James Farquharson
Aberdeen, Scotland / Rev. James Farquharson, LLD., F.R.S.


Daniel’s Last Vision and Prophecy, respecting which Commentators have greatly differed from each other, showing its Fulfilment in events recorded in authentic history.

‎”In the conclusion of our illustration of these last predictions, we present some additional considerations, which, in our view, compel us to reject any application of this last chapter of Daniel to the general resurrection, by their clearly directing us to apply the 11th verse of it to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. “


Preterist Commentaries By Modern Preterism


(On the Abomination of Desolation; Matthew 24:34)
“Christ expressly names it (the abomination of desolation) as one of the previous signs, whereby those whom He then addressed would become aware of the immediate approach of that destruction of Jerusalem which He Himself foretold, and which, He said, would occur before the generation contemporary with Himself on earth passed away (#Mt 24:34). Besides, Christ, by the term ‘abomination of desolation’ did not mean any temple built to a strange god, or any profane sacrifices. These are indeed abominable; but they are not desolators. Luke has preserved the explanation which Christ Himself gave of those terms (‘when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies,’ etc. #Lu 21:20), as we shall have occasion afterwards more particularly to show; and Bishop Newton, in his illustration of Christ’s own prophecy, refers to the explanation furnished by Luke and admits that the abomination of desolation signifies the heathen armies.”

(On Matthew 24:21)
“Our Saviour certainly referred to the tribulations attendant on the fearful destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jewish people by the Roman arms under Titus; and when we understand Daniel’s time of trouble as belonging to the same events, . . . then the whole of his prophecy in this twelfth chapter can be easily demonstrated to have received a signal and complete fulfilment in the Advent of Christ, in the deliverance wrought by Him, . . . in the awakening of men from the death of sin, . . . in the prophecy itself not being understood until explained by Christ (and then not understood by the unbelieving Jews, but understood by the Christian converts), in the continued impenitence and increasing wickedness of the unbelieving Jews, in the judgments at last sent upon them in the Roman war, in the duration of that war, and in the immediate abatement of the sufferings attending it upon Titus’ getting unexpected possession of the last strongholds of Jerusalem.”

(On Daniel 12:1)
“The prediction of the prophet then, in this latter part of the first verse, was fulfilled in that part of Daniel’s people who, obeying the call of the Saviour to faith in Him, and repentance and new obedience, obtained through His blood eternal redemption. Although the Jewish rulers and the greater part. of the nation would not have Him to be their King, but delivered Him up to the Gentiles, yet says Paul, ‘God hath not east away His people which He foreknew,’ but, as in the days of Elias He reserved to Himself seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal, even so now, ‘at this present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace’ (#Ro 11:2-5). Within a short time after Christ’s ascension this ‘remnant’ amounted to several thousands (#Ac 2:41, 4:4); and afterwards ‘believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of men and women’ (#Ac 5:14). These were at that time ‘delivered.’ * * * But there was added to the eternal deliverance they thus obtained a temporal deliverance also, in that ‘time of trouble,’ ‘during which their unbelieving countrymen perished by sword and famine. For He in Whom they believed had taught them the signs that should precede the approaching calamities, and had warned them to escape from them by a timely flight (#Mt 24:15, 16). Of His warnings they availed themselves. We learn from ecclesiastical histories,’ says Bishop Newton, ‘that at this juncture (the approach of the siege of Jerusalem) all who believed in Christ departed from Jerusalem, and removed to Pella and other places beyond the river Jordan; so that they all marvellously escaped the general shipwreck of their countrymen; and we do not read anywhere that so much as one of them perished in the destruction of Jerusalem.’ Thus, in every sense, ‘at that time Daniel’s people were delivered, all who were found written in the book.’

(On Josephus)
“The fidelity, the veracity, and the probity of the writer are universally allowed; and Scaliger in particular declares, that not only in the affairs of the Jews, but even of foreign nations, he deserves more credit than all the Greek and Roman writers put together.
 ” (Farquharson quotes the following tribute to Josephus by Bishop Porteus)


Philip Mauro
“Our papers on the eleventh chapter of Daniel, in which we identified Herod as “the king” of verse 36, and showed that verses 40-43 were fulfilled in the events whereby Egypt fell under the all conquering arms of Augustus Caesar, were completed ready for the printer in the early part of 1922. Prior to August of that year we were not aware that anyone had previously pointed out that the predictions concerning “the king” were fulfilled by Herod, or that the fulfilment of the last verses of the chapter was to be found in the stirring and world changing events of his reign.

     But in August of 1922 there came into our hands in a strange way (which seemed providential) an old book, now long out of print, in which, to our great surprise and gratification, we found our conclusions as to the above matters set forth, and supported by proofs more ample than we ourselves had collected. The book was written by James Farquharson, and was printed in Aberdeen, Scotland, in 1838. It bears the following quaint and lengthy title: Daniel’s Last Vision and Prophecy, respecting which Commentators have greatly differed from each other, showing its Fulfilment in events recorded in authentic history.

     In our comments, which here follow, on verses 40-43, we are indebted to this volume for the quotations from Plutarch’s Life of Mark Antony, which set the fulfilment of those verses in such a clear light.” (From Mauro – Chapter 10 – Seventy Weeks)


    The first move in the Actian war was made by Antony (at the urgency of Cleopatra), in which he was assisted by Herod. Says Plutarch:

“Antony, being informed of these things” (that is of certain disputes between Augustus and others in the Senate at Rome) “immediately sent Canidus to the seacoast with sixteen legions. In the meantime he went to Ephesus attended by Cleopatra. There he assembled his fleet, which consisted of 800 ships of burden, whereof Cleopatra furnished 200 besides 20,000 talents, and provisions for the army.”

     Antony advanced to Athens, with constantly increasing forces, Augustus being wholly unprepared to meet him; for says the historian:

“When Caesar was informed of the celerity and magnificence of Antony’s preparations, he was afraid of being forced into war that summer. This would have been most inconvenient for him, for he was in want of almost everything. * * * The auxiliary kings who fought under his (Antony’s) banner were Bocchus of Africa,” &c. a list being given–“Those who did not attend in person, but sent supplies were Polemo of Pontus, Malchus of Arabia, Herod of Judea, and Amyntas of Lycaonia and Galatia.”

     Thus a king of the south was the first to make a push in this war, and he pushed with Herod. As showing the accuracy of the prophecy it should be noted that, as Plutarch records, the Senate of Rome declared war with Cleopatra alone, ignoring Antony, so that it was strictly between a king of the north, and a king of the south.

     Mr. Farquharson points out that the predictions of the prophet were strictly fulfilled also in respect to the character of the forces engaged in the war. For, notwithstanding that each side assembled large numbers of infantry, and notwithstanding that such are the arms usually relied upon to decide a war, yet in this case the infantry were not engaged at all, the issue being decided (as the prophecy indicates) by chariots and horsemen, and many ships.

    A strange feature of the affair is that, although Antony’s footmen outnumbered those of Augustus, and although his generals urged him to bring the matter to an issue in a land battle, nevertheless (to quote again from Plutarch)–

“Such a slave was he to the will of a woman that, to gratify her, though much superior on land, he put his whole confidence in the navy; notwithstanding that the ships had not half their complement of men.”

     This brought on the great naval fight of Actium, which ended in a complete victory for Augustus; and thus did a king of the north come upon a king of the south, with the effect of a whirlwind, with many ships. A more literal and exact fulfilment of prophecy could not be found.

     But that is not all. For Plutarch records that, after the disaster at Actium, Antony’s infantry deserted him, so that the infantry were not engaged during the entire war.

     “But when Antony arrived in Egypt, and endeavoured to defend it, to fulfil the prediction of the Prophet that the king of the north would come with chariots and horsemen, as well as with many ships–there were actions with cavalry.” For Plutarch says, “When Caesar arrived he encamped near the hippodrome (at Alexandria); whereupon Antony made a brisk sally, routed the cavalry, drove them back into their trenches, and returned to the city with the complacency of a conqueror.” It was the conduct of their fleets and cavalry that sealed the fate of Antony and Cleopatra, and left them without resource in their last retreat.”

Rev. James Farquharson,
LLD., F.R.S.

Dec. 3. Aged 62, the Rev. James Farquharson, LLD. F.R.S.&c. minister of Alford, co. Aberdeen.

He was born in the parish of C’oull, in that county, in 1781. At the parochial school in bis native parish he received the rudiments of education, and afterwards completed his studies at the University of King’s College, where he took his degree of Master of Arts. During this early period of his life, he gave strong indication of those talents and tastes which distinguished his maturer years, and imbibed those warm feelings of grateful attachment to his Alma Mater, which prompted him at all times to take a lively and active interest in whatever concerned her welfare. In the year 1799,’when he was yet but eighteen, Mr. Farquharson was appointed to the situation of parochial schoolmaster of Alford. He soon afterwards commenced his courses as a student of theology, and received licence as a preecher of the gospel. He continued to fill the office of schoolmaster of Alford for thirteen years ; and, while he discharged the duties of that laborious situation with exemplary diligence and success, he devoted his leisure hours to the ardent

?ursuit of professional and general study. n 1812 he was appointed minister of Alford, on the death of the Rev. Mr. Birnie.

In 1831, Mr. Farquharson published u learned and ingenious essay ” On the Form of the Ark of Noah.” This was followed by an essay, in which he gave an account of the animals designated in the Scriptures by the names of Leviathan and Behemoth. In 1838 he published ” A New Illustration of the Latter Part of Daniel’s Last Vision and Prophecy,” which has never attracted the attention it deserves.

Dr. Farquharson communicated several valuable papers to the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London; Of these some are on the

Aurora Borealis�the appearances of which he studied closely for a long period of years. In 1823 he published in the Edinburgh Philosophical Journal a far more accurate description of that striking phenomenon than had previously appeared ; and in the Philosophical Transactions for 1829 he confirmed his views by new observations�shewing that the arrangement and progress of its arches and streamers are exactly definite in relation to the lines of the earth’s magnetism, and that there exist such close relations between the streamers and arches as to prove that they are in fact the same phenomenon. He also inferred, from his own observations, that the elevation of the Aurora is far less than had been generally supposed, being confined to altitudes not extending far beyond the region of the clouds ; and in a paper in the Transactions for 1830, besides detailing new proofs of its intimate connection with the magnetic needle, he shewed that it was produced by the developement of electricity by the condensation of watery vapour. In the volume for 1839, he gave a geometrical measurement of an Aurora (one of the first attempted), which made its height less than a mile, and shewed its dependency upon the altitude of the clouds. And, in the volume for 1842, he described an Aurora, which was situated between himself and lofty clouds of the kind denominated stratus or sheet-cloud.

Another subject which engaged his attention was the ice which is formed, under peculiar circumstances, at the bottom of running water, on which he gave an elaborate paper in the Philosophical Transactions for 1836. Arago, and other philosophers, had attempted explanations of this curious phenomenon, which attracted attention, but were more ingenious than satisfactory. Dr. Farquharson gave a new one, founded on his own observations on the river Don, in which he explains it by the radiation of heat from the bottom of the stream cooling its bed more quickly than the water which is flowing over it, in circumstances when the sky is exceedingly clear, and the water of great transparency.

To the Royal Society Dr. F. also communicated the results of the registers of temperature, which he kept for many years. The extent of his observations on this useful subject led him to consider at length the origin and progress of currents of colder and warmer air moving over the face of a flat country surrounded by hills, at different seasons of the year, and their effects upon vegetation. One of his most curious and valuable papers on this head is that ” On the Nature and Loca

lities of Hoar Frost,” which was pubHshed by the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland in 1840, where he traces successfully the descent of masses of cold air upon fiat and hollow lands, and the injurious effects which they produce upon the crops of potatoes and grain.

These ingenious and able disquisitions recommended their author to the notice and friendship of many of the leading Kwana of the day, and procured for him some well-merited honours. In 1830 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London. In 1837 the University of King’s College conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws. In 1838 be was elected an bonory member of the Sociilt Francaue de St a tuque Univertelle, an honour as unexpected as it was unsolicited, and which proved that the value of his scientific labours was appreciated in countries beyond his own. Among his correspondents were Mr. D..vies Gilbert, P.R.S. Colonel Sabine, Sir William Hooker, Sir David Brewster, and various others of scientific distinction. Nor were the energies of his active and inquiring mind confined to the subjects above noted. His course of study embraced a wide range of science and literature. He was well skilled in botany, chemistry, zoology, and all kindred branches of knowledge, and was intimately acquainted with every department of history. Living in a rural parish, his attention was naturally directed to agriculture, and many an interesting essay on this subject proceeded from his pen ; many of which appeared in the columns of the Aberdeen Journal.

In ecclesiastical affairs Dr. Farquharson was a consistent Moderate ; in politics, a steady Conservative. In neither character, however, did he ever display a bigoted or narrow spirit. While be could firmly yet temperately maintain his own principles, he could freely accord credit for honourable purpose to those who conscientiously differed from him. In all the relations of private life his conduct was uniformly such as became a Christian pastor.

” Remote from towns he ran his goodly

race, Nor e’er had changed, nor wished to

change his place.”

In the comparatively retired scene of his usefulness did he cherish the most ardent zeal for the welfare of all within the sphere of his influence, and was ever ready with his best aid in the cause of philanthrophy. His principles of action were inspired from sources which forbade the intrusion of ostentatious intent or

sinister motive ; he sought the testimony of an approving conscience, and was ” an Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile.” He has left a widow and a numerous and foung family. {Aberdeen Journal.)

What do YOU think ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *