Visions and Prophecies of Daniel Expounded, Prophecy 5 · Part 2 · Section 11 – Section 13
Sect. 11. The controverſal part upon Verſe 36. and downward.
The opinion of. Junius and others is oppugned, holding that it is Antiochus Epiphanes, whoſe Deſcription is continued from Verſe 36. to the end.
GRaſerus and Maſter Brightman confute this opinion by ſundry Arguments. He that deſireth a larger diſcourſe, let him read Graſerus himſelf. In the mean time, from the ſaid Authour, I will tranſcribe theſe following Arguments, with a little addition.
1. That phraſe Verſ. 36. he ſhall do what him liſts, is uſually applied to irreſiſtible and uncontroulable Monarchs, Verſe 3, 16. Chap. 8.4. and cannot be applied to Antiochus, over whom the Romans were ſo imperious, that at the threatning look and command of the Ambaſſadour Popilius, he was forced to retire out of Egypt, and leave his prey. Adde to this, that he was inwrapped with many difficulties at home.
2. Neither will that phraſe agree unto him, Verſe 37. He ſhall not regard the god of his fathers. For Antiochus did not onelyonly worſhip or ſeem at leaſt to worſhip Jupiter Olympius and Xenius, which were the gods of his fathers: but alſo ordained games for the honour of Liber pater and Hercules himſelf, 2 Maccab. 6.1, 7. He endeavoured alſo to thruſt upon the Jews the Idols of Grecia, and cruelly avenged their contempt. Piſcater alleadgeth on the contrary, 1 Macc. 1.43. But there it is not ſaid that he left his own gods, the gods of his fathers: But rather the contrary, that he commanded other people, together with himſelf, to worſhip the ſame gods of his fathers, which he himſelf did.
3. Neither will that phraſe agree unto him, Verſe 37. neither ſhall he regard the deſire of women, women being here of the plural number: A diſregard of the deſire of women in general is underſtood: which cannot agree to Antiochus, who was an husband, had children, was careful of them, 1 Mac. 6.2. 2 Mac. 9.25. Joſephus, l. 12. c. 14. Piſcator ſaith, This phraſe agreeth to Antiochus, becauſe he would not permit his own Wives (whereof one ſerved the god of Iſrael) to worſhip any other god ſave Jupiter Olympius. But be it ſo: How is this among the marvelous things, Verſe 36▪ It is a more common note then that it may ſerve to characterize him. It might have been as well ſaid He did not regard the deſire of men, or the deſire of his ſubjects. Again, If one of his Wives did ſerve the god of Iſrael onelyonly, why is it ſaid The deſire of women in the plural number? And why foreign of women, and not rather foreign of his wife? And it is not likely, that the worſhip of Jupiter did croſſe the deſire of his heathen wives? Beſides, what matter of moment was it to the Church, to know how Antiochus did carry himſelf toward his wives? Laſtly, it is women in generall, whoſe deſire the King here ſpoken of, is ſaid to diſregard.
4. Neither will that agree unto him, verſ. 37. Neither ſhall be regard any god, but he ſhall magnifie himſelf above all. How can this agree unto Antiochus, who by one queſtion and command of Popilius, was expelled out of Egypt; whom alſo the Maccabees reſiſted unto his face, and brought unto deſpair.
5. Neither that, verſ. 38. He ſhall honour a god, whom his Fathers knew not, and a ſtrange god, verſ. 39. Junius will have this ſtrange god to be the Idol of the Samaritans, which Antiochus called Jupiter Xenius, 2 Mac. 6.2. But Jupiter Xenius was indeed an Idol of ſtrangers, but no ſtrange god, Graſ. de Antic. p. 252. Joſeph. Antiq. l. 12 c. 7. 2 Mac. 6.being moſt known unto Antiochus his Fathers. For Seleucus Nicanor ſacrificed unto Jupiter, Pauſ. l. 1. And Antiochus himſelf promoted the worſhip of Jupiter by all poſſible means, avenged the contempt and neglect of him.
6. How did he cauſe men to rule over many, and divide the land for gain? verſ. 39. ſeeing he poſſeſſed little more then the Kingdom of Syria: and if he poſſeſſed any other for a time, he was from thence caſt out again; being repulſed from Egypt, and likewiſe from Perſia, and his men overthrown and caſt out of Judea by Judas Maccabeus and his brother.1 Mac. 6.
7. So great, ſo formidable, and ſo victorious an expedition as is deſcribed, verſ. 40. cannot be attributed unto Antiochus Epiphanes; no Hiſtory maketh mention thereof. The Patrons of this Opinion will have it to be the third Expedition of Antiochus into Egypt; proving a third from verſ. 29. but it ſhall not be as the former, or as the latter: whereas there is nothing ſpoken of Antiochus, as hath been ſhewed; and the Particle Vau is uſed onelyonly by a Pleonaſme, to this effect, That the latter Expedition ſhould not be ſucceſsfull as the former. So the phraſe is uſed, Iſa. 24.2. Gen. 18.25. Deut. 1.27. And whereas Junius aſſigneth this third Expedition to Antiochus, in the laſt year of his Raign ſave one, againſt Ptolemaeus Philometor King of Egypt, it cannot be for theſe Reaſons.
Firſt, becauſe his ground is falſe; For becauſe that Flor…s and Zonaras do ſay, That Ptolemaeus expelled his brother Phyſcon; therefore Junius imagineth, that Antiochus favoured Phyſcon, and thereupon took occaſion of a third Expedition into Egypt: whereas the foreſaid Authors do mention no ſuch thing. And the conſequence is not probable: for as much as the contrary would rather follow thus, The Brethren in Egypt were at variance, therefore they feared not Antiochus, as being imployed otherwiſe. For Zonaras affirmeth, That in the ſecond Expedition of Antiochus, they perceiving his craft, were reconciled.
Secondly, Antiochus could not think of ſuch a third Expedition, 1 Mac. 6. 2 Mac. 3.29.in the laſt year of his Raign ſave one: By reaſon of the Rebellion of the Jews, and Tumults beyond Euphrates, and his Treaſury exhauſted, and the danger of provoking the Romans, by one queſtion of whoſe Ambaſſador he had been lately expelled out of Egypt.
Thirdly, if he in a third Expedition ſubdued Egypt, Lybia, Ethiopia, verſ. 42, 43. by ſo ſtrange and ſo victorious an inundation, as is here deſcribed; why was he then ſo caſt down in Babylon, at the hearing of the ſucceſſes of the Jews? 1 Mac. 6, 7, 8. The greatneſſe of ſuch fortune would have ſwallowed up ſo ſmall a diſcomfort.
Fourthly, 1 Mac. 3.32. 34, 39. and 4.35. Hist. An. p. 307, &c.in the laſt year of his Raign ſave one, he went into Perſia with half his Forces: another part committed to Lyſias, to oppoſe the Jews therewith, by whom he was alſo overcome. Of his Egyptian affairs, not a word in Hiſtory.
Fifthly, the Holy Ghoſt ſpeaketh here of the taking of Egypt, as in the way and in the paſſage onelyonly.
Sixthly, the King of the South is firſt ſaid to oppoſe the King of the North: whereas Antiochus was not provoked by the King of Egypt, verſ. 40.
Seventhly, Juſtine, l. 34. ſaith, That Antiochus, after he was caſt out of Egypt by Popilius, in his ſecond Expedition returning into his Kingdom, there dyed, leaving a yong Son behinde him. Of a third Expedition neither ſpeaketh Juſtine one word, but rather contradicteth it, as in the words alleaged. Neither is a third mentioned by Joſephus, Livy, Florus, the Authors of the Books of Maecabees, who yet expreſly name his ſecond Expedition, 2 Mac. 5.1. The deſcription of Daniel argueth a ſubduing of many and mighty Nations. Could all theſe Hiſtorians omit ſo notable an Expedition in the Hiſtory of Antiochus, if any ſuch had been?
Eightly, it is not likely, that Daniel ſhould end this prophecie in Antiochus; ſeeing the calamities of the very Jewiſh Nation ended not with him. Neither can the foreſaid Expedition be attributed to the ſucceſſors of Antiochus, being meaner then he.
Ninthly, how did Antiochus ſubdue all other Nations and countries about Judea, ſave onelyonly Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon? As if thoſe three were alſo his Enemies, whereas they were his helpers.
Tenthly, this being the greateſt and moſt noble Prophecy in Daniel, it is reaſon that it ſhould comprehend as much as the former Viſions did; which ended in the Roman Empire and Antichriſt: And therefore this cannot end in Antiochus Epiphanes.
Laſtly, it cannot end in Antiochus and the Grecian Empire, becauſe it is extended to the ſtanding up of Chriſt in the laſt time, and the Reſurrection of the dead, cap. 12.1, 2, 3, 13.
Sect. 12. The ſecond Expoſition of the ſame part, from V. 36. downward, according to the Opinion of Mr. Brightman.
VPonUpon theſe grounds Gratſerus and Mr. Brightman renouncing the former expoſition, turn themſelves another way; Mr. Brightman by the King ſpoken of, v. 36. underſtandeth the Roman Empire in general, including firſt the heathen Emperours to v. 40. their actions about the Jewiſh Church, and in honour to the true God. Then v. 40. he ſaith, the ruine of the Empire is deſcribed; firſt, by the wars of the Saraſins, under the title of King of the South; then by the wars of the Turks, under the title of King of the North. Againſt which Expoſition I propound theſe difficulties following:
Firſt, how did the Roman Empire before Antichriſt, diſregard the deſire of women? v. 37. Anſwer is made, Becauſe the Emperors children were not made Succeſſors in the Empire, according to the deſire of their mothers; Succeſſors being promiſcuouſly choſen, according to the pleaſure of the Souldiers. But it is expreſly ſaid, that The King ſhall not regard the deſire of women, v. 36, 37. which, if it be ſpoken of the Roman Empire, muſt eſpecially reſpect the Emperour thereof. But how can it be imagined, that the Roman Emperor ſhould not be willing, and deſire to have his children Succeſſors in the Empire? Though the Souldiers did otherwiſe, what is this to the deſire of the King? And why ſhould the preferment of children in the Kingdom, be called in ſo generall and remote a deſcription, The deſire of women? & why the deſire of women rather then the deſire of men? and of the children themſelvs?
Secondly, whereas it is ſaid, that He ſhall honour the god of ſtrong holds, and the god which his fathers knew not; it is thought, that in theſe words one onelyonly God is ſignified, and this the true God of Iſrael: But the true God it cannot be, becauſe this King is ſaid to honour this God; but contrarily, to advance himſelf, and ſpeak great things againſt the true God, which is the God of gods, verſ. 36. cap. 7.25. cap. 8.25.
Thirdly, if theſe victorious wars and conqueſts, deſcribed v. 40. ſhould be the Turkiſh wars, and no more ſaid of the Roman Empire, then the Prophecy of the Roman Empire ſhould be begun and not ended, Antichriſt not mentioned; the end of the Turk propoſed, not of the Roman Empire; and this Prophecy ſhould be unproportionable to all other which ſpeak eſpecially of Antichriſt, and of his end.
Sect. 13. That the King, whoſe Wars are deſcribed v. 40. is Antichrist, I prove by theſe Arguments following.
1. BEcauſe the Hiſtory of Antichriſt being ſo largely ſet down before, it is conſonant that his end ſhould alſo be ſet down, the cauſes, manner, fore-runners of it; which would not be, unleſſe the Expeditions following belonged unto Antichriſt.
2. The Expeditions following, are in revenge of the puſh inferred by the King of the South; and therefore they belong to him that was puſhed at by him, which is Antichriſt, immediately ſpoken of before.
3. The Author of theſe Expeditions, is the King of the North; and the King of the North before mentioned, is Antichriſt, as appeareth by comparing v 15.20, 21, 25, 36. c. 8.9.
4. It is not probable, that it ſhould be ſaid, that the King of the South ſhould puſh at Antichriſt, and no more added of his war, a diverſion following to the Hiſtory of the Turks.
5. The Expeditions here ſpoken of, are in the time of the end, v. 40. when the ſtanding up of Michael is at hand, c. 12.11. and what are thoſe famous wars in the time of the end, thoſe great & laſt attempts againſt the Church, v. 44, &c. ſpoken of in other Prophecies, but thoſe that are attributed to Antichriſt?
6. The fall and laſt wars of Antichriſt, are more notable and more needfull to be known, then the wars and downfall of any other King; and therefore it is not likely that the laſt war and downfall of another King, ſhould be here deſcribed, and Antichriſts pretermitted.
7. Daniel in all his other Viſions and Prophecies, doth exactly and accurately ſet down the fall of Antichriſt, c. 2. c. 7. c. 8. c. 9. and therefore it is not likely, that in this Prophecy, being the largeſt and exacteſt of all the reſt, he would conceal it; which yet he ſhould conceal, if theſe Expeditions were not his.
8. His end, verſ. 45. and the end of his wonders, c. 12.5. is at the end of a time, two times and a half, c. 12.5, 7. which is the term of Antichriſt his raign, as appeareth, c. 7.25. with Apoc. 12.14. and 13.5, 6.