38<\/strong>. But in his<\/em> place<\/strong> he will honour the god of<\/em> strongholds<\/strong> ] it is not certain who is meant by the ‘god of strongholds’: possibly the reference is to some deity (? Mars) of whose worship by Antiochus we have no other notice; more probably, however, the name is simply an alternative designation of Jupiter Capitolinus.<\/p>\n and a god whom<\/em>, &c.] No doubt, Zeus or Jupiter (cf. on Dan 11:37<\/em><\/span>). It is true, the first three Seleucidae, as their coins testify, recognized Zeus Olympios, not, as Behrmann (misunderstanding a sentence of G. Hoffmann, Einige Phn. Inschr.<\/em>, p. 29) states, Zeus Polieus, as their patron; but Zeus was not, of course, a native Syrian deity.<\/p>\n pleasant things<\/em> ] better, costly<\/strong> things<\/em>: lit. things desired<\/em>. Cf. on Dan 11:8<\/em><\/span> (‘precious’ cannot be used here; as the word is needed for y<\/em> rh<\/em>, in ‘precious stones’).<\/p>\n But in his estate – <\/B>The marginal reading here is, As for the Almighty God, in his seat he shall honor, yea, he shall honor a god, etc. The more correct rendering, however, is that in the text, and the reference is to some god which he would honor, or for which he would show respect. The rendering proposed by Lengerke is the true rendering, But the god of forces (firm places, fastnesses – der Vesten) he shall honor in their foundation (auf seinem Gestelle). The Vulgate renders this, But the god Maozim shall he honor in his place. So also the Greek. The phrase in his estate – <\/span> ‘al<\/I>–kano<\/I> – means, properly, upon his base, or foundation. It occurs in Dan 11:20-21<\/span>, where it is applied to a monarch who would succeed another – occupying the same place, or the same seat or throne. See the notes at Dan 11:2<\/span>. Here it seems to mean that he would honor the god referred to in the place which he occupied, or, as it were, on his own throne, or in his own temple. The margin is, or stead; but the idea is not that he would honor this god instead of another, but that he would do it in his own place. If, however, as Gesenius and De Wette suppose, the sense is, in his place, or stead, the correct interpretation is, that he would honor this god of forces, in the stead of honoring the god of his fathers, or any other god. The general idea is clear, that he would show disrespect or contempt for all other gods, and pay his devotions to this god alone.<\/P> Shall he honor – <\/B>Pay respect to; worship; obey. This would be his god. He would show no respect to the god of his fathers, nor to any of the idols usually worshipped, but would honor this god exclusively.<\/P> The God of forces – <\/B>Margin, Mauzzim, or gods protectors; or, munitions. Hebrew, <\/span> mauzym<\/I>; Latin Vulgate, Maozim<\/I>; Greek, <\/SPAN><\/span> Maoxeim<\/I>; Syriac, the strong God; Luther, Mausim; Lengerke, der Vesten – fastnesses, fortresses. The Hebrew word <\/span> maoz<\/I> means, properly, a strong or fortified place, a fortress; and Gesenius (Lexicon) supposes that the reference here is to the god of fortresses, a deity of the Syrians obtruded upon the Jews, perhaps Mars. So also Grotius, C. B. Michaelis, Staudlin, Bertholdt, and Winer. Dereser, Havernick, and Lengerke explain it as referring to the Jupiter Capitolinus that Antiochus had learned to worship by his long residence in Rome, and whose worship he transferred to his own country. There has been no little speculation as to the meaning of this passage, and as to the god here referred to; but it would seem that the general idea is plain.<\/P> It is, that the only god which he would acknowledge would be force, or power, or dominion. He would set at nought the worship of the god of his fathers, and all the usual obligations and restraints of religion; he would discard and despise all the pleadings of humanity and kindness, as if they were the weaknesses of women, and he would depend solely on force. He would, as it were, adore only the god of force, and carry his purposes, not by right, or by the claims of religion, but by arms. The meaning is not, I apprehend, that he would formally set up this god of forces, and adore him, but that this would be, in fact, the only god that he would practically acknowledge. In selecting such a god as would properly represent his feelings he would choose such an one as would denote force or dominion. Such a god would be the god of war, or the Roman Jupiter, who, as being supreme, and ruling the world by his mere power, would be a fit representative of the prevailing purpose of the monarch.<\/P> The general sentiment is, that all obligations of religion, and justice, and compassion, would be disregarded, and he would carry his purposes by mere power, with the idea, perhaps, included, as seems to be implied in the remainder of the verse, that he would set up and adore such a foreign god as would be a suitable representation of this purpose. It is hardly necessary to say that this was eminently true of Antiochus Epiphanes; and it may be equally said to be true of all the great heroes and conquerors of the world. Mars, the god of war, was thus adored openly in ancient times, and the devotion of heroes and conquerors to that idol god, though less open and formal, has not been less real by the heroes and conquerors of modern times; and, as we say now of an avaricious or covetous man that he is a worshipper of mammon, though he in fact formally worships no god, and has no altar, so it might be affirmed of Antiochus, and may be of heroes and conquerors in general, that the only god that is honored is the god of war, of power, of force; and that setting at nought all the obligations of religion, and of worship of the true God, they pay their devotions to this god alone.<\/P> Next to mammon, the god that is most adored in this world is the god of force – this Mauzzim that Antiochus so faithfully served. In illustration of the fact that seems here to be implied, that he would introduce such a god as would be a fit representative of this purpose of his life, it may be remarked that, when in Rome, where Antiochus spent his early years, he had learned to worship the Jupiter of the Capitol, and that he endeavored to introduce the worship of that foreign god into Syria. Of this fact there can be no doubt. It was one of the characteristics of Antiochus that he imitated the manners and customs of the Romans to a ridiculous extent (Diod. Sic. Frag, xxvi. 65); and it was a fact that he sent rich gifts to Rome in honor of the Jupiter worshipped there (Livy, lxii. 6), and that he purposed to erect a magnificent temple in honor of Jupiter Capitolinus in Antioch – Livy, xli. 20.<\/P> This temple, however, was not completed. It will be remembered, also, that he caused an altar to Jupiter to be erected over the altar of burnt-sacrifice in Jerusalem. It should be added, that they who apply this to Anti-christ, or the Pope, refer it to idol or image worship. Elliott (Apocalypse, iv. 153) supposes that it relates to the homage paid to the saints and martyrs under the Papacy, and says that an appellation answering to the word Mahuzzim was actually given to the departed martyrs and saints under the Papal apostasy. Thus he remarks: As to what is said of the willful kings honoring the god Mahuzzim (a god whom his fathers knew not) in place of his ancestors god, and the true God, it seems to me to have been well and consistently explained, by a reference to those saints, and their relics and images, which the apostasy from its first development regarded and worshipped as the Mahuzzim, or fortresses of the places where they were deposited. – Apoc. iv. 157. But all this appears forced and unnatural; and if it be not supposed that it was designed to refer to Antichrist or the Papacy, no application of the language can be found so obvious and appropriate as that which supposes that it refers to Antiochus, and to his reliance on force rather than on justice and right.<\/P> And a god whom his fathers knew not – <\/B>This foreign god, Jupiter, whom he had learned to worship at Rome.<\/P> Shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones … – <\/B>That is, he shall lavish these things on building a temple for him, or on his image. This accords with the account which Livy gives (xli. 20) of the temple which he commenced at Antioch in honor of Jupiter. Livy says that, although in his conduct he was profligate, and although in many things it was supposed that he was deranged – Quidam hand dubie insanire aiebunt<\/I> – yet that in two respects he was distinguished for having a noble mind – for his worship of the gods, and for his favor toward cities in adorning them: In duabus tamen magnis honestisque rebus vere regius erat animus, in urbium donis, et deorum cultu<\/I>. He then adds, in words that are all the commentary which we need on the passage before us: Magnificentiae vero in deos vel Jovis Olympii ternplum Athenis, unum in terris inchoatum pro magnitudine dei, potest testis esse. Sed et Delon aris insignibus statuarumque copia exornavit; et Antiochiae Joyis capitolini magnificum templum, non laqueatum auro tantum, sed parietibus totis lamina inauratum, et alia multa in aliis locis pollicita, quia perbreve tempus regni ejus fuit, non perfecited<\/I>.<\/P> And pleasant things – <\/B>Margin, things desired. That is, with ornaments, or statuary, or perhaps pictures. Compare the notes at Isa 2:16<\/span>. e meant that the temple should be beautified and adorned in the highest degree. This temple, Livy says, he did not live to finish.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 38. Shall he honour the god of forces<\/B><\/I>] mauzzim<\/I>, or gods protectors<\/I>, as in the margin<\/I>; worshipping saints<\/I> and angels<\/I> as guardians<\/I>, and protectors<\/I>, and mediators<\/I>; leaving out, in general, the true God<\/I>, and the only Mediator<\/I>, JESUS CHRIST.<\/P> <\/P> And a god whom his fathers knew not<\/B><\/I>] For these gods guardians<\/I>, the Virgin Mary, saints<\/I>, and angels<\/I>, were utterly unknown as mediators<\/I> and invocable guardians<\/I> in the primitive apostolic Church.<\/P> <\/P> Shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones<\/B><\/I>] How literally does this apply to the Church of Rome<\/I>! See the house of our lady at Loretto<\/I>; the shrines of saints<\/I>; the decorated<\/I> images, costly apparel, gold, jewels<\/I>, c., profusely used about images of saints, angels<\/I>, and the blessed virgin<\/I>, in different popish churches. This superstition began to prevail in the fourth<\/I> century, and was established in 787, by the seventh<\/I> general council for in that the worship of images<\/I> was enacted.<\/P> <\/p>\n He shall honour the god of forces; Mauzzim, of strengths or strong holds. The Phoenicians worshipped Mars the God of wars, which Antiochus did worship; but we are come to the Romans; and though many have conjectured several senses of this <\/span> translated god of forces, yet none comes nearer than Mr. Mede, who interprets it of demons, or tutelar gods, which the Romans should worship with Christ, supposing them to be angels or saints. This is not to be thought a novel opinion, for many of the fathers say that this Mauzzim is the idol that antichrist should worship. So the meaning is, that in Christs seat, or place, the temple, they should worship saints and angels with Christ, as the preposition imports, together with Christ; which it is notorious they do. That which, made this place obscure was, that men generally took this strange god for an idol, which indeed the Jews call the Gentiles gods, and so doth the Old Testament often, because foreign to the true God, which was their God; but the true God was foreign and strange to the Romans, because their gods were idols. Therefore the philosophers called Christ <\/span> daimonion, a strange god. This god they should <\/P> honour with gold, and silver, and precious stones. The Vulgate translates Mauzzim, protector, and we know too well how the Romanists adorn the churches and shrines of these their patrons and tutelar saints, Psa 27:1<\/span>; 28:8<\/span>; 31:3<\/span>. And the fathers sometimes fatally hit upon this expression at the first setting and honouring of martyrs, calling them strong holds, and strong towers of defence; but the Council Of Constantinople called them the devils strong holds; thus they called their images also. <\/P> <\/p>\n 38. God of forces<\/B>probablyJupiter Capitolinus, to whom Antiochus began to erect a temple atAntioch [LIVY, 41.20].Translate, “He shall honor the god of fortresses on hisbasis,<\/I>” that is, the base of the statue. NEWTONtranslates, “And the god ‘Mahuzzim’ (guardians,<\/I> that is,saints adored as ‘protectors<\/I>‘ in the Greek and Roman churches)shall he honor.” <\/P> honour with gold,<\/B>&c.Compare Re 17:4<\/span> as toAntiochus’ antitype, Antichrist.<\/P><\/p>\n But in his estate shall he honour the god of forces<\/strong>,…. Or god Mahuzzim q; departed saints and their images, whom the Papists make their protectors, defenders, and guardians: the word signifies towers, strong holds, fortresses; and by these titles the martyrs, saints departed, are called by the ancient fathers, who first introduced the worship of them: So Basil r, speaking of the forty martyrs, says,<\/p>\n “these are they, who obtaining our country, like certain towers, afford us a refuge against the incursion of enemies:”<\/p>\n and a little after thus addresses them,<\/p>\n “O ye common keepers of mankind, the best companions of our cares, the suffragans of our prayers and wishes, “most powerful” ambassadors with God, c.:”<\/p>\n and elsewhere s he prays,<\/p>\n “that God would keep the church unmoved, and fortified with the great towers of the martyrs”<\/p>\n so Chrysostom t calls them patrons and protectors. Or, “with God he shall honour” u; these along with him, or besides him; these shall be the objects of religious worship and honour, as they are: and that “in his estate”; or in his room and stead, that is, of the true God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man; and yet angels and departed saints are set up as mediators in his stead:<\/p>\n and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour<\/strong>; the host, the wafer, the breaden god, made a god by the words of a muttering priest; this is such a god as the apostles, and Peter particularly, from whom the popes of Rome pretend to, derive their succession, never knew, nor once dreamed of; and yet this is received as a god, bowed unto, and worshipped, and honoured:<\/p>\n with gold, silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things<\/strong>; with rich and costly ornaments, with which the pyxis or box, in which it is carried in procession, is adorned.<\/p>\n q “deum Mahuzim”, V. L. Pagninus, Montanus. r Homil. in 40. Martyr. p. 151. s Homil. de Martyr. Mamant. p. 167. t Sermo in Berenice, Homil. l. in 1 Thess. See Mede’s Works, B. 3. p. 673, 674. u “Ad, [vel] juxta deum Mahuzzimos in sede ejus honorabit”, Medus, p. 667, 671.<\/p>\n On the other hand, he will honour the god of fortresses. That is not, with Theodotion, the Vulgate, Luther, and others, to be regarded as the proper name of a god, is now generally acknowledge. But as to which god is to be understood by the “god of fortresses,” there is very great diversity of opinion. Grotius, C. B. Michaelis, Gesenius, and others think on Mars, the god of war, as the one intended; Hvernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer, and Ewald regard Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom Antiochus purposed to erect a temple in Antioch (Livy, xli. 20); others, Jupiter Olympius; while Hitzig, by changing into , fortress of the sea<\/em>, thinks that Melkart, or the Phoenician Hercules, is referred to. But according to the following passage, this god was not known to his fathers. That could not be said either of Mars, or Jupiter, or Melkart. Add to this, “that if the statement here refers to the honouring of Hercules, or Mars, or Zeus, or Jupiter, then therewith all would be denied that was previously said of the king’s being destitute of all religion” (Klief.). The words thus in no respect agree with Antiochus, and do not permit us to think on any definite heathen deity. does not signify on his foundation<\/em>, pedestal<\/em> (Hv., v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald), because the remark that he honoured God on his pedestal would be quite inappropriate, unless it had been also said that he had erected a statue to him. has here the same meaning as in Dan 11:7<\/span>, Dan 11:20<\/span>, Dan 11:21<\/span>: “in his place or stead” (Gesenius, de Wette, Kliefoth, and others). But the suffix is not, with Klief., to be referred to : in the place of all that, which he did not regard, but it refers to : in the place of every god; which is not overthrown by the objection that in that case the suffix should have been plur., because the suffix is connected with the singular . The “god of fortresses” is the personification of war, and the thought is this: he will regard no other god, but only war; the taking of fortresses he will make his god; and he will worship this god above all as the means of his gaining the world-power. Of this god, war as the object of deification, it might be said that his fathers knew nothing, because no other king had made war his religion, his god to whom he offered up in sacrifice all, gold, silver, precious stones, jewels.<\/p>\n As I have already hinted, at the first glance these statements seem opposed to each other; the king of whom we are now treating shall despise all deities, and yet shall worship a certain god in no ordinary way. This agrees very well with the Romans, if we study their dispositions and manners. As they treated the worship of their deities simply as a matter of business, they were evidently destitute of any perception of the divinity, and were only pretenders to religion. Although other profane nations groped their way in darkness, yet they offered a superstitious worship to some divinities. The Romans, however, were not subject to either error or ignorance, but they manifested a gross contempt of God, while they maintained the appearance of piety. We gather this opinion from a review of their whole conduct. For although they fetched many deities from every quarter of the world, and worshipped in common with other nations Minerva, Apollo, Mercury, and others, yet we observe how they treated all other rites as worthless. They considered Jupiter as the supreme deity. But what was Jupiter to them in his own country? Did they value him a single farthing, or the Olympian deity? Nay, they derided both his worshippers and himself. What then really was their supreme god? why the glow of the Capitol; without the additional title of Lord of the Capitol, he was nobody at all. That title distinguished him as specially bound to themselves. For This reason the Prophet calls This Roman Jupiter a god of bulwarks, or of powers. The Romans could never be persuaded that any other Jupiter or Juno were worthy of worship; they relied upon their own inherent strength, considered themselves of more importance than the gods, and claimed Jupiter as theirs alone. Because his seat was in their capital, he was more to them than a hundred heavenly rulers, for their pride had centered the whole power of the deity in their own capital. They thought themselves beyond the reach of all changes of fortune, and such was their audacity, that every one fashioned new deities according to his pleasure. There was a temple dedicated to fortune on horseback; for this gratified the vanity of the general who had made good use of it is cavalry, and obtained a victory by their means; and in building a temple to equestrian fortune, he wished the multitude to esteem himself as a deity. Then Jupiter Stator was a god, and why? because this pleased somebody else; and thus Rome became full of temples. One erected an image of fortune, another of virtue, a third of prudence, and a fourth of any other divinity, and every one dared to set up his own idols according to his fancy, till Rome was completely filled with them. In this way Romulus was deified; and what claim had he to this honor? If any one object here — other nations did the same — we admit it, but we also know in what a foolish, brutal, and barbarous state of antiquity they continued. But; the Romans, as I have already intimated, were not instigated to this manufacture of idols by either error or superstition, but by an arrogant vanity which elevated themselves to the first rank among mankind, and claimed superiority over all deities. For instance, they allowed a temple to be erected to themselves in Asia, and sacrifices to be offered, and the name of deity to be applied to them. What pride is here! Is this a proof of belief in the existence of either one god or many? Rome is surely the only deity, — and she must be reverently worshipped before all others! <\/p>\n We observe then how the expression of this verse is very applicable to the Romans; they worshipped the god of bulwarks, meaning, they claimed a divine power as their own, and only granted to their gods what they thought useful for their own purposes. With the view of claiming certain virtues as their own, they invented all kinds of deities according to their taste. I omit the testimony of Plutarch as not quite applicable to the present subject. He says in his problems, it was unlawful to utter the name of any deity under whose protection and guardianship the Roman State was placed. He tells us how Valerius Soranus was carried off for foolishly uttering that deity’s name, whether male or female. These are his very words. And he adds as the reason, their practice of using magical incantations in worshipping their unknown divinity. Again, we know in what remarkable honor they esteemed “the good goddess.” The male sex were entirely ignorant of her nature, and none but females entered the house of the high priest, and there celebrated her orgies. And for what purpose? What was that “good goddess?” Surely there always existed this god of bulwarks, since the Romans acknowledged no deity but their own selves. They erected altars to themselves, and sacrificed all kinds of victims to their own success and good fortune; and in this way they reduced all deities within their own sway, while they offered them only the specious and deceptive picture of reverence. There is nothing forced in the expression of the angel, — he will pay no attention to the gods of his fathers; meaning, he will not follow the usual custom of all nations in retaining superstitious ceremonies with error and ignorance. For although the Greeks were very acute, yet they did not dare to make any movement, or propose any discussions on religious matters. One thing we know to be fixed among them, to worship the gods which had been handed down by their fathers. But the Romans dared to insult all religious with freedom and petulance, and to promote atheism as far as they possibly could. Therefore the angel says, he should pay attention to the god of his fathers And why? They will have regard to themselves, and acknowledge no deity except their own confidence in their peculiar fortitude. I interpret the phrase, the desire of women, as denoting by that figure of speech which puts apart for the whole, the barbarity of their manners. The love of women is a scriptural phrase for very peculiar affection; and God has instilled this mutual affection into the sexes to cause them to remain united together as long as they retain any spark of humanity. Thus David is said to have loved Jonathan beyond or surpassing the love of women. (2Sa 1:26<\/span>.) No fault is there found with this agreement, otherwise the love of David towards Jonathan would be marked with disgrace. We know how sacred his feelings were towards him, but “the love of women” is here used par excellence, implying the exceeding strength of this affection. As therefore God has appointed this very stringent bond of affection between the sexes as a natural bond of union throughout the human race, it is not surprising if all the duties of humanity are comprehended under this word by a figure of speech. It is just as if the angel had said; this king of whom he prophesies should be impious and sacrilegious, in thus daring to despise all deities; then he should be so evil, as to be utterly devoid of every feeling of charity. We observe then how completely the Romans were without natural affection, loving neither their wives nor the female sex. I need not refer to even a few examples by which this assertion may be proved. But throughout the whole nation such extreme barbarity existed, that it ought really to fill us with horror. None can obtain an adequate idea of this, without becoming thoroughly versed in their histories; but whoever will study their exploits, will behold as in a mirror the angel’s meaning. This king, then, should cultivate neither piety nor humanity. <\/p>\n And he shall not pay attention to other gods, because he shall magnify himself against them all. The cause is here assigned why this king should be a gross despiser of all deities, and fierce and barbarous against all mortals, because he should magnify himself above them all That pride so blinded the Romans, as to cause them to forget both piety and humanity; and so this intolerable self-confidence of theirs was the reason why they paid no honor to any deity, and trampled all mortals under foot. Humility is certainly the beginning of all true piety; and this seed of religion is implanted in the heart of man, causing them whether they will or not to acknowledge some deity. But the Romans were so puffed up by self-consequence, as to exalt themselves above every object of adoration, and to treat all religions with contemptuous scorn; and in thus despising all celestial beings, they necessarily looked down on all mankind, which was literally and notoriously the fact. Now, the second clause is opposed to this, He shall worship or honor the god of fortitude’s He had previously used this word of the Temple, but this explanation does not seem suitable here, because the angel had before expressed the unity of God, while he now enumerates many gods. But the angel uses the word “fortitude’s,” or “munitions,” for that perverse confidence by which the Romans were puffed up, and were induced to treat both God and men as nothing hi comparison to themselves. How then did these two points agree — the contempt of all deities among the Romans, and yet the existence of some worship? First, they despised all tradition respecting the gods, but afterwards they raised themselves above every celestial object, and becoming ashamed of their barbarous impiety, they pretended to honor their deities. But where did they seek those deities, as Jupiter for instance, to whom all the tribe of them were subject? why, in their own capitol. Their deities were the offspring of their own imaginations, and nothing was esteemed divine but what pleased themselves. Hence it is said, He shall honor him in his own place. Here the angel removes all doubt, by mentioning the place in which this god of fortitude’s should be honored. The Romans venerated other deities wherever they met with them, but this was mere outward pretense. Without doubt they limited Jupiter to his own capitol and city; and whatever they professed respecting other divinities, there was no true religion in them, because they adored themselves in preference to those fictitious beings. Hence he shall worship the god of ramparts in his place, and shall honor a strange god whom his fathers knew not (190) <\/p>\n Again, He shall honor him in gold, and silver, and precious stones, and all desirable things; meaning, he shall worship his own deity magnificently and with remarkable pomp. And we know how the riches of the whole world were heaped together to ornament their temples. For as soon as any one purposed to erect any temple, he was compelled to seize all things in every direction, and so to spoil all provinces to enrich their own temples. Rome, too, did not originate this splendor for the sake of superstition, but only to raise itself and to become the admiration of all nations; and thus we observe how well this prophecy is explained by the course of subsequent events. Some nations, in truth, were superstitious in the worship of their idols, but the Romans were superior to all the rest. When first they became masters of Sicily, we know what an amount of wealth they abstracted from a single city. For if ever any temples were adorned with great and copious splendor and much riches, surely they would confess the extreme excellence of those of Sicily. But Marcellus stripped almost all temples to enrich Rome and to ornament the shrines of their false deities. And why so? Was it because Jupiter, and Juno, and Apollo, and Mercury, were better at Rome than elsewhere? By no means; but because he wished to enrich the city, and to turn all sorts of deities into a laughingstock, and to lead them in triumph, to shew that there was no other deity or excellence except at Rome, the mistress of the world. He afterwards adds, He shall perform Here, again, the angel seems to speak of prosperity. Without doubt he would here supply courage to the pious, who would otherwise vacillate and become backsliders when they observed such continued and incredible success, in a nation so impious and sacrilegious, and remarkable for such barbarous cruelty. Hence he states how the Romans should obtain their ends in whatever they attempted, if their fortitude should prevail, as if it were their deity. Although they should despise all deities, and only fabricate a god for themselves through a spirit of ambition; yet even this should bring them success. This is now called a foreign deity. Scripture uses this word to distinguish between fictitious idols and the one true God. The angel seems to say nothing which applies especially to the Romans. For the Athenians and Spartans, the Persians and the Asiatics, as well as all other nations, worshipped strange gods. What, then, is the meaning of the name? for clearly the angel did not speak after the ordinary manner. He calls him strange, as he was not handed down from one to another; for while they boasted vainly in their veneration of the idols received from their ancestors, together with all their sacred institutions and their inviolable rites, yet they inwardly derided them, and did not esteem them worth a straw, but only wished to retain some fallacious form of religion through a sense of shame. We remember the saying of Cato concerning the augurs, “I wonder when one meets another how he can refrain from laughing!” thus shewing how he ridiculed them. If any one had asked Cato either in the senate or privately, What think you of the augurs and all our religion? he would reply, “Ah! let the whole world perish before the augurs; for these constitute the very safety of the people and of the whole republic: we received them from our ancestors, therefore let us keep them for ever!” Thus that crafty fellow would have spoken, and thus also would all others. But while they prated thus to each other, they were not ashamed to deny the existence of a Deity, and so to ridicule whatever had been believed from the very beginning, as entirely to reduce to nothing the traditions received from their forefathers. It does not surprise us to find the angel speaking of a strange god which was worshipped at Rome, not, as I have said, through superstition or mistake, but only to prevent their barbarity from becoming abominable throughout the world. That God, says he, whom he had acknowledged: great weight is attached to this word. The angel means, that the whole divinity rested on the opinion and will of the sovereign people, because it was agreeable to its inclination, and promoted its private interest. As the plan of worshipping any gods would be approved, and they would pride themselves in their own pleasure, they should boast with great confidence, that there could be no piety but at Rome. But why so? Because they acknowledge strange gods, and determine and decree the form of worship which was to be preserved. The angel thus places the whole of the religion of Rome in lust, and shews them to be impure despisers of God. <\/p>\n (190) The word “Mahuzzin” has occasioned a great variety of translations. See Wintle in loco, and the Dissertation on this passage at the end of this volume. <\/p>\n 38<\/strong>. <\/strong> The God of forces <\/strong> Rather, the God of fortresses. <\/em> Perhaps this means that he worshiped from policy, and only gave gifts and honors to such deities as had strong fortresses to defend them, the strongholds being his gods; but more likely there was some special deity of war to whom Antiochus gave real honor. Whether this was Jupiter Capitolinus (whose temple was itself a fort, and of whose warlike character everyone knows, to which god also he built a costly sanctuary at Antioch), or whether it was some little-known foreign fetich or deity cannot now be told. The latter is very possible, as superstition generally accompanies irreligiousness. <\/p>\n Whom his fathers knew not <\/strong> This shows that it was not Zeus Polieus, or any other deity whom the Seleucidae worshiped.<\/p>\n ‘But in his place he will honour the god of fortresses, and he will honour a god whom his fathers did not know, with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. And he will deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god. Whoever acknowledges him he will increase with glory. And he will cause them to rule over many, and will divide the land for a price.’<\/p>\n In the place of ‘any god’ he will honour the god of fortresses. Might and power will be his god, for he sees himself as a god and wants all men to look to him, and he seeks that all precious things might be offered to him, and accumulates them for himself. He is the god whom his fathers did not know, the god who is ‘foreign’, the one of whom the like has not been known, he is unique compared with all gods that went before. And in order to enjoy that might and power he will reward those who aid him, and increase the status of all who acknowledge his divinity. They will be given authority, position, land and status. All this depicts the great Anti-God.<\/p>\n (These descriptions go far beyond anything Antiochus said or dreamed of for himself. His thoughts were very much rooted in the gods he knew, over whom he saw himself reigning as Zeus).<\/p>\n Dan 11:38<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> The original word rendered forces, <\/em>is mauzzim, <\/em>which is taken personally, and retained in the versions of the LXX and Vulgate. It is derived from the radical verb oz<\/em>, signifying he was strong; <\/em>and its proper meaning is munitions, bulwarks, fortresses: <\/em>but, the Hebrews often using abstracts for concretes, it signifies equally, protectors, defenders, <\/em>and guardians. <\/em>This being the derivation and signification of the word, the verse may be literally translated, And the god Mahuzzim, in his estate shall he honour; even a god whom, <\/em>&c. But if it be thought requisite to separate the word God <\/em>and Mahuzzim, <\/em>and to express the force of the Hebrew particle lamed, <\/em>then the verse may be translated, And with God, <\/em>or instead of God, Mahuzzim in his estate shall he honour; even with God, <\/em>or instead of God, those whom his fathers knew not, shall he honour with gold, <\/em>&c. However it be translated,’the meaning evidently is, that he should establish the worship of Mahuzzim, <\/em>of protectors, defenders, <\/em>and guardians. <\/em>He should worship them as God, <\/em>or with God; <\/em>and who is there so little acquainted with ecclesiastical history, as not to know that the worship of saints <\/em>and angels <\/em>was established both in the Greek and Latin church? They were not only invocated and adored as patrons, intercessors, protectors, <\/em>and guardians, <\/em>but miracles were ascribed to them; their very relics were worshipped, and their shrines and images adorned with the most costly offerings, and honoured with gold and silver, with precious stones, and desirable things. <\/em>And what renders the completion of the prophesy more remarkable is, that they were celebrated and adored under the very title of Mahuzzim, <\/em>of bulwarks <\/em>and fortresses, <\/em>of protectors <\/em>and guardians; <\/em>as appears from various striking passages in the writings of Basil, Chrysostome, Hilary, Gregory Nyssen, Eucherius, Theodoret, and others. This superstition began to prevail in the fourth century; and in the eighth, in the year 787, the worship of images, &c. was fully established by the seventh general council,the second that was held at Nice. See Bishop Newton. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Dan 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Ver. 38. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces.<\/strong> ] Or, As for the Almighty God, in his seat he shall honour, yea, he shall honour a god whom his fathers knew not, &c.; that is, in God’s holy temple at Jerusalem Antiochus shall set up Jupiter Olympius, who was none of the dii Syri; <\/em> for the Syrians worshipped Apollo, Diana, Atargatis, as Strabo a<\/em> testifieth. See 2Ma 6:2 . <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Shall he honour.<\/strong> ] This doubling of the word seemeth to show the angel’s indignation at the indignity of the fact. See the like Gen 49:4<\/span> . <\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Geog., <\/em> lib. xvi.<\/p>\n in his estate = in its place: i.e. the God of forces on its pedestal. <\/p>\n God of forces. Hebrew. Ma’uzzim = God of fortresses. <\/p>\n shall he honour, &c. Thus, in secret he is superstitious, though in public he exalts himself above all gods. <\/p>\n Dan 11:38<\/p>\n Dan 11:38 But inH5921 his estateH3653 shall he honourH3513 the GodH433 of forces:H4581 and a godH433 whomH834 his fathersH1 knewH3045 notH3808 shall he honourH3513 with gold,H2091 and silver,H3701 and with preciousH3368 stones,H68 and pleasant things.H2530 <\/p>\n Dan 11:38<\/p>\n But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.<\/p>\n The only god they served was the god of power. We are told in scripture that we are slaves to what we serve (Mat 6:24). The Roman rulers were the slaves of their power hungry ambitious natures. <\/p>\n “and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.”<\/p>\n The Romans abandoned even the gods of their predecessors in their quest for power. Whatever god they could serve that would promote their political ambitions at the time was served. They built temples to their emperors, honoring them with all kinds of treasure and wealth but it was all a smokescreen designed to gain the support of the populace. The emperors thought that if the people worshipped them as gods, they would have their support. Emperor worship was an attempt to control the people. The ultimate goal of the leaders of the Romans was power. In their hearts, they strove for power and they would do whatever it took, worship whoever they had to worship and honor whoever they had to honor in order to achieve their goals. <\/p>\n But in his estate: or, But in his stead, Heb. But as for the almighty God, in his seat shall be honour, yea, he shall honour a god whom, etc. 1Ti 4:1 <\/p>\n forces: or, munitions, Heb. Mauzzim or, gods protectors, Saints and angels, who were invoked as intercessors and protectors, had miracles ascribed to them, their relics worshipped, and their shrines and images adorned with costly offerings. <\/p>\n a god: Rev 13:12-17, Rev 17:1-5, Rev 18:12 <\/p>\n pleasant things: Heb. things desired, Isa 44:9 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Joe 3:5 – pleasant Col 2:18 – worshipping Rev 17:4 – decked<\/p>\n Dan 11:38-39. Epiphanes had no regard for the true God, neither for the rights of good men. The only god he served was that of military and financial forces. Such Is the gist of this paragraph, and the many historical quotations that have been given clearly prove the predictions to be true.<\/p>\n Dan 11:38. But in his estate Or jurisdiction. The LXX. render it, , in his place shall he honour the god of forces Literally, the god Mahuzzim. This seems to be either Jupiter Olympus, never introduced among the Syrians till Antiochus did it, or, as others rather suppose, Mars, the god of war, whom Antiochus ordered to be worshipped in his dominions: which latter opinion seems the more likely, as Antiochus was almost always engaged in some war or other, and appears to have depended most upon his sword for raising himself to power and dignity. The Greek version, the Vulgate, and several other translations, retain the original word, without interpreting it. The word imports protection, or a protector, and is often rendered by the LXX., , a defender, or champion. A god whom his fathers knew not Nor worshipped; because he wished to be thought to excel his fathers in wisdom; shall he honour with gold, and silver, and pleasant things The word , rendered pleasant things, is used by the Prophet Isaiah (Isa 44:9) to signify the costly ornaments with which the heathen decked their idols; and of such ornaments it is to be understood here. And the god spoken of here, as honoured and ornamented by Antiochus, seems to have been Baal- Semon, the chief god of the Phenicians, who is with propriety said to be a god whom Antiochuss father knew not; because there was no god of such name, nor supposed with the same power and attributes, among the Greeks, till (probably by Antiochuss means) they followed the example of the Phenicians in worshipping such a god.<\/p>\n Dan 11:38. the god of fortresses: probably the Roman deity, Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom Antiochus erected a magnificent temple at Antioch.<\/p>\n 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the {y} God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with {z} gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.<\/p>\n (y) That is, the god of power and riches: they will esteem their own power above all their gods and worship it.<\/p>\n (z) Under pretence of worshipping the gods, they will enrich their city with the most precious jewels of all the world, because by this all men would hold them in admiration for their power and riches.<\/p>\n What this king will really trust in is a "god" who he believes can give him military success. Evidently this is not a god in the religious sense. He will probably idolize power. His forefathers typically acknowledged some supreme being or some pagan god or gods. He will honor his "god" by spending money to build his military arsenal. In other words, he will be a materialist. Feinberg and Ironside believed the god in view is the Roman beast (the political leader), whom they distinguished from the Antichrist. [Note: Feinberg, pp. 175-76; Ironside, pp. 221-22.] <\/span> They identified the Antichrist with the religious leader in Jerusalem. This is a minority view among premillennialists.<\/p>\n 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. 38. But in his place he will honour the god of strongholds ] it is not certain who is meant by the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 11:38”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22085","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22085","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22085"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22085\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22085"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22085"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22085"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"