CHAPTER 13
[p. 171] CHAPTER 13
I should have thought that on certain points, such as the four empires, I may say universally received among those who have studied prophecy, no remarks would have been called for. But here also, by the unparalleled carelessness of assertion which characterises this book, almost every statement is wrong. I suppose it arises from the author’s mind being so absorbed by the Antichristian empire, and thus forming a system as regardless of geographical facts as we have found it to be of Scripture statements, and grammar itself. I do trust this will not be considered harsh, but I say the simple truth when I affirm that I never met with a book like this in its assertions.
The prophetic and Roman world are not at all the same things. About half the prophetic earth (confining that term to the four empires) is outside the Roman world; besides which (though I have no objection at all to this distinction of the prophetic earth treated of in Daniel, because it is connected with the times of the Gentiles, and the giving power to them during the disowning of Jerusalem), it is well to remember that a vast portion of the prophecies apply to other subjects and other countries: so that we must not suppose the prophetic earth to mean the earth of which prophecy treats, but merely that portion of the earth given up to the Gentiles during a certain prophetic period, in which Jerusalem was set aside, and the power of the house of David broken — that rod despised as every tree. If we do not recollect this, the whole book of Ezekiel, for example, will be left out of prophecy. Nor is it all by any means that would be. There are Nahum, Jonah, Amos, and a very great portion of other prophets, which are occupied with other countries, or with Israel or Judah under other aspects.
[p. 172] Further, it is a great mistake to say that the prophetic earth is situate geographically round the Great or Mediterranean Sea. The first two empires only just reached its borders+ in their utmost conquests; and the body of their empire was far, far away from it. Nor, though Emmanuel’s land be the centre of the prophetic earth, can it be the centre of the Roman earth, if the coasts of the Great Sea be its boundaries; because it is situated at one extremity of it. How is the Roman world “the birth-place and centre” of Persia as an empire? Persia never was in it at all. And the limits assigned to the Roman earth by the author leave out half the city of Babylon, and a great part of the province of Babylonia, and all the richest part of its territory (among the rest, I apprehend, Shinar). Nineveh also was outside it. The commencement of the grandeur of the prophetic earth (that is, Babylon) had no connection with the Great Sea. The next empire was further east still; and the third, which had its origin not far from the Mediterranean, pushed all its conquests eastward from it, as far as Judea, and never held but that extremity of it which had been in the hands of the Persians. Four-fifths of the Mediterranean were never visited even by the third or Grecian empire; the Romans alone surrounded it by their conquests and power. So that the whole statement is wrong. That it is now a principal scene, though it can hardly be called the centre (for there is not a single dominant power which can be said to be seated on its coasts) of the world’s energies, is very true.
+In a subsequent tract, by another author, it is said that these beasts symbolise a monarchy bordering on the Mediterranean and having Jerusalem under its dominion. This, though strained as to the Mediterranean, may be all very true. But morally it has nothing whatever to do with it; because, in Daniel, the beasts come up from the sea, which the first two certainly did not from the Mediterranean. And see page 177.
[p. 173] Nor is it true that God has never interfered to hinder the onward progress of human counsels. The irruption of the northern and Germanic hordes laid waste the Roman, without substituting another, empire. That it accomplished God’s counsels there is no doubt; but that it destroyed for a thousand years the European and all civilisation, and, save for one reign (Charlemagne), all concentrated empire, is equally certain; and the latter is not to this day restored. So that, while I do not doubt that man will set himself up against God, this setting up of man in admiration of his unhindered glorious progress from Nebuchadnezzar onward, is unfounded. It is astonishing how anyone could state (when we consider the barbarous subversion of the Roman empire, when no one knew what to count on a moment, and the effects of which last to this day), that from the days of Nimrod the onward progress of human counsels has never been hindered. That there will be a man of sin, who will concentrate the energies of man and the power of Satan, all who would be interested in these pages believe. Still I find no such account in Scripture as is here given of him; nor do I believe that this high coloured exaltation of him comes from God. That men will be given up to him, we know from Scripture; but it will need strong delusion, so that they should believe a lie.
Let the reader take any part of scripture, and see if the beast or the man of sin be presented by the Spirit of God in this way. I do not doubt that the faculties of man will in him be in many respects in their highest exercise. It is natural to suppose that it will be so in one who exercises such extended and paramount influence; though, indeed, this in its worst aspect they are led to do by another agent and mouth-piece of the enemy, almost overlooked in this chapter, and yet far more deeply mischievous in what he does. “If we can conceive — the intellect of statesmen, poets, and orators, such poets, etc. — all varieties of intellectual power, etc. — we may form some conception of the glory of this great one of the earth.” Why are we to conceive all this?
Where does Scripture thus present the beast? That certain characteristics of the three preceding empires were found in the last is true. But I am not aware that this fascinating power is anywhere attributed to him; and it seems to me a serious thing to ascribe to anyone as affording him this fascinating power, without the authority of the word of God — what cannot be used without God’s permission to exalt any. I see the fascinations of Satan connected with his coming; but this is attributed, in the chapter we are considering, to another person, the second beast or false prophet, and not to the first beast or imperial power. Deceivableness of unrighteousness I find in them that perish. But where is it said that the scattered intellect of former ages will be centred in the imperial beast, or its head, the man of sin? I do not see but that this is the creature of the writer’s imagination. Great things, war, blasphemies, are attributed to him in Revelation 13 and Daniel 7; self-exaltation, doing according to his will, utter disregard of God, dividing the land for gain,+ in Daniel 11. Setting up to be God in the temple of God, opposing and exalting himself, Satan’s working, powers, signs, lying wonders, will be there, and all deceivableness of unrighteousness. I say, “will be there,” because it would seem from Revelation 13 wrought rather before him than by him. And delusion from God will be upon those who did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved. Such are the serious statements made concerning this man of sin, this son of perdition.
+“Dividing the land for gain” is rather the Antichrist, false Messiah, or second beast of Revelation 13. But the identity of the Antichrist and man of sin with the first beast was assumed by all when these remarks were written. The same remark applies to page 175, 176 partially.
[p. 174] But though I do not doubt his great capacities for the sceptre and the throne, and using probably all the arts which such persons may be supposed to use to flatter and amuse the passions of men; still, strong and energetically drawn as the picture of this “individual man” is in the “Thoughts,” I cannot recognise it in Scripture, and this is what I seek. If there be such a one, where is it? I do not exactly find the soberness which can judge of this, and which I believe the Spirit of God gives, when I read (page 160), “fallen man is but a poor weak thing apart from Satan,” and in page 155, the chapter beginning “There is a wonderful energy in unregenerate man.” I do not mean to say that there may not be explanation,+ and a reconciling by explanation of these two statements. But there is a haste in making the two, which does not savour of quiet scriptural enquiry. Besides, in this picture of the man of sin, not one single scripture is quoted, except for Satan’s delusions, which is only an accompaniment. So that when it is said that “the glories of intellect and taste, of war and conquest, of the genius as well as the majesty of sovereign rule, are found, for the first time, in perfect and harmonious combination,” a picture is drawn by the author, not by Scripture: and I doubt very much indeed that God permits in evil any such perfect and harmonious combination. At least there is none such in Scripture: no proof is given.++ The characters given there are much darker and more evil — evil, deadly evil. “The elegance of the refined Greece” was not even to be found in Macedon, whose leopard wing passed over half the world, faster almost than the flight of man’s ambition would have led it, to a goal where there was nothing left to conquer. Nor have the children of light who have received the love of the truth anything to say to the delusions by which the disobedient world is seduced. They are not sent to them.
+In page 155 it is stated, “I might perhaps say given by Satan,” but in page 160 it is positively asserted that he is but a poor weak thing apart from him. In the first passage the wonderful energy is seen in unregenerated man, stimulated and aided, perhaps given. Instead of energy, it is asserted positively in the second that he is very weak. All I complain of here is the uncertainty and haste of the statement within five pages’ distance.
++I feel that morally this is a very important point. To exalt the instrument of Satan in the most glowing terms, ascribing to it the perfect and harmonious combination of every faculty God has given to man, without scripture warrant, is a very serious thing. The evil and impotency of Satan is what is usually spoken of in the New Testament to God’s children. When spoken of elsewhere, the colours are very dark — blasphemy, oppression, pride, unrighteousness, connected with Satan’s lying power, and setting up to be God: these are the characters attached to the beast in Scripture. Nothing of this is found in the author’s description. Nor do I think it seems quite a just expression to say Satan’s peculiar hour, without explanation of the hour, which is the consequence of his being cast out of heaven for ever, so that all belonging to heaven rejoice in it. That it is the hour of his great wrath on earth is true.
When the author says that “this is he through whom the dragon makes war with the remnant of her seed,” it is a statement entirely unsupported by Scripture.
I believe that we get, chapter 17, not an earlier but a more general history of (not Antichrist, but) the beast. For it is unwarrantable to call the beast absolutely Antichrist, though Antichrist may wield his power at a given period. Being more general, it is true, it does not confine the history to the latter period of his being, as chapter 12, but shews who the beast was that was there; and so far is earlier. Chapter 17 is a description, not a history, and includes all his closing history+ as well as the rest. The connection of chapter 12 with chapter 17 in historical time is therefore quite unwarranted. It would be absurd to connect them in such a way, as to suppose a dragon with seven heads and ten horns, and a beast with seven heads and ten horns at the same time. But they are not at all so brought together in Scripture. If the ten horns had not given their power to the beast (Antichrist) yet, he had not the virtual power of the Roman empire. Satan had not yet given him his power, and his throne, and great authority. If Satan held it himself and afterwards gave it to him, they did not hold it together.
+Indeed, as far as historical existence is attributed to the beast, it is only the closing period as in chapter 13. The ten horns have power one hour with the beast, in chapter 17: 11-14. The “yet is” is the time in which he is presented. I might give an account of Napoleon as lieutenant of artillery before Toulon; but the Napoleon I am describing is Napoleon the emperor.
[p. 176] Besides, if the seven heads of the dragon were crowned, that is, if he hold the power of the systems, then (the beast not being in the exercise of his power with the horns) how does he, the beast, hold the systems uncrowned, not himself uncrowned, but his heads? The systems can hardly be crowned and uncrowned at the same time. It is not the dragon crowned and the beast not, but both having seven heads and ten horns, and the heads crowned on one and not on the other. And this is explained in the note as the “systems ruling,” “during the time the systems are crowned”: so that putting them crowned on the dragon, and uncrowned on the beast at the same time, cannot stand.
Besides, the horns and the beast are to have their hour together: the power and authority are not yet given to the beast as such. He is not even yet called up out of the sea, according to the author’s system, for that is his character here given. And in chapter 17 he is so far from possessing virtual power (for we have seen manifest power was not yet given him), that the woman rules him — he was the governed party.
Further, seven heads are seven systems. Why? Here is the only answer I can find: “Systems are ruling now, and will through the whole Babylonish period, until,” etc. But this is merely explaining the author’s views of present things by using the statements of the Apocalypse for them, and not expounding the Apocalypse. The seven heads are seven mountains. Are mountains systems in symbolic language? “And there are seven kings.” Are they systems? “Mountains are the emblems of authoritative power” (page 143). I might say, perhaps, seats of power; but are these systems authoritative powers? They may exercise a very great influence on those who hold power, but they are not in themselves authoritative power. Supposing systems now rule. Why are the dragon’s heads systems?
[p. 177] Besides, the author has elsewhere made out six, lamely enough, I think (page 239) — political, military, civil, religious, commercial, educational systems — where, note, the word is used in quite another sense; for these words are merely generally characteristic. There might be five political systems, and so on. Besides, some political system predominates always, and some civil; so that there is no sense in giving it as peculiar that a system should govern. But let that pass. Of these six systems one turns out to be the woman, who rides the beast and governs him, so that he does not wield its power: nor is it a very intelligible system to make seven crowned heads together, and one of them as an exclusively dominant system governing the whole. At any rate, there is not one word to prove that the heads are systems, but that the author says systems rule now. But there is more than this.
The dragon does not call up any one from the sea at all. It is attributing providential power to Satan. Further, it is well that the unlearned reader should know that “he stood” upon the sand of the sea, instead of “I stood,” though declared summarily here to be the right reading, is rejected by Griesbach, Scholz, and Tischendorf. Mr. Tregelles’s system may be right: but the question can hardly be disposed of thus. To raise a system of interpretation on a reading hitherto rejected by those who have most elaborately examined it, and that with different systems of recension, must at least leave grave doubts in the mind of a considerate person. Further, the expressions used in Daniel for the great sea are not at all the same as the Great Sea, when the Mediterranean Sea is spoken of. I do not believe that the expression is ever used of the Mediterranean. That is called great in Joshua 1: 4, etc. Daniel employs the Hebrew word (Rab), meaning, I think we may say, a multitude of waters: and in this general sense of the great sea, it is used without any article — the four winds of heaven striving upon great waters. The Great Sea is used with the article — the Sea, the great one (Hebrews — ha yam ha gadol). And it is quite evident that the passage in Daniel (to which I dare say the passage in Revelation refers, though not at all to any where the Mediterranean Sea is spoken of) speaks of the origin of these empires from the sea of unformed peoples. We have already seen that at least two of the great empires did not commence near the Mediterranean at all. So that the sense here would not at all be calling up from the Mediterranean a formed known power, not one of which ideas are found in Daniel, nor here. Satan gives him his authority when he rises up out of the sea. But this is all that is said.
[p. 178] I have already remarked upon the leopard. It is the swiftness of Alexander’s conquests, and not the civilisation of Greece, that is in question. Is it true that the refinement and elegancies of civilisation have found no home but in Greece? And if in chapter 17 neither the leopard nor bear nor any likeness be found, the time is found when the horns reign with the beast. At any rate the whole system of being called by Satan as a known suited power from west to east, is totally foreign to the statements of the chapter, or any idea contained in it.
I do not see on what ground it is said that the beast and Satan are to act together in parity of glory; nor do I at all like the spirit of page 166. But I examine the accuracy, rather than judge the spirit of this work now. There is plenty of evil, no doubt, in saints mixing up with what the author alludes to. Does it not seem a rude thing to say that Christianity is one of the heads of the beast, which head being healed (not another substituted for it), all the world wonder after the beast, because the wounded head was healed? Is it a scriptural way of stating things to say that the substitution of Antichristianism for Christianity is healing the head of the beast? Christianity having been that head? Besides, then the wounded head is the second beast. For this is the new ecclesiastical influence. And, further, it would be the dragon who wounded his own head; for the systems were crowned on his heads, and he as yet has not given the power to the beast; and he it is who destroys and drives out Christianity. (See page 148.) And the mischief is done to this head before Antichrist rises (see note to page 167) so that it was really his own crowned head the dragon slew. If so, the war against Christianity is clearly not merely at Jerusalem, nor the scene in Palestine; because neither the ten kingdoms nor the seven heads are in Palestine. The locality of the second beast I do not doubt; but this is not the question here. It is well to remember here that the author separates entirely the seven kings of chapter 17 from the seven heads. If there be any connection, his system is an utter absurdity from beginning to end.+ And, bad as the Greek superstitions may be, to say that they are as bad or worse than Rome — this constant palliating Rome, or making anything more important, I do not believe to be of God: nor representing the evil (for evil there is) which may be going on in the East now, as being a more developed form of the mystery of iniquity in its religious forms, than popery, or what is acting in the West.++ It all clearly misleads the mind from the growing evil, which the rest is evil as tending to.
+So impossible, that, on that supposition, theocracy is a head of the beast. For theocracy in Israel is one of the seven kings which have hitherto been supposed to answer to the seven heads.
++The truth is, the most active agent in the East, as in the West at this moment, is popery. In schools and colleges supported by France in the Levant, to maintain its political influence; and by multitudes of priests sent to India and China; and other analogous efforts in central Asia, every catholic has thereby the rights of a French subject in the Levant and Asiatic Turkey.
[p. 179] But there is another very material objection to all this system of heads, etc. That is, that this religious system being one of the heads, and evidently (according to the statements we are discussing) an eminently important one, it is now one of the ruling systems, and governs the kingdoms, and will do so through the whole Babylonish period. The systems are what are crowned, not the horns (page 177); they regulate the kingdoms (page 162). But (page 175) “these are principles little suited, even to this incipient Babylonish period, as we may see if we watch the present relation of the crown of France to the popedom. The crowns of the ten kingdoms will assert their supremacy, and the religious systems that are respectively under them, whether Greek, Roman, or Anglican, must have to fall into the second place.” Now, this is not during the reign of Antichrist, because he rises with his head already wounded unto death (page 167); that is, Christianity has been destroyed, “is gone” entirely, and all religious influences swept away, as far as our present subject is concerned. So that it is during the Babylonish time that they must learn to fall into the second place. But if the crowns of the ten kingdoms, during this period, will assert their supremacy, and force the religious systems to fall into the second place, how is it that they are not crowned at all during this period; and that the very principle of the period is, that the systems are crowned (of which this religiousness is one, and a most important one) and govern them? Page 175 subverts page 177, because it really is the exercise of man’s mind on the present state of things, and occasional passages adapted to it, and not the explanation of Scripture itself.
I have already spoken of ‘the habitable world’ being translated the Roman world, and the earth being used for a larger sphere (both assertions being quite unwarranted), and the inconsistency of its use here with the assertion, that the period of the churches was entirely past. It seems to me also, that the statement of page 172 is quite unfounded, and moreover contradicted by the note to page 164. The lion, leopard, and bear do not act on, though they may have the principle which increasingly prevails, and will “during the whole Babylonish period,” for which men are educating, and under whose influence men act now, and which “are the objects of modern pursuit.” The tendencies “of the hour” clearly are not what “fall under the symbol of the lion, the leopard, and the bear.” And though in the note to page 164 it is said that Antichrist will not destroy the utilities, yet in page 258 the whole system is destroyed. At all events, what is cultivated now is not what falls under the symbol of the lion, the leopard, and the bear. If the lions’ dens, and the mountains of the leopards,+ in the Canticles, mean Antichrist, or his system, how is it the place of our present sojourn, or applicable to the church now, when the leopard does not yet exist?
I believe myself that the seven heads are the completeness of power in different forms, which are seen in the worldly power of Satan. When the beast is in his last form, there is division into ten kingdoms, which give their power to him. But as to those ten kingdoms several things are to be remarked. First, Antichrist rises as a little horn after the others, becomes more haughty looking than all, and subdues three of them. This itself is a proof that the accounts we have in the Revelation are more characteristic than historical.
+Or what is the mountain of elegant Grecian civilisation? for that is the leopard, from which the bride is called in the Canticles.
[p. 181] Next, Daniel 8 proves nothing about it. The division into four is mentioned; but nothing is said as to the latter day of them, beyond the expression of the latter time of their kingdoms, and a little horn came out of one of them. But I do not at all believe this little horn to be Antichrist. I do not make any objection to anyone’s believing it; but it is not proved here, and I am entirely convinced it is not. Nor do I think Daniel 11 allows of the two chief monarchies being viewed as under Antichrist. They make war as kings of South and North upon him. Next, the quotation of chapter 9 makes me suppose that the assertion here is based on his taking away the daily sacrifice. But I apprehend the marginal reading in chapter 8 to be indubitably the right translation — “from him,” and not “by him”; and in that case “him” refers to the prince of the host. And this is entirely confirmed by the expression, “the place of his sanctuary,” which is certainly not the little horn’s.
The Hebrew is certainly properly “from him.” The only case in which it is used for “by” is quite another sense; as we might say, “he died from eating poison,” or “by eating poison”; but otherwise the word means “from” and not “by.”+
The study of Daniel has convinced me that we are in more ignorance as to the historical details of Antichrist than we suppose. As to his moral description, it is plain enough in Scripture. I do not believe any one competent to make such a systematic statement as is attempted by the author. It saves the mind a deal of trouble, as all hypotheses do; it has only the misfortune of not being true. The fact of the subduing of three horns alters historically the whole matter, and a good deal the moral system too. It is not noticed in this chapter.
The progress of a general absorbing system into the Roman empire, of what composed it, at least the Western, and acting on the Eastern, I suppose is generally received; but still it is untrue of part as to fact, as it is unwarrantable to say, “so will it be with Turkey and Syria very soon, and Babylon will be their head and centre.” I strongly doubt this in many parts of it. It ought to be proved and not asserted. There are many reasons which render me doubtful of the absorption of the Grecian and Eastern part into the body of the beast. It would certainly seem that they are treated independently in the book of Daniel, and other prophecies. “The Assyrian,” for example, occupies a very much more prominent place than Antichrist in the prophecies which precede the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.
+I should translate the next verse, “And the daily [sacrifice] was given over to an appointed time of trouble, because of transgression.” But I leave this to more competent judges. The change of gender in verse 11, “magnified,” is much to be noted. “It” agrees with the little horn again in the middle of verse 12. Verse 11 and half of verse 12 are evidently a parenthesis. But I have discussed this elsewhere.
[p. 182] As to the next note, it is strange to say, “he is symbolised merely by a little horn.” Is nothing said about this little horn, nor about more than its insignificant rise? His look is more stout than his fellows, and he casts down three horns. If Revelation 13 comes after, then clearly the ten horns never historically give their kingdom to the beast, for there remain but seven.
“A leopard.” The fourfold division of the empire is here incorrect. After the various wars between the generals, the death of Antigonus (I pass over Perdiccas, Eumenes, etc.) the fourfold division was Greece, Thrace, Syria, and Egypt. Asia Minor was not one. If Egypt and Syria are excluded by chapter 11, they are excluded from subjection to the beast also. But I have already said I do not believe Daniel 8 applies to Antichrist. But this is to be discussed as the fairest subject of enquiry, on which, for my part, I should be glad to hear all the author, or anyone, had to say.
In the next note Daniel 7: 23 is a misprint for 8: 23, of which I have just spoken. I have to add that I do not believe Daniel 11: 41 applies to Antichrist, but to the king of the north. I feel pretty clear upon this; but as I once supposed myself that it was Antichrist, I cannot be surprised that others do. I am pretty confident that both I myself was and that the author is wrong. But it is a point on which everyone can enquire and judge. As to Zechariah, I agree.
Then, as to “facts” and “principles,” the author is clearly wrong; because John says, “Even now are there many antiChrists, whereby we know that it is the last time”: so that this great fact of the close is applied to facts and persons in the apostle John’s day. And I suspect we shall find a good many facts used for the latter day which certainly had an accomplishment in facts in a measure in the Old Testament, as Babylon, Solomon, Sennacherib, and many others. But then this is another question. Symbols are not exactly facts; and it is quite possible that they may express principles fully embodied in certain ultimate facts, and partially in certain others; and that is the way John uses the term Antichrist. Historical accuracy is not found in the Revelation; for we learn from Daniel that three horns fall, of which there is not a word said in the Revelation, and therefore the principle, the basis of the author’s reasoning, fails. He has no right to call symbols facts. He may apply them to facts. He may be right or wrong in his application; but that is a certain use he makes of these symbols; but the symbols are not facts. Antichrist is never mentioned in the Revelation: I do not doubt there are symbols which apply to him, but this is another matter. So there is no little horn in Revelation — another historical fact which is not found. We get, on the other hand, an eighth head, which is of the seven, which is the beast. While, as we have seen, three horns historically fall in Daniel, in moral principle and system the ten horns have power one hour with the beast. So that the statement here insisted on is a misconception of the very nature of the Revelation; I do not at all doubt its accuracy, or its fulfilment in facts: but on the technical rigidity of the author it cannot be. We have seen its impossibility in the trumpets — making a star called Wormwood make the waters bitter, settled by “waters and all that they symbolise will be found to be bitter”; and how the darkening the third part of the sun made it not shine for a third part of the day, not settled at all.
The word of God will not lend itself to the narrow systems of man’s mind. If a system was required for Antichrist, either it did exist (or else John was wrong in saying there were many), or else we must come to the conclusion that the mere rigid arrangement of the author as to Antichrist and his system is unsound: which is, I do not doubt, the solution of the difficulty. It is a question between the author and the apostle’s statement. When the author talks of Antichrist’s own peculiar system, and his destroying another, it must be remembered that he is only speaking of his own peculiar views about the matter. The insuperable difficulty is one of his own making. He assumes the beast to be literally Antichrist all through, and, therefore, he cannot exist only during the twelve hundred and sixty days. That is, if he be literally Antichrist+ all through: but then, this is exactly the question. No doubt, when the contrary is assumed as true, the difficulty is insuperable. For my own part, I do not admit it at all. Nor does the author, because it is a well known influential power, who has had one of his heads wounded, etc., who is set up, and sets up the system. So that the beast is not the Antichristian beast all through. And his history (call it principles, or facts, as you please) — his history does extend in the Apocalypse beyond the twelve hundred and sixty days: how far, I do not enquire here. As to “his tabernacle,” I have only one remark to make; that is, that the dragon had been dwelling in heaven, and now was cast out of it.
+I do not believe the first beast to be the Antichrist, but as the twelve hundred and sixty days apply to the first beast, the argument remains valid and the same.
[p. 184] We now come to 2 Thessalonians 2, and more new translation; to which I decidedly prefer the English, the only decidedly faulty word being worse in the new translation. I will give a translation I made myself, without reference to this controversy, as affording in the shortest way my judgment of the passage. Some words will be found different from the authorised version, where the sense is the same. It being for my own accurate study of Scripture, of course, I did not follow the English translation.
“But we beseech you, brethren, by the coming — or presence (parousia) — of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him, that ye may not be quickly unsettled in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as of us, as if the day of the Lord was here. Let no man deceive you in any manner, that [it will be so]+ without the apostasy’s coming first, and the man of sin’s being revealed, the son of perdition, the opposer and exalter [of himself] above everyone called God, or object of veneration (sebasma). So that he++ shall seat himself in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Do ye not remember that, being yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth,+++ so that he should be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already working: only there is a withholder at present until he be out of the way. And then shall the lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus++++ shall destroy+++++ with the breath of his mouth, and abolish++++++ with the appearing of his coming.”
+Or, as usually pointed, for [it will not be].
++Some copies read “as God.”
+++Or the hindrance.
++++Some copies omit “Jesus.”
+++++Some copies read “consume.”
++++++Or “annul.”
[p. 185] Now, as to the critical differences, I do not attach very great importance to the translating the Greek ‘huper‘ “by” or “concerning.” But I think the English translators undoubtedly right. There is no doubt at all that it is a regular known use of the preposition. The truth is, it is its commonest use. I do not mean that in this common use it is always used with words of entreaty, but that it is used with them in its most ordinary sense, that is, “on account of”; which, with words of entreaty, we generally in English render “by” meaning “by reason of.” “I beseech you, on account of the coming of our Lord Jesus and our gathering together unto him.” When it is a motive, we say “for the sake of”; but the sense is really the most common usual sense of huper, to which the English word “for” most nearly answers, adding idiomatically “sake of” in certain cases.
And now I will put the question in another shape. When huper is used with words of beseeching, as it is here, is not its natural regular sense “by” or “for the sake of”?+ Whereas it is quite certain from many examples that the preposition used for concerning with erotao, to ask, isperi, and not huper. See Luke 4: 38; 1 John 5: 16; John 16: 26, and several times in chapter 17. I suppose that no one will dispute that its regular sense with a word of beseeching is “by”, and therefore I conclude that the English translators were right, and the author wrong.
+There is a case where it is probably used in the sense of “instead of,” though Wahl takes it in the sense of beseeching “by”; but as I doubt his correctness, I do not use it as an example to contradict the author. Wahl was led, no doubt, by the known fact that it is the regular sense of huper with words of beseeching, as the translators have taken it. But the presbeuo huper seems, I apprehend, to control it in 2 Corinthians 5: 20. So that “I beseech you for Christ” means “in Christ’s stead,” as in the English translation. If not, it is a case in point. The passage is in 2 Corinthians 5, “we beseech for Christ.” One of the Gregorys, however, uses this identical expression for “we beseech you by Jesus.” The author formerly insisted on “on behalf of.”
As to having to choose between “on behalf of” and “concerning,” it is perfectly ridiculous.
The only plausible ground to make “concerning” allowable is its use in 2 Corinthians 12: 8, where the word however is not erotao (to ask). Nor do I think that huper could be used with a long subject stated, about which he was entreating them. It would be peri: whereas, after stating the subject, huper toutou I can well understand. Finally, “by” is the regular translation of the Greek. Thus Luther also translates it. It may admit of discussion; but I believe the English translation right.
The remark on chapter 5: 2 is utterly futile, because in English we do not say unsettled “from” your mind, but “in” your mind, where it is a question of quiet stability. “Shaken from your understanding” is not English: that is all.
The next remark, on verse 2, is subtle enough, that the Thessalonians were wrong in expecting the Lord or the end immediately; and we are told that the word is used “in connection with wrongness of expectation of the end being immediate.” Now the sentiment against which this remark is directed is, not that the end is immediate, but a distinction between the Lord’s receiving the church, and the end; so that the church may be always waiting for the Lord, though it affix no date to the end. See 2 Thessalonians 2: 2.
“Be troubled” is used in Matthew 24: 6 and Mark 13: 7, exactly as it is used here — that present troubles should not make them think the end near, or the day of the Lord come. It is not wrong expectation in either case, but trouble from present circumstances alarming the mind, and taking away its security, so as to give it fears as if the day of the Lord were there. “When ye hear of wars and rumours of wars, see that ye be not troubled.” It was clearly a trouble arising from disturbing causes actually and sensibly in operation.
Further, the word “set in” is given as the literal meaning of the word, and “present” as its secondary sense, in order to furnish the idea of a setting in out of sight and absent, which might be supposed in the mind. Now firstly we have seen that the Greek for to be troubled, is used in the passages cited in connection with actually present alarming circumstances, which they heard of as then going on on earth. And, moreover, I deny totally the expression “set in” to be a literal or any translation of the Greek which in the English in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 read at hand or present. “To stand in” is the literal sense, as we say of a month “the third instant” meaning the present month: and, secondary or not, it is perfectly certain that it is always used in Scripture for “present” in contrast with future or absent. These are the passages where it is found: Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 3:22; 1 Corinthians 7:26; Galatians 1:4; 2 Timothy 3:1; Hebrews 9:9.+ Anyone can examine these passages and see what present means. And, as the author says, “There is no example of this word being used to signify the approach of anything that is not yet existent” — and I add, that is not present. Now if it was only set in in heaven, it was just its approach to them, which this word cannot mean. And I apprehend that the Greek for be troubled and be shaken in mind, as in 2 Thessalonians 2: 2, would not be used of persons in tribulation, who “had been taught” “that they would be delivered as soon as the Lord descended into the air.” Is the comfort and joy that would produce, if even unwarranted, expressed by these words? It is quite certain that ‘be troubled‘ is used for the alarm occasioned by present things, not by joyful expectation, where it is used in Scripture.
+The writer states that “it is frequently used in the Apocryphal books and always in this sense.” I find it from an extract of Trommius used six times in the Apocrypha; two, from circumstances, I cannot find. [The first is by Trommius given as “3 Esdras 5: 72” (and by Schleusner as 47). It is really Esdras 5: 46, which reads “when the seventh month was at hand (not near, but) come.” The second is in the same book, chapter 9: 6. ‘All the multitude sat trembling because of the winter then present,’ not merely approaching however near.] The other four are: 1 Maccabees 12: 44 — where it means existing or subsisting; 2 Maccabees 3: 17, the same thing, the grief ‘he had now at heart,’ present then; 2 Maccabees 4: 43, there was a judgment or trial (or was instituted); 2 Maccabees 12: 3, ‘as if no ill win were existing.’ “Present” or “existing” is its regular force. Sometimes “set in” might answer, as winter is set in, that is, is actually or fully come. It would be curious if “standing in,” which is its etymological meaning, left the question unsolved “where”?
[p. 188] As to the apostasy, I agree it must not be confounded with the mystery of iniquity: though its principles are at work therein, so that it may be morally called so very justly; and Scripture speaks in a way analogous to this. See Jude. “These are they,” etc. But it is much more unwarrantable on the other hand, to say that it will not take place apart from the personal manifestation of the man of sin. There is no scripture whatever for this, nor any proof that it is true. That it is the apostasy of man as man, I do not deny, because that is true of man as man already, and it will then be fully manifested; but it is not what is meant by apostasy at all. It most clearly and evidently refers to Christianity, and nothing else; but as the others will be manifest, I need not discuss this further.
As to criticism, “And ye know that at present,” etc. I have no hesitation in saying that it is quite wrong: the original statement in 2 Thessalonians 2: 6 is most certainly not the Greek for “ye know what now hinders,” but for “now ye know the hindrance,” or “what hinders,” as the English version has rendered it. The “now” of the succeeding verse 7 is quite another word, in Greek (’arti‘) meaning at present, or, for the present, with which the “then” of verse 8 is in contrast Moreover, if I were to say “at present,” or “now you know,” emphatically as to them, it would no way imply that in future they would not, but that they had not in time past.+ Moreover, in the Greek of 2 Thessalonians 2: 6, there is no ellipse at all. It is as plain a Greek sentence as can be well written, saying and meaning “and now ye know what hinders.” Nor do I understand what all this mystification of Greek is; for the doctrine that there was now a hinderer which would be removed, and then the lawless one be manifested, is very plainly stated (verse 7, 8). And I know no reason why there is so much about this, unless the author is jealous of the Thessalonians knowing well what we, as to the literal application, are ignorant about. I believe the wisdom of God threw it purposely thus in mystery, though I do not say spiritual intelligence may not find His thoughts about it in the word.
+Only just apply the author’s rule to John 17: 7.
The next note, on “that which holdeth fast,” is entirely wrong. The Greek does not necessarily imply what the author states. For the unlearned reader I quote two passages that will clearly shew it. Acts 27: 40, “made toward shore.” Luke 14: 9, “thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.” I suppose that was not “holding fast.” It means just possessing, as 2 Corinthians 6: 10, holding, keeping, and hence, if there be danger of losing, holding fast. But “the exercise of forcible or violent power” does not the least enter into its meaning. I may keep things by that, of course, in some cases. Here it is just simply, what it is translated, withhold or restrain. The author has not understood the opinion which he combats, and which I am not going to defend here. If the church remains here, and the Spirit of God consequently on earth, God does, and does by the Spirit as a Spirit of government and providence, restrain the world from being given up to Satan. The powers that be are maintained, which are of God; whereas it is Satan gives his throne to Antichrist. This falls in with the idea of the primitive Christians, that the power of the empire was the restraining thing; for which reason they prayed for its preservation, thinking that when it fell, Antichrist would come. As to the church, and the Spirit in the church, remaining in the exercise of their proper powers until the end of the age, that is just the point in question, and cannot be therefore stated as a proof — especially by the author, who holds that in the sphere here treated of, “their scene of earthly service will be closed,” Christianity withdrawn, and a new testimony raised up where the church and the Spirit in the church had been. So that the church and Spirit do not act in testimony where this Antichristian power is. It is the time of apostasy, when another witness is raised up.
As to Zechariah 5: 8, it is not said “he cast on the mouth of the ephah again” at all. It was then put on the mouth of the ephah, which was transported to the land of Shinar. Now this makes all the difference. The lead was not lifted up to shew the woman to the prophet; that is, it was not an evil long restrained by something existing all the while to keep it down. It was then shut up to carry it elsewhere, to set it on its own base. It might have had a fair name before; but now it was to be built at Shinar on its own base, not go on in the land. But all this has neither more nor less to do with 2 Thessalonians 2 — incorrect as the statements are in themselves.
[p. 190] As to this passage itself, the Thessalonians, who were suffering sore persecution, had been bewildered, or were in danger of being bewildered by some one; not as if Christ was there, or they with Christ, which is what they had been taught to expect (and by which, or concerning which, the apostle beseeches them) but “as if the day of the Lord was come” — not approaching — but come, present. Now the day of the Lord is constantly used for a time of trial and trouble, from which the coming of the Lord and our gathering together to Him is to exempt us. The day will not come on us unawares: we are of it.
Let the reader take a concordance and search for passages under the day of the Lord, and he will find them terror and dismay, judgment calculated to trouble and shake the mind; and further, that this expression by no means implies the presence of the Lord. I do not doubt that this will be the full accomplishment of the thing itself. But the judgments of God, inflicted by instruments of His hand as scourges, are constantly called the day of the Lord. And the Old Testament prophets take various occasions to awaken this alarm in the minds of the people. Thus Joel, for example. Now it is perfectly intelligible that these false teachers, instruments of the enemy, should have given, or sought, to give, this colour to the trials and persecutions under which the Thessalonians were lying.
The day of the Lord being set in in heaven would not have disturbed them in this state, for it was to be their deliverance and rest. But the false teacher’s interpretation of the trials might be very well connected with the way the day of the Lord is always spoken of in the Old Testament. The thought of gathering together unto Him, to which the apostle refers, would at once dispel the delusion. That this being shaken or moved by the tribulation, was clearly the danger of the Thessalonians is evident, as we see, 1 Thessalonians 3: 3-5. The enemy had tried to work on this, not by excited hopes, but by excited fear and uneasiness. The day of the Lord is not used in the preceding epistle, as alleged here. The whole statement at the commencement of page 183 is inaccurate. The day, moreover, will not commence secretly in heaven. This is never called the day of the Lord in Scripture, in any form or manner whatever. The day of the Lord is always what happens to man in judgment down here. The Greek word in 2 Thessalonians 2: 2. cannot refer to such a setting in, because it means “present” — present to the persons concerned, by which they were beset. We shall know what is in heaven, as to the Lord’s presence, by being caught up to meet Him there. It is not a sign down here we have or want: our blessed sign is being there ourselves with Him.
Having changed “present” to “set in,” and “set in” being interchangeable with “commence” we have now the author’s own translation changed to suit his object better, given in inverted commas. I believe that day will not commence till the son of perdition be revealed, because that day is judgment on the earth, and he that above all is to be judged, must surely be there; but nothing that passes in heaven is ever referred to as the day of the Lord. If so, let the passage be cited. All this is merely the confusion of the author.
Furthermore, God has not “made known by His servant Daniel that it would be the blasphemy of the last apostasy that would cause His throne of judgment to be set in heaven.” There is no such statement in Daniel, but quite a different one. After setting the thrones, it is said, “I beheld then, because of the great words, etc. — I beheld till the beast was slain.” Moreover, there is another serious point in this. If the day commences by the secret setting of the throne in heaven because of the blasphemy, it is certain that it is after the setting of the throne that the Son of man is brought before the Ancient of days. So that the day of the Lord, though its power may be exercised by Christ afterwards, exists previous to His receiving the power. I would refer the attentive reader to the distinction in Daniel 7: 22. “The Ancient of days came.” But the truth is, the use of the day of the Lord for something passing in heaven is a totally unscriptural use of it.
I have omitted to state that the words, “as if we had said that the day of Christ had set in,” are a pure insertion of the author. Their object is thus to attribute the feeling exclusively to some testimony of the apostle as to what passed in heaven, and not to a false interpretation (pretended to be of him) of the circumstances the Thessalonians were in. It is just simply an addition to the word of God. And, moreover, it presents a totally false idea of the passage in general; because certainly “neither by spirit,” and I think probably “neither by word,” do not apply to Paul; whereas the author makes all rest upon what Paul might have said, which alters the whole sense of the passage. They were not troubled by spirit as if Paul had said. A pretended letter might allege his statements; but a pretended or false spirit would be acting on the present state of the Thessalonians’ circumstances.
[p. 192] On the whole, the translation and the criticisms of the author on this passage, as well as his interpretation, I have no hesitation in saying (and the reader has the proofs), are entirely wrong. The meaning of the Spirit of God in the passage seems to me very clear. Save the word “at hand” for present, of which the passages I have quoted (and they are all in which the word is used in the New Testament) will enable the reader to judge, the authorised English translation is a perfectly satisfactory one of the passage; unless you except the insertion of “will let” (verse 7) instead of saying, “Only there is now (or at present) a letter (or one who letteth),” which does not the least alter the sense. Whereas the author’s translation entirely changes the plain sense of the passage, by unwarrantable meanings given to words, and supplying ellipses as he understands them, and inverting the plain order of the words themselves.
One point I admit he may fairly discuss, though I do not agree with him; that is, if huper means “by” His coming, or “concerning.” He is quite wrong in confining us to the choice of meanings he does; because “beseeching by” is a regular known meaning of the word; but he may of course adopt a meaning which the Greek bears perhaps, though others may judge it wrong.