. The churches were closed. The bells were broken and cast into cannon. The Bible was publicly burned. The sacramental vessels were paraded through the streets on an ass, in token of contempt. A week of ten days instead of seven was established, and death was declared, in conspicuous letters posted over
Page 285
burial places, to be an eternal sleep. But the crowning blasphemy, if these orgies of hell admit of degrees, remained to be performed by the comedian Monvel, who, as a priest of Illuminism, said:
      “‘God! if you exist, . . . avenge your injured name. I bid you defiance. You remain silent; you dare not launch your thunders; who, after this, will believe in your existence?’” [38]
      Behold what man is when left to himself, and what infidelity is when the restraints of law are thrown off, and it has the power in its own hands! Can it be doubted that these scenes are what the Omniscient One foresaw and noted on the sacred page, when He pointed out a kingdom to arise which should exalt itself above every god, and disregard them all?

      Verse 38 But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
      We meet a seeming contradiction in this verse. How can a nation disregard every god, and yet honor the god of forces? It could not at one and the same time hold both these positions, but it might for a time disregard all gods, and then subsequently introduce another worship and regard the god of forces. Did such a change occur in France at this time? —It did. The attempt to make France a godless nation produced such anarchy that the rulers feared the power would pass entirely out of their hands, and therefore perceived that as a political necessity, some kind of worship must be introduced. But they did not intend to introduce any movement which would increase devotion, or develop any true spiritual character among the people, but only such as would keep themselves in power, and give them control of the national forces. A few extracts from history will show this. Liberty and country were at first the objects of adoration. “Liberty, equality, virtue, and morality,” the very opposites of anything the possessed in fact
Page 286
or exhibited in practice, were words which they set forth as describing the deity of the nation. In 1793 the worship of the Goddess of Reason was introduced, and is thus described by the historian:
      “One of the ceremonies of this insane time stands unrivaled for absurdity combined with impiety. The doors of the Convention were thrown open to a band of musicians, preceded by whom, the members of the Municipal Body entered in solemn procession, singing a hymn in praise of liberty, and escorting, as the object of their future worship, a veiled female, whom they termed the Goddess of Reason. Being brought within the bar, she was unveiled with great form, and placed on the right hand of the president; when she was generally recognized as a dancing girl of the opera, with whose charms most of the persons present were acquainted from her appearance on the stage, while the experience of individuals was farther extended. To this person, as the fittest representative of of that Reason whom they worshiped, the National Convention of France rendered public homage. This impious and ridiculous mummery had a certain fashion; and the installation of the Goddess of Reason was renewed and imitated throughout the nation, in such places where the inhabitants desired to show themselves equal to all the heights of the Revolution.” [39]
      The modern French historian, Louis Madelin, writes:
      “The Assembly having excused itself from attendance on the score of business, a procession (of a very mixed description) attended the goddess to the Tuileries, and in her presence forced the deputies to decree the transformation of Notre Dame into the Temple of Reason. This not being deemed sufficient, another goddess of Reason, the wife of Momoro, a member of the Convention, was installed at Saint-Sulpice on the following decadi. Before long these Liberties and Reasons were swarming all over France: wantons, only too often, with here and there a goddess of good family and decent behaviour.
Page 287
If it be true that the brow of one of these Liberties was bound with a fillet bearing the words ‘Turn me not into License!’ the suggestion, we may say, would hardly have been superfluous in any part of France: for saturnalia of the most repulsive kind were the invariable rule: at Lyons, we are told, an ass was given drink out of a chalice. . . . Payan cried out upon ‘these goddesses, more degraded than those of fable.’” [40]
      During the time while the fantastic worship of reason was the national craze, the leaders of the revolution are known to history as “the atheists.” But it was soon perceived that a religion with more powerful sanctions than the one then in vogue must be instituted to hold the people. A form of worship therefore followed in which the object of adoration was the “Supreme Being.” It was equally hollow so far as any reformation of life and vital godliness were concerned, but it took hold upon the supernatural. And the Goddess of Reason was indeed a “strange god,” the statement in regard to honoring the “God of forces,” may perhaps more appropriately be referred to this latter phase.

      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.
      The system of paganism which had been introduced into France, as exemplified in the worship of the idol set up in the person of the Goddess of Reason, and regulated by a heathen ritual which had been enacted by the National Assembly for the use of the French people, continued in force till the appointment of Napoleon to the provisional consulate of France in 1799. The adherents of this strange religion occupied the fortified places, the strongholds of the nation, as expressed in this verse.
      But that which serves to identify the application of this prophecy to France perhaps as clearly as any other particular, is the statement made in the last clause of the verse, that they
Page 288
should “divide the land for gain.” Previous to the Revolution, the landed property of France was owned by the Catholic Church and by a few landlords in immense estates. These estates were required by the law to remain undivided, so that no heirs or creditors could partition them. But revolution knows no law, and in the anarchy that now reigned, as noted also in Revelation 11, the titles of the nobility were abolished, and their lands disposed of in small parcels for the benefit of the public exchequer. The government was in need of funds, and these large landed estates were confiscated, and sold at auction in parcels to suit purchasers. The historian thus records this unique transaction:
      “The confiscation of two thirds of the landed property in the kingdom, which arose from the decrees of the Convention against the emigrants, clergy, and persons convicted at the Revolutionary Tribunals . . . placed funds worth above £700,000,000 sterling at the disposal of the government.” [41]
      When did ever an event take place and in what country, fulfilling a prophecy more completely than this?
      As the nation began to come to itself, a more rational religion was demanded, and the heathen ritual was abolished. The historian thus describes that event:
      “A third and a bolder measure was the discarding of the heathen ritual, and reopening the churches for Christian worship; and of this the credit was wholly Napoleon’s, who had to oppose the philosophic prejudices of almost all his colleagues. He, in his conversations with them, made no attempt to represent himself as a believer in Christianity; but stood only on the necessity of providing the people with the regular means of worship wherever it meant to have a state of tranquillity. The priests who chose to take the oath of fidelity to government were readmitted to their functions; and this wise measure was followed by the adherence of not less than 20,000 of
Page 289
these ministers of religion, who had hitherto languished in the prisons of France.” [42]
      Thus terminated the Reign of Terror and the French Revolution. Out of the ruins rose Bonaparte, to guide the tumult to his own elevation, place himself at the head of the French government, and strike terror to the hearts of nations.

      Verse 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.
      Kings of South and North Again in Conflict. —After a long interval, the king of the south and the king of the north again appear on the stage of action. We have met with nothing to indicate that we are to look to any locations for these powers other than those which shortly after the death of Alexander constituted respectively the southern and the northern divisions of his empire. The king of the south was at that time Egypt, and the king of the north was Syria, including Thrace and Asia Minor. Egypt continued to rule in the territory designated as belonging to the king of the south, and Turkey for more than four hundred years ruled over the territory which first constituted the domain of the king of the north.
      This application of the prophecy calls for a conflict to spring up between Egypt and France, and between Turkey and France, in 1798, which year, as we have seen, marked the beginning of the time of the end. If history testifies that such a triangular war did break out in that year, it will be conclusive proof of the correctness of the application.
      We inquire, therefore, Is it a fact that at the time of the end, Egypt did “push,” or make a comparatively feeble resistance, while Turkey did come like a resistless “whirlwind,” against “him,” that is, the government of France? We have already produced some evidence that the time of the end began in 1798; and no reader of history need be informed that in
Page 290
that year a state of open hostility between France and Egypt was developed.
      To what extent this conflict owed its origin to the dreams of glory deliriously cherished in the ambitious brain of Napoleon Bonaparte, the historian will form his own opinion; but the French, or Napoleon at least, contrived to make Egypt the aggressor. “In a skillfully worded proclamation he [Napoleon] assured the peoples of Egypt that he had come to chastise only the governing caste of Mamelukes for their depredations on French merchants; that, far from wishing to destroy the religion of the Muslim, he had more respect for God, Mohammed, and the Koran than the Mamelukes had shown; that the French had destroyed the Pope and the Knights of Malta who levied war on the Muslim; thrice blessed, therefore, would be those who sided with the French, blessed even those who remained neutral, and thrice unhappy those who fought against them.” [43]
      The beginning of the year 1798 found the French indulging in immense projects against the English. The Directory desired Bonaparte to undertake at once the crossing of the Channel and an attack upon England; but he saw that no direct operations of that kind could be judiciously undertaken before the autumn, and he was unwilling to hazard this growing reputation by spending his summer in idleness. “But,” says the historian, “he saw a far-off land, where glory was to be won which would gain a new charm in the eyes of his countrymen by the romance and mystery which hung upon the scene. Egypt, the land of the Pharaohs and Ptolemies, would be a noble field for new triumphs.” [44]
      But while still broader visions of glory opened before the eyes of Bonaparte in those Eastern historic lands, covering not Egypt only, but Syria, Persia, Hindustan, even to the Ganges itself, he had no difficulty in persuading the Directory that
Page 291
Egypt was the vulnerable point through which to strike at England by intercepting her Eastern trade. Hence on the pretext above mentioned, the Egyptian campaign was undertaken.
      The downfall of the papacy, which marked the termination of the 1260 years, and according to verse 35 showed the beginning of the time of the end, occurred in February, 1798, when Rome fell into the hands of Berthier, the general of the French. On the 5th of March following, Bonaparte received the decree of the Directory relative to the expedition against Egypt. He left Paris May 3, and set sail from Toulon the 19th, with a large naval armament consisting of “thirteen ships-of-the-line, fourteen frigates (some of them unarmed), a large number of smaller vessels of war, and about 300 transports. Upwards of 35,000 troops were on board, along with 1230 horses. If we include the crews, the commission of savants sent to explore the wonders of Egypt, and the attendants, the total number of persons aboard was about 50,000; it has even been placed as high as 54,000.” [45]
      July 2, Alexandria was taken, and immediately fortified. On the 21st the decisive Battle of the Pyramids was fought, in which the Mamelukes contested the field with valor and desperation, but were no match for the disciplined legions of the French. Murad Bey lost all his cannon, 400 camels, and 3,000 men. The loss of the French was comparatively slight. On the 25th, Bonaparte entered Cairo, the capital of Egypt, and only waited the subsidence of the floods of the Nile to pursue Murad Bey to Upper Egypt, whither he had retired with his shattered calvary, and so make a conquest of the whole country. Thus the king of the south was able to make but a feeble resistance.
      At this juncture, however, the situation of Napoleon began to grow precarious. The French fleet, which was his only channel of communication with France, was destroyed by the
Page 292
Picture on this page.
Page 293
English under Nelson at Aboukir. On September 11, 1798, the sultan of Turkey, under feeling of jealousy against France, artfully fostered by the English ambassadors at Constantinople, and exasperated that Egypt, so long a semi-dependency of the Ottoman Empire, should be transformed into a French province, declared war against France. Thus the king of the north (Turkey) came against him (France) in the same year that the king of the south (Egypt) “pushed,” and both “at the time of the end.” This is another conclusive proof that the year 1798 is the year which begins that period —all of which is a demonstration that this application of the prophecy is correct. So many events meeting accurately the specifications of the prophecy could not take place together and not constitute a fulfillment of the prophecy.
      Was the coming of the king of the north, or Turkey, like a whirlwind in comparison with the pushing of Egypt? Napoleon had crushed the armies of Egypt, and essayed to do the same thing with the armies of the sultan which were threatening an attack from the side of Asia. He began his march from Cairo to Syria, February 27, 1799, with 18,000 men. He first took the Fort El-Arish in the desert, then Jaffa (the Joppa of the Bible), conquered the inhabitants of Naplous at Zeta, and was again victorious at Jafet. Meanwhile, a strong body of Turks had intrenched themselves at St. Jean d’Acre, while swarms of Mussulmans gathered in the mountains of Samaria, ready to swoop down upon the French when they should besiege Acre. Sir Sidney Smith at the same time appeared before St. Jean d’Acre with two English ships, reinforced the Turkish garrison of that place, and captured the apparatus for the siege which Napoleon had sent across by sea from Alexandria. A Turkish fleet soon appeared in the offing, which with the Russian and English vessels then co-operating with them constituted the “many ships” of the king of the north.
      On the 18th of March the siege began. Napoleon was twice called away to save some French divisions from falling into the hands of the Mussulman hordes that filled the
Page 294
country. Twice also a breach was made in the wall of the city, but the assailants were met with such fury by the garrison that they were obliged, despite their best efforts, to give over the struggle. After a continuance of sixty days, Napoleon raised the siege, sounded the note of retreat, for the first time in his career, and on the 21st of May, 1799, began to retrace his steps to Egypt.
      “He . . . shall overflow and pass over.” We have found events which furnish a very striking fulfillment of the pushing of the king of the south, and the whirlwind onset of the king of the north against the French power. Thus far there is quite a general agreement in the application of the prophecy. We now reach a point where the views of expositors begin to diverge. To whom do the words he “shall overflow and pass over,” refer —to France or to the king of the north? The application of the remainder of this chapter depends upon the answer to this question. From this point two lines of interpretation are maintained. Some apply the words to France, and endeavor to find a fulfillment in the career of Napoleon. Others apply them to the king of the north, and accordingly point for a fulfillment to events in the history of Turkey. We speak of these two positions only, as the attempt which some make to bring in the papacy here is so evidently wide of the mark that it need not be considered. If neither of these positions is free from difficulty, as we presume no one will claim that it is absolutely, it only remains that we take that one which has weight of evidence in its favor. We shall find one in favor of which the evidence does so greatly preponderate to the exclusion of all others, as scarcely to leave any room for doubt in regard to the view here mentioned.
      Turkey Becomes King of the North. —Respecting the application of this portion of the prophecy to Napoleon or to France under his leadership, we do not find events which we can urge with any degree of assurance as the fulfillment of the remaining part of this chapter. Hence we do see how it can be thus applied. It must, then, be fulfilled by Turkey, unless it can be shown
Page 295
that the expression “king of the north” does not apply to Turkey, or that there is some other power besides either France or the king of the north which fulfilled this part of the prediction. But if Turkey, now occupying the territory which constituted the northern division of Alexander’s empire, is not the king of the north of this prophecy, then we are left without any principle to guide us in the interpretation. We presume all will agree that there is no room for the introduction of any other power here. France and the king of the north are the only ones to whom the prediction can apply. The fulfillment must lie between them.
      Some considerations certainly favor the idea that there is in the latter part part of verse 40 a transfer of the burden of the prophecy from the French power to the king of the north. The latter is introduced just before as coming forth like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and many ships. The collision between this power and the French we have already noticed. The king of the north with the aid of his allies gained the day in this contest; and the French, foiled in their efforts, were driven back into Egypt. Now it would seem to be the more natural application to refer the “overflowing and passing over” to that power which emerged in triumph from that struggle, and that power was Turkey.

      Verse 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.
      Abandoning a campaign in which one third of the army had fallen victims to war and the plague, the French retired from St. Jean d’Acre, and after a fatiguing march of twenty-six days re-entered Cairo in Egypt. They thus abandoned all the conquests they had made in Judea, and the “glorious land,” Palestine, with all its provinces, here called “countries,” fell back again under the oppressive rule of the Turk, Edom, Moab, and Ammon (lying outside the limits of Palestine, south and east of the Dead Sea and Jordan, were out of the line of march of the Turks from Syria to Egypt, and so escaped the
Page 296
ravages of that campaign. On this passage, Adam Clarke has the following note: “These and other Arabians, they [the Turks] have never been able to subdue. They still occupy the deserts, and receive a yearly pension of forty thousand crowns of gold from the Ottoman emperors to permit the caravans with the pilgrims for Mecca to have a free passage.” [46]

      Verse 42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
      On the retreat of the French to Egypt, a Turkish fleet landed 10,000 men at Aboukir. Napoleon immediately attacked the place, completely routing the Turks, and re-establishing his authority in Egypt. But at this point, severe reverses to the French arms in Europe called Napoleon home to look after the interests of his own country. The command of the troops in Egypt was left with General Kleber, who, after a period of untiring activity for the benefit of the army, was murdered by a Turk in Cairo, and the command was left with Abdallah Menou. With an army which could not be recruited, every loss was serious.
      Meanwhile, the English government, as the ally of the Turks, had resolved to wrest Egypt from the French. March 13, 1801, and English fleet disembarked a body of troops at Aboukir. The French gave battle the next day, but were forced to retire. On the 18th Aboukir surrendered. On the 28th reinforcements were brought by a Turkish fleet and the grand vizier approached from Syria with a large army. On the 19th, Rosetta surrendered to the combined forces of the English and the Turks. At Ramanieh a French corps of 4,000 men was defeated by 8,000 English and 6,000 Turks. At Elmenayer 5,000 French were obliged to retreat, May 16, by the vizier, who was pressing forward to Cairo with 20,000 men. The whole French army was now shut up in Cairo and Alexandria. Cairo capitulated June 27, and Alexandria,
Page 297
September 2. Four weeks afterward, October 1, 1801, the preliminaries of peace were signed in London.
      “Egypt shall not escape” were the words of the prophecy. This language seems to imply that Egypt would be brought into subjection to some power from whose dominion it would desire to be released. As between the French and the Turks, how did this question stand with the Egyptians? —they preferred French rule. In R. R. Madden’s Travels in Turkey, Egypt, Nubia, and Palestine it is stated that the French were much regarded by the Egyptians, and extolled as benefactors; that for the short period they remained, they left traces of amelioration; and that, if they could have established their power, Egypt, would now be comparatively civilized. [47] In view of this testimony, the language of the Scripture would not be appropriate if applied to the French, for the Egyptians did not desire to escape out of their hands. They did desire to escape from the hands of the Turks, but could not.

      Verse 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.
      In illustration of this verse we quote the following statement from the historian concerning Mehemet Ali, the Turkish governor of Egypt who rose to power after the defeat of the French:
      “The new Pasha set about strengthening himself in his position so as to insure a permanent hold upon the government of Egypt for himself and his family. First, he saw that he must exact a large revenue from his subjects, in order to send such sums of tribute to Constantinople as would propitiate the Sultan, and make it clearly for his interest to sustain the power of the Egyptian governor. Acting upon this principle he used many unjust means to obtain possession of large estates; he denied the legitimacy of many successions; he burned title deeds, and seized properties; in short, he set at defiance all
Page 298
universally acknowledged rights of landholders. Great disturbances followed, but Mohammed Ali was prepared for these, and, by his wonderful firmness he made it appear that the bare assertion of claims was an aggression on the part of the Sheikhs. The taxes were constantly increased, and their collection put into the hands of the military governors; by this means the peasantry were ground to the very lowest point.” [48]

      Verse 44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
      King of the North in Trouble. —On this verse Adam Clarke has a note which is worthy of mention. He say: “This part of the prophecy is allowed to be yet unfulfilled.” [49] His note was printed in 1825. In another part of his comment, he says: “If the Turkish power be understood, as in the preceding verses, it may mean that the Persians on the east, and the Russians on the north, will at some time greatly embarrass the Ottoman government.”
      Between this conjecture by Adam Clarke, written in 1825, and the Crimean War of 1853-1856, there is certainly a striking coincidence, inasmuch as the very powers he mentions, the Persians on the east, and the Russians on the north, were the ones which instigated the conflict. Tidings from these powers troubled him (Turkey). Their attitude and movements incited the sultan to anger and revenge. Russia, being the more aggressive party, was the object of attack. Turkey declared war on her powerful northern neighbor in 1853. The world looked on in amazement to see a government which had long been called “the Sick Man of the East,” a government whose army was dispirited and demoralized, whose treasuries were empty, who rulers were vile and imbecile, and whose subjects were rebellious and threatening secession, rush with such impetuosity into the conflict. The prophecy said that they
Page 299
should go forth with “great fury,” and when they thus went forth in the war aforesaid, they were described, in the profane vernacular of an American writer, as “fighting like devils.” England and France, it is true, soon came to the help of Turkey; but she went forth in the manner described, and as reported, gained important victories before receiving the assistance of these powers.

      Verse 45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
      King of the North to Come to His End. —We have now traced the prophecy of the 11th chapter of Daniel step by step to this last verse. As we see the divine predictions meeting their fulfillment in history, our faith is strengthened in the final accomplishment of God’s prophetic word.
      The prophecy of verse 45 centers in that power known as the king of the north. It is the power that shall hold the territory possessed originally by the king of the north (See pages 235, 236.)
      It is predicted of the king of the north that “he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” Just how and when and where his end will come, we may watch with solemn interest, knowing that the hand of Providence guides the destiny of nations.
      Time will soon determine this matter. When this even takes place, what follows? —events of the most momentous interest to all the inhabitants of this world, as the next chapter immediately shows.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      [1] Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, Vol. I, p. 335.
      [2] Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament Connected in the History of the Jews, Vol. I, p. 378.
      [3] Ibid., p. 415.
      [4] Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, Vol. I, pp. 345, 346.
      [5] Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, Vol. I, pp. 352.
      [6] Charles Rollin, Ancient History, Vol. V, pp. 305, 306.
      [7] Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, Vol. I, pp. 356.
      [8] The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. IX, p. 670. By permission of the Macmillan Company, publishers in the United States.
      [9] Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament Connected in the History of the Jews, Vol. II, p. 312.
      [10] The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. IX, p. 738. By permission of the Macmillan Company, publishers in the United States.
      [11] Ibid., Vol. X, pp. 96, 97.
      [12] Encyclopaedia Americana, 1849 ed., Vol. XII, p. 251, art. “Tiberius.”
      [13] Ibid.
      [14] Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, Vol. I, p. 363.
      [15] Encyclopaedia Americana, 1849 ed., Vol. XII, p. 251, 252 art. “Tiberius.”
      [16] Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament Connected in the History of the Jews, Vol. II, p. 423.
      [17] William Hales, A New Analysis of Chronology, Vol. III, p. 1.
      [18] See 1 Maccabees 8; Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament Connected in the History of the Jews, Vol. II, p. 166.
      [19] Flavius Josephus, “Antiquities of the Jews,” book 12, chap. 10, sec. 6, The Works of Flavius Josephus, p. 374.
      [20] See Encyclopaedia Americana, 11th edition, Vol. VII, p. 3, art. “Constantinople.”
      [21] Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament Connected in the History of the Jews, Vol. II, p. 380.
      [22] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. IV, pp. 109, 110, note on Isaiah 23:1.
      [23] See John Kitto, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, art. “Chittim,” p. 196.
      [24] J. A. Wylie, The Papacy, pp. 180, 181.
      [25] See Louis E. Dupin, A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, Vol. V, pp. 1-3, “Pope Symmachus.”
      [26] Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. IV, chap. 47, p. 526.
      [27] Codex Justiniani, lib. 1, tit. 1; translation as given by R. F. Littledale The Petrine Claims, p. 293.
      [28] George Croly, The Apocalypse of St. John, p. 170.
      [29] Ibid., pp. 170, 171.
      [30] Ibid., pp. 172, 173.
      [31] Ibid., pp. 12, 13.
      [32] Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. IV, chap. 41, pp. 168, 169.
      [33] Louis Madelin, The French Revolution, pp. 387, 388.
      [34] Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, Vol. I, pp. 388-390.
      [35] Louis Madelin, The French Revolution, pp. 552, 553.
      [36] Sir Walter Scott, The Life of Napoleon Buonaparte, Vol. 1, p. 239.
      [37] Archibald Alison, History of Europe, Vol. III, p. 22.
      [38] Ibid., p. 24.
      [39] Sir Walter Scott, The Life of Napoleon Buonaparte, Vol. 1, p. 239, 240.
      [40] Louis Madelin, The French Revolution, p. 389.
      [41] Archibald Alison, History of Europe, Vol. III, pp. 25, 26.
      [42] John Gibson Lockhart, The History of Napoleon Buonaparte, Vol. I, p. 154.
      [43] The Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VIII, p. 599. By permission of the Macmillan Company, publishers in the United States.
      [44] James White, History of France, p. 469
      [45] The Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VIII, pp. 597, 598. By permission of the Macmillan Company, publishers in the United States.
      [46] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. IV, p. 618, note on Daniel 11:41.
      [47] Richard Robert Madden, Travels in Turkey, Egypt, Nubia, and Palestine , Vol. I, p. 231.
      [48] Clara Erskine Clement, Egypt, pp. 389, 390.
      [49] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. IV, p. 618, note on Daniel 11:44.


Back To Top
Daniel Chapter 11b | Table of Contents | Daniel Chapter 12a