SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
1,047
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 441:
Line 441: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 450:
Line 471: − + Line 456:
Line 477: − + +
Commentary: Daniel 11, Anthony's Historicist Study Aid (view source)
Revision as of 18:41, September 8, 2026
, Tuesday at 18:41→Daniel 11:21: added note on Vile Person with references and image of Edward Gibbon
'''Note 1 - 'Bishops Flattery''''
'''Note 1 - Vile Person'''
:The dictionary definition of "vile" is 'sinful', therefore establishing firmly a strong linguistic parallel to Paul's "man of sin".<ref>2 Thessalonians 2</ref>
:But while the early church fathers did not explicitly equate Daniel 11’s “vile person” with Paul’s “man of sin”, they consistently taught three points that establish a strong conceptual link between the two figures:
:* Paul was expounding Daniel. ''
::* Writers such as [[Hippolytus]], [[Cyril of Jerusalem]], [[Chrysostom]], [[Jerome]], and [[Ambrosiaster]] all taught that Paul’s “man of sin” was the same post‑Roman Antichrist figure foretold in Daniel’s prophecies.
:* The Roman Empire was the restrainer.
::*The fathers unanimously identified the “one who restrains”<ref>2 Thess. 2:6–7</ref> as the Roman imperial power. This matches Daniel’s sequence in which the Antichrist arises after the Imperial Roman Empire's decline.
:* The Antichrist would arise through intrigue, flattery, and political ascent—not open warfare.<ref>[[Hippolytus of Rome]], ''On Christ and Antichrist'', ch. 25<br>''“He will come as a deceiver… with soft words and great craftiness.”''</ref><ref>[[Hippolytus of Rome]], ''On Christ and Antichrist'', ch. 26<br>''“He will persuade and deceive the people… by lying words.”''</ref><ref>[[Cyril of Jerusalem]], ''Catechetical Lecture'', 15.12<br>''“He will win over the rulers by deceitful artifices.”<br>“He will use craftiness to obtain the rule.”''</ref><ref>[[John Chrysostom]], ''Homily on 2 Thessalonians''<br>''“He will deceive many by his cunning and by his flatteries.”''</ref><ref>[[Jerome]], ''Commentary on Daniel'', 11:21<br>''“He shall come in without arms, and obtain the kingdom by deceit.”''</ref><ref>[[Ambrosiaster]], ''Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2''<br>''“He will deceive the people and seduce them by promises.”''</ref>
::* This aligns directly with Daniel 11:21, where the “vile person” obtains the kingdom “by flatteries”, entering peaceably and rising through court influence rather than military conquest.
:Although the fathers never explicitly cited Daniel 11 when interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2, their language reveals that they were drawing on Daniel’s description of the Antichrist’s rise. '''The church fathers understood that the vile person and man of sin were synonomous''' for Paul does not use terms such as flattery, intrigue, courtly persuasion, or peaceable ascent, yet these very expressions appear repeatedly in patristic commentary on the Man of Sin. This vocabulary comes not from Thessalonians but from Daniel 11:21, where the “vile person” obtains the kingdom “by flatteries” and rises through political seduction rather than military conquest. The fathers therefore imported Daniel’s mechanism of ascent into their explanation of Paul’s prophecy, showing that they understood both figures to describe the same post‑Roman adversary.
:In other words, even without naming Daniel 11 directly, the fathers bridged the “vile person” and the “man of sin” by describing Paul’s Antichrist in Daniel’s terms. '''Their consistent use of Daniel’s distinctive vocabulary demonstrates that they saw the two prophecies as parallel accounts of the same figure''', with Daniel providing the historical method of rise and Paul supplying the doctrinal and eschatological character.
:This is a connection between Daniel 11:21 and 2 Thessalonians 2 that was forcefully understood by the ancient church, yet is now completely overlooked by every modern religious group, even though it is the necessary conclusion when we write here that the vile person of Daniel 11:21 is the Man of Sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 and that what is written there must be applied to any understanding of Daniel 11:21.
'''Note 2 - 'Bishops Flattery''''
[[File:John Cassell (1817–1865) Cassell's Illustrated History of England, Volume 1, p241 -Priests interceding with King Richard for the Bishop of Beauvais.jpg|250px|thumb|right|The bishops obtaining of power by flattery of kings is well established.]]
[[File:John Cassell (1817–1865) Cassell's Illustrated History of England, Volume 1, p241 -Priests interceding with King Richard for the Bishop of Beauvais.jpg|250px|thumb|right|The bishops obtaining of power by flattery of kings is well established.]]
:[[Edward Gibbon|Sir Edward Gibbon]] notes well ow the bishops both "discovered the secret path that leads to wealth and power”<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. I, Ch. XV</ref> and "courted the favour of the great by '''flattery'''"<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. I, Ch. XV</ref>. Gibbon further attests how the bishops “rising by the connivance of princes” and "insinuating themselves '''into the confidence''' of princes"<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. I, Ch. XV</ref> and thereby "negotiated their own aggrandizement"<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. I, Ch. XV</ref> while "usurping civil jurisdiction under the mask of religion"<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. I, Ch. XV</ref> so that "the Roman pontiff rising by the convvivance of princes"<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. IV, Ch. XLVII</ref>. Any extensive reading thereof will repeatedly see the rise of ecclesiastical power framed as a political negotiation rather than a military conquest so that:
:[[Edward Gibbon|Sir Edward Gibbon]] notes well ow the bishops both "discovered the secret path that leads to wealth and power”<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. I, Ch. XV</ref> and "courted the favour of the great by '''flattery'''"<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. I, Ch. XV</ref>. Gibbon further attests how the bishops “rising by the connivance of princes” and "insinuating themselves '''into the confidence''' of princes"<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. I, Ch. XV</ref> and thereby "negotiated their own aggrandizement"<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. I, Ch. XV</ref> while "usurping civil jurisdiction under the mask of religion"<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. I, Ch. XV</ref> so that "the Roman pontiff rising by the convvivance of princes"<ref>[[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon, Edward]], ''Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Vol. IV, Ch. XLVII</ref>. Any extensive reading thereof will repeatedly see the rise of ecclesiastical power framed as a political negotiation rather than a military conquest so that:
'''Note 2 - How the Bishops became a Civil Authority (538 AD)'''
'''Note 3 - How the Bishops became a Civil Authority (538 AD)'''
:Gibbon well compiled the method of power acquisition which eventually culminated in [[Justinian|Justinian’s]] Novella 131 (533 AD), declaring the Roman bishop “Head of all the holy churches”; followed by Novella 137 (535 AD), granting the bishops judicial authority in civil matters; then Novella 42 (537 AD), requiring civil authorities to enforce ecclesiastical decisions; but ultimately in Novella 45 ('''538 AD'''), which reaffirmed the '''binding civil force of episcopal rulings''', and (after the Ostrogothic obstruction was removed) made the previously granted ecclesiastical judicial authority '''fully operative in civil law'''.
:Gibbon well compiled the method of power acquisition which eventually culminated in [[Justinian|Justinian’s]] Novella 131 (533 AD), declaring the Roman bishop “Head of all the holy churches”; followed by Novella 137 (535 AD), granting the bishops judicial authority in civil matters; then Novella 42 (537 AD), requiring civil authorities to enforce ecclesiastical decisions; but ultimately in Novella 45 ('''538 AD'''), which reaffirmed the '''binding civil force of episcopal rulings''', and (after the Ostrogothic obstruction was removed) made the previously granted ecclesiastical judicial authority '''fully operative in civil law'''.
'''Note 3 - Sir Edward Gibbon'''
'''Note 4 - Sir Edward Gibbon'''
[[Image:Edward Gibbon by Henry Walton cleaned 960x1230px.jpg|150px|right]]
:Although [[Edward Gibbon]] was not a published [[historicist]] interpreter, his description of the early rise of ecclesiastical power shows a striking awareness of the mechanism Daniel 11:21 identifies. His wording deliberately echoes the biblical language familiar to readers of the [[Geneva Bible]], [[Bishops Bible]], and the 1611 [[King James Version]]. In Decline and Fall, Gibbon writes that the bishops “courted the favour of the great by flattery,” a phrasing that closely mirrors the KJV wording, “he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.” Gibbon could have chosen any number of neutral expressions, yet he employed biblical diction—courted, favour, the great, by flattery—all terms recognisable to readers of the English Reformation Bibles.
:Although [[Edward Gibbon]] was not a published [[historicist]] interpreter, his description of the early rise of ecclesiastical power shows a striking awareness of the mechanism Daniel 11:21 identifies. His wording deliberately echoes the biblical language familiar to readers of the [[Geneva Bible]], [[Bishops Bible]], and the 1611 [[King James Version]]. In Decline and Fall, Gibbon writes that the bishops “courted the favour of the great by flattery,” a phrasing that closely mirrors the KJV wording, “he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.” Gibbon could have chosen any number of neutral expressions, yet he employed biblical diction—courted, favour, the great, by flattery—all terms recognisable to readers of the English Reformation Bibles.