Thoughts on Daniel—Chapter XI.
By U. Smith
VERSE 39. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain. The system of paganism which had been introduced into France, as exemplified in the worship of the idol set up in the person of the Goddess of Reason, and regulated by a heathen ritual which had been enacted by the National Assembly for the use of the French people, continued in force till the appointment of Napoleon to the provisional consulate of France in 1799. The adherents of this strange religion occupied the fortified places, the strongholds of the nation, as expressed in this verse. But that which serves to identify the application of this prophecy to France, perhaps as clearly as any other particular, is the statement made in the last clause of the verse, namely, that they should “divide the land for gain.” Previous to the revolution, the landed property of France was owned by a few landlords in immense estates. These estates were required by the law to remain undivided so that no heirs or creditors could partition them. But revolution knows no law; and in the anarchy that now reigned, as noted also in the eleventh of Revelation, the titles of the nobility were abolished, and their lands disposed of in small parcels for the benefit of the public exchequer. The government was in need of funds, and these large landed estates were confiscated and sold at auction, in parcels to suit purchasers. The historian thus records this unique transaction:— “The confiscation of two-thirds of the landed property of the kingdom, which arose from the decrees of the Convention against the emigrants, clergy, and persons convicted at the Revolutionary Tribunals, . . . placed funds worth above £700,000,000 sterling at the disposal of the government.”—Alison, vol. i, p. 151. When did ever an event transpire, and in what country, fulfilling a prophecy more completely than this? As the nation began to come to itself, a more rational religion was demanded, and the heathen ritual was abolished. The historian thus describes that event:— “A third and bolder measure was the discarding of the heathen ritual, and re-opening the churches for Christian worship; and of this the credit was wholly Napoleon’s, who had to contend with the philosophic prejudices of almost all his colleagues. He, in his conversations with them, made no attempts to represent himself a believer in Christianity, but stood only on the necessity of providing the people with the regular means of worship, wherever it is meant to have a state of tranquility. The priests who chose to take the oath of fidelity to the government were re-admitted to their functions; and this wise measure was followed by the adherence of not less than 20,000 of these ministers of religion, who had hitherto languished in the prisons of France.”—Lockhart’s Life of Napoleon, vol. i, p. 154. Thus terminated the reign of terror and the infidel revolution. Out of its ruins rose Bonaparte, to guide the tumult to his own elevation, place himself at the head of the French government, and strike terror to the hearts of nations. VERSE 40. And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. After a long interval, the king of the south and the king of the north again appear on the stage of action. We have met with nothing to indicate that we are to look to any different localities for these powers from those which, shortly after the death of Alexander, constituted respectively the southern and northern divisions of his empire. The king of the south was at that time Egypt, and the king of the north was Syria, including Thrace and Asia Minor. Egypt is still, by common agreement, the king of the south, while the territory which at first constituted the king of the north, has been for the past four hundred years wholly included within the dominions of the Sultan of Turkey. To Egypt and Turkey, then, in connection with the power last under consideration, we must look for a fulfillment of the verse before us. This application of the prophecy calls for a conflict to spring up between Egypt and France, and Turkey and France, in 1798; which year we have seen to be the commencement of the time of the end; and if history testifies that such a triangular war did break out in that year, it will be conclusive proof of the correctness of the application. We inquire, therefore, Is it a fact that at the time of the end, Egypt did “push,” or make a comparatively feeble resistance, while Turkey did come like a resistless “whirlwind,” against “him,” that is the government of France? We have already produced some evidence that the time of the end commenced in 1798; and no reader of history need be informed that in that very year a state of open hostility between France and Egypt was inaugurated. To what extent this conflict owed its origin to the dreams of glory deliriously cherished in the ambitious brain of Napoleon Bonaparte, the historian will form his own opinion; but the French, or Bonaparte, at least, contrived to make Egypt the aggressor. Thus, when in the invasion of that country he had secured his first foothold in Alexandria, he declared that “he had not come to ravage the country or to wrest it from the Grand Seignior, but merely to deliver it from the domination of the Mamelukes, and to revenge the outrages which they had committed against France.” Thiers’ French Revolution, vol. iv, p. 268. Again the historian says: “Besides, he [Bonaparte] had strong reasons to urge against them [the Mamelukes]; for they had never ceased to ill-treat the French.”—Ib. p. 273. The beginning of the year 1798 found France indulging in immense projects against the English. The Directory desired Bonaparte to undertake at once a descent upon England; but he saw that no direct operations of that kind could be judiciously undertaken before the fall; and he was unwilling to hazard his growing reputation, by spending the summer in idleness. “But,” says the historian, “he saw a far-off land, where a glory was to be won which would gain a new charm in the eyes of his countrymen, by the romance and mystery which hung upon the scene. Egypt, the land of the Pharaohs and the Ptolemies, would be a noble field for new triumphs.”—White’s History of France, p. 469. But while still broader visions of glory opened before the eyes of Bonaparte, in those eastern historic lands, covering not Egypt only, but Syria, Persia, Hindostan, even to the Ganges itself, he had no difficulty in persuading the Directory that Egypt was the vulnerable point through which to strike at England, by intercepting her eastern trade. Hence, on the pretext above mentioned, the Egyptian campaign was undertaken. The downfall of the papacy, which marked the termination of the 1260 years, and, according to verse 35, showed the commencement of the time of the end, transpired on the 10th of February, 1798, when Rome fell into the hands of Berthier, the general of the French. On the 5th of March following, Bonaparte received the decree of the Directory relative to the expedition against Egypt. May 3, he left Paris, and set sail from Toulon the 19th, with a large naval armament, consisting of 500 sail, carrying 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 sailors. July 5, Alexandria was taken, and immediately fortified. On the 23d, the decisive battle of the pyramids was fought, in which the Mamelukes contested the field with valor and desperation, but were no match for the disciplined legions of the French. Murad Bey lost all his cannon, 400 camels, and 3,000 men. The loss of the French was comparatively slight. On the 24th, Bonaparte entered Cairo, the capital of Egypt, and only waited the subsidence of the floods of the Nile, to pursue Murad Bey to Upper Egypt, whither he had retired with his shattered cavalry, and so make a conquest of the whole country. Thus the king of the south was able to make but a feeble resistance. At this juncture, however, the situation of Napoleon began to grow precarious. The French fleet, which was his only channel of communication with France, was destroyed by the English under Nelson at Aboukir; and on September 2, of this same year, 1798, the Sultan of Turkey, under feelings of jealousy against France, artfully fostered by the English ambassadors at Constantinople, and exasperated that Egypt, so long a semi-dependency of the Ottoman Empire, should be transformed into a French province, declared war against France. Thus the king of the north [Turkey] came against him [France] in the same year that the king of the south [Egypt] “pushed,” and both “at the time of the end;” which is another conclusive proof that the year 1798 is the year which begins that period. Was the coming of the king of the north, or Turkey, like the whirlwind in comparison with the pushing of Egypt? Napoleon had crushed the armies of Egypt; he essayed to do the same thing with the armies of the Sultan, who were menacing an attack from the side of Asia. Feb. 27, 1799, with 18,000 men, he commenced his march from Cairo to Syria. He first took the fort of El-Arish, in the desert, then Jaffa (the Joppa of the Bible), conquered the inhabitants of Naphlous at Zeta, and was again victorious at Jafet. Meanwhile a strong body of Turks had intrenched themselves at St. Jean d’Acre, while swarms of Mussulmans gathered in the mountains of Samaria, ready to swoop down upon the French when they should besiege Acre. Sir Sidney Smith at the same time appeared before St. Jean d’Acre with two English ships, reinforced the Turkish garrison of that place, and captured the apparatus for the siege, which Napoleon had sent round by sea from Alexandria. A Turkish fleet soon appeared in the offing, which, with the Russian and English vessels then co-operating with them, constituted the “many ships” of the king of the north. On the 18th of March the siege commenced. Napoleon was twice called away to save some French divisions from falling into the hand of the Mussulman hordes that filled the country. Twice also a breach was made in the wall of the city; but the assailants were met with such fury by the garrison, that they were obliged, despite their best efforts, to give over the struggle. After a continuance of sixty days, Napoleon raised the siege, sounded, for the first time in his career, the note of retreat, and on the 21st of May, 1799, commenced to retrace his steps to Egypt. “And he shall overflow and pass over.” We have found events which furnish a very striking fulfillment of the pushing of the king of the south, and the whirlwind onset of the king of the north, against the French power. Thus far there is quite a general agreement in the application of the prophecy. We now reach a point where the views of expositors begin to diverge. To whom do the words, “he shall overflow and pass over,” refer? to France or the king of the north? The application of the remainder of this chapter depends upon the answer to this question. From this point, two lines of interpretation are maintained. Some apply the words to France, and endeavor to find a fulfillment in the career of Napoleon. Others apply them to the king of the north, and accordingly point for a fulfillment to events in the history of Turkey. We speak of these two positions only, as the attempt which some make to bring in the papacy here is so evidently wide of the mark that its consideration need not detain us. If neither of these positions is free from difficulty, as we presume no one will claim that it is, absolutely, it only remains that we take that one which has the weight of evidence in its favor. Respecting the application of the prophecy to Napoleon, or to France under his leadership, so far as we are acquainted with his history, we do not find events which we can urge with any degree of assurance, as the fulfillment of the remaining portion of this chapter; and hence do not see how it can be thus applied. It must, then, be fulfilled by Turkey, unless it can be shown (1) that the expression, “king of the north,” does not apply to Turkey, or (2) that there is some other power besides either France or the king of the north, which fulfilled this part of the prediction. But if Turkey, now occupying the territory which constituted the northern division of Alexander’s empire, is not the king of the north of this prophecy, then we are left without any principle to guide us in the interpretation. And we presume all will be agreed that there is no room for the introduction of any other power here. The French king and the king of the north, are the only ones to whom the prediction can apply. The fulfillment must lie between them. Some considerations certainly favor the idea that there is, in the latter part of verse 40, a transfer of the burden of the prophecy from the French power to the king of the north. The king of the north is introduced just before as coming forth like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and many ships. The collision between this power and the French we have already noticed. The king of the north with the aid of his allies, gained the day in this contest; and the French, foiled in their efforts, were driven back into Egypt. Now it would seem to be the more natural application to refer the “overflowing and passing over” to that power which emerged in triumph from that struggle; and that power was Turkey. We will only add that one who is familiar with the Hebrew assures us that the construction of this verse is such as to make it necessary to refer the overflowing and passing over to the king of the north, these words expressing the result of that movement which is just before likened to the fury of the whirlwind.