According to the view that France is the subject under consideration, this clause refers to the boastful words of the revolutionists who abolished all religion and set up the worship of the Goddess of Reason. When later the worship of the Supreme Being was introduced the reactionaries made clear that he was not to be identified with the God of the Christian religion.

 On the fulfillment of this passage according to the view that the papacy is here under consideration see on ch. 7:11, 25; cf. 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 13:5, 6.

According to the view that France is here described, these words are understood to describe the excesses of atheism indulged in by some of the more radical leaders of the Revolution. As an example of this, on Nov. 26, 1793, the Commune, or governing body, of the city of Paris took official action abolishing all religion in the capital of France. Although this action was reversed by the National Assembly a few days later, it nevertheless illustrates the influence to which atheism attained during that period.

 Those who understand these verses to apply to the great apostate power of Christian history, consider this passage parallel to Dan. 8:11, 25; 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 13:2, 6; 18:7. They see the prediction of the present verse fulfilled in the papal claim that the pope is the vicegerent of Christ on earth, in the power claimed for the priesthood, and in “the power of the keys”—the claimed authority to open and close heaven to men.

 Among Adventist expositors two views concerning the interpretation of vs. 36-39 have generally been held. One interpretation identifies the power described here as revolutionary France in the year 1789 and following. The other interpretation holds that the power delineated here is the same apostate, persecuting power described in the preceding verses.

Those who understand “the king” to refer to the power of France during the Revolution emphasize that it must be a new power that is introduced here, because it appears immediately after the mention of the “time of the end” and because, presumably, it must fulfill certain specifications that have not been stated concerning the power depicted in the previous verses, particularly that its willfulness will be manifested in the direction of atheism. It is, of course, a fact of common historical knowledge that the guiding philosophy of the French Revolution was not only anticlerical but atheistic as well, and that this philosophy had far-reaching effects on 19th-and even 20th-century thought. Furthermore, that revolution and its aftermath mark the close of the 1260-year period of prophecy.

 Those who believe that “the king” of this verse is the power depicted in v. 32, point to the fact that in the Hebrew the definite article precedes the word “king.” This would seem to imply that the ruler here brought to view has already been referred to. They contend that the reference to “the time of the end” in v. 35 may point forward and does not necessarily indicate that vs. 36-39 are to be put exclusively after the beginning of that time in 1798 (see on v. 35), especially inasmuch as not until v. 40 is an event specifically said to occur “at the time of the end.” They understand the description of the power in vs. 36-39 to indicate, not atheism, but rather an attempt to supplant all other religious power. Those who hold this view also call attention to the parallelism of chs. 2; 7; 8-9. They conclude that ch. 11 may be expected to carry out the same parallel, and that it is concerned with the culmination of the same apostate power depicted in the other prophecies of the book of Daniel.