Remarks on The
Prophetic Visions
in the Book of Daniel
by
S. P. TREGELLES, LL.D.
Seventh Edition, 1965
Matthew 24: 15: “When ye therefore shall
see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso
readeth, let him understand.”
THE SOVEREIGN GRACE ADVENT TESTIMONY
*
* *
[v]
PREFACE
TO THE FOURTH EDITION
The Remarks
on the Prophecies in Daniel, contained in the following pages, originally
appeared in separate portions, at different times, from 1845 to 1847. They were then printed and published just as
I had time to prepare them from the notes with which I was furnished which had
been carefully and efficiently taken whilst I went through these portions of
prophecy orally with some Christian friends.
My work of preparation, from the notes which were put into my hands for
the purpose, was carried on while I had but little access to books of
reference, and thus I could give my “Remarks”
no such complete revision as I could have wished.
When the last of the separate parts appeared, the whole was
published in one volume, which has twice been reprinted, just as it was, to
meet an existing demand, without however any revision on my part, or I believe
any intentional alteration.
These three impressions having been out of print for some
time, I was requested to publish a new edition, but I was unwilling that the
book should be again printed without giving to the whole that careful and
thorough revision which ought to be bestowed on everything relating to those
truths which God has taught in His word. I have, therefore, examined every part
with Scripture; and although the alterations in the statements of the “Remarks” are but few, yet here and there various
additions [vi] have been made, such as appeared to
me to be either needful or desirable. It
has thus been during more than two years under my hand, at times, for the purpose
of this revision.
To the original “Remarks”, as
first published, I have now added so much as almost to make this to be a new book. It contains all that was published before,
but with more than an equal quantity in addition of what is new.
The principal material enlargements have been in the “Note on the Year-day
System” (which has now extended to a whole chapter, in order to consider
the subject fully), the “Note on the Interpretation of
Daniel xi by past History”, and the “Note on
Prophetic Interpretation in Connection with Popery and the Corruption of
Christianity.” In this
last-mentioned Note 1 have now endeavoured fully to show how the word of God
meets Romish and non-evangelical error, and that the simple application of
Scripture, as literally understood, does not in any sense palliate Popery,
whether regarded in its doctrines or its practices.
It is not, I believe, needful to specify the minor
enlargements and alterations throughout the “Remarks”;
they have been introduced without making any change in the general principles
as to the explanation of Daniel, or in their application to particular details.
The “Note on the
In “Concluding Remarks” I have
stated some particulars relative to the origin of the following pages, and also
spoken of some of the dangers against which students of prophecy do well to be
on their guard.
The “Map of the Ancient Persian and
Roman Empires”, and the “Explanatory Notice”,
are also amongst the additions now made.
[vii]
The reader will perceive that my “Remarks”
are so connected with the portions of Scripture to which they relate, that, for them to be rightly followed, the Bible
should be kept open for continual reference.
I believe that these “Remarks”
have already been found of use to some, in their endeavours to know what is
taught us in the word of God. That they
may continue to be blessed to this end is my earnest desire and prayer.
Whatever leads us simply to the Scripture, which is the testimony of the Holy
Ghost concerning Jesus Christ our Lord, in His sufferings and in His glory, may
be known by our souls as replete with establishment in the apprehension of His
truth and grace.
If readers, who pass by all Prefaces, find themselves on good terms
with the books they read, authors perhaps have no right to complain; but as
with our friends, so with our books; might not many mistakes be avoided, and
after-explanations be rendered needless, if we took care not to overlook the
conventional ceremony of an introduction?
S. P. T.
August 18, 1852.
In issuing a fresh reprint of this volume no alteration has
been made beyond mere verbal corrections and occasionally the addition of a
brief note or of a few words; an Alphabetical Index has also been added. I have not judged it best to make allusions
to works on the subject which have appeared since 1852: I have not, however,
neglected them; though in no case have I seen it needful to change the views
previously expressed; indeed, on many points they have been materially
confirmed. I had two reasons for not
discussing the opinions expressed [viii] in more recent works; the one is that such discussions
would so add to the bulk of the volume as to change its character, which unless
it were needful I did not wish: the other is that it would have been too great
a demand on my time and attention, seeing that it is not right for me to do
anything which would materially interfere with that work in which I have
specially to seek to serve the Church of Christ; I mean the Greek Testament on
Ancient Authorities, for which I have collated every accessible ancient
Greek document, and of which the four Gospels were some time ago completed,
before I was compelled by seriously impaired health to lay aside my work for a
time.
It is not for those who value the word of God to shut their eyes to the condition of things
in the professing Church. On the one
side we find the sacrifice of Christ owned as a fact, but its application to us
is made to depend on ecclesiastical ordinances and not on the operation of the
Holy Ghost in leading the soul of the sinner to the blood of the Cross: on the
other hand there are those who would own Christ (and in word perhaps the Holy
Ghost) as acting on the soul, and thus they speak of our deliverance by a
Redemption in power by a living Saviour, while redemption by price paid, a perfect
propitiation wrought out once and for ever by the death of Christ, is utterly
ignored and even denied. Thus on either
side the truth of God is rejected; but what rejection equals that in which the
Cross of Christ is not allowed its true place? that in
which “sacrifice”, “shedding
of blood for the remission of sin”, etc., are words only (if owned at
all), and not substantive realities?
It has been a portent amongst us that those in office and
profession holding the place of Christian teachers have even set themselves to
argue against the very books of Holy Scripture which they were bound to
maintain, [ix] and which are commended to us with all the authority of the incarnate Son
of God.* Such attacks had been but
little expected, except from those not professing to be under the banner of the
Lord Jesus.
* Under
the guise of courtesy we often now find a willingness to concede to opposers
almost every vital point: so that professed defenders of the
authority of Holy Scripture themselves give up, and commend others for giving
up the absolutely decisive teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the Holy
Ghost, through the Apostles, as to questions of simple fact. Thus one who has
professed to vindicate the Pentateuch as to its historic character has been commended
in that he “very wisely declines to avail himself of
the testimony of the New Testament in his attempt to prove the historic
character or Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch.
The use that has been made in this controversy of the supposed testimony
of Jesus Christ is for the purposes of general criticism wholly
irrelevant. It involves certain
theological hypotheses which would be
rejected by very many who are unquestionably orthodox, and to a reverent piety
it is every way offensive. Nothing can
be more impolitic (to put the matter on the very lowest ground) than to make
the Divine wisdom of our Lord responsible for those canons of criticism and
literary opinions which are notoriously
uncertain, fluctuating, and progressive”, etc. If professed defenders can thus write,
what line of demarcation remains between truth and error? If our Lord’s own statements are but a “supposed testimony”, on what can we rely? We have not to make our Lord’s Divine wisdom
responsible for any uncertain, fluctuating, and progressive canons of
criticism, but we have to subject our notions on such subjects to His divine
teaching. If we are not to believe Him
when He said “Moses wrote of me”, if we may
doubt His wisdom and truth in saying this, then (and not till then) we may be Christians
of “reverent piety”, though rejecting alike the
writings of Moses and the words of Jesus.
It is not surprising that those who set aside the reality of our Lord’s
work of propitiatory sacrifice should contemn first the law in which sacrifice
is so taught, and then our Lord Himself as an authoritative teacher.
[x]
Also, in that which professes to be the true spiritual part of
Christ’s Church, what laxity do we find!
All that I said in the conclusion of this volume as to Definite
Confessions of faith has a tenfold force now.
New things seem so opposed by some who make pretensions to the holding
of Evangelical truth as the doctrine of Scripture (so firmly held by the
Reformers) of our acceptance in the imputed righteousness of our Lord Jesus
Christ. They admit anything rather than
that He so kept the Law for us that His living obedience is put down to the
account of every sinner who is cleansed in His blood. This is one way in which Christ’s real substitution is set aside: He obeyed for us meritoriously
in His life, even as He suffered penally for us in His death. But the reality of His incarnation (as set
forth in all the old and orthodox confessions) is opposed by those who either
deny the true sacrifice of the cross or who contradict the true doctrine of
imputation. The Lord in His life obeyed
the Law, and it is in vain to contemn such living obedience by asking if it was
“mere law fulfilling”: for if Jesus did ever
and in all things obey the Law, loving the Lord His God with all His heart and
with all His mind and soul, and strength, then was His whole life a righteous
law - fulfilling, beyond which He could not go: and by God’s grace, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one
that believeth”. But in fact
those who suggest such doubts seem not to know what is meant by the holiness of
God, the law of God, the one obedience by which many shall be constituted
righteous; and they only confuse the unwary by some new and false notions on
the whole subject of substitution and sacrifice as a sweet savour before
God. But the denial of a doctrine of God
does not make it the less true and precious, or its maintenance of the less
importance.
S. P. T.
* *
*
[xi]
PREFACE
First published in 1852.
The last hundred years have seen six editions of this invaluable book,
revised and amplified by the author. The
sixth edition has been in demand since his death and through two World Wars has
informed and instructed Christians in the sure word of prophecy. Mr G. H. Lang in his various books
recommended it highly; and C. H. Spurgeon in his ‘Commenting and Commentaries’ said of the book ‘Tregelles is
deservedly regarded as a great authority upon prophetical subjects’. The S.G.A.T. Council recommends it
today. The last, long chapter on a ‘Defence of the authenticity of the Book of Daniel’
has been omitted, not because of any disagreement but for economic reasons
and because no prophetic student today has any doubts about the subject in view
of our Lord’s endorsement. An appendix
has been added on the life and works of Dr. Tregelles.
*
* *
[Xii blank.
Xiii]
CONTENTS
PREFACE v
Note Descriptive of the Maps of the
Ancient Empires of Prophecy xv
INTRODUCTION -
The Budding of the Fig-tree. Page 1
THE IMAGE (Daniel 2) Page 6
THE GREAT TREE (Daniel 4) Page 24
THE FOUR BEASTS (Daniel 7) Page 30
Note on the
THE RAM AND HE GOAT (Daniel 8) Page 75
THE SEVENTY HEPTADS (Daniel 9) Page 92
Note on the “Year-day System” Page 111
THE PROPHECY CONCERNING THE JEWS IN
THE LATTER DAYS. Daniel 10, 11,
12 Page 127
Note on the Rendering and Connection
of Daniel 12: 2 Page 164
Note on the Interpretation of the
former Part of Daniel 11
by Past History
Page 170
Note on Prophetic Interpretation in
Connection
with Popery and the Corruption of
Christianity Page 184
CONCLUDING REMARKS Page 215
APPENDIX - TREGELLES’ LIFE Page 226
Index Page 231
* * *
[xiv blank xv]
NOTE DESCRIPTIVE OF THE MAPS OF THE
ANCIENT EMPIRES OF PROPHECY
These maps have been introduced as showing the extent of the
territory to which the prophecies of Daniel refer: these ancient empires are
exhibited on the same scale, so that they may at once be easily compared.
The limits of the Babylonian monarchy, under Nebuchadnezzar,
cannot be defined with certainty; besides the territory which he actually held, there was also, in all probability, a
large extent of country under his sway and influence, although actually
governed by subordinate sovereigns. The
territory of the Medo-Persian kings is accurately known. It must however be borne in mind that the
Persian empire comprised large districts of mountain and desert, and that the
provinces, separated by such regions, often owned a very partial allegiance to
a monarch ruling in Susa or Ecbatana. There were also districts which, though
lying within the Persian monarchy, were governed by vassal kings.
For many years before the reign of the last Darius the
The
These maps were supplied by Bishop D.A. Thompson, as used in
his booklet “TheVisions & Prophecies of Daniel Illustrated”
-------
[Page 1]
INTRODUCTION
THE BUDDING OF THE FIG-TREE
“Now learn a parable of the fig-tree:
When his branch is yet tender and putteth forth leaves,
ye know that summer is nigh: so likewise ye, when ye shall
see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors” (Matt.
24: 37, 33).
In this
instruction of our Lord to His disciples He shows them the manner in which
their expectation was to be directed to coming events. He had told them of the condition of things,
in connection with
Centuries have passed since the discourse on the
It may be said, What use can it have
been to the Church to have had to wait for so many years? What profit is there
to us in being directed to that which for eighteen hundred years has not taken
place? If Christ has commanded it, that is enough - He will always vouchsafe
blessing to those who are doers of His will - but further, [Page 2] there is profit which a spiritual mind can apprehend; for if this word had
been heeded by saints, it would have kept them from many of those associations
and objects which are contrary to the leadings of the Spirit: for thus they
would have had before their minds the character and close of this dispensation,
and the place of Christ’s faithful servants in the midst of the nations,
holding the gospel of the kingdom as a witness, but seeing the world’s
corruption as a thing which flows on unchanged in its nature (while souls are
gathered one by one out of it), even up to the coming of the Lord Himself. Had
this exhortation been rightly heeded, the hope of the coming of Christ would
not have passed away from the minds of saints, so as to be looked at as a thing
which, at all events, is not a practical doctrine.
Suppose I were cast upon some uninhabited isle, in a clime in
which I could not (from my ignorance of its situation) count the seasons by
months; and if the object of my hopes was the summer, and I found a fig-tree,
and knew that its budding forth would intimate the approach of that season. I
should watch the tree; I should often examine whether it was beginning to bud
forth. I might look week after week and see nothing; I might think I saw some indications of sprouting,
and then find it all come to nothing, but still I should watch on. Now, if I
also knew that a ship came to the island at a particular time in the summer,
this would be a point of hope to me, for it would hold out the prospect of
deliverance; and this would make me doubly diligent in watching and waiting for
the budding. Hope would connect itself with those things which indicate its
accomplishment. And these things occupying my mind, I should be preserved from
the thought of regarding the solitary isle as my abode. I might find long
patience to be needful, but at [Page 3] length the buds would come forth; and
then, according to the indication of the season, the wished-for vessel.
Thus is it with regard to the Church. God has given us a point
of hope, and He has also instructed us with regard to indications of its
accomplishment: the point of hope is that to which the soul tends, while the
detail of intervening circumstances affords the needed instruction, from which
is learned the practical walk of those who possess such a hope. If held in the
Spirit, these things cannot take away from the power of the hope - they were
revealed for the directly contrary purpose: the early Church knew them, and
found them to have a practical and separating power; and in the body of detail
with which the epistles (especially the later ones) are furnished, the dark
statements of coming evil are given in order that the evil may be avoided, and
the bright hope of the glory of the day of Christ might shine through it all
and in contrast to it all. Had not the Church been so taught, the taunt, “Where is the promise of His coming?” might indeed be
felt as troubling the soul; but when we know that we have been warned of deeper
darkness before the morning, we may indeed feel that the more conscious we are
of deepening gloom, the more rejoicingly may we look onward to the dawn.
Nothing gives us any indication of the immediate introduction of the latter
day, except this to which Christ directs us; we may see many things to make us
expect that the fig-tree would soon bud, but when we see the buds (and not till
then) can we speak with certainty as to what is forthwith to come to pass. We might see attempts of the nations to set
the Jews in the Holy Land - this ought to make us look carefully to Jerusalem;
God might hinder those efforts, or He might [Page 4] allow the fearful closing scenes of
this dispensation to issue out of them, as at length He will do.
The importance of the detail of prophesy is
very great to the believer: it certainly is a sad thing to see this
extensive portion of God’s truth overlooked and neglected. It is by the detail
of prophecy that we learn how to walk in the midst of present things according
to God; it is thus we learn His judgment about them, and what their issue will
be. Many Christians directed their minds much to this a few years ago; but it
cannot, I believe, be denied that this portion of revealed truth has more
recently been neglected and overlooked. Those who have done this have surely
omitted to see how important its present bearing is on the conscience and
conduct: what other portion of revelation shows so
clearly the separateness from all that is opposed to the Lord, to which
believers are called?
There is such a thing as having held truths and then let them
slip; this shows a want of Christian watchfulness. There is such a thing as
having set truths before others, and when the time of their application
arrives, failing in using them ourselves. Most spiritual minds feel conscious
of the power of Satan being great at this time and his workings peculiarly
dangerous; but if I see from the word of God that these things are to be, I
shall be one of those who know these things beforehand, and this knowledge is
to be used as my safeguard, that I be not carried away with the error of the
wicked. The voyager who knows from his charts those parts of his course in
which danger most exists should be found the most prepared to act in the
emergency; it will not take him by surprise.
But it may be said that if results are rightly known nothing
more is needed; but surely then we should be [Page 5] [Page 5] using our own thoughts as to all the
things connected with those results. The mere knowledge of a coming deluge
would never have led to the construction and arrangement of the ark. The
knowledge of a result may lead to presumption of the most fearful kind. The
whole testimony of the word is our safeguard.
The following Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of
Daniel are intended especially to direct the mind towards some of the important
portions of the detail of prophecy with which the Scripture furnishes us.
Should they be found helpful to Christians who desire to learn from the
prophetic word and to know for themselves what that
word teaches, their object will be fully attained. To this end may the Lord
vouchsafe His blessing!
* *
*
[Page 6]
THE IMAGE (DANIEL 2)
THE book
of Daniel is that part of Scripture which especially treats of the power of the
world during the time of its committal into the hands of the Gentiles, whilst
the ancient people of God, the children of Israel, are under chastisement on
account of their sin.
The first chapter opens with the statement that
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up against Jerusalem, that he besieged
the city, that “the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah
into his hand, with part of the vessels of the
house of God, which he carried into the land of
Shinar, to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god”.
This may, I believe, be regarded as such an introduction to the book as shall
guide our thoughts as to its subject; the nation of Israel had departed from
God, and He now delivers Judah, that portion of them with whom He had dealt in
the most protracted long-suffering, into the hands of Gentiles, to whom He now
commits power over His chosen city, Jerusalem.
The distinctive object in the book of Daniel is to reveal, at the very
period at which this committal has been made, what would be the course,
character, and consummation of the power so bestowed.
We may divide this book into two portions - that part which is
written in the Chaldee language, and that which is
written in Hebrew. While we see that the
book has one general scope - namely, Jerusalem given by God for a time into the
power of the Gentiles who bear rule - we may regard this in two ways; we may
either look at [Page 7] Gentile power in the outline of its
history, or we may look at those things relating to this power in their local
connection with Jerusalem. Now, the
course, character, and crises of Gentile power are taken up in this book in the
Chaldee language, while those things which are limited in their application to
the Jews and
There are very few portions of the Scripture which are written
in Chaldee; there are some parts of Ezra (chap. 4:
8 to 6: 19, and 7: 12-27) so
written, which bring before us the children of Israel as being under the power
of the Gentiles; there are some parts of this book; and there is one verse in Jeremiah (10: 11) which contains a message sent to the
Gentiles. This verse occurs just as the
gods of the nations had been mentioned in contrast with the living God.
It is important that we should so bear in mind the inspiration
of Scripture as to recognise that nothing respecting it can be looked on as
accidental; there must be in every circumstance a reason as to whatever God has
written, and however He has written it, whether we possess sufficient spiritual
intelligence or not to apprehend it.
Now, in such a case as the present we may be sure that God has not made
this difference of language without a very definite object. The Chaldee portion of Daniel commences at
the fourth verse of the second chapter, and continues to the end of the seventh chapter: all the rest of the book is
written in Hebrew. In the Chaldee
portion we see power in the hands of the Gentile presented before us to its
character, course, and consummation; and in the latter portion of the book we
see the same power localised in connection with the Jews and
[Page 8]
We are often instructed in Scripture by having the same set of
facts presented before us in different aspects: each aspect may show but a few
features of difference, but still enough will be found to evince that the
variety is not without its value. As an
illustration of this we may take the parables of our Lord, in the thirteenth chapter of St
Matthew. He teaches there on one
general subject, the effects which would result from the introduction of the
gospel amongst men: He illustrates the results, both of good and of evil (from
the counter working of Satan), until the day when the tares shall be separated
from among the wheat - when the fishes, good and bad, shall receive their
respective allotments. Instead of one narrative. or one
continuous parable, He uses many, and thus we receive instruction in its
individuality as to its several parts, and also in its completeness as to the
whole instruction given.
This mode of Scripture teaching, by the presentation of many
pictures of the same truths, in order that their bearings and connections may
be clearly and rightly apprehended, is especially found in the book of Daniel;
in the first chapter of which we see Judah,
because of sin, delivered into the hands of their enemies and carried into
exile to Babylon.
Thus it is that the prophet is placed in the land of
strangers: Daniel had not personally committed the sins which led to the
captivity, but as part of the Israelitish nation it was his to share their
lot. He and his companions are brought
into a place of particular connection with the king’s court, and this was an occasion
of proving if their hearts were faithful to God or not. Daniel refused the appointed portion of the
king’s meat, of which he, as an Israelite, could not partake without
defilement, and thus in the midst of
In the second chapter we
read of the vision shown by God to the king of
In the vision of this chapter the moral character and acting
of this power towards God are not stated (except indeed as one who knew the
mind of God might gather it from the crisis), but for this we must look for
further light in the subsequent visions of the book.
Here all is presented as set before the king according to his
ability of apprehension, the external and visible things being shown as man
might regard them. The vision of
Nebuchadnezzar was of a great image with the head of gold, the breast and arms
of silver, the belly and thighs of brass, and the legs of iron; in the
interpretation all these several parts are taken up, and the symbolic meaning
of each is stated. The four metals of
which the image consisted represented four kingdoms which should successively
bear rule in the earth.
To understand the Scriptures aright we have no occasion to go
beyond the limit of the Scriptures themselves. The same passage of revealed
truth which tells us of the authority of holy Scripture tells us also of its
sufficiency: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of
God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3: 16, 17). Thus nothing can be needed by the man of God, in order that he
should be “thoroughly furnished”, beyond the
inspired writings contained in the Bible.
We have then no necessity to go out of the Scripture itself in order to
gain information as to those things of which we read in Scripture; we may find
many things which are interesting as bearing upon Scripture, but still whatever
God looks on as needful for the establishment of the souls of His people, and
for their spiritual intelligence in His [Page 11] truth, is to be found within the
limits of His Scripture. History is not
revelation; and we are nowhere commanded to search history to learn the truths
found in God's word; although it may be owned most freely that God's word sheds
a light upon the things which man has written as history, and that many lessons
may be learned from seeing how different are the thoughts of God and of man
about the same events.
We have no occasion whatever to go beyond the limits of
Scripture to learn what the four kingdoms are which are thus mentioned in
Daniel.
First. It was said expressly to Nebuchadnezzar that the head
of gold symbolised his kingdom (ver.
37, 38):
“Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the
God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory: and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he
given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler
over them all.
Thou art this head of gold.”
These last words fix the first kingdom incontestably to be that of
Now as to the terms in which the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s
power is stated, of course we are not to understand that he actually held and
exercised this rule over every part of the inhabited earth, but rather that, so
far as God was concerned, all was given into his hand, so that he was not
limited as to the power which he might obtain in whatever direction he might
turn himself as conqueror; the only earthly bound to his empire was his own
ambition. This is just what we find also
in Jer. 27: 5, 6: “Thus saith the Lord of
hosts ... I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon
the ground, by my great power and by my
outstretched [Page 12] arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now have I given
all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of
Second. He was told, “after thee shall rise another
kingdom inferior to thee”. To
find out what kingdom was intended we have only to inquire what kingdom
succeeded to that of Babylon; in 2 Chron. 36: 20 we read of Nebuchadnezzar, “them that had escaped from the sword, carried he away to Babylon, where
they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia”. And indeed in this book of Daniel itself we find a plain intimation of what
the second kingdom should be which should succeed that of Babylon; in chap. 5: 28 it is said, “Peres;
thy kingdom is divided, and
given to the Medes and Persians.”
Although these [Page 13] were two nations, yet the
Medo-Persian kingdom is regarded as being one, as we also find in chap. 8: 20.
* The extent
of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion was, however, very great, far greater than many
have supposed. In the course of his
conquests he must have become the wielder of most of the powers of the earth as
it then was. We know something of the
greatness which
Third. In the vision the king had seen “his belly and his thighs of brass” (verse 32), and this is defined in the
interpretation to be “another third kingdom of brass,
which shall bear rule over all the earth”. In chap. 8 we learn (verse 21)
what this kingdom was, to which dominion was given after that of the Medes and
Persians “the rough goat is the king of Grecia”;
this symbolic goat had been previously spoken of as destroying the ram, which
was used in that vision as the symbol of the Medo-Persian kingdom. The commencement of chap. 11.
tells us the same thing.
Fourth. In the vision the image had been seen with “his legs of iron” (verse
33); in the interpretation we read, “the fourth
kingdom shall be strong as iron, forasmuch as
iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things,
and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it
break in pieces and bruise” (verse 40). We shall not find the name of this fourth kingdom in the Old Testament, although we see here,
and in other places, its character and description. But we learn from the New Testament what this
kingdom is; for we there find another bearing rule over the earth after that of
Thus we may see that it is wholly needless to go to any other
source than that of the Revelation of God in order to discover what these four
successive kingdoms are - the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, Roman.
It must be obvious to the Christian student of Scripture how much
more satisfactory it is thus to learn the details of facts from the word of God
than from the records of history; the latter may be true, but the former
commands our faith, and leaves us with a confidence of certainty which we never
can have with regard to facts derived from other sources. It would have been indeed strange if it had
been necessary for us to draw from the doubtful statements of profane
historians in order to understand prophecy; and we must also remember how many
would find it impossible to do this.
The metals which symbolise these kingdoms become less and less
pure. A certain process of deterioration
appears to be marked out as to power, while passing from one kingdom to
another.*
* It may
be worthy of observation that the metals in the image lessen in their specific
gravity as they go downwards;
iron is not so heavy as brass, and thus the weight is so arranged as to exhibit the
reverse of stability, even before we reach the mixture of clay and iron.
When Nebuchadnezzar received the committal from God it was
simply power from Himself, not derived from man, not
dependent on the will of others, but put by God into his hand and exercised in
responsibility to Him alone, as the only ruler of princes. Nebuchadnezzar might rightly bear, as far as
man was concerned, the name of autocrat: his will was law. Now, we can see in part from Scripture how
power deteriorated in its character
in the [Page
15] other kingdoms. The
In the continual hindrances thrown in the way of the Jews
after their return from Babylon, when they attempted to carry out the edicts of
the Persian kings in their favour, we see manifest proof how the governors, and
others in authority under the Persian kings, could oppose the execution of the
pleasure of the sovereign.
We do not read much in Scripture as to the Grecian power, and
therefore details as to the manner of the deterioration are not to be pressed;
only the fact of such deterioration of
power being intimated should be noticed.
In one respect the Scripture appears to indicate the mode of
this deterioration, when it tells us of the divisions of the third kingdom, so
that it continued in a fragmentary and not a united form.
[Page 16]
The fourth kingdom is said to be “as
strong as iron”. As a metal this
is in many respects inferior to brass, although possessed of much more strength
for certain purposes, and capable of far more extensive application. Strength
and force are spoken of, but still apparently deterioration.
It may also be noticed that the deterioration of the fourth
kingdom is especially shown in its last state.
Each of the four kingdoms appears as succeeding that which had
gone before, not as annihilating it, but as incorporating it with itself - each
making, as it were, the dominion of the metal which had gone before a part of itself. Just so do we
read in chap. 5:
28 of the manner in which the kingdom of the
Medes and Persians succeeded to that of Babylon: “Thy
kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians”; the kingdom not
being, as it were, destroyed, but transferred - that is, the cities and nations
were to continue in existence, while the glory which had belonged to them
passed into the hand of other powers.
The committal of power in all the fullness spoken of in verses 37, 38
appears to belong to Nebuchadnezzar personally, or at
all events to have been confined to the
* The
senate often made a show of appointing the emperor, but their decree was, in
general, simply a needful compliance on their part. So, too, in the case of Vespasian, although
the people
of Rome professed to bestow on him the imperial power (as recorded in
the still existing bronze tablets), yet, in fact, they had no real power, for
Vespasian already had the military rule in his own hands.
In verse 40 we have rather
the character of the Roman power than its territorial extent; this latter
subject does not appear to belong to the scope of the present vision, which we
have to regard especially as speaking of these kingdoms in their succession
from
The “potter’s
clay” (verse 41) means, I believe,
simply “earthenware” - that which is hard but
yet brittle; softness does not seem to be at all the thing pointed out. Now, an image which stood partly upon feet of
earthenware would be very stable so long as there was nothing but direct
pressure brought to bear upon these feet, while a blow falling upon them would
break them to pieces, and that only the more thoroughly from the fact [Page 18] of iron being intermixed with the earthenware; this I believe to be the
thought here presented to us.
We see from verse 42 that
the part of the feet thus formed of iron and clay intermixed was the toes; and
the interpretation which is given is, “the kingdom
shall be partly strong and partly broken” (or, rather, “brittle”). In verse 43 the explanation is continued, “they
shall mingle themselves with the seed of men”; thus there will be power
(in its deteriorated form, iron) mixed up with that which is wholly of man, and
which, when put to the proof, is found to be only weakness itself.
Thus we see this fourth empire especially brought before us at
a time when in a divided condition, and when thus debased. The number of the toes of the feet appears to
imply a tenfold division: this may be taken as a hint given to us here,
although the more specific statement of the fact is not told us till farther on
in this book. This kingdom is then divided into parts, which we shall see from
other portions of the Scripture (especially chap.
7) to be exactly ten. Power in the hands of the people is seen,
having no internal stability, although something is still left of the strength
of the iron.
Verse 44. Here we see that when the image is fully developed,
even to the toes of the feet, then destruction falls on it. In the vision it had been stated (verse 35) that all the materials of the image
became, when smitten, “like the chaff of the summer
threshing-floors, and the wind carried them away, that no place
was found for them”. This
expression may give us some intimation of the moral character of these kingdoms
before God, such as we do not find anywhere else in the chapter; just as we
read in the first Psalm, “The ungodly ... are like the
chaff which the wind driveth away.”
The expression in verse 44,
“in the days of these kings”, [Page 19] is worthy of attention, for it brings before our minds more than had been
expressly stated, either in the vision or in the interpretation; namely, that
the kingdom which had last borne rule has been divided, and that the toes of
the feet do actually symbolise such divided parts. “These kings”
cannot mean the four successional monarchies, because in that case the plural
number could not be used seeing that they do not co-exist as the holders of
power. The fourth kingdom is divided
into parts (which other Scriptures show to be exactly ten), and “in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a
kingdom which shall never be destroyed”.
This kingdom is in its character utterly unlike the four which
had preceded it; it has nothing springing from Babylonian headship, which may
be transferred, and become deteriorated in the hands of men, but it stands in
direct contrast to all that has been.
It is important to observe very distinctly what is the crisis of the image: “a stone
was cut out without hands, which smote the image
upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and
brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold,
broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” (ver. 34,
35 ).
Now, what does the stone so falling upon the feet of the image
symbolise? It has been sometimes thought
that it alludes to grace, or to the spread of the gospel; but surely if the
very words of the Scripture be followed, we shall see that destroying judgment
on Gentile power is here spoken of, and not any gradual diffusion of the
knowledge of grace. The image is
standing on its feet, [Page 20] part of iron and part of earthenware; the stone then
falls from above upon these feet, and the whole image is destroyed as it were
with one crash.
Now, our Lord speaks of Himself as the “stone”, and makes reference,
or direct citation of, several passages in the Old Testament in which he had
been so designated. Thus in Matt. 21 He
says, “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The
stone which the builders rejected, the same is
become the head of the corner: this is the
Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
... And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be
broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder” (ver. 42,
44).
Our Lord here cites from Psalm 118,
and alludes to the mention made in Isaiah 8
to the stone on which Israel has stumbled and been broken; and he likewise
clearly refers to the destroying judgment which takes place when the stone, now
exalted at the head of the corner, falls thus upon the fabric of Gentile power
- “it will grind him to powder”.
“The stone” must be taken as a
definite appellation of our Lord. We see
this from Psalm 118: 22, Isaiah 8: 14 and 28: 16, Acts 4: 11, and 1 Peter 2:
4, 6, in
all of which Christ is spoken of under this name. Now, this cannot refer to Him as born into
the world, because the fourth kingdom was not then in its divided condition - no toes were then
in existence. This falling on the feet
of the image could not, therefore, have anything to do with our Lord when He
was upon earth. Equally impossible is it
for this to symbolise the spread of the gospel; for, so far from Christians
being put in the place of destroying those that bear earthly rule, they are
taught submission to the powers that be as ordained of God and their place is to suffer, if needs be, but
not to rebel.
Thus, it is clear that the Lord Jesus is here referred [Page 21] to as coming again - in the day when He shall take to Himself his great
power and shall reign - when He shall be revealed “in
flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know
not God, and
obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 1: 8).
It might occur as a difficulty that the Roman empire does not exist as one united body; and hence it might
be thought that the stone falling on the image must have been some past event:
but observe, the
* Not
only did the monarchies of
Now, we may regard “the stone”
in three different ways, for we find it in Scripture so spoken of, in
connection with
How different is the connection of the Church with this
stone! “To whom
coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed
of men, but chosen of God and precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood”, etc. Thus could the Apostle Peter address those
who by nation belonged to
I have already spoken of the relation of this stone to Gentile
power, but I would remark further, that the utter distinctness of this power
from that which stands in grace is most vividly presented to us in the crisis
of this power. The Church is built upon
the stone; the image is destroyed by the stone falling upon it. We ought carefully to note the distinctions
which God makes in His word, and no line of demarcation which He has laid down
is more plain than that which exists between the world
and its power on the one hand and the Church on the other. How wondrously does it show the power of Satan
in confusing the mind as to things that differ, that it should have been
supposed to be possible for the Church rightly to rest upon the power of this
world - upon that which the Lord Jesus is going thus to judge!
Let the saints rightly value their place as identified with
Christ, as resting upon Him, and then they will [Page 23] see aright how to act as to any
connection with the world and its power.
A saint who identified himself with the image would be, as it were, so
far seeking to put himself in the place of that which will receive destroying
judgement. It is quite true that God
will keep from final condemnation every soul that He has quickened by the
Spirit to believe in Christ; but it would evince a hardihood of mind which
seems scarcely compatible with grace for any one deliberately to say, “God will keep me, and so I may put myself in the place where
judgment will fall.” It is for us
to have nothing to do with that upon which the judgment of God will fall, but
to realise our union with Him who will execute the judgment, and in whose
coming [millennial]
kingdom his people will
share.
The second chapter of Daniel may be looked on as the alphabet of the
prophetic [messianic]
statements contained in
the book; and it is well for the mind to
be grounded in the truths contained in this portion of the book, before other
parts of it are searched into. We
have here the four successive empires, the last of these in a divided and
deteriorated condition and then, in
contrast to the whole that had preceded, a kingdom, which shall last
for ever,*
set up by the God of heaven - the coming of the Lord Jesus in destroying
judgment being the turning point which changes the whole [earthly] scene; all that had failed in the hand of man then passing away, and that
which is kept in the Lord’s own hand being then introduced.
[* That
is, in this context, for as long as this earth will last, Rev. 21: 1.]
If we refer to the 8th. Psalm, we shall see the extent of Christ’s
dominion spoken of in
terms very similar to those which in this chapter had been used to describe the
power committed to Nebuchadnezzar: we thus see how the power of the earth,
entrusted to him and which failed in his hand, is taken up by Christ, as One who really is able to hold and to
exercise aright this dominion in all its
wide extent.
* *
*
[Page 24]
THE GREAT TREE (DANIEL 4)
THE
vision in this chapter does not particularly connect itself with the object
proposed in these “Remarks”, which was to speak
of those portions of Daniel which are still, in a great measure, future; it is,
however, one of much interest, for here we find, in the past accomplishment of
a vision, an earnest of the exact and precise fulfilment which all these
visions must necessarily receive.
The form of this chapter is remarkable;
it is a decree proceeding from Nebuchadnezzar himself, after those things had
passed over him which God foretold to him in vision; when he was forced to
confess “the signs and wonders that the high God hath
wrought towards me. How great are his
signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is
from generation to generation” (ver. 2, 3). Thus
did the king, at length, acknowledge the hand and power of God. After the vision in the second chapter had been declared to him by Daniel,
he looked to the prophet as though he were the source of the
communication of divine truth to him: “then the king
Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and
worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they
should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him” (2: 46); he then
acknowledged God as the revealer of secrets, although it is evident that his
heart was in no way humbled before Him.
And thus, in the next chapter, so far from honouring the
living and true God, the king set up his golden image in the plain of Dura,
commanding that all should worship [Page 25] the idol; as if he, who was himself
the receiver of power from God, could himself possess authority to decree
anything as to who should or should not be the object of religious
worship. The miraculous deliverance of
those who refused to obey the king’s command to commit idolatry leads to an
acknowledgment, on his part, of the God whose power had thus shown itself; so
that he made an edict that no one should speak against the God of Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego, on pain of death.
But still his heart was lifted up in pride; he continued to
trust in his own power; and this fourth chapter
is his own remarkable declaration how God had dealt with him to humble
his haughty spirit.
After acknowledging the power of God, he goes on to say, “I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace;
I saw a dream which made me afraid, and the
thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me.” He then describes (ver. 6, 9) how he sought in vain, from the wise men of
Having thus narrated the dream, the king sought the
interpretation from the prophet. Daniel
shows us that the communication of truth from God, or a place of special
service to Him, does not at all interfere with the full action of right human
feelings. He saw that the vision
foretold a solemn chastisement from God which should fall upon Nebuchadnezzar,
and therefore he felt deeply his own position as being thus the communicator of
evil tidings. “Then
Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was atoned
one hour, and his thoughts troubled him. The king spake and
said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or the
interpretation thereof, trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies.” He then, after describing the tree in all its
greatness, adds: “It is thou, O king,
that art grown and become strong: for thy
greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.” He then applies the judgment on the tree [Page 27] to the king: “They shall drive thee from men,
and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field,
and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of
men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” But still the king was told that his kingdom
should be sure unto him, after he knew that the heavens do rule. Daniel’s feeling towards the king did not
allow him to rest with merely delivering the prophecy of chastening; he exhorts
the king as having a true and earnest desire for his welfare: “Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.”
A year passed on: the king’s heart was not humbled; he still
looked on his power and might as his own, and did not confess that rule and
authority are from above, and not from beneath.
He was walking in the palace of the
* It was reserved to our day to bring out to light an abiding
record of the extent of the works of Nebuchadnezzar: the inscription in the
arrow-headed character, found on the bricks in every part of the plain of Babylon, is “Nebuchadnezzar,
the son of Nabopolassar”. Turned to so many new uses, they still
speak of the establisher of
The appointed seven years were at length accomplished in the
king’s humiliation, and then (he says), “At the end of
the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me; and I blessed the most High;
and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever”, etc. (ver. 34). And
then, according to the word of the Lord by Daniel, his kingdom was restored to
him, and “excellent majesty was added to him.” He whose earthly power had been so great had
now learned to “praise,
and extol, and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth,
and his ways judgment: and those that walk in
pride, he is able to abase”.
This is an instructive lesson of the exactitude with which
prophecy is accomplished: it may teach us how we should expect the fulfilment
of what is yet future. These things took
place under the head of the first of the four great monarchies, and thus they
might have been regarded as a warning to those possessed of the power of the
earth, that they might learn who gives them their power, and
who it is that ruleth among the
children of men.
How little this was heeded is shown us in the next chapter,
where Belshazzar, unmindful of what he had known (chap.
5: 22) of
the actings of God, went on in a course of un-humbled blasphemy. The neglected warning made the condemnation
all the greater. The
[* See Heb.
10: 26-30.
Contrary to popular opinion, there is nothing here to suggest, at this
stage during the king’s life, he was not a regenerate man! How many regenerate believers sin “wilfully” today and die unrepentant? Can they lose “the free
gift of eternal life” (Rom. 6: 23,
R.V.)? NO! - a thousand times NO - but they most certainly will not
be raised at the time of “the First Resurrection”: and therefore they will lose
that “life” in the “age”
yet to come (Luke 20: 35), - when others will be resurrected and “shall reign with Him the thousand years” (Rev. 20: 6b, R.V. margin.).
Note the definite article ‘the’,
indicating that it is nota reference to any ‘thousand years’ - but only those promised to Christ as
His inheritance
here,
(Psa. 2: 8).]
Thus has God, from the beginning, shown us what the result is
of power in the hands of the Gentile monarchs: [Page 29] the Giver of authority has been
continually forgotten; it has been regarded as something not received, or else
it has been attributed to wrong sources.
In the sixth chapter of Daniel we find one remarkable exemplification of
what man may do when possessed of authority: Darius was led by the craft of the
presidents and princes to decree that no petition should be asked for thirty
days of any God or man save of himself only. He seems to have thus unwittingly put himself
in the place of God, and thus became an aider of the evil design formed against
Daniel - a design which, by the miraculous interposition of God, issued in the
destruction of those that formed it.
All the results set before us in this book show that power
will never be held as from God, and for God, until Christ takes it into his own hand. God dealt with the first head of Gentile
power for the instruction of those who should come after (“to the intent that the living may know that the Most High
ruleth in the kingdom of men”); but the result has only been farther and
yet farther estrangement from God, until this shall be fully exhibited in the
last head of Gentile power.
* *
*
[Page 30]
THE FOUR BEASTS (DANIEL 7)
THIS
chapter contains a prophetic vision, and its interpretation given to the
prophet, in which the objects are presented not merely according to their
external aspect (as had been the case in the second chapter, in the vision seen
by the king), but according to the mind of God concerning them.
In this vision we not only have again four successive kingdoms
upon earth, and an everlasting kingdom set up by God on the destruction of the
last of these, but we find also distinct details as to moral features, as
regards God and those who belong to Him.
This vision was seen in the first year of King Belshazzar,
when the power of
In speaking of the origin of these four kingdoms we read (verse 2) of “the great sea”
as the scene from which the four symbolic beasts arise; this is not, I believe,
an expression which we should overlook, for the “great
sea” is always used in every other passage of Scripture in which the
phrase occurs as meaning distinctively the Mediterranean
Sea. This, I believe, presents that
sea before us as the centre territorially of the scene of this vision.
Four beasts arise out of this sea (verse
3), and these are [in] (verse 17) interpreted to be “four kings which shall arise out of the earth”. From the words of verse
23, “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth”, it [Page 31] is clear that the words “king” and “kingdom” are used, in passages of this kind, almost in
an interchangeable sense - a kingdom is sometimes looked at as headed up in its
sovereign, whose name is used; at other times the name of the kingdom is used
in speaking of the power, designs, etc., of the sovereign. This must be borne in mind just as much in
reading prophetic narrations as in the common language of life.
We may thus, interchangeably, speak of the Babylonian, Medo-Persian,
Grecian, and Roman empires, or of those of Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander,
and Augustus.
The distinct scriptural proof of what these four kingdoms thus
succeeding each other must be has been given in Remarks on the Great Image, chap. 2, pp. 12, 15: it is needless to repeat it
here; but it may not be amiss to add that the four individuals regarded by God
as the heads of these several monarchies are all of them definitely brought
before us in Scripture, either in historical account or else in distinct
prophecy as to their persons, or both.
Of the four personal heads, Alexander alone is not a subject of
Scripture history, as well as of prophecy.
Now while I believe it to be most important for us to remember
that, for the real spiritual understanding of the word of God, and for its use
as bearing on our consciences, we need no knowledge but that which the Spirit
has given us in the word, yet we may often find truths intimated in the
prophetic Scripture, which throw much light upon what we learn as facts from
other sources. This is a very different
thing from using history in a manner for which God has given us no warrant, as
though the world could be illuminated by any such doubtful, defective, and
glimmering light of man’s kindling.
[Page 31]
Now, in looking at “the great sea”
as the territorial scene of the vision, we must also remember that the time to
which the visions in Daniel belong is that of Gentile power ruling over
Jerusalem and the Jews, and also that the powers are defined (verse 17) to be monarchies; we thus find that each of these beasts symbolises a monarchy
bordering on the Mediterranean and having Jerusalem under its dominion. Now, in point of fact, we find that this was
the case with regard to these powers; each stood as symbolised by a beast, and
it superseded the one that had gone before it, when these three particulars
were true of it, and not before.
This, as it appears to me, is what we have presented before us
in the territorial allotment of the sphere of this vision.
The brief interpretation of the vision is given in verses 17, 18:
“These great beasts,
which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth: but the saints of the most high [places] shall take the kingdom, and
possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and
ever.” This gives us the general
outline of the truths here taught us - the succession of the monarchies, and a kingdom which should arise in contrast to
the earthly empires.
The first of these four kingdoms is here symbolised by a lion
(verse 4) with eagles’ wings: the prophet
beheld it until the wings were plucked - until (I suppose) its ability for
widespread conquest had passed away; it was made to stand on its feet as a man,
and a man’s heart was given unto it.
These words seem to me an intimation of what had taken place with regard
to Nebuchadnezzar, who was taught by the remarkable discipline of God that the
Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men.
The second monarchy was symbolised by
a bear: this beast made for itself “one dominion”
(for so I believe we should render the expression which stands in our version “one side”). The
Medes were an ancient people, and the Persians were a comparatively modern
tribe; neither of these could be looked on as likely to overturn the power of
Babylon; but by the expression “one dominion”
there seems to be a hint of the second [Page 34] kingdom being a united power, so that the one dominion should
be a combination, and thus it stands in contrast to the third and fourth
monarchies which were at first united and afterwards were divided. The three ribs seen in the mouth of the bear
seem to indicate the conquests which it was devouring, according to what was
said to it, “Arise, devour much flesh.”
The four-headed winged leopard, which symbolised the third
kingdom, seems to indicate the rapidity of the conquests of that power, and the
fourfold division which was its after condition.
But it is impossible to read this vision without seeing that
the fourth kingdom is the principal topic brought before us, and that the other
three simply appear as introductory. We
see from verse 19 that this was the impression
made upon Daniel’s mind by that which was exhibited to him in symbol. But not only was the fourth beast the most
conspicuous object, but it was while in a certain condition that the details
concerning it are given, we look in fact rather at the crisis than the course of its history. The description of the beast is given in verse 7: “After this I saw
in the night visions, and, behold, a fourth beast,
dreadful and terrible, and
strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth:
it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it and it was
diverse from all the beasts that were before it”; this is the general
description, and then there is added, “and it had ten
horns,” and then another horn is spoken of as springing up amongst the former
ten. Now, it is clear that it is the
actings of the beast when possessed of this horn, or rather perhaps of this
horn as concentrating the power of the beast, with which in this vision we have
to do.
In the statement which was made to
Daniel we find a [Page 35] very distinct explanation of these
things: it was said to him (verse 23), “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,
which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and break it in pieces: and the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that
shall arise.” Thus we see that
the horns symbolise what this kingdom would become at a particular point of
time, namely, when that empire, which was once united as a monarchy under the
power of the Caesars, should be divided into ten kingdoms. An intimation of this had been given in the
number of the toes of the image in chap. 2, and the same thing is found both in symbol and
in direct statement in the book of Revelation
(see, for instance, chap. 13: 1, and 17: 12).
This, then, must be the state of the Roman earth at the time
when another king, whose actings are here detailed, arises in the midst of the
other kings.
This king is at first symbolised by “a
little horn”: this is not his designation
when acting in blasphemy and persecution, for then the symbolic horn had become
very great, “his look was more stout than his fellows”;
but at first he rises like “a little horn” in the midst of the other
horns, and then so increases in power as
far to surpass them all.
The rise of this last horn was thus shown in the symbol. “I considered the
horns, and,
behold, there came up among them another little
horn, before whom there were three of the first
horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were
eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking
great things” (verse 8). This is explained, in verse 24, to be
another king rising after the first ten, “and he shall
be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue
three kings”: and then his persecution and blasphemy are mentioned.
[Page 35]
As spoken of at first, we meet with nothing but his blasphemy
against God, and then (verse 11) judgment
from God falling upon the beast because of this blasphemy; but when Daniel is
making inquiry as to what all this might mean, some further particulars are
brought before us: “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints,* and prevailed against
them; until the Ancient of Days came [as had been shown in the
previous vision, ver.
9]; and judgment was
given to the saints of the most high [places]; and
the time came that the saints possessed
the kingdom” (verses 21, 22). This
is explained (verse 25), “And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the
saints of the most high [places], and think
to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand,
until a time and times and the dividing of time.”
[*
Contrary popular belief, here we have scriptural proof that all “saints” will not be “accounted
worthy to escape all those things that shall
come to pass” (Luke 21: 36, R.V.) before Antichrist’s persecutions
commence. See also Rev. 3: 10, R.V.]
Thus, we see this king using his power in a twofold form of
opposition to God - in open and direct blasphemy against Him, and in the persecution of his saints. We also find that this opposition continues to the end of his reign, and that this is
consummated by the direct judgment of God.
While the scene presented on earth is the beast energised by
this last horn, wearing out the saints and blaspheming the name of God, we have
also the veil so withdrawn as to unfold to us what at the same time takes place
in heaven. In verses
9 and 10 we have this displayed to
us; a court of judicature is set in heaven, where God judges, and, in
consequence of His judgment, the sentence which is pronounced above, unseen by
any eye save that of faith, is executed upon the earth: “I beheld till the thrones were cast down [or rather were set],
and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure [Page 37] wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire; ... the judgment was set, and the
books were opened”; and then the effect on earth of the judgment in
heaven is thus spoken of: “I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake;
I beheld, even till the
beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.” Verse 12
must be regarded, I think, as a kind of parenthetic statement of the manner in
which the dominion of the three former beasts had passed away, not by any
destroying judgments from God, but by each being superseded by its
successor. But here there is the direct
judgment of God upon the fourth beast, because of the matured evil of its last
horn.
There is a particular and interesting portion of the heavenly
scene in verses 13, 14. There we find “one
like the Son of Man” coming to the Ancient of Days in the place of
judicature, and there receiving
investiture of a certain kingdom.
This is in fact very similar to what we read in Psalm
110, where it is said, “Jehovah shall send the
rod of thy strength [Messiah’s strength] out of
It is impossible for us not to call to mind the various
passages in the New Testament which speak of the Lord Jesus coming “with clouds”, even as when He ascended [Page 38] “a cloud received him out of their sight”:
to instance one of these places:- when our Lord stood before the high priest,
He said, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting
on the right hand of power, and coming in the
clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26: 64). Now, in the expression “sitting on the right hand of power” He clearly
referred to Psalm 110: 1 (see also Psalm 80:
17), but in speaking of the clouds of heaven
He as manifestly alluded to this place in Daniel:
the one passage of the Old Testament brings before us the place into which He,
who has thus been rejected by men, is received by God; the other brings before
us the glory which shall be manifested in His
[second bodily]
coming and taking the rule into His
own hands.
But there is this difference between the mention made of “the clouds of heaven” in Daniel
from that in the New Testament, that here we have not the coming forth
of Christ spoken of, but that which immediately precedes it; I say advisedly
immediately precedes, because He sits at the right hand of Jehovah [in Heaven] until His enemies are made His
footstool, and when God has accomplished that, then this [promised
millennial] kingdom is given in actual investiture to the Son, and He
comes forth to crush His so prepared footstool beneath his feet.
But though this scene, in which the clouds of heaven are
mentioned, is not identical with the actual coming forth of Christ, yet even this passage might
be taken as intimating the very close connection between the two things - for
the court of judicature set in heaven is, so to speak, the intermediate point
between His seat in [heavenly] glory, where He now is, and the manifestation of His person, when “every eye shall see him”; He has with Him the same
adjuncts that He will have when He returns to this earth.
[Page 39]
We have then as the parties before us in the crisis of this
chapter -
Upon earth: 1. The last horn of
the fourth beast, persecuting the saints and blaspheming God.
2. The beast itself with ten horns
(three plucked up before the last horn), so connected with the horn of
blasphemy that it is involved in the judgment on that horn and is in several
important senses responsible for its acts.
3. The saints worn out and warred
against by the horn of blasphemy.
In heaven: 1. The Ancient of Days taking the place of judicature and condemning
the fourth beast because of the words spoken by the horn.
2. The Son of Man brought before Him
with adjuncts of heavenly glory, and receiving above a kingdom which He will
exercise in government upon earth.
If we learn simply from Scripture, I think that there can be
no question as to who or what the fourth beast symbolises - that has been
considered already - but with regard to the horn of blasphemy, it is very
important for us distinctly to see from the word of God whether this be a power
past, present, or future. One thing is
clear, that his dominion and actings in blasphemy and persecution continue up
to the coming of the Lord, because it is then the saints take the kingdom and
not before, and till they take the kingdom he wears them out.
Thus, if he be a power whose rise is past, he must also be
present, and some of his actings must be future. And, further, if his wearing out of the
saints has begun, it must also be now going on and must still continue until
the judgment of verse 10. It might also be left to the consciences of
Christians to say whether they are now at this time enduring active
persecutions of this kind, or [Page 40] whether they are in most places
permitted to dwell in external rest and tranquillity.
We cannot, then, possibly speak of this horn of blasphemy as
already past; just as manifest is it that his dominion is entirely future. The
considerations just stated appear to prove this point.
But, further, it is said (verse 25),
“And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High
[places], and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand, until a time and times and the dividing of time.” Here then we have a chronological statement,
to which we shall do well to take heed.
It is true that this is a period reckoned backward, and thus we can form
no calculation of our own upon it as to times or seasons, but for the purpose
for which God has revealed it, it is so stated as fully to meet the object; it
is a period which runs on to the coming of the Lord Jesus, and must be reckoned
backward from that time. This then gives
the limit of the distinct actings of this horn in blasphemy and persecution; it
commences at the beginning of the “time, times, and a half”, and
runs on to the coming of Christ without any intermission.
This period has been commonly taken (and I have no doubt
rightly so) as signifying three years and a half. Now, we know that it must
mean a period exactly defined, and not about such or such a time; for had
it been merely an indefinite statement, the mention of “half a time” would be useless.
It is impossible to be definite and indefinite at one and the same
time. The word rendered “time” is that which denotes either a stated period or
else a set feast, or else an idea blended, as it were, of the two, namely, the
interval from one of the great set feasts to its recurrence, i.e. a year; thus
then we find a time, i.e. one [Page 41] year; times (the smallest plural, as the statement is definite), two years, and half a year, i.e. three
years and a half.
The word “time” is similarly
used in chap. 4,
where it was foretold to Nebuchadnezzar that he should be driven from men until
“seven times” should pass over him, i.e. seven years; also in Lev. 23, where
the feasts are mentioned, the Hebrew word which corresponds to the Chaldee word
here used (and which itself is found in chap.
12: 7) is
employed in the sense of denoting a set feast, or the period from one
recurrence to another.
Thus then the period at which the especial blasphemy and persecutions
of this horn begin is three years and a half before the coming of the Lord
Jesus - a short time, during which evil will be allowed greatly to prevail, but
then in consequence of its full development the judgment of God will come in.
This then is briefly his history as given in this vision. The Roman earth is found divided into ten
kingdoms: another king arises who destroys three of the former kings: for three
years and a half he acts in open defiance of God, and in persecution of his
saints: the whole Roman earth is so connected with his deeds as to share in the
judgment which comes from the hand of God upon him, and this occurs at the very
time when the kingdom is given into the hand of the Son of Man, and when the
saints take it with Him.
But many may object, ‘Is not the horn
here spoken of the Papacy?’ Does
not history warrant us in charging these blasphemies and persecutions upon that
power?
To this I reply, No appeal to history
can be of any avail in opposition to direct testimony in the word of God. Thus,
unless this power be wearing out the saints
continuously up to the coming of the Lord, the chief point in supposed
resemblance is lost. And even further, [Page 42] if any one chooses openly and fairly to appeal to history, he will find
discrepancies at every point - for instance, the tenfold division of the Roman
earth of which mention is here made has never yet taken place, and therefore,
of course, the horn which was to arise after the others has not yet come into
existence. It is quite true that many
have given lists of kingdoms which arose in the fifth and sixth centuries out
of the broken parts of the Roman empire, but these have all been sought merely
in the west, as though the eastern half were not to be considered, when in fact
the existence of the eastern empire was protracted for a thousand years after
that period.* And further, whatever lists have been made out of ten kingdoms,
they have all varied widely both as to the kingdoms themselves and also as to
which were the three which the Papacy overcame.
It has also been entirely forgotten that the Papacy existed before
the breaking up of even the western empire, instead of being a
horn springing up after the other ten.
* Till
May 29, 1453, when the Turks took Constantinople and the last
But it has been said that this horn must be a power existing
through a long period of time, and not a single king; because it is alleged
that in prophetic language a day is used as a symbol of a year, and therefore a
year as that of three hundred and sixty days (twelve months of thirty days
each), and thus the whole time of the persecution of this horn is twelve
hundred and sixty years. This question
is one into which, in its full statement, I cannot enter in this place, but the
reader will find it examined elsewhere more fully.* I will only here remark,
that if this canon of interpretation were sound the period of Nebuchadnezzar’s
madness (“seven times”) [Page 43] would be still continuing; and not only should we be left in utter
uncertainty in every prophecy in which time was mentioned, but in some we
should even find inextricable incongruities and contradictions. What, for
instance, could we make of the three days during which our Lord was to lie in
the grave? But the comparison of the “seven times” which should pass over Nebuchadnezzar is
sufficient in this place: the dominion of this horn is half of that time, both
are prophetic statements, and thus the allegation is utterly groundless, that
we have here a period predicted of I,260 years.
The accomplished prediction of chap. 4 is authority to us for understanding the
expressions of chap. 7. Let us take it simply
as being what it states - three years and a half, a short period, immediately
followed by the coming of the Lord Himself.
* See
Note on the Year-day System, after Remarks on The Seventy Heptads (Daniel 9).
The same considerations which show the non-applicability of
this horn to the Papacy will equally evince that it cannot be any other power
whatever which has as yet come into existence; we have yet to see the tenfold
division of the Roman earth before it can arise.
If we look on corrupted Christianity as the worst form of
evil, we should fail greatly in estimating aright those things of which the [Holy] Spirit teaches us in the word. Corrupt Christianity - the introduction of
other things as the ground of peace with God besides faith in the one sacrifice
of Christ once offered, the admixture of idolatry with the worship of God, even
as the mixed multitude did in the cities of Samaria (2
Kings 17) - these are indeed abominations; but our eyes are directed to
see “greater abominations than these”. The
consequence of the non-reception of the truth will be the solemn act of God in
sending upon men “strong delusion”, so that they
will receive, own, and honour, in the place of God, that person “whose coming is after the working of Satan, [Page 44] with all power, and
signs, and lying wonders”. God will act
in this manner to prepare the foes of Christ to be crushed by His feet (see Psalm 92: 7). Corrupt Christianity may obscure every
fundamental truth of God’s revelation, but it would cease to be Christianity at
all (whether in substance, form, or name) if the God whom we own should be
denied and counselledly rejected, both in heart and also in word - and yet this
will be done. He will “deny the Father and the Son”.
Let then our thoughts of the evil of corrupt Christianity be
what they may, let us form a just estimate of its awfulness from its contrast
to that which God reveals as His truth - here is something which goes beyond it: it is true that it issues out
of it, but still it is not to be measured by its precursors. If then we apply these solemn truths to
things past or present, we lose the true purpose for which God has revealed
them, and blunt (so to speak) the edge of His truth.
There is one point in the vision and interpretation which must
not be overlooked: in the vision (ver.
13, 14)
the Son of Man takes the kingdom; in
the interpretation (verse 18) it is said, “the
saints of the most high [places] take the
kingdom”. How simply does the
light of New Testament truth explain to us that which at first sight might seem
a contrast instead of a connection! This
is one of the passages of the Old Testament Scripture which may be taken as an
intimation of that union which was afterwards to be declared as existing
between Christ and His people - the union which was brought out in His death
and resurrection. That which had been
said of Him in the vision is said of them in the interpretation.
In verse 27 it is said that
the kingdom, etc., “under the whole
heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the most
high [places]”. This appears to
me to be a different statement, informing us that a certain kingdom, not
co-extensive with that of the Son of Man, will be given to a certain
nation. Who then can this nation be? Now, it is clear from many Scriptures that
In Rom. 9: 24 we read
concerning the saints of God, “us whom he hath called,
not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles”. In Rom. 11: 24 we read
of “their own olive tree” (
In Isaiah 8: 18 Christ speaks of His brethren – God’s children
given into His hand to be redeemed – “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me, are for signs and wonders in
Thus, then, may we understand how in this chapter of Daniel we find the expression “people of the saints of the most high [places]” - that
nation to which the saints stand in some peculiar relation, although they
themselves may, for the most part, be of other origin, according to the
flesh. But it may be thought that Daniel
could have no apprehension of saints who were not Jews; let this be granted,
but what then? The meaning of the
statements in God’s revelation must not be limited by the thoughts of those to
whom they were addressed; for if we were to interpret Scripture in this manner,
we should be continually bounding the truth of God by the finite apprehension of
man. The oneness of the body, jointness of the [coming millennial] inheritance of those who are made
partakers of grace, whether Jews or Gentiles, was a truth which God purposed in
after times to reveal; but while this is fully admitted, we must avoid the
dangerous error of excluding from Old Testament statements those whom we learn
from the New Testament to have been included in the mind of God in the promised
[future] blessings.
If we had to look at any of those things according to Daniel’s apprehension
of them, what, we might ask, could he have known of
the Son of Man taking the kingdom in the vision, the saints taking it in the
interpretation? What could he have
thought of their being designated “saints of [Page 48] the most high [places]”? - a name which so clearly refers to
the position above, which belongs to those who have a portion in Christ. Christ was not yet risen and ascended, and
therefore the saints (see Eph. 1.) were not risen and
ascended in Him, and yet the Holy Ghost could beforehand make use of such terms
as these.
The chapter concludes by telling us, “As
for me, Daniel,
my cogitations much troubled me, and my
countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter
in my heart.” This seems to
intimate that the mind of the prophet was as yet enabled but little to
apprehend intelligently the things which he saw and heard. Their significance therefore must most
assuredly not be limited by the thoughts which occupied Daniel’s mind.
We have then “the people of the saints
of the most high [places]” as one of the parties to partake in the
blessing to which this chapter leads us on.
I believe that it was intended that our minds should rest very
particularly upon the brief interpretation given in ver. 17,
18.
There we have in contrast “four kings
which shall arise out of the earth” on the one hand, and “the saints of the most high [places]” who “shall take the kingdom”, etc., on the other. The issue of earthly power is told us here:
to what does it all lead? - to greater and greater opposition to God, so that
the last state of the fourth beast (the period when earthly power has had
before it the light of Christ’s gospel, and has rejected it) is found to be of
the most malignant character of evil against God and His saints; but all this
ends in “the burning flame”!
On the other hand, we have saints whose portion is found to be
one of deepest suffering during this very period, and God allows them to
suffer; but they belong to the most high places, not to the earth from which
the [Page 49] four beasts have arisen, and the end of the whole matter to
them is, reigning with Christ - with
Him whose precious blood is their title to glory, for whom they have been
allowed to testify in suffering, and by whose continuous grace they have been
sustained.
This chapter of Daniel teaches us some of the characteristics
of our own dispensation -
Now, is it possible to be identified with the actings of this
fourth beast and yet to be one of these saints?
The question might seem needless, but, practically, men have said that
the two things are compatible and consistent.
Again, is it possible that it could be according to the
pleasure of God that those who now bear earthly rule should also take the
superintendence of His Church? In other
words, can authority in the Church rightly spring from the fourth beast - the
throne of the Caesars? If this can be
so, then let the wolves be the shepherds, instead of their being the
adversaries into whose midst the sheep are sent forth. Also, let us remember that the horn of
persecution and blasphemy will be the last holder of the power of the fourth
beast: can he be the source of power in the Church? and
if not, can his predecessors? Could
Tiberius or Nero be this? The present
state of the fourth beast lies between these two points.
How rarely do men make such confusion as this in natural
things - then, should real Christians make them the things of God? In matters of civil government our place to
obey the powers that be, to own them in the things of God, but never to forget
the Supreme Lordship [Page 50] of Christ over us: and for the right
discerning of these things it is our place to take heed to the word, doctrinal,
preceptive, and prophetic, knowing that it is thus the Spirit of God instructs
us.
As believing in Christ we ought to esteem it a high and
wondrous blessing that we are not only cleansed in His precious blood, and made
heirs of glory with Him, but that we are instructed now as to things around us
and before us, that we may judge of them according to His mind.
May we be taught, as one part of our Christian walk and
discipleship, to understand how opposite is earthly authority in its course and
issue to all that to which we are called; and, especially, to see the Church so
contrasted with the power of the world that the one cannot possibly be the
source of office or authority in the other!
We see grievous confusion around us: the word of God teaches
us that it will increase -
blessed and cheering it is to our souls to look on the coming of
Christ as beyond it all, our point of hope and joyful expectation! What though the wearing out of the saints
will intervene? - it is only until the judgment of the
Ancient of Days, when the Son of Man takes the kingdom, and we take it with
Him. “Sorrow may
endure for a night, but joy cometh in the
morning.”
* *
*
[Page 51]
NOTE ON THE ROMAN EMPIRE
AND ITS
DIVISIONS
OF the
four monarchies, symbolised by metals in the image and by beasts in the vision
of Daniel 7, that which is chiefly of
interest to us is the fourth; for under it, during its changes and processes of
division, do we now live. I shall
therefore state the extent, etc., of that empire when it stood in its entirety,
and then show (what to some minds is difficult to be
understood) that this empire is that which still bears sway, though in a
divided condition.
Let it be observed that I do not say that it is of absolute
necessity, for our spiritual apprehension of the vision, that we should know
the detail of geographical and historical facts; but surely we are, if we
possess the opportunity, to compare such facts with Scripture, and thus use
Scripture as giving us right thoughts as to the facts. If God gives us a prophecy in Scripture
concerning Egypt or Tyre, we are of course to use those powers of observation
with which He has furnished us so as to know what and where Egypt and Tyre are;
how much more, then, must this be the case as to territories and nations with
which we are ourselves concerned?
The power of Rome was of very gradual rise; the city, which at
the first bore the name of seven-hilled, not from its being built on seven different hills, but only from seven ascents or
points of hill on which it stood,* [Page 52] expanded as to its own circumference,
and as to its dominion, until it became the metropolis and mistress of the
civilised earth - until her sway extended throughout the East and the West
alike.
* The
seven hills which originally gave the well-known designation to
The internal changes of the Roman commonwealth had been
equally great: the stern republic of patricians, who, on the one hand, had
expelled their kings and, on the other, had pressed down the plebeians, had
been gradually compelled to admit all its citizens into almost every office of
honour, trust, and power. The early
course of Roman government, after the expulsion of the Tarquins,
was in many respects like that which the state of
From this latter condition of the republic arose that [Page 53] imperial rule which was prefigured by the fourth beast seen in Daniel’s
vision.
At the time of this prophecy the power of
The battle of Actium (September 2,
31 B.C.) decided two things at once;
it placed the sovereign authority of the Roman earth in the hands of Octavius,
and it destroyed [Page 54] the power of the Egyptian
kingdom. The two events occurred by a
kind of necessary connection: Rome received the obelisks of Egypt to adorn the
shores of the Tiber, and, acknowledging the imperial power in the hands of
Octavius, bestowed on him the dignified designation of Augustus.*
* The
following extract from Spalding’s
“The title by which Augustus
pretended to the sovereignty was that of a free election by the people, renewed
from time to time. All names, forms, and
ceremonies, which the free constitution held illegal, were carefully shunned;
and all that the spirit of liberty had honoured were protected and brought paradingly forward.
But the republicanism was a wretched mask through which every man of
information saw distinctly, though none was strong enough to tear off the
disguise. From the very commencement of
the first reign all the powers, both of the senate,
the popular conventions, and the magistracies, were virtually and effectually
secured to the emperor. The new prince
united by degrees in his own person all the ancient offices of state; or, at
least, though he allowed the appointment of colleagues, he entrusted to them no
share of the real administration. He
founded, on his assumption of the tribuneship, a claim of personal inviolability,
and his title of Imperator, which we translate Emperor, a prerogative of
absolute military command, not only beyond the city, which was the republican
rule, but also within it - an extension of powers which directly contradicted
the old constitution. His generalship of the armies, indeed, aided
by the official weakness and personal subservieney of
the senate, constituted the true ground on which his monarchy rested. But, in appearance, he was only the first of
senators; the august forms of the assembly were treated with profound respect;
and the sovereign sheltered his ordinances under its name.”
Such was the nature of Roman monarchy: it comprehended the
absolute military Imperium beyond the city; to
this it added a similar Imperium, not so confined,
decreed by the senate; and, as a third element, it comprehended the Tribunitian power derived from the people - the
long-cherished prerogative which the plebeians had earned for themselves on the
day of their secession to the Mons Sacer.
Julius Caesar had endeavoured, like Sulla, to rule as
perpetual dictator, a name of ancient historic importance in
At the commencement of the rule of the fourth [Page 55] monarchy it possessed in Europe, Italy, Gaul, the Spanish peninsula,
Greece, Macedon, Thrace, and Illyricum, so that its
boundary was pretty nearly the line of the rivers Rhine and Danube; in Africa
it possessed the northern coasts and Egypt; and in Asia, Syria, and Asia Minor,
the Euphrates being about the limit.
Such, then, was the original empire of the fourth beast. Under the successors of Augustus other
conquests were made. Britain, which had
been invaded by Julius Caesar, and which for many subsequent years maintained
only a commercial connection with Rome, was made a part of the empire, so far
at least as the line of forts carried from the Clyde to the Forth.* In Germany the
Roman [Page 56] boundary was carried by a defined rampart from the
Rhine near Bingen, along the Taunus
mountains, then in a direction mostly south-east until it reached the Danube at
the most northern point of that river. The Emperor Trajan
added the
* Roman Britain. - The first invasion of this island by
Amongst the more important events during the Roman occupation
of Britain were the deaths of Septimius Severus, at
York, in 211, and of Constantius Chlorus,
in 306, at the same city; this caused his son Constantine to assume the
imperial purple, which led to the cessation of all persecutions of
Christians. The extent of the Roman
dominion in
Besides the conquests of Trajan,
which were at once resigned,
Before the formal division of the imperial power there had
frequently been a partition of the sovereign authority of
Under Constantine there was again an united empire, but this
monarch, by founding the city which still bears his name on the side of the
ancient Byzantium, gave a principle of permanence to the territorial division,
for he thus established what has been from that time and onward the metropolis
of the eastern empire.
After the death of the last surviving son of
In this division it was intended that the West should be the more
important empire. However, in 395, when
the East was appropriated to Arcadius, the eldest son
of Theodosius the Great, and the West to Honorius,
his younger brother, the boundary was so changed as to unite the greater part
of what is now European Turkey to the East.
The boundary left the shores of the Adriatic, between
In the year 425, when Theodosius II took Valentinian
III as his associate in the empire, he united a still further portion of
territory to the East; the West (of which the seat of government was now
Ravenna no longer retained the provinces east of Venetia and Rhaetia. The
boundary was thus formed by the Julian Alps, then by a line drawn to the river
Inn just where its course turns to the north (at the point where it now flows
from the Austrian into the Bavarian territory), and then by the course of the
Inn to the Danube.
This was the definite line of demarcation by which the Roman
earth was fully divided into East and West; the separation was occasioned by
internal as well as external causes.
Within, the empire had consisted of elements utterly distinct, mentally
and morally; it needed a strong hand to cause such contrary materials to
coalesce; and when the Parthian power on the east and
the vast immigration of tribes from the north pressed on the Roman territory, a
separation of administration was almost the necessary result: thus the
long-admitted [Page 59] principle of association in the
empire now assumed the form of distinct and separate government.*
* The
Roman hold on
The western empire soon became a prey to the northern
invaders, so that in 475 the succession ceased in the person of Romulus Augustulus: not so, however, at Constantinople, where, with
varied circumstances and a circumscribed territory, the imperial dignity
continued, until it expired with the last Constantine, when (in 145 3) the
eastern metropolis passed into the hands of Mahometan invaders.
This, then, is the empire whose whole extent is marked out in
prophecy as that which shall be divided into ten kingdoms, just as the
dominion of Alexander was separated into four.
It may be questioned whether, with regard to this division,
the empire must be looked at as it existed under Augustus, or in its widest
extent, or according to its limits when the complete division took place of
East and West. The first of these limits
is not, I believe, the true one (reasons for this opinion will appear
presently), and as to the second, it may be doubted whether [Page 60] territories which Rome voluntarily resigned could be regarded as integral
parts of the empire; hence it seems to me that we should include Southern
Britain, and take on the Continent the line of the Danube and Rhine in a
general sense.*
* The Emperor Caracalla (whose reign
began in 211) extended the privilege of Roman citizenship to all persons born
within the empire who were not slaves.
This was done for the purpose of raising an increased property-tax; it
had, however, a very important effect in giving a certain unity to the races
within the empire.
In this territory, according to the terms of Daniel’s
prophecy, written before
We have, in accordance with Scripture, to look at all the
present period as one in which changes and divisions take place within the
Roman earth, prior to that tenfold development into kingdoms which shall
precede the rise of the terrible but transient horn of blasphemy.
Does this seem difficult to any mind? If so, let it be considered that in the
vision of Daniel 7 the fourth beast is
regarded as reigning until the Son of Man takes the
kingdom and His saints take it with him.
If this has not taken place as yet, then the fourth beast still bears
rule, however changed may be the form of his power.
The example of the third beast may illustrate this: the united
empire of Alexander began to dissolve at his death; but still as long as any of
its great divided parts remained as sovereignties (whatever changes they had
undergone) any person would have been living under the third beast. This would have been true before the battle
of IPsus (301 B.C.) effected the fourfold division;
it would have been equally true when that great division had in many respects changed,
and until the fourth beast [Page 61] had by the conquest of Egypt
superseded the last of the four Grecian sovereignties.
In one respect the third and fourth beasts stand in definite
contrast: the fourfold division of Alexander’s empire took place without any
great interval of years after his death; and then other changes ensued: the
territory of the fourth beast, whether intermediate divisions had taken place
or not, was to be found separated into ten kingdoms just before its utter destruction by the Lord Himself. Thus, unless we can say that Christ has taken
His kingdom and destroyed the divided sovereignties of
How fully the Roman character has been impressed on the sovereignties formed within
its territory is shown by the circumstances of their rise. They were in general founded by some king or
chief of an invading tribe, who succeeded in planting his people within the
imperial territory; over his own followers he possessed a defined military
authority. To the Roman provincials it
was a very indifferent matter who their sovereign might be: they were heavily
taxed and dispirited, so that to the greater part of them it seemed preferable
to be ruled by a military conqueror who from local connection might be
interested in improving their condition, than by an emperor who secluded
himself in the luxury of Ravenna, or one who, reigning on the shore of the Bosphorus, cared only for the eastern provinces. The provincials, too, had seen examples
enough of barbarian rule during the days of the united empire not to object to
any sovereign because of his birth or nation.
Thus they acknowledged their new rulers as holders of Roman imperium, and
regarded them as possessed of that absolute power which the Roman emperors had
claimed and exercised.
[Page 62]
The new rulers willingly accepted the acknowledgment of the
provincials, and thus, without exchanging their kingly titles for the imperial
name, they governed as holding an associated authority within the empire. The twofold power which
they thus possessed, that over their original followers and that over the
provincials, led to the development of new forms of government containing
opposing principles. The
followers of the invading chiefs owed them but a kind of limited allegiance,
they possessed privileges which were as indefeasible as was the power of the
sovereign; the new subjects, on the contrary, knew of no relations between the
governed and those governing, other than had been recognised by Roman
rule.* The municipalities, indeed, had
possessed certain privileges, and when permanent conquest and not mere
devastation was the object of the invaders, they found it to be for their own
interest to preserve such bodies. It was
by means of the municipalities, with [Page 63] their local organisation, that much
of what had been Roman floated above the wreck of ages down to our days.**
* Thus
it has been said that the Franks occupied the soil of
From the relation in which the
followers of the invading leaders stood to them sprang much of the notion of
modern European nobility. The almost independent ground which this class could assume,
seven centuries ago, shows what a limited allegiance chiefs
even
then rendered to their
sovereigns. Thus the original form of
the homage of the Aragonese nobles to the sovereign
ran thus: “We who are as good as you, and together are
more than you, will be faithful to you as our king and lord, if you govern us
well and truly, IF NOT, NOT.” The privilege of remaining covered in the
presence of the sovereign is all that the Spanish nobles now retain of these
high-sounding claims. So long as the
ancient office of hereditary Lord High Steward of
** In this country,
The twofold relations of the new sovereigns seem to have
occasioned what we should now call constitutional governments, in which,
however, almost all that controlled the king was to be found amongst his
original followers. From the greater
submission of the provincials, the kings had an interest in bestowing on them
such privileges as might check (what might be termed) the military nobility.
In some cases the kings, whose power had arisen within the
Roman earth, sought and obtained imperial recognition from
* Sir
Francis Palgrave in his
The rise of Saxon rule, however, was marked by some peculiarities. At the departure of the Romans, three races
occupied the country: First, the non-Romanised Britons, whose abode was
principally to the west of the
After the withdrawal of the Romans,
sovereignty became independent amongst the non-Romanised Britons; while the
Roman population sought weakly and vainly to maintain their authority in the
island. The dominion of the Saxons
arose, not by breaking down Roman authority, but by occupying the ground which
Although from the year 476 there
ceased to be an emperor reigning in the West, the authority of the imperial
name was not finally extinct in its original centre of dominion. Odoacer, the king
of the Heruli (a tribe issuing from the shores of the
Baltic), who in 476 had deposed Romulus Augustulus,
was invested, at the request of the Roman senate, with the title of Patrician
by Zeno, the eastern emperor, and under this designation he exercised sovereign
power. Theodoric, the king of the Ostrogoths, by whom Odoacer was
displaced and slain (in 493), had been educated at Constantinople, and it was
as a province of the empire, and under the (disregarded) condition of tribute,
that he received the grant [Page 65] of
Seventy
years had not passed from that date when Charlemagne, the monarch of the Franks
and the German tribes, was (in the
year 800) solemnly crowned emperor,
at
In his family the imperial title
continued with diminished lustre; at Coblentz, in the
[Page 66]
The latest traces of the power of the eastern emperors in the West
are to be found in the Italian islands and the
Thus it was by gradual steps that changes took place in the
Roman earth; and thus plain is it that the sovereignties of South-western
This sometimes led to formal transactions resembling the
ancient assumption of an associate in the empire. Thus, in November 1337 the
Emperor Lewis, the Bavarian, met Edward III of England at Coblentz,
and there at the church at St. Castor, where the empire had been divided five
hundred years before, he constituted him Imperial Vicar of all territories and
peoples on the left bank of the Rhine, with authority to coin money in those
districts - an authority on which he acted at Antwerp. This imperial title was distinctly declared
in an Act of Parliament in the time of his grandson Henry IV, and it explains
part of the ceremonial observed in the threefold coronation of Queen Elizabeth,
first as Queen of England, second, Queen of Ireland, third, “Sovereign Lady and Empress of all Nations and Countries from
the Islands Orcades to the Mountains Pyrenees”.
Thus, though the Ottoman arms destroyed the imperial name and
power in the East in the fifteenth century, its different western branches have
continued, whether as bearing imperial or royal names. It was common to consider
* This was done partly through the strange transaction between
Andreas Palaeologus and Charles VIII in 1494; the
latter, in 1495, when in possession of
It may be questioned whether the tenfold division of the Roman
earth must be precisely in accordance with its geographical boundaries: but at
all events it seems clear that the seat of all the kingdoms must be within the Roman bounds as well as the main body of the territory:
further than this it may not be safe to venture an opinion. The Romans conquered far beyond the
limits which they retained: the Eyder, between
Holstein and Schleswig, appears to have been the line
to which they penetrated in that direction: they also occupied military
positions beyond the boundaries of the empire, just as Napoleon held Magdeburg
and other places which were no part of his territory. Thus there may be districts beyond the Roman
earth which will be connected with parts of the ten kingdoms. It is “out of” the fourth kingdom that ten others
arise, whatever exterior territory any of them may possess or conquer.
From the vision of Daniel 2,
and that of chap. 7,
we may see that the ten kingdoms do not arise until a certain process of
deterioration (the mixture of clay with iron) is complete; and that these
kingdoms, when all developed, have not any protracted course before them. Just as the sovereignty, out of which they
sprung, was secular, so of course are they also secular. Whatever have been the changes in the Roman
earth, as yet we have not seen the definite tenfold division; indeed, had we
seen it we could have expected nothing other than [Page 68] the appearance of the last horn and
the judgment of the Son of Man at his coming.
To suppose this last horn to be the Papacy would interfere
with almost every point that the visions in Daniel
teach us; it would involve us in the supposition that before the rise of the
Papacy the imperial power had passed away, and that its territory was in the
hands of ten definite kings. If so,
those kingdoms must continue as such (unless the three which fall before the last horn be
excepted) until the coming of Christ: whereas we know how change after change
has passed upon
The tenfold division of the Roman empire (even if we had a
right to exclude the eastern half) could never be definitely pointed out,
whether in the early centuries or since.
The lists differ exceedingly, and very frequently countries wholly
disconnected with the Roman empire are introduced simply because in later days
they have [Page 69] been upholders of the Popedom.*
But even if the lists of kings could be made out, and if the commencement of
the divisions of the empire were the proper time, and not a little before the
second advent of Christ, it would still remain to be shown how the Popedom then rose after the ten
kings, and how it destroyed three of the former kings, and what three.
* The
following note, from [the late] Mr. Conder’s Literary History of the New Testament (p. 576), shows what ideas have been advanced as the division of the Roman
empire into ten kingdoms:
“At the epoch of A.D. 532, which is
fixed upon by Mr. Elliott, there existed on the platform of the western Roman
empire the following ten kingdoms: the Anglo-Saxons, the Franks, the Allman Franks, the Burgundians,
the Visigoths, the Suevi, the Vandals, the Ostrogoths, the Bavarians, and the Lombards. Notwithstanding many intervening revolutions
and changes in
I do not discuss the points stated as historical facts (such
as whether there was one united Anglo-Saxon kingdom in 532); the kingdoms being sought in
the West alone is sufficient to show the fallacy
of the scheme which ignores the eastern empire; the date, too, is not a
fortunate one, as it is just before the eastern emperors again extended their
influence over the West. But what relation
has the extract from Gibbon to the matter in hand? If we are to seek for ten kingdoms in the
Roman empire, to the
Some place the rise of the Papacy, as the little horn, in the
reign of Justinian, in the middle of the sixth century; at that very time,
however, the Popedom, both in temporal and spiritual
things, was ruled over by Justinian: Vigilius, the
weak and vacillating Roman bishop, who, according to circumstances, adopted or
renounced the monophysite heresy, possessed no
temporal authority; and in doctrinal points he bound himself by oath to the
emperor. As if to reverse the relations
in which things afterwards [Page 70] stood, the emperor declared the pope,
when un-submissive, to be excluded from the fellowship of the Church.
Others regarded the Papacy as thus arising when Boniface III
was addressed by the Emperor Phocas in 606 as “Universal Bishop”.* That the secular authority of
Rome, then, belonged to the emperor we have proof existing in the Roman Forum
itself, where, in our days, excavations around “the
nameless column with the buried base” have caused the base to be no
longer buried, and the column to be no longer nameless, since the inscription
on the pedestal shows that it was erected to the honour of this very Phocas by his Italian representative. How completely the popes were subjects, at a later period, is shown in the
case of Pope Martin I, who, for his firm opposition to the monothelite
heresy, was seized at
* The
title of “Universal Bishop” had been used for
some time in the East as a complimentary title: it was not intended to signify
that the person to whom it was applied excluded the jurisdiction of other
bishops, nor yet was it so understood as if it could belong to one only. In
More has been made out of the title of “Universal Bishop” than it really involves. Boniface III accepted a title which the
cooler judgment of his predecessor, Gregory I, had rejected. The title gave no added jurisdiction,
spiritual or temporal.
It is to the age of Pepin and his
son Charlemagne that we must descend before we find the popes as holders of
temporal sovereignty. This, however,
they held as feudatories of the western emperors, so that Leo III was required
by Charlemagne to vindicate himself from treasonable charges.
[Page 71]
In later days popes did indeed claim a power of conferring
sovereignty, as though all the kingdoms of the earth were theirs, but this was
not through the territorial dominion which they held, but as a supposed
attribute of their spiritual jurisdiction.
As yet they claimed no part of the dominion of the Caesars, for even in
the districts of
*How gradually
the popes acquired independent temporal sovereignty is shown by their
transactions with the emperors.
“Since the revival of the Roman
Empire under Otho the Great [962], the emperors had
regularly placed in
“At home the pontiffs were weak,
often despised, and sometimes expelled, but abroad their name grew and
flourished. ... The minority of Frederick II enabled the resolute Innocent III
[1198-1216], a middle-aged Roman noble, to fortify the temporal sovereignty of
the holy see over a large district of Central
Italy. He revived, and, partly by force,
partly by the submission of the principal towns, was able to bring into effect that famous donation by which, in the times of Hildebrand
and his successor, the Countess Matilda of
The entire independence of the Papal states was
secured in 1278: during the secession to Avignon
(1305-77), however, and the subsequent schism of the West (1378-1417), the
power of the popes over them was weakened and in part destroyed, so that it was
not till after the French occupation of Italy, in 1494, under Charles VIII,
that the Papal territorial rule was reconsolidated. From that time it received various additions
till the year 1644. In modern days the whole of the Papal dominions have been
swept away from their priestly sovereigns, and all (with the exception of
But the actuality of a secular kingdom did not increase [Page 72] the Papal influence in temporal things.
Boniface VIII sought in vain to bestow kingdoms and to resume them, as
Innocent III had done a century before.
From that time, in temporalities, the popes became petty Italian
sovereigns, while in spiritual things their authority was equally recognised as
before. Such were the steps by which the
popes gained secular sovereignty: for which secular sovereignty alone we are
now concerned: it was that, and that alone, which had belonged to the Caesars,
and the divided parts of their dominion could not be something differing
entirely in kind from the dominion itself.
Thus there is really no point of time at which we could apply
the vision of Daniel 7 to the Papacy. We must look at the Roman power still
continuing in its divided parts, and expect that its ultimate condition will be
a tenfold division into kingdoms in which strength and weakness will be combined,
when - three years and a half before the second advent of Christ - a power of
blasphemy and persecution will arise who will overthrow three of the former
kings.
The spread and use of the Roman law illustrates the
continuance of the Roman power. Throughout
the Roman earth, Roman law became the basis of all jurisprudence, and though
modified by custom or direct enactment, it still furnishes a body of principles
of wide and various application. The
Corpus Juris Civilis itself
[Page 73] supplies evidence of the continuance of Roman power and
institutions, for there we find enactments of the Henrys and Frederics of the house of Hohenstaufen,
as co-ordinate with those of Severus, Constantine, Theodosius, and
Justinian. The same imperial authority
attaches to the decree of Henry VII of Luxemburg (in which he styles
Constantine “our illustrious predecessor”,
dated in 1313 from Pisa, as to the Pandects of
Justinian, the ancient Pisan MS of which* was the
instructor of the dark ages, and laid the foundation of that maritime law which
all civilised states alike recognise.
* The Pisan Codex is said to have been brought thither from Amalfi: after the subjection of
In connection with Roman law it may be observed that
[Luther gave an enumeration of ten kingdoms which did not
exclude the East: but then he supposed the power which destroyed three of them
to be not Papal but Mahometan. “The
Anti-Christian power spoken of in Dan. 11: 39, etc.,
was the Pope; that of Dan. 7: 8, etc. the Turk. The Ten Horns of the last or Roman kingdom
were
What does this long statement of facts teach? Does it supply us with new light as to the
bearing of Daniel’s prophecies, different from what we should have learned from
the Scripture itself?
To the Scripture we may adhere simply: facts, or supposed
facts, can never alter the force of what the Spirit of God has caused to be
written. This statement of facts is
intended (and I trust it may serve) to show that [Page 74] objections to the simple reception
of Scripture teaching, when based on farts in their supposed
bearing, are manifested to be
groundless, so soon as the facts themselves are correctly presented. History thus possesses a negative value, and enables us to cast aside
difficulties with which some would obscure the force of God’s word.
*
* *
[Page 75]
THE RAM AND HE GOAT (DANIEL 8)
THE
prophetic scene becomes narrowed before us in this chapter; one definite
portion of future history is here anticipatively written for us by God. The same is the way which God has taken in
teaching us those things which were profitable for us to know, as to the
past. If we look at the history of man
as given in Genesis, we have at first, after
the flood, the general statement in outline of all nations in their ancestry
and first formation, and then afterwards a narrower scene is brought before us
- one family from which springs one nation - and with this we principally have
to do in the remainder of the Old Testament.
Just so in the prophetic visions of Daniel;
we have Gentile power in its committal, course, and crisis, also in its
wideness of extent, its moral relations to God, and its actings with regard to
those who belong to God; and besides an account of who it is that succeeds to
the dominion which has been forfeited by the last of the Gentile powers: and
then comes the narrower scene, in which we see these things set before us in
their connection with that same one nation which had been so early taken up in
history.
With this chapter the Hebrew portion of the book recommences
and this continues to be the language of all the remainder, the whole of these
visions relating distinctly to the Jews and
This vision was seen in the third year of king
Belshazzar, the last king of the first monarchy, just when the [Page 76] Medo-Persian kingdom had so risen into power as to be ready to subvert the
Babylonian.
The place where the prophet sees the
vision is at one of the capitals of the Medo-Persian kingdom, “Shushan, in the
The vision is given us from verses
3 to 14, the interpretation from verses 19 to 26. Daniel first sees “a
ram which had two* horns, and the two horns were high; but
one was higher than the other, and the higher
came up last”. The ram is then
described as to the exercise of its power, etc.: “I saw
the ram pushing eastward, and northward, and southward, so that no
beasts might stand before him, neither was there
any that could deliver out of his hand, but he
did according to his will, and became great.”
* The word “two” in our modern
English Bibles is in italics, as though it were supplied in translation. This, however, is one of the needless changes
introduced by Dr. Blayncy in 1769. “Two horns” is
the rendering of the Hebrew dual, as our translators well knew. In verse 7
the numeral is expressed.
The interpretation of this, as given in verse 20, is - “The ram
which thou sawest having two horns, are the
kings of Media and
[Page 77]
The next object in the vision is thus stated: “As I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west, on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground; and the goat
had a notable horn between his eyes.” The following verses, 6, 7, describe the manner in which the prophet saw
the ram destroyed by the he goat. The interpretation of the goat and its great
horn is given in verse 21: “The rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.”
We have thus a point of
connection between this vision and those of the second
and seventh chapters; we first of all
have the power which was about to succeed to that of Babylon brought before us
in a defined form; the “reign of the kingdom of Persia”
(2 Chron. 36: 20) is that
which we have seen as springing into power, that is the breast and arms of
silver of chapter 2, or the second beast
like to a bear of chapter 7. The power of this second monarchy, detailed
just prior to its taking its place of supremacy, and its overthrow by that of
Grecia, next come before us, and then the rest of the vision has some relation
to a form of things which results from the divided power of the third monarchy.
Is the general subject of the remainder of this vision past or
future? If past, our only concern with
it would be to learn those lessons which the Spirit of God may have seen fit to
record therein, but if future, it assumes, of course, a yet deeper interest,
for in that case it would be one of those portions of revealed truth in which
our God vouchsafes to call us to fellowship of mind and thoughts with Himself,
opening to us those things which will come to pass in the development of His
holy counsels.
Some may say, If the vision belongs (as seems clearly [Page 78] to be the case) to the third monarchy, and if that monarchy was superseded
(as we know was the fact) long ages ago by the Roman, then, of course, this
vision is a thing entirely accomplished and exhausted, as much so as the vision
of the third chapter, which related
personally to Nebuchadnezzar.
Now, in reply to the question as to the past or future aspect
of this vision, we must mark as carefully the period on to which it reaches as
we do that at which it commences. In the
beginning of the explanation given by Gabriel to the prophet he says (verse 17), “At the time of
the end shall be the vision,” and again (verse
19), “Behold, I
will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.” This is certainly an intimation that the
distinguishing features of the vision belong to the time when God’s indignation
against Daniel’s people shall reach its completion, when all the circumstances
of their rejection and chastisement shall arrive at their end. We know from many scriptures (such as Jer. 30: 7) that the
time which immediately precedes Israel’s forgiveness and deliverance will be
that of their extremest trouble and suffering: in other words, it will be thus
in “the last end of the indignation”.
Thus we have a point to which the vision reaches, as well as a starting point, and we have
therefore to see what portions belong respectively to the past and to the
future.
After the rise of the empire of Alexander and his personal
rule have been spoken of in the vision (verses 5-8), we find, “The great
horn was broken: and for it came up four notable
ones toward the four winds of heaven.”
In the interpretation this is stated (verse
22), “Now [Page 79] that being broken, whereas four
stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up
out of the nation, but not in his power.” This we know to be a past thing, not merely
historically, but as a simple matter of revelation; for these things were to
spring out of the breaking off of the first king. This fourfold division had been intimated in chap. 7 by the
four heads of the third beast, and it is also mentioned in chap. 11.
We know simply as a matter of historical fact that after the
death of Alexander his dominions were parcelled out amongst his generals, and that after a few years (subsequently to the
battle of Ipsus, 301 B.C.) four kingdoms were formed.
Ptolemy possessed
Cassander, Macedon
and
Seleucus all the
rest.*
* Some of the districts included in the fourfold division became
subordinate states. The
These historical facts enable us to give names, etc., to the
four kingdoms here mentioned, and this is a convenience; but it cannot be too
fully borne in mind that for the real
understanding and use of the truths revealed in Scripture history possesses no
authority whatever; the Scripture itself supplies us with all that is needful.
The vision, after speaking of the
formation of the [Page 80] four horns, proceeds thus: “And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceedingly great toward the south, and toward the east, and
toward the pleasant land.” This
is stated thus in the interpretation: “And in the
latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce
countenance,
and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up”, etc.
The history of this horn or king is then given, and it reaches to the
end of the vision; everything concerning this person and his actings must therefore
belong to the period called “the last end of the
indignation”.
The point then at which the vision divides itself between that
which is past to us and that which is future is at the statement of the
fourfold division of the kingdom of the he goat (verses
8 and 22);
all that follows, “the latter time of their kingdom,”
and the springing up of the persecuting power, must be future.
The dealings of God in the latter day with the Jews and
[* Some may wonder why I have used bold type and underlining here; but it is necessary to benefit all Anti-millennialists:
who reject the plain statements of Scripture by their spiritualising methods if
interpretation; and would have us believe
To this period, then, the issue of this vision belongs: a king
rises from one of the four parts of that dominion which once was in the power
of Alexander; his power extends in various directions, amongst others “towards the pleasant land”; this, of course, means the
land of Israel, and this is the first direct intimation in the chapter of its
connection with Daniel’s people. Violent
oppression and blasphemy appear to characterise this king both from the vision
and the explanation given by Gabriel. “He shall destroy wonderfully,
and shall prosper and practise, and shall
destroy the mighty, and the holy people
[people or nation of the holy ones or saints]. And
through his policy, also, he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand, and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall he destroy many.” General as these terms are, they very clearly
show the persecuting and oppressive power of this king; it is also clear, from
the mention of the nation of the holy ones or saints, that these oppressions
are especially inflicted on the Jews.
What the condition of the Jews may be at this time, how
divided into classes as regards their recognised standing before God, etc., we
can learn from other [Page 82] scriptures; but however these things
will be, one thing is clear, that this horn is present in persecuting power at
the last end of the indignation.
Another of his prominent characteristics is blasphemy: “He shall stand up against the Prince of princes” (verse 25).
“He magnified himself even to the Prince of the
host” (verse 11), so that he is found
not merely as the opposer of God’s ancient people, but also of the Lord
Himself.
It is scarcely possible for us to have examined this chapter
thus far without being struck with many points of resemblance between this horn
and that which has been spoken of in the seventh
chapter: that in the seventh chapter
continues to act till Christ takes the kingdom, the one before us acts up to “the last end of the indignation.” These two periods are synchronous, for the deliverance of
Further, the four divided kingdoms which formed themselves out
of the empire of Alexander were one by one incorporated with the
The moral features which are alike in the two have been
already noticed. But it may be added
that both the one and the other coincide remarkably in this respect with a king
mentioned in the eleventh chapter of this
book: the origin of this king is altogether similar to the [Page 83] horn of chapter 8, that is, from one of
the four parts of Alexander’s empire.
Compare the following passages:
Chap. 7: 25.
“He shall speak
great words Chap. 11: 36.
“He shall speak
marvellous
against the most High.”
things against the God of gods.”
7: 25. He
shall “think to
change times
11: 37.
“Neither shall
he regard the God
and
laws”.
of his father”, etc.
7:
21, 22. “The same horn prevailed until the time 11: 36. “He shall prosper till
the
came that the saints possessed the kingdom.”
indication be accomplished.”
8: 9. He waxed great “towards the pleasant land”. 11: 41. “He shall enter also into the
glorious land.”
8: 17. “At the time of the end shall be the vision.” 11: 40.
“And at the time of the end”, etc.
8: 19. “In the last end of the indignation.” 11: 36.
“He shall
prosper till the
indignation be accomplished.”
The conclusion from all this appears to be inevitable, that
the horn of chapter 7 and that of chapter 8 are one and the
same person. If this be not the case, we
have at the same time, within the same territorial limits and similarly
described, two kings, alike in blasphemy and persecution, alike in claiming
divine honours, alike in their almost unhindered course of evil. The non-identity of the two would involve
difficulties of the greatest magnitude - so great that the supposition may be
regarded as a moral impossibility. I
believe that those who have considered that they are not one and the same have
supposed that they were not marked as belonging to the same period: this,
however, is utterly contradicted by the express statement of “the last end of the indignation” in this chapter, and
by events which are detailed as following immediately on the destruction of the
king in chapter 11.
But it has been sometimes asked (rather, I believe, in the way
of difficulty than of objection), How can these powers be identical, for that
in chapter 7 springs [Page 84] out of one of the ten parts of the Roman earth, that before us from one of
the four parts of the third empire? The
answer to this is simple and, I believe, satisfactory: In chap. 7 we see
that the whole of the Roman earth is to be divided into ten kingdoms, these ten
being found in its whole extent, the East as well as the West. The four parts of Alexander’s empire formed a
considerable portion of the eastern half of the Roman territory, and as we see
here these four existent as kingdoms at the time of the end, it only follows
that four kingdoms out of the ten will be identical with the parts into which
the third empire was long ago divided. A
horn springs out of one of these parts: it may be described in a general manner,
as in chapter 7, as rising from one of the
ten kingdoms, or else in a much more definite way, as in this chapter, in which
we see even what part or direction of the Roman earth will give him his origin.
There appears to be a peculiar fitness in the way in which
these things are presented in this chapter: the Medo-Persian power is first
seen, and then the ground is cleared (so to speak) by the Grecian he goat; then
that distributive form of the countries bordering upon the Holy Land, which
came into existence after the death of Alexander, is mentioned. “The pleasant land”
being the central object, there was no occasion for going beyond the countries
with which that was locally connected; for here we have no statement about
wideness of extent of dominion; it does not come at all into consideration; but
it is the power as exercised in one place and over one people. The consideration that this is in the Hebrew
portion of the book, and that chapter 7 is
in the Chaldee, tends to make the whole matter simple.
No one need find any difficulty in the idea of his being
spoken of as springing from one of the ten parts of the [Page 85] Roman earth, and here from one of the parts of Alexander’s empire: every
one would see how Simeon (for instance) might be described as one [of] the twelve sons of Jacob, or as one of
the six sons of Leah; the latter designation would be the more definite, but
the sons of Leah would be all comprehended under the more general expression “sons of Jacob”.
We may now consider particular statements which this chapter
presents, both in the vision and the interpretation. In verse 23 the
description of the condition of the kingdoms when this power arises is worthy
of particular attention: “in the latter time of their
kingdom when the transgressors are come to the full”: these are solemn words - the line of
demarcation between what is long past and what is yet future is found in the
vision between verses 8 and 9, and in the interpretation between verses 22 and 23. The fullness of transgression belongs to a
yet future period. These words do not
state to what people, whether Jews or Gentiles, this description applies, but
it surely must be regarded as a solemn, general statement of the condition of
things which will immediately precede the advent of the Lord Jesus.
If we were to look backward at the history of past ages we
should see scarcely a parallel to the wickedness found among Alexander’s
successors, and this whether they were looked at in themselves, or in their
treatment of God’s people, the Jews. But
evil as these things have been, here is something yet more dreadful. God has given further light, and after this
light has been received for awhile, it has been rejected. The countries once subject to Alexander have
been used as the scene on which God has especially acted; those were the lands
in the midst of which Israel was set as a witness for God; there it was that
Christ, God’s blessed Son, in due time appeared, was [Page 86] rejected and suffered: there by his command the gospel was first preached,
and fruit was gathered from among Jews and Gentiles. Indeed, the record of the book of Acts (with the exception of the very end) simply
narrates the preaching of the gospel within those limits.
We can compare the statements in 2
Tim. 3 and similar passages with this
expression, and thus we shall see how the fullness of transgression will come
in amongst those, wherever they may be, who have in former times heard the gospel, but who have departed from the holy
commandment delivered to them. As to
Verse 24: “His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power.” Light is thrown, I judge, on this statement
by Rev. 13:
2: “The dragon gave
him his power and his seat, and great authority.” He acts by the power of Satan, and all the
greatness that he displays is from this source.
God at length shall send on men who have wilfully rejected this truth, “strong delusion that they should believe a lie”. Satan’s energies will be freed from many of
those restraints which God now imposes; and then Gentile power will be found
with this additional characteristic in the person of this king.
Verse 10: “It waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host
and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon
them.” This, we must remember,
was a symbolic scene in vision: “the host of heaven”
and “the stars” appear to me to be descriptive [Page 87] symbols of those whose portion from God is heavenly glory. Here they seem destroyed by the horn, but
they bear a symbolic name, taken from what they are in God’s purpose: we may
compare chapter 12: 3,
“They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the
firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness* as the stars for ever and
ever.” If this refers simply to
those who are Jews by nation (and this seems to be the case from the mention of
“the pleasant land”
immediately before), then it must apply to that portion of them who are not
under that blindness which has “in part happened to
Israel”: it must belong to those whose calling is heavenly, as being
believers in Him who is above at God’s right hand.
[*NOTE. The ‘righteousness’
in this context, is not a reference to Messiah’s imputed righteousness. See Matt. 5: 20: “Except your righteousness shall exceed
…” – addressed by Jesus Christ to His “disciples”
(vv. 1, 2, R.V.).]
Verse 11: “Yea, he magnified himself also to the prince of the host.” Verse 25:
“He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes.” These statements may be well compared with
what we read in Isa.
14 of the king of Babylon and his blasphemy;
he takes the place which belongs to Christ and to Christ alone, and says in his
heart, “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I
will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I
will be like the most High” (Isa.
14: 13, 14).
The things stated about the connection of this horn with the
daily sacrifice, in the eleventh and
following verses are obscure; but there are
some points on which remark may be made, rather in the way of suggestion than
in that of teaching.
From the mention of “the daily
sacrifice” and the “sanctuary” it is
plain that at part of the actings of the horn these things will be found in
existence - a portion of the Jews will have returned in unbelief to their own
land, and the worship of God will be
attempted to be [Page 88] carried on according to the Mosaic
ritual. This horn takes away the daily
sacrifice and casts down the place of the sanctuary; this apparently implies
that he desecrates it to other purposes.
From verse 12 it appears as if God
gave up these things into his hand as not owning or acknowledging the worship
so rendered, “by reason of transgression”, and
then the opposition of the horn to the truth, and its practising and
prospering, are especially mentioned.
It appears that in the history of this horn there are various
points or stages of narration to be observed; the particular point to be
noticed is the difference between what precedes and what follows the taking away of the daily sacrifice; when that
is done his blasphemous position becomes the more marked, as well as his acting
in persecution.
In verses 13 and 14 we find the prophet listening to certain
inquiries: one holy one speaks and asks, “How long shall be the vision
concerning the daily sacrifice and the transgression of desolation, to give
both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” And he said unto me [this is remarkable, the answer is made
to Daniel and not the inquirer], “Unto two thousand and three hundred days, [evenings,
mornings,] and then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”
[justified or vindicated]. This term of
2,300* [Page 89] recurrences of the morning and evening sacrifice
appears to me to relate to the whole period of this horn’s connection with it;
during, first of all, the time in which, as found in other Scriptures (see in “Remarks on the Seventy Heptads, Daniel ix”), it is
carried on as upheld and sanctioned by him, and also during the “time, times and a half”
(three years and a half) in which he will directly and avowedly oppose God and
all worship rendered to Him.
* Some writers on prophecy have, in their explanations or
interpretations of this vision, adopted the reading “two
thousand and four hundred
days”, and in vindication of it they have referred to the common printed
copies of the LXX version. In this book,
however, the translation of Theodotion has been long substituted for the real
LXX: and further, although “two thousand four hundred”
is found in the common printed Greek copies, that is
merely an erratum made in printing the
The expression “transgression of
desolation” is not to be passed over without notice, for it is the first
of the varied mentions made in the book of Daniel of that “abomination of desolation” to which our Lord refers us
in Matthew 24.
In the explanation in verse 26
all the further light given to Daniel about this latter part of the vision is a
confirmation of its truth and certainty: “and the
vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision: for it shall be for many days”.
The conclusion of the history of the “king of fierce
countenance” is briefly this - “he shall stand up also
against the Prince of princes, but he shall be
broken without hand” (verse 25).
These latter words appear to be intended to call back our minds to the
description which we had given us in chap. 2 of the destruction of the fabric of Gentile
power by a stone cut out of a mountain without hands. That stone is “the
Prince of the kings of the earth, the first born from the dead”, the
Lord of all glory; although the power of the enemy in blasphemy goes on long,
it reaches its highest point, and the personal interference of the Lord Christ
in judgment closes the scene and new things are introduced. “When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is that they shall be destroyed for ever” (Ps. 92: 7).
[Page 90]
We find then in this chapter -
First, the rise of the Grecian power
on the ruins of the Medo-Persian. This gives us the territorial
platform of the vision.
Second, the Grecian
kingdom in a state of fourfold division.
Third, this fourfold division existing as a thing yet future,
at the time of the last end of the indignation, and then another king rises
from one of the divided parts.
Fourth, this king acts in blasphemy against God, in
persecution against His saints, in tyranny and destructive power over
Fifth, he stands up against the Prince
of princes, and is destroyed by the direct action of God’s power.
We must not leave unnoticed the effect which this vision had
upon the mind of the prophet: “And I Daniel fainted,
and was sick certain days; afterwards I rose up, and did
the king’s business; and I was astonished at the
vision, but none understood it.”
The vision appeared as one which held forth a sad prospect for
Daniel’s people: here were these sorrows to be endured in future ages. It is true that, inferentially, a point of
bright hope might be discovered, for these things belonged to “the last end of the indignation”. Beyond, then, all that other prophets had
spoken of, blessing and grace must lie in a bright perspective. But Daniel was confounded at the intervening
sorrows; his soul had not been as yet sustained (as we know that it afterwards
was) to look through and beyond the sorrow and [Page 91] thus to see the exceeding brightness
of the [Messiah’s] distant
glories.*
[* See 1 Pet.
1: 9-11, R.V. cf. Hab.
2: 14, R.V.]
The place in which we are set is indeed one of many
privileges: God looks on His whole redeemed people as one body, “the
heir”. While in a state of non-age, i.e.
before Christ came, the Spirit was not given as He now is, as the Spirit of
sonship, and as the leader of God’s children into the apprehension of all the
truth which is revealed to us in the word.
It is our place to enter into God’s revealed counsels and to see that He
is making everything tend onward to the [coming manifested] glory of Christ: every portion of
truth will have unction for our souls, if we can see it as connected with Him [and His kingdom, (Rev. 3: 21)].
In a vision like the present it is true that we have mostly a
narrative of evil; but it is our place to see it where it is set in God’s
counsels. We have not to faint or be
astonished like Daniel, but to have our souls so filled with the knowledge of
Christ, and what God’s purposes of grace are, as to know assuredly that every
intervening hindrance will only tend to its more full and glorious
display. Opposition to Christ, and the
working of Satan, will reach to a head, and then the Lord, taking the power
into His own hand, will be manifested as the King of Israel, as well as being
our Head; then will the indignation be accomplished, and the remnant of Jacob
will return to “the mighty God”, and Jerusalem,
the holy city of the great King, will indeed be made “a
praise in the earth”.*
* I may refer the reader who wishes for further examination into
Scripture testimonies concerning the person denoted by the horn in this chapter
to a tract of mine entitled The Man of Sin, and also to Prospects
of the Ten Kingdoms of the Roman Empire, by B. W. Newton, and to
Aids to Prophetic Inquiry, by B. W. Newton (Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony).
* *
*
[Page 92]
THE SEVENTY HEPTADS (DANIEL 9)
THE soul
of a saint always finds establishment when it can truly repose upon the
revealed will of God, when, amid the conflict of human thoughts and human
actions, it can be brought simply to “God and the word
of his grace”. Those who are not
so reposing may only look at the storm, but those who, like Paul in the tossed
vessel, have had the word of God brought home to their ear can take courage
themselves and rely upon the promise of safety even for the guidance of others.
This gives prophecy a peculiar value to the soul of the
instructed Christian - he thus is warned of the coming events; but though he
sees them he is not cast down, for he knows the issue beforehand. Our present calling is to walk in the midst
of human things in the full practical recognition of the [future millennial] glories which have been made known to us as belonging to us in Christ our
head, above at God’s right hand.
Prophecy has been bestowed on us in order that we may know how, in the
midst of confusion and the varied forms of Satan’s working,
we may stand and act as those who belong to Christ. We know as a simple fact how the Church has
greatly overlooked this important portion of God’s revealed truth. We know also how the enemy has sought to cast
a kind of discredit upon every effort which is made either for any to
understand and use prophecy themselves, or to give instruction to others
therein. But this, instead of leading us
to overlook this precious deposit of God’s truth, ought to make us the more
earnest in not neglecting that which is so important. [Page 93] If discredit be cast upon such investigation it ought to cause us to look
the more to the God of all grace, that He may vouchsafe to us the teaching of
His Spirit that so we may use it aright.
In considering the ninth chapter of
Daniel we see at once the value which
previous prophecy possessed in his soul.
He had been favoured with many direct communications from God, but here
we find him using the prophecy which had been given through Jeremiah as the ground of his confession and
prayer. “In the
first year of Darius, I Daniel understood by
books the number of the years, whereof the word
of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that
he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of
* “Thus saith the Lord, that after seventy years be accomplished at
It is interesting to see how Daniel connected hope resting
upon promise with prophecy: the hope was that the captives should return from
[Page 94]
And so, surely, the [Holy] Spirit always teaches: we may either
follow our speculations about the things which God has revealed, or else have
our ears open to hear all His
instruction: the latter is our only safeguard against speculation. Happy is that believer who holds what God has
revealed, in dependence upon His grace, and the power of His Spirit, to enable
him to use it aright.
But the mind of Daniel did not merely lay hold of the fact of
the restoration of his people; this was, indeed, an object of hope, but he saw
God, and the working of God in the matter: he saw God as the one who had laid
on them this punishment of captivity, as the one who had promised to bring them
back, and as the one who had a mind concerning the whole.
And very solemn were the thoughts of the prophet when his
heart was thus brought before God: he saw the faithfulness of God in those
things which told of judgment, for here was the proof - that they were in
Babylon; and thus he was led to what God had said about restoration from
captivity in the very places which in the Law of Moses denounced that
punishment, Lev. 26:
40, etc.: “If they
shall confess their
iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers,
with their trespass which they have trespassed against
me, and that also they have walked contrary unto
me; and that I also have walked contrary unto
them, and have brought them into the land of
their enemies; if then their
uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then
accept the punishment of their iniquity:
then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will
remember the land.”* So too in Deut. 30 repentance
is spoken of as that which God calls for as the prerequisite to His
bringing back His people to their land.
These promises of course belong, in their full application, to the
future and final deliverance and restoration of
[* Note the conditions imposed by
God. Is there not a deeper meaning for
Christians today relative to these; and to the “LAND”? That is, relative to one’s entrance into
Christ’s
Full of blessed instruction as all the former portion of this
chapter is, I am only now regarding it as introductory to the response on God’s
part to the prayer of the prophet. In verses 20, 21,
we find that the angel Gabriel was forthwith sent forth to the prophet – “O Daniel, [Page 96] I am now come
to give thee skill and understanding” (verse
22). We find at the end of chapter 8 that the vision had not been understood;
but now the teaching from God assumes a different form. God gives the instruction by direct
statement, and not by symbol which required interpretation. It is also well to observe that the symbolic
visions in this book and their interpretations do not run exactly parallel to
each other; each presents certain features which are omitted in the other, and
each helps to give definiteness and consistency to the truth taught.
Verse 23: “At the beginning of thy
supplication the commandment came forth; and I
am come to show thee; for thou art greatly
beloved”: the margin has here “a man of
desires”, whence some have questioned whether it refers to the
desire on Daniel’s part to know the things, or to the desires being on God’s
part towards him: it is clear from the form of the word that the latter is correct. “Therefore understand
the matter and consider the vision.”
The following verses of the chapter contain the prophetic part
of the vision: much is comprised in them, but the things spoken of are stated
so concisely that they require very particular attention.
Daniel had made inquiry about seventy years of the captivity
in Babylon; the answer speaks also of seventy periods, which in our English
translation are called “weeks”; the word,
however, does not necessarily mean seven days, but a period of seven parts: of
course it is much more often used in speaking of a week than of anything else,
because nothing is so often mentioned as a week which is similarly
divided. The Hebrews, however, used a
septenary scale as to time, just as habitually as we should reckon by tens; the
sabbatical years, [Page 97] the jubilees, all tended to give this
thought a permanent place in their minds.
The denomination here is to be taken from the subject of Daniel’s
prayer; he prayed about years, he is answered about periods of seven years,
i.e. the recurrence of sabbatical years.
His prayer had related to the deliverance of Israel from their
then captivity, the reply goes much farther: for it sets out, not from the
release of the people, but from the edict to restore and to build
I will now give the verses
from the 24th. to the end, departing in some places from our English
translation, together with remarks interspersed; and the whole prophecy may be
considered in detail. I
retain the word “week” for convenience’ sake,
and not as implying seven days to be the import of the Hebrew word.*
* See the Note on the “Year-day System”,
below, p. 111.
Verse 24: “Seventy weeks have been determined
(more strictly, ‘divided’) upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and
to make an end of sins, and to make
reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in
everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision
and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies.”
(This expression is used in no other place as signifying a person, nor ought
it, I believe, to be so taken here.)
Verse 25: “Know then and understand, from the issuing of the decree to restore and to build
Verse 26: “And after
the threescore and two weeks [Page 98] shall Messiah
be cut off, and there shall be nothing for Him;
and the city and the sanctuary shall the people destroy
of a prince who shall come; and his end shall be
in the overflowing; and until the end (there is) war (even) that which is determined
for desolations.”
Verse 27: “And he (the prince who shall come) shall
confirm a covenant with the many (or with the
multitude) for one week; and at half the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to
cease; and upon the wing (or pinnacle) of abominations
(shall be) that which
causeth desolation, even until the consummation,
and that determined shall be poured upon the causer of
desolation.”
Here, then, we have the objects of hope placed first, just as
we find in the Psalms and so many other
portions of prophetic Scripture: the soul is first set in the place of strength
by the apprehension of the blessings which are to be brought about; and then
the intermediate trials become subjects of prophetic instruction.
In verse 24 the expression
“are determined” is more strictly “are divided”; this may relate to the seventy weeks
being a period of time divided out, as it were, from the whole course of ages,
for God to deal in a particular manner with the Jews and Jerusalem; or it may
refer to the period being itself divided into parts, as we see in the verses
which follow.
Daniel in his prayer, in addressing God, had constantly spoken
of Israel as “thy people”, “thy holy city”, etc.; but the angel Gabriel in the
reply takes them up simply as Daniel’s people - “thy
people, thy holy city”, etc. - as though
God would intimate that until the everlasting righteousness should be brought
in, He could not in the full sense own them as His.
The various things spoken of “to
finish the transgression, to make an end of sins,
to make reconciliation for [Page 99] iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness”,
are all, I believe, future. I do not regard any of them as referring
strictly to the work of Christ upon the cross (although we, as believers in
Him, know that many of these things have a blessed application to us), but it
rather appears to me that they all belong to
the time of Israel’s blessing, when the preciousness of the blood of Christ
shall be applied to those “who are spared of
them”: when “thou shalt call me my Father;
and shalt not turn away from me” (Jer. 3: 19).
I believe that “to seal vision and
prophet” means this - to give the seal of confirmation to the vision by
the issue of events as predicted; and in the same manner to confirm the prophet
by the fulfilment of those things which God has spoken through him.
The expression “to anoint the most
holy” (or rather “holy of holies”) has
often been taken, as I am well aware, as referring to our blessed Lord; this I
believe to be an erroneous application of the words: the expression does not in
a single case in any other passage apply to any person, but always to the most holy place of the tabernacle or temple, or
else to things such as sacrifices which
were “most holy”. Here I believe that it simply refers to the
most holy place, the sanctuary of God, which in the days of
[* NOTE. History will repeat itself again; and
again! This text points toward
the coming Millennium; when Messiah’s “HOUSE” (i.e.,
the 5th.
To interpret this text, as a reference to the “Church” and its regenerate members being indwelt by
the Holy Spirit, is to ignore the context and blind the eyes of Christians to unfulfilled
prophetic and millennial truths.]
These, then, are the objects of hope - circumstances which
will be brought to pass when the seventy weeks have run to their
termination. The point from which they
commence is next stated: “from the issuing of the
decree [Page 100] to restore and to build
* On the 20th of Artaxerxes. - Some have found a difficulty in
making out the chronology of the seventy weeks, because they have thought that
the time from the 20th of Artaxerxes to the crucifixion of our Lord
would not fully accord with that marked out in the prophecy. If it had been so, it need have surprised no
one; whatever be the result of chronological calculations, the word of God is
the same; we know that it is certain, and everything else must bend to it.
But here I believe the difficulty to be wholly imaginary. It is true that we may find some from the
date pointed in the margin of our Bibles; but the history of this date, as it
there stands, is rather curious.
Archbishop Ussher drew up a scheme of
Chronology which is commonly followed, rather from convenience than from its
absolute correctness being supposed.
About a hundred and fifty years ago Bishop Lloyd undertook to affix
Archbishop Ussher’s dates to our English Bibles; but,
in
this instance, he made a considerable alteration and substituted
another date of his own, so as to adapt the reign of Artaxerxes to his own
theory.
The date which stands in our Bibles for the 2oth of Artaxerxes
is 446 B.C. - this makes the commencement of his reign 465 B.C.; but the
authority of the best and most nearly contemporary historian will put the
matter in a very different light.
Thucydides mentions that the accession of Artaxerxes had taken place
before the flight of Themistocles; this authorises us to adopt Ussher’s date and to place the commencement of the reign
473 or 474 B,C.
This would give the date of 454 or 455 B.C. If we add to this the date of the crucifixion
it will just give us the exact period of the sixty-nine weeks. In doing this we must remember that the birth
of our Lord was about four years before the common era,
so that the thirty-third year of His life, when He is supposed to have
suffered, would correspond with the year twenty-nine of our reckoning. I believe this to have been the true date;
first because of the day of the week on which the passover commenced in that year; and also, because of
the consuls of that year (the two Gemini) having been mentioned by several
writers as those of the year when our Lord was put to death.
This remark does not affect the instruction given us by God in
this chapter; it is a point which I only notice for the removal of
difficulties.
It is great pity that Archbishop Ussher’s
date should in this particular have been misrepresented: it was a point to
which he had paid particular attention.
About the year 1613 he lectured on the subject at
Ussher in thus laying down this date had no
motive for bringing the space of 483 years from the 20th of Artaxerxes to A.D.
29; for his division of the seventy Heptads differs from mine, and he did not
regard A. D. 29 as the date of the crucifixion of our Lord.
[Page 101]
The twentieth of Artaxerxes gives us a starting point from
which the reckoning of the seventy weeks begins; we have next to pay attention
to the manner in which this period is divided into distinct parts. Two portions of the time are first spoken of
- “From the issuing of the decree to restore and to
build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince, shall
be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks”:
i.e. two periods, the one forty-nine years, the other four hundred and
thirty-four years; the whole period of the four hundred and ninety years being
included, except seven years.
[Page 102]
There is next added, “the street shall
be built again, and the scarped rampart, even in pressure of times”; then follows, “and after the threescore and two weeks”, etc. Hence it is clear that the whole period from
the decree to Messiah the Prince is four hundred and eighty-three years, and
that forty-nine of these years are appropriated to something peculiar; the only
thing so mentioned has been the building of the street, rampart, etc. these
things are, I judge, to be allotted to the first
division of the time, namely, forty-nine years.
Some have thought that this same interpretation was supported
by the expression “in pressure of times”, which they would render “in the shorter space of time” - a rendering wholly
destitute of ground, only supported indeed by its supposed fitness in this
place. I quite agree with the
explanation which allots the first forty-nine years to these events, but I
could not support it by any such supposed rendering.
But it may be asked, ‘What is the
evidence that forty-nine years were spent in the restoration of the city?’ I answer, I believe it to have been so,
simply on the authority of this passage; no other portion of Scripture says
anything about the length of time, and here forty-nine years are mentioned, and
also the restoration of the city is so placed in juxtaposition that they appear
clearly to belong together.
Verse 26: “And after the threescore and two
weeks, shall Messiah be cut off”; this period is marked by the definite
article as identical with the threescore and two weeks of the preceding
verse. The four hundred and eighty-three
years from the issuing of the decree run on “to Messiah
the Prince”; it becomes then important to inquire to what part of our
Lord’s earthly path the reference is made.
He was “born King of the Jews”, [Page 103] but this appears to be something more than the mere title: now, the only
time in which we find the Lord Jesus taking this title in the presence of
Jerusalem was six days before He suffered, when He came thither on the ass’s
colt; He was then presented as King, and six days afterwards was put to death
as the King of the Jews. I should regard
the limit “unto Messiah the Prince” as reaching on to His having been thus
presented to
I should not thus consider the expression “After the threescore and two weeks” as
implying an interval; but rather as being just the same as “at the end of the sixty-two weeks”, “when they are accomplished”.
The words which stand in our English version, “but not for Himself”, have often been taken as if they
spoke of the vicarious character of our Saviour’s suffering; this would however
be, I believe, placing a most true and important doctrine upon an insufficient basis. I believe that the words simply imply, “and there shall be nothing for Him” - He will be rejected, and His earthly [millennial] kingdom will be
a thing on which He will not then enter.
The series of years has run on unhinderedly from the issuing
of the edict to the cutting off of Messiah; but at this part of the vision
there are various events spoken of before the one remaining week comes into
notice at all. “And
the city and the sanctuary shall the people destroy of a prince who shall come.” This refers, I have no doubt, to the
destruction of
“And his end shall be in the
overflowing”: I suppose that this speaks of the end of the prince who
shall come; in the expression “the overflowing”
allusion seems to be made to some known event in prophecy; I suppose that it is
the same overflowing as that which is alluded to in Isa. 10:
22 and 28:
18.
This would identify the time of this prince with the crisis of
The interval up to “the end” is
only characterised by war and desolations; just so our Lord teaches us in Matt. 24, “Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.” The expression “that
which is determined” appears to be taken up from Isa. 10:
23.
The vision gives us no intimation about the times of events
which belong to the interval - we only find at the cutting off of Messiah, one
seven years is unaccomplished; this “reserved week”,
as some have aptly called it, belongs to the time of the prince who shall come.
Verse 27: “And he (the prince who shall come) shall
confirm a covenant with the many for one week.” In “Remarks on
Chapter 8” (pp. 75-76) I sought to show that
the horn spoken of in the two chapters is identical, [Page 105] and here he again appears to come before us; in fact, the allusion seems
to be made to known circumstances about him.
He makes a covenant with the multitude; that of course means the
multitude of Daniel’s people, they are leagued with
him and he with them. This takes place
three years and a half before he causes sacrifice and oblation to cease, hence it is clear that they go on as under his
patronage for some time. This will, I
believe, throw some light upon the two thousand three hundred days mentioned in
chapter 8: 14. We find him here making a covenant for one
seven years, then breaking it at the end of three years and a half; and the
removal of sacrifice, etc, is so spoken of as to connect it with the breaking
of the covenant. This tends, I think, to
show that one thing done in pursuance of this covenant had been the
establishment of the temple worship. The
period of two thousand three hundred days is a few months short of the whole
term of the seven years, enough being not included, it may be, to be allotted
for those preparations which will be needful for the worship to be set up; then
follows the time during which it is carried on under his auspices, and then
follow three years and a half of distinct persecuting and blasphemous power.
The character of this period of three years and a half is to
be specially gathered from chapter 7, in
which mention is made of “a time, times, and a half”, and
also from the forty and two months, 1,260 days, etc., which are spoken of in
the book of Revelation.
The identity of the time, times, and a half, of chapter 7, with the last half week of this
chapter, might almost be taken for granted; the proof, however, is simple: the
horn in chapter 7 acts in blasphemy and
persecution until the Lord Jesus and His people take the kingdom; [Page 106] the three years and a half run on to that point; here in this chapter the
whole period of seventy weeks issues in the absolute and established blessing
of Israel, Daniel’s people - the week of this covenant is the last portion of
the seventy weeks, and the half week after the sacrifice is taken away is the
latter portion of that week. Thus the
period in chapter 7 and the concluding
period before us run on to the same point, they are also equal in duration;
hence they begin at the same time and are altogether identical. If we would form a just estimate of the events
of the last half week we must gather it from chapter 7.:
here we have the same power in its local connection with
The seventy weeks when distributed into portions will then
stand thus:
1. From the edict
to the building of the wall, etc., -
49 Years
2. From the
building to Messiah the Prince, and his cutting off, -
434 years
[Then an interval of
unmarked length.]
3. The period of
the covenant of “the prince that shall come,” - 7 years
One of the blessings spoken of in verse
24 had been “to finish the transgression”;
this may be suitably compared with the expression in chapter
8, “when the transgressors are come to the full”.
“And upon the wing of abominations
[shall be] that which
causeth desolation.” The
phraseology of this passage is rather obscure, but I believe that this is the
meaning of the words. “The transgression of desolation” had been mentioned in
the previous vision. This appears to be
a reference to what had been there said - there is further elucidation to be
obtained from what we find in the subsequent vision - but all these passages
have a solemn interest and importance for us, when we [Page 107] remember what our Saviour said in Matt.
24, “When ye see the
abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel
the prophet, stand in the Holy place; whoso readeth, let him
understand”, then do so and so.
“The Holy place” is that in
which this abomination will be set; this of course means the
These things - the cessation of sacrifice,
and that which causeth desolation standing on the pinnacle - continue “even until the consummation and that determined shall be
poured upon the causer of desolation”.
The expression “the consummation and that determined” is quoted from Isa. 10: 22, 23. This
connection is one of great interest; for on the one hand the return of the
remnant of Jacob to the mighty God is spoken of, and on the other, faith is
encouraged not to be afraid of the terrible power of Asshur.
In rendering the concluding word by “the
causer of desolation” I believe that I follow the true sense of the [Page 108] original. I am quite aware that the
verb, the participle of which is here employed, is used sometimes in a neuter,
and at other times in an active, sense; sometimes implying that which is made desolate, at others that which occasions the desolation. I believe that the former of these is the
more common, but the latter is proved, I think, to be its sense in this
connection, by chapter 12: 11, where it is clear that the abomination that maketh
desolate is spoken of, and not anything which has been made desolate.
It is indeed remarkable to see how Daniel was confided with
the counsels of God in these things; the response to his prayer gave him
instruction as to far deeper truths. He only thought of the past iniquity of
his people, God thought of a deeper iniquity when they will receive one who comes in His own name, after
Messiah has been rejected; when He makes a covenant with them, and it issues in
awful idolatry. Grace and faithfulness
would have been displayed in bringing the people back from Babylon, but how
much more would God manifest these things when they stand in contrast to the
ripened iniquity of man as found in Jerusalem!
It was Daniel’s place to look at all these things and to learn God in
them, to see Him as above the whole, and to apprehend something of what the
full manifestation of this grace will be, and what the [millennial] blessings in store for
Jerusalem and for Israel are, when the seventy weeks have run their course.
This might in some measure enable Daniel to enter into God’s mind; and
we must remember that Gabriel was expressly sent to give him skill and
understanding.
These seventy weeks appear to me to relate to the period of
God’s defined dealings with the city of
But other parts of Daniel throw
abundant light upon the matter; the horn of chapter
7 wears out the saints of the most high places, until the coming of the
Son of Man and the taking of the kingdom; in fact, the time of their being
persecuted is the same three years and a half as the last portion of time
before us here.
But the whole question is rendered perfectly simple by such
statements of the New Testament as “Let both grow together
until the harvest” (Matt. 13: 30). Thus there will be both tares and wheat upon
this earth till then; true believers in Christ, and others who put on the
semblance or profession, until the end of the age.
Also, “blindness in part hath happened
unto
I do not go into more elaborate evidence as to this point: I
merely suggest a few simple facts. I only add that our Lord, in His use of the
prophecy of Daniel and His whole teaching in
Matt. 24,
assumes that some of His beloved Church will continue to be cared for as His
sheep upon earth, until He comes in manifested glory, until He destroys “that wicked” with the breath of his mouth.
Some may think these observations on this point to be mere
digression - I think so myself, and I only add them because of statements
having been not only connected with the ninth
of Daniel, but even based upon it,
statements which have no relation whatever to the contents of the chapter.
It is remarkable to observe the difference between the manner
in which God reveals truth, and that in which man would seek to gain
knowledge. Those things which God
reveals are not only profitable themselves, but the manner also in which they
are presented is for profit. This we
shall do well to bear in mind in reading God’s word: it is easy for us to get
out minds informed about truth and to hold it apart from God; but what we have
to seek is that our hearts and consciences may be so exercised by all we read
of God’s revealed counsels that we may have deeper apprehensions of grace and
learn more of the glories of Jesus our Lord.
* *
*
[Page 111]
NOTEON THE “YEAR-DAY
SYSTEM”
MANY
have adopted a principle of interpretation with regard to designations of time,
when they are found in prophecy, to which they have given the name of “the year-day system”.
This principle is that in such prophetic designations of time the
literal meaning must not be held, but that in all expressions of periods of
time in future events a day stands as the representative of a year, and all
other spaces of time in similar proportion.
There are not a few who hold this as an opinion so established
in their minds that they regard it as an undoubted truth, without knowing
definitely on what grounds it was adopted; they speak of a prophetic day or a prophetic year as if it were an axiom that these
expressions denote the one a literal year, and the other a term of three
hundred and sixty literal years.
On this principle they would interpret the designations of
time in the book of Daniel and in the Revelation; they thus speak of the 1,260 years
and the 2,300 years. Of course, if we
find distinct Scripture warrant for this assumed canon we must bow to it, and
interpret accordingly. But if this canon
is supposed to be a deduction from Scripture, let us examine whether the
inference be legitimate, and let the reception or the
rejection depend on the grounds of proof.
It is not, I believe, stated by any that this canon is a
subject of direct teaching in Scripture, at least none of the points advanced
seem to be relied on as showing this; some of the maintainers of the system
expressly [Page 112] repudiate such a thought, for instance Mr. Conder
says:
“The application of the year-day
principle to the prophecy would, a priori, have been incapable of
proof, and might seem scarcely compatible with probability” (Literary History of the New Testament, p.
585). And to this he subjoins the
following note:
“It is admitted that, for the first
four centuries, the days mentioned in the prophecies of Daniel and in the
Apocalypse were interpreted literally by the Fathers of the Church; but from
the fifth to the twelfth century, a mystical
meaning came to be attached to the
period of 1,260 days, though not the true one. At the close of the fourteenth century,
Walter Brute first suggested the year-day interpretation, which was fully
espoused by the Magdeburg Centuriators, and applied
to the Papacy (Elliott, vol. ii, pp. 965-972).
That the true solution of the enigma should not have occurred to the
earlier writers, is not surprising. It was not intended, and was scarcely
possible, that it should be shown, a priori, that such was the
principle of interpretation. As Mr.
Elliott remarks, while the period was yet distant, a moral purpose was answered
by a temporary veil of mystery being thrown over the prophetic period; for the
Church was not to know the times and seasons, that she might be kept from the
earliest age in the attitude of watchful expectation. It was accordingly, not till the time drew
near, that the solution of the chronological enigma began to be perceived. Nor does it form any objection to its truth, that the a priori evidence scarcely amounts
to a probability, when the a posteriori
demonstration is all but irresistible.
It seems to be the divine intention that the discovery of the prophetic
mystery should wait upon the facts, not anticipate them.”
[Page 113]
Some, who have received the year-day principle without
inquiry, will be surprised at these admissions of the weakness of the a
priori evidence by which it is upheld; others may think that too much
is surrendered. At all events, however,
it must be owned that this canon of interpretation is not known as an intuitive
truth; the early Church knew no such axiom; and therefore I hold that it should
be shown to be either laid down in Scripture or else that it should be proved
thereby, before any one can be expected to receive it, and before it is
applied to the interpretation of prophetic statements.
In the quotation just given I do not suppose that anything
irreverent was intended in saying that “a moral
purpose was answered by a temporary veil of mystery being thrown over the
prophetic period”; but surely such ideas and expressions should be avoided. It is by truth that God teaches His people,
and thus we can never attribute to Him the accomplishment of a moral purpose by
that which would be a virtual deception.
He may produce a moral effect by leaving us uninformed as to many
things; but this is wholly different from such an effect being wrought by
positively false conclusions and opinions occupying the mind. Where Scripture is silent, we know nothing as
to God’s truth, and this silence may accomplish a moral purpose; but where the
Scripture speaks to us, how can it be according to God’s mind and appointment
that a moral purpose should be answered by our thoroughly misunderstanding it,
by its being for ages a delusive light?
Scripture may mislead the rejecters of truth, but God can never have designed that it should direct
His people wrongly: had He done this, He would have made the reverse of truth
profitable to their souls. If it is
right that we should now understand the designations of
time in prophecy, it was equally [Page 114] right from the earliest period of the
gathering of the Church. Unless the
Scripture taught, as a fact, that God had drawn such a veil, I would not
believe it; and if I thus learned that a veil existed, I would not believe that
it had been withdrawn, unless I had distinct proof to that effect. To do otherwise would be to assume the
existence of some other depository of God’s truth beside the treasury of holy Scripture.
Observe, I do not say that Scripture truth on various points may not
have been misunderstood, and that for long ages; this is wholly different from
maintaining that God laid over His Scripture, from the first,
a veil of mystery. Our hearts are dull of
apprehension, so that they constantly need the teaching of the Spirit of God;
the Scripture itself is the recorded testimony of that same Spirit.
God has taught us in His word what is our object of hope; He
also teaches us the intermediate scenes as to some of their more important
features. A right apprehension of any
of the details set before us can never deaden in our minds the moral “attitude of watchful expectation”. Nay, it is only so far as we are truthfully
instructed that we can watch and expect aright.
What, then, are the Scripture proofs which are advanced in
favour of the year-day system?
It is true that some expositors show that this principle is
needful in their explanations of
the prophecies themselves; this really is only a petitio
principii: a certain exposition cannot stand,
unless this canon is assumed, therefore (it is concluded) the canon must
be true. The right mode of treating the
question would be this: if a certain exposition stands or falls together with a
canon of interpretation on which it is based, then the exposition in question
must be held or not according as that canon is proved or supported by God’s
word. I am quite aware that dogmatic [Page 115] arguments are sometimes employed: such a doctrinal system
depends on such a mode of interpretation, therefore that mode of interpretation
must be maintained; and then when a great deal has been said on the doctrinal
importance of the points involved, it seems to some minds as if strong a posteriori grounds, at least, had been assigned
for the mode of interpretation. This,
however, is not a legitimate mode of drawing deductions from Scripture. We can never judge of the truth of any part
of Revelation by our notions of its importance.
If, then, the prophecies containing designations of time do
not state anything on the face of them which supports such a mode of
interpretation, we must look elsewhere for the a priori grounds of this opinion; I have then to
consider certain passages which are commonly referred to in support of this
hypothesis.
1. Numbers
14: 34: “After
the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day
for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities,
even forty years.”
This passage speaks of a denounced fact, but in it there is
nothing that implies a principle of interpretation. The spies had searched the land of promise
forty days, and God
sentences the murmuring and rebellious Israelites to wander in the wilderness
the same number of years. In the prophetic
part of the verse years are literal years and not the symbol of anything else. Apply the year-day system to this passage, and
then “forty years” will expand into a vast
period of fourteen thousand four hundred years. All that can be deduced
from this passage, as to the connection of the terms “day”
and “year”, is that as the search of the land
had occupied forty literal days, so the wandering in the wilderness should
continue for forty literal years.
Literal years answer to literal days.
[Page 116]
2. Ezekiel
4: 4-6:
“Lie thou also upon thy left side,
and lay the iniquity of the house of
Now this is not a symbolic prophecy at
all, but simply a symbolic action, which was commanded by God; and unless there had been the express
statement we never could have known that what Ezekiel did, for so many days,
really represented the actions of the same number of years. It is true that this is an instance in which
a day symbolically represents a
year, but the way in which this is done is wholly different from any such
ground being taken as though in prophetic language the one were used for the
other.
If in this passage day meant year, or if it were to be
interpreted by year, what should we find? - that Ezekiel was commanded to lie
on his left side three hundred and ninety years, and on his right side forty
years.
3.
Another passage which has been used as a basis for this system is the
latter part of the ninth of Daniel; some, however, of the strenuous advocates
of the year-day principle fairly own that it has no bearing upon the
question. Its supposed connection arises
from the [Hebrew] word …, rendered “week”, having been taken as though it must be simply
in its literal meaning seven days. This might be called wholly a question of
lexicography; the word itself is strictly something divided into or consisting
[Page 117] of seven parts - a hebdomad. It
bears the same grammatical relation to the numeral seven as one of the
Hebrew words used for ten does to the other of similar meaning. Gesenius simply defines its meaning to be “a septenary number”, he then speaks of its use as
applied sometimes to days, sometimes to years; the word itself, however,
defines nothing as to the denomination to which it belongs, whether the one or
the other. In Ezek.
45: 21 it
is used almost entirely like a numeral, standing with a feminine plural
termination in connection with a masculine noun, …
(according to the peculiar usage of numerals in Hebrew and the cognate
languages); and this passage is important as showing its use. It is not to be denied nor yet to be wondered at that it should be more often used of week than anything else, for this obvious
reason, that of all things admitting a septenary division there is
nothing so often spoken of as a week. In
this sense, however, it more commonly takes the feminine plural termination.
In the present passage it takes its denomination from years, which had been previously mentioned in
Daniel’s prayer. Daniel had been praying
to God, and making confession on behalf of his people, because he saw that the seventy
years, which had been denounced as the term of the captivity of
* In
this case, the addition of the word … days, is important, as it shows
that the term might else be understood differently: it is therefore a natural
addition, especially as it comes just after the prophecy of the seventy heptads
of years.
[Page 118]
I am well aware that strong assertions have been made to this
effect: that if we follow the conventional reading (i.e. with points) it is
simply “seventy weeks” (i.e. of seven days), but
that if we reject the points, it must mean “seventy
seventies”; this statement is very incorrect. I do read with the points, but the argument
does not rest upon them. I do not admit
that periods of seven days are necessarily indicated by the word itself. But if we paid no attention to the points, we
are not left to any such meaningless rendering as “seventy
seventies”; the fact must have been overlooked that in verse 27, where the word occurs in the singular,
it is twice written full (i.e. with the letter Vav
inserted), and this, without any points to help us, decides the matter.
In translating we may use the word “week”
not at all as conceding the point of the meaning of the Hebrew word, but simply
for convenience’ sake, and as requiring less explanation and circumlocution
than any other in common use. I believe
that I need say no more to prove that this ninth
of Daniel in no way upholds the year-day
scheme.
4. Luke 13:
31, 32: “The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out
and depart hence, for Herod will kill thee. And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils,
and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day
I shall be perfected.”
In transcribing this passage, I feel such astonishment at its
ever having been used as the basis of an argument on the subject that I think
that some readers may be incredulous as to the fact; I must inform such, that
the [Page 119] passage was used a century and a half ago by Fleming
(whose speculations as to the weakening of the Papacy were deemed by many, in 1848, so wonderfully convincing), and recently by Mr. Birks. But what use can they make of the
passage? Mr. Birks
says that the incident occurred several weeks before our Lord’s
sufferings. He therefore interprets it
thus, “our Lord’s ministry commencing with a passover, closed at the passover, after an exact interval of three years. The words of this passage would therefore
exactly describe the continuance of that ministry: the three days importing the
three years.” On this I remark, first, that if our Lord’s ministry
did continue exactly three years, it is what no one has distinctly proved, and
if true, it is not what is commonly held;* and, secondly, that if in this instance our Lord
meant years by days, there
must at this very time have been at least two years (“to-morrow and the third day”) of
His ministry yet to come. Most readers will, I should think, consider that the three days here are as literal as the
three days [and three nights] during which our Lord [as His dead body] lay in the grave [i.e., Joseph’s tomb], and that the term “third day” is here as
simply third day as in the passage
which speaks of the marriage at Cana in Galilee. I am not now concerned to expound the passage
in Luke, but it seems to me to relate to our Lord’s arrival at
* Three
years and six months is the term ordinarily assigned to our Lord’s ministry,
while others would limit it to a year and a few months, and others (such as Dr.
Chr. Benson) think that the Gospels supply evidence
that it continued for about two years and a half. In the face of this uncertainty of opinion I
was surprised to see the direct assertion that it lasted exactly three
years. I do not remember any writer who
had held this. I do not think that it
could be proved from Scripture that it began at the Passover; at least it had
commenced before the Passover in John 2, and
that is the first spoken of in connection with our Lord’s ministry.
5. Mr. Elliott
has recently brought forward Heb. 7: 27 [Page 120] as another passage to support the year-day system: “Who needed not daily as those high-priests, to offer up sacrifice, first
for his own sins, and then for the people’s”. Mr. Elliott supposes (following Macknight) that the high-priest offered sacrifice but once
in a year and therefore daily must mean yearly. On this mistake (for a simple mistake it is) the
supposed argument drawn from this passage entirely rests. On this point I need only refer to Mr.
Newton’s Aids to Prophetic Inquiry (First Series, 2nd ed.), pp. 176, 177.
In all these passages the days when mentioned are simply days and the years simply years: there is not a single phrase in which
it is said that the word days must mean years, except the very places the meaning of which is
the point under discussion. One
supposition cannot be brought forward as proof of another.
A distinction has indeed been drawn between symbolic and
literal prophecies: it is said that in the former we are not to understand days literally, but as the symbols of
something else. If this distinction be
good, no literal prophecies ought to be brought forward amongst the supposed proofs:
the sentence of forty years of wandering was a literal, not a symbolic,
denunciation; Ezekiel, indeed, lay on his side symbolically; but there was no
prophecy in the case at all. The use which
has been made of this distinction has been to seek thus to avoid the force of
literal periods of time mentioned in prophecy which have been literally
fulfilled.
And now, to consider the principal statements of time to which
this supposed canon is applied:- they are -
1. The time, times, and a half, Dan. 7: 25 and 12: 7.
2. The two thousand three hundred
days, Dan. 8:
14.
3. The twelve hundred and ninety days,
Dan. 12: 11.
4. The thirteen hundred and five and
thirty days, Dan. 12:
12.
5. The five months, Rev. 11: 5, 10.
6. The hour, and day, and month, and
year, Rev. 9:
15.
7. The three days and a half, Rev. 11: 9, 11.
The first of these periods is mentioned
in the same manner in the book of Revelation 12:
14; in that book we also find a similar
period spoken of as forty and two months, 11:
2, 13: 5; and twelve hundred and sixty days, 11: 3, 12: 6. In neither of the passages in Daniel does this designation of time occur in the
midst of a symbolic prophecy at all; for in chapter
7 the period is spoken of in the plain literal interpretation of the
symbolic horn, which is said to mean a literal king, who shall subdue three
literal kings (not described as horns in this part of the chapter), into whose
hand the saints shall be given for a time, times, and half a time - three years
and a half. If we make these words symbolic,
may we not arbitrarily explain away any other expression of Scripture? In chapter 12
there is no symbol at all; the communicator of truth to Daniel “held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for ever, that it shall be for a time,
times, and a half”. It seems to me as if the solemnity of this
oath, “by Him that liveth for ever”, would
exclude the thought of mere metaphor and symbol: at least I know of no words in
Scripture on which emphatic exactitude is more impressed.
But when we turn to the book of Revelation
and see how variously this period is expressed, 1,260 days, forty and two
months, a time times and half, it seems as if care had been taken to prevent
all possibility of misconception; whether occurring in symbolic description or
in [Page 122] literal explanation, the same isochronous expressions are
repeated.* As to “time, times,
and a half”, we have the period stated in three languages, Chaldee, Hebrew, and
Greek.
* I may
mention that when first my attention was directed to the prophetic parts of
Scripture it was by this threefold mode of speaking of the same term in the
book of Revelation that I was led to inquire
into the grounds of the year-day theory - a thing of which everyone who knows
anything about Scripture has heard traditionally, whether interested in
prophecy or not. As a Hebraist I was
already aware that the passage in Daniel 9
had no bearing in favour of the theory; and the varied mode of statement in the
Revelation showed me that unless it
possessed distinct proof it was not to be received.
The maintainers of the year-day theory accuse those who reject
it with repeating the same arguments over and over again: perhaps they do this,
but what of that? If we seek truth, not originality, we shall often act
thus. How can we set forth the foundation doctrines of Christianity - the
redemption of Christ, and the testimony borne by the Holy Ghost to the efficacy
of His blood for the salvation of every believing sinner - without repeating
what has been spoken reiteratedly from the Day of Pentecost and onward? And do not the upholders of this theory
repeat the same arguments? Although I
care but little whether I say the same things as others have said before me (so
long as the things are true), I may inform the reader that my views on the year-day system were
published in 1836; so that at least I did not copy from subsequent
writers. Let, however, truth
be maintained, as set forth in Scripture, irrespective of such points
as who those may be who have previously held the same.
The second passage (Dan. 8: 14) is
literally “unto two thousand three hundred evenings
mornings”, referring to the offering of the daily sacrifice each morning
and evening. This also occurs in an
explanation, so that the symbolic theory (even if it had any true foundation,
instead of being, as it is, a gratuitous assumption) would avail nothing. The expression seems such as intentionally to
exclude all thought of other than real days.
The third and fourth passages (in Dan. 12) have
nothing whatever to connect them with symbols, or with anything other than
literal statement. In fact there is
nothing to bring these under the year-day theory, except it be an assumed
interpretation.
The fifth of the passages has nothing
whatever in it to [Page 123] call for
this theory as needful. There is nothing
to hint any meaning except five literal months.
The sixth passage has been supposed by some to intimate a very
precisely defined period of three hundred and ninety-one years, fifteen
days. This would require proof. I cannot see that it speaks of a period of
time at all; the passage only says that the four angels were loosed that “had been prepared for the hour, and day, and month, and year” - a solemn designation (as it seems to me)
of the point of time spoken of; just so our Lord says, “of that day
and hour knoweth no man”.
The seventh passage, “three days and a
half”, Rev. 11,
has nothing in it to require any other than the literal interpretation. Some advocates of the year-day system have
been fond of laying stress on this passage, because, they say, that it was
early perceived by the Church that the period meant three years and a half. Had this been the fact it would have proved
nothing to any who does not feel bound to follow a supposed consensus
patrum in the understanding of
Scripture. The fact has, however, been over-stated. Prosper, in the fifth century, says that the
three days and a half of the slain witnesses answer to the three years
and a half of antichrist. Others
repeated the expression a little more strongly; but such passing remarks do not
invalidate the correctness of the statement of Mr. Conder that “at the close of the fourteenth century” “the year-day interpretation” was “first suggested”.*
* As far
as I know, the first who spoke of a period of twelve hundred and sixty years was
the celebrated Abbot Joachim of
[Page 124] But still, even if we have no exact
proof of the theory, may we not apply it to the interpretation of
Scripture? Is every word in the Bible to
be taken literally?
There is nothing relative to Scripture which can be pressed as
a matter of teaching, unless it can be proved from Scripture, or from the force
of the words, or from the facts of the case: and thus no one can be condemned
for rejecting a theory not so proved. No
doubt that in the Bible, as well as in other books,
figurative terms and expressions are used. Thus, when our Lord called Herod “a fox” He used a figure which none could mistake; when
He said “Destroy this temple” he used a figure
of deep meaning, which was misunderstood.
But where there is no figure at all, we have no authority to go out of
our way to invent one; especially when it is both inapt and inapplicable. This mode of procedure will never aid us in
understanding Scripture, for thus we should only be bending it to our own
minds, instead of taking the place of learners and inquiring, What has the Spirit of God written for our instruction?
Thus the meaning of the words day and year may be considered a
simple matter of lexicographical investigation, just as is the import of the
word rendered week in Dan. 9; and
then the responsibility of proving that they may signify something else rests
upon those who so understand them. But
with regard to Scripture terms, we need not always treat them as mere matters
of lexicography, and in the case before us we possess ample and absolute
evidence against that theory,
the supposed proofs of which have been discussed.
[Page 125]
1. In Dan.
4: 16, 23,
and 32, king Nebuchadnezzar was told that he
should be driven from men, etc., “till seven
times should pass over him”. This on the year-day theory would be a period
of two
thousand five hundred and twenty years - longer than from the
time of Nebuchadnezzar to the present day.
And the term “seven times” occurs both in
the symbolic part of the chapter and in the literal, so that the force of words
cannot be avoided by any such distinction.
Nebuchadnezzar, however, says (verse 28),
“All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.”
The prophecy related to literal years, and in literal years was it
accomplished. If then, in chapter 4, seven times are seven actual years, of course the period in chapter
7 is half that number. Thus king
Nebuchadnezzar is an unexceptional witness that prophetic Scripture does not
admit the year-day theory.
2. The next witness is Daniel the
prophet himself. In chapter 9: 2 he
tells us that he understood by books the prophecy of Jeremiah that the Lord would
accomplish seventy years in the
desolations of
3. The prediction of our Lord as to his
own resurrection on the third day is
also of importance. It is useless to
evade the application of this and similar passages by saying that they do not
occur in symbolic prophecies; the answer is simply, “Neither
do some of the passages to which you apply the year-day theory; [Page 126] they, too, are in simple statements.”
Thus, if, in the case of our Lord’s burial, the third day meant day and not year, then we may plainly see that the canon which assigns the meaning
of year to the word day, when it is used in prophecy, utterly fails in its
application.
Instances might be multiplied - such for example as the four
hundred years in Genesis 15 foretold to
Abraham as the limit of the bondage of his descendants in Egypt - but it is
needless to accumulate proofs when the point is established, according to the
Scripture rule, at the mouth of two or three witnesses.
This, then, is a case in which the Scripture has spoken; we are not, therefore, at
liberty to form any conclusions of our own (as if it had been silent) whether
day might not mean or symbolise [‘night’* or] year; we are bound in subjection to the word of God to say that it does
not and cannot so mean, and that thus every
interpretation which depends on that theory is necessarily incorrect.
[*
Relative to Matt. 12:
40: “Three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth.”
If the “days” are literal, so then are the intervening “nights”. Therefore our Lord’s Crucifixion must have
taken place on the Wednesday!]
If we were to admit a non-scriptural canon of interpretation
we should do much injury to truth, and we should adopt that to which we could
not authoritatively direct the attention of any one; but the injury to truth is
far greater when we admit a canon which is positively anti-scriptural - in the
former case we should be adding to the word of God, but in
the latter we should be even contradicting it.
It is by truth that God works on the hearts
of His people; to this we must then adhere, however it may run counter to
conventional [or popular] ideas.
The prophecies of Scripture can never be used for their legitimate
purposes if they are explained by the aid of a primary canon, which is in
itself not only unsupported by Scripture but is actually in contradiction to
it.
* *
*
[Page 127]
PROPHECY CONCERNING THE JEWS
IN THE LATTER DAYS (DANIEL 10., 11., 12.)
THESE
three chapters contain one vision, the last of those communications from God
through His angel to the prophet, of which the record is given us in this book. The time when it took place is stated to have
been “in the third year of Cyrus, king of
Daniel was now occupying a remarkable position: he had been
one of the original captives “in the third year of
Jehoiakim, king of Judah”; he had now continued for the whole of the
seventy years’ captivity as a faithful witness for God, and as the one employed
to testify concerning Gentile power, in its varied aspects and its issue, up to
the time when “one like the Son of Man” should
take the kingdom, and his people should be securely set in their own land. A portion of the Jews had gone back to their
land, as they had been permitted by the decree of Cyrus, but the aged prophet
was still in the land of [Page 128] Gentiles; he sees this vision “by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel” (the Tigris), verse 4.
And here - in the midst of the Medo-Persian kingdom,
and on the eastern limit of what was afterwards to be the Roman earth - he
receives a vision in which minute and definite instruction was given as to many
of those things, the outline of which had been previously communicated.
The mode of teaching which God now used was not symbol and
explanation, as had been the case in the general outlines of chapters 2 and 7
and in the more limited picture of chapter 8,
nor yet general statement such as the prophetic part of chapter 9, but here we have minute and definite detail; it is
in fact anticipative history of the most explicit kind. The object of this is evidently to fill in
the statements which had before been made, and to give them a yet further
definiteness in application to the events to which they belong.
The vision is thus introduced: “In the
third year of Cyrus, king of
The prophet had been mourning and
humbling himself for three weeks (verses 2, 3): the object of this had been (as we learn from
what the angel says to him in verse 12) that
he had set his heart to understand; his words had been heard and the angel had
come on account of his words; what his prayer had been we only find from the
communications made to him. From verses 5-11 we
have the account of the appearance to him of the messenger that had been sent,
and of the effect which his appearance had upon the men who were with Daniel,
and upon Daniel himself. In verses 11 and 12
he thus addresses the prophet: “O Daniel, a man greatly beloved,
understand the words that I speak unto thee, and
stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had
spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling. Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to
understand, and to chasten thyself before thy
God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.”
After speaking of how he had been withstood by the prince of
Persia, for the one and twenty days of Daniel’s mourning, an indication of the
mysterious agency of both evil angels and good, he states the distinct object
for which he had come: “Now I am come to make thee
understand what shall befall thy people IN THE LATTER DAYS: for yet the
vision is for many days.” This,
then, tells us the subject of this concluding prophetic vision - what
should befall Daniel’s people in the latter days. This, I believe, is an
intimation to us that we are not to expect in the vision the detail of events
occupying a long series of years, and running on from the time of the vision;
but that it simply belongs to the concluding scenes of the [Page 130] history of Daniel’s people prior to the Lord’s coming and their restored blessing.
In a similar manner, in chapter 8,
the vision had been given to let Daniel know “what
shall be in the last end of the indignation” (verse
19): Daniel had not understood what the vision had taught, but now I
believe that we shall find the same ground gone over with much minuteness of
detail in order that Daniel might understand. We may take as a preliminary
point that the purport of the two visions is identical.
In chapter 8 the prophecy
is given concerning Persia and Greece before the Persian power had arisen into
pre-eminence; in this vision the prophetic detail is given after this had taken
place, so that here there is no occasion for the Medo-Persian power to arise
into view (as it had in chapter 8) for the
prophetic detail to commence. Both of
these visions have to do territorially with those countries which are
geographically connected with
It is important, in reading a prophecy of this kind, to take
hold of any parts which we know from other Scriptures to be definite
points. There are certain portions of
God’s history of the Jews and Gentiles which we may call definite and (as it
were) chronological points; and thus, although we cannot count statements of
prophecy by centuries and years, so as to say when such and such events
will occur, yet on many subjects the relation of [Page 131] events has been revealed to us, so
that we know them to be synchronous, or else standing in a particular order and
consecution.
Now, the beginning of chapter 12
furnishes us with one of these points; it is said, “There
shall be [rather, it shall be] a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation,
even to that same time: and
at that time thy people shall be delivered.” Here then we have the final suffering and
deliverance of God’s ancient people, just as in Jer. 30:
7: “Alas! for
that day is great, so that none is like it;
it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.” This we may take as a date, and from this we
may, in a certain sense, count backwards, and look on the preceding part of the
vision as reaching up to it and introducing it.
In the last verse of chapter 11
we have a similar date, which we may in the same manner connect with other
Scriptures: we have the destruction of an oppressor in a peculiar manner - a
statement which is most manifestly parallel to that of chapter
8, for the oppressor in this vision was to “prosper
till the indignation be accomplished” (verse
36).
As to the starting point in these two visions there can be no
difficulty, it is the time when they were respectively seen by the
prophet. The outline of chapter 8, in symbol and interpretation, is here
filled in with direct statement communicated in simple language.
The prophetic part of the vision before us commences with chapter 11, verse 2,
“Behold, there shall
stand up yet three kings in
No one need be surprised that Scripture should give to kings
and princes names which are different from those which they bear in profane
history written in after ages. We find a
similar thing with regard to several of the Roman emperors; Caligula, for
instance, and Caracalla, whom we know by names or
rather appellations which have been since appended to them - the latter of
these is called in his inscriptions Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, a name by which
he is now scarcely known.* This will serve to illustrate the variation in names
between Scripture and profane history.
It is interesting, however, to find that three kings thus incidentally
mentioned in a prophecy are also recorded historically in Scripture.
* Thus
the decree of Antoninus for
conferring Roman citizenship on the whole empire was supposed by some to
emanate from the benevolent feelings
of Antoninus
Pius, instead of proceeding
from the cupidity o~ Bassianus, who called himself Antoninus but who is known by posterity as Caracalla, from the hooded cloak of that name which he
wore.
The conduct of the fourth king (Xerxes) in stirring up all his
power against Greece sets these two states (the second and third monarchies) in
a position of contention, ending only in the conquest of the former by the
latter, so soon as it also became a monarchy.
The next verse describes the first king: “And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.” The divisions of this third monarchy next
appear: “And when he shall stand up his kingdom shall
be broken, and shall be divided toward [Page 133] the four
winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides those.” It is impossible for us to avoid seeing how
parallel this portion of the vision is to chapter 8
- there, in verses 7 and 8 in the vision, and in verses
21 and 22 in the interpretation,
exactly the same ground has been gone over.
In chapter 8, immediately
that the fourfold division of Alexander’s empire has been mentioned there is a
transfer of the time of the vision from continuous history to “the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full” (verse 23); and the object of this is to instruct
Daniel as to “what shall be in the last end of the
indignation: for at the time appointed the end
shall be”. Just so do I believe
that we have in this concluding vision an interval which commences at the
fourfold division of the monarchy and which ends by the events being mentioned
which introduce the concluding period of
It is certain that this last vision extends to the time when
Daniel’s “people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book” (12: 1); it is
also plainly said that the messenger had come “to make
thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days”
(10: 14). This expression seems at least to intimate
that a long detail of the successors of Alexander is not to be expected here, that
the object of the vision is quite different.
Also, as the point to which it leads us on is certain, and as it is
clear that a break or interval must exist somewhere, this must be its place,
unless any other can be found in another part of the chapter. Also, [Page 134] if any possible place be found where such an interval can be
supposed, and if any event mentioned previous to such a place belongs to
Now, this is the actual place of the interval in the parallel
vision; it will, I believe, be found that in no other place is such an interval
admissible in this, and if so it will follow that between verses 4 and 5 is
the line of demarcation between that which is long past and that which is
future, as introducing the events which befall Daniel’s people in the latter
days.
Before considering the former part of the chapter, sentence by
sentence, it will be well to state that I believe that from verse 21 to the end we have the continuous history
of one king. Some have supposed that in
this part of the chapter there is a break about verse
33; this I regard as impossible for several reasons: in verse 31 “the abomination
that maketh desolate” is mentioned, and as this vision is the only one
in Daniel in which it is expressly
mentioned in these terms, it
must be to this vision that our Lord refers in Matt.
24 when speaking of events yet future; also,
in verse 29, three invasions of Egypt are
spoken of - the one mentioned in the verse
itself, “the former” of which the account is
given in verse 25, and “the latter” which is not mentioned at all till verses 42 and 43. Some of these things will call for further
observation, but thus much stated preliminarily will clear the way.*
* See a
subsequent section of this volume, on “The Interpretation
of the Former Part of Daniel 11 by Past History”.
I now take the former part of the chapter, in order to follow
closely the persons and events brought before us; this requires attention, but
I believe it will be found that this anticipative history is just as definite
(with the single [Page 135] exception of the names not being mentioned) as is God’s record of the past. I take the
words of the chapter, introducing what I consider suitable explanation, and
affixing, for distinction’s sake, numbers to the kings of the north and south who are spoken of; by these
numbers I simply mean the first, second, etc., who are here mentioned.
Verse 5: “And the [first] king of the south [i.e.
Verse 6: “And in the end of years they
[i.e. the first king of the south, and the prince] shall
join themselves together; for the [first]
king’s daughter of the south shall come to the
[prince now become the first] king of the north to make
an agreement: but she shall not retain the power
of the arm: neither shall he [i.e. the
first king of the south] stand, nor his arm: but she shall be
given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he
that strengthened her in these times.”
Thus, this attempt to form an alliance by marriage becomes
wholly fruitless, and only ends in the destruction of the first king of the
south.
Verse 7: “But out of a branch of her roots
[i.e. out of the same family from which she sprang] shall
one stand up in his estate” [this means, 1 believe, rather, on
his own basis, and not, in
his
stead, which would here be [Page 136] inapplicable, as a woman had been spoken of], “which
shall come with an army, and shall enter into
the fortress of the [first] king of the north,
and shall deal against them and shall prevail: (verse 8) and shall also
carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their
princes, and with their precious vessels of
silver and gold; and he” [i.e. the branch
out of her roots, now become the second king of the south] “shall continue more
years than the [first] king of the north. So the
[second] king of the south shall come into his kingdom”
[i.e.
In order to understand to whom the pronouns in the next
sentence refer the whole passage must be read, and then it becomes clear that
they relate to the king of the north. Verse 10: “But his sons”
[those of the first king of the north] “shall be
stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of
great forces: and one shall certainly come,
and overflow, and pass
through; then shall he” [i.e. this one of
the sons of the first king of the north, who is himself presently spoken of as
becoming king] “return and be stirred up even to his
fortress.
Verse 11: “And the [second] king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the [second] king of
the north: and he [the second king of the
north] shall set forth a great multitude: but the multitude shall be given into his [the second
king of the south’s] hand.
Verse 12: “And when he [the second king
of the south] hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and
he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he
shall not be strengthened by it.
Verse 13: “For the [second] king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than [Page 137] the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with
a great army and with much riches.
Verse 14: “And in those times there shall many
stand up against the [second] king of the south;
also the children of the robbers [see margin] of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision,
but they shall fall.”
The Egyptian and Syrian kingdoms are thus, then, found in
continued dissension, under their second kings here mentioned. At this point of time the children of the robbers of Daniel’s people exalt
themselves to establish the vision, but in this attempt they are wholly
unsuccessful. The Gentiles have been,
age after age, the oppressors of Israel; they have fulfilled, it is true, the
denounced doom of God, but they have done this, not as desiring to perform the
will of God, but as gratifying their own self-will; but here the children of these robbers adopt a different
course of policy: does not this appear like an intimation of efforts on the
part of Gentiles for setting the Jews in their own land as a people? The issue of the vision is that settlement -
what is here called the establishment of the vision is what they will seek, but
the endeavour will be fruitless. This
certainly appears to me like some attempt of the nations to check the continued
wars between
It is true that we are not to look on Christian effort on
behalf of Israelites now as a hopeless thing - “blindness in part hath happened
to Israel” - but the conversion of any of them now makes such
individuals a part of the Church and has no relation to God’s general dealings
with the nation. Paul, and tens of
thousands of other Jews, believed in Christ before the destruction of
Verse 15: “So the [second] king of the north shall come, and
cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities;
and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither
shall there be any strength to withstand.” Verse 16:
“But he [the second king of the north] that cometh against him [the second king of the south]
shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land” [i.e. the
Verse 17: “He shall also set his face to enter
with the strength of his whole kingdom, and
upright ones with [Page 139] him” [some apparently who are ignorantly
aiding his designs]; “thus shall he do: and shall give him [the second king of the south] the daughter of women, corrupting
her: but she shall not stand on his side,
neither be for him.” Verse 18:
“After this he shall turn his face unto the isles,
and shall take many; but
a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease;
without his own reproach shall he cause it to turn upon
him.” This verse appears to
describe certain actings of this second king of the north in a western
direction towards
It is evident from the entire omission of all mention of the
kings of the south in this part of the chapter that the affairs of that kingdom
are only treated of here incidentally: the two kingdoms of Syria and Egypt have
an importance which the other two parts of Alexander’s empire have not, because
of their bounding the Holy Land on two sides, and the only communication by
land between them passing through that country.
The names of north and south appear to be taken not from their position
amongst the four parts of the third empire, but from their relative situation
with regard to
In this history we have had, from verse
5, the account of the manner in which Syria becomes the kingdom of an
Egyptian prince, and the actings of himself and his successor: Syria has, I
believe, this prominence to this chapter, because of its being the part of the
divided empire out of which “the vile person”
springs who is mentioned in verse 21. In verse 20
the short interval is described between the destruction of the powerful second [Page 140] king of the north and the rising of this vile person: “Then shall stand up in his estate” [on
his own basis, see verse 7] “a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days shall he be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle.” The expression, “in
the glory of the kingdom”, marks this person to be the third
king of the north: his destruction appears to leave the kingdom in utter
anarchy; and then within the Syrian kingdom there arises “a vile person” whose history appears to me to be given
continuously to the end of the chapter.
He is presented in the same abrupt manner as Alexander the Great is
introduced in verse 4. There, did we not know that he was the Grecian monarch, we could hardly
have proved it from this vision: that in chapter 8
is assumed in each case to be known truth, both as to the rise of Alexander and
as to the king who shall spring out of one of the parts of his empire.
I need hardly make the remark how entirely this is parallel to
both the vision and the interpretation of chapter 8. There we had a little horn growing out of one
of the four others; this is interpreted as being “a
king of fierce countenance” who shall stand up. I do not regard this person, who is
introduced in verse 21, as being a fourth
successional king of the north: first, because it is said expressly of him, “to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom”
(in direct contrast to the raiser of taxes in verse
20), “but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain
the kingdom [or rather a kingdom] by
flatteries”; second, because in verse 40
a king of the north comes against him; if, as I believe it will be manifest,
this person’s history runs on through the chapter; third, because of the
parallelism of the history in this vision with that of chapter
8, in which the little horn is distinguished from that out of which it
springs, [Page 141] and in chapter 7,
the little horn rises as one in addition to the ten.
The object of the detail of the chapter, from verse 5 to this place, has been, I believe, to
give a definite statement of the condition and relations to each other of those
countries which are locally connected with the land, at the time which
introduces the rise of the antichrist out of one of them, whose reign is in
fact “the last end of the indignation” against
Jerusalem. It is clear from chapter 8 that the tenfold division of the Roman
empire exists at that time; it is also clear from chapter
8 that the four divisions of Alexander’s empire are four out of the ten
so existing; and this detail shows us, I believe, how the Syrian kingdom is
formed, as introducing the events here spoken of. I do not say that it shows us that Syria will
not become a kingdom in any other way - as to that, this vision is wholly
silent; but that which introduces the putting of the kingdoms in the relative
positions here spoken of is, Syria being a kingdom in the hands of one who had
been a prince of the king of Egypt.
In the history of the “vile person”
we have apparently to observe three portions: first, his rise, by which he
obtains his kingdom, verses 21, 22: second, the time which elapses from his making
a covenant with the people, to the taking away of the daily sacrifice, and the
setting of the abomination of desolation, verses 23-31; and third, the time of his peculiar career of
blasphemy reaching on to his destruction, verses 32-45. These
two latter periods appear to be the heptad for which he makes a covenant with
many, chapter 9: 27,
and the last of them is identical with the last half-week of chapter 9 and also with the time, times, and a
half of chapter 7. He obtains his “kingdom
by flatteries”, then he is seen exerting military power to establish
himself - “with [Page 142] the arms of a
flood shall they be overflown from before him,
and shall be broken; yea,
also the prince of the covenant”. That is apparently a prince who had made a
covenant with him, by which his power had been originally established: “And after the league made with him shall he work deceitfully”;
this appears to refer to the covenant made with many for one week, of which
Daniel had been told by the angel in chapter 9:
27.
From this time he stands connected with
Thus he shall obtain popularity by a show of most profuse
liberality, but his real object shall be to get the fortified places of the
land into his own power. His next acting
which is mentioned is an invasion of Egypt, the first of the three attacks
which he makes upon that country; verse 25,
“And he shall stir up his power and his courage against
the king of the south with a great army; and the
king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty
army; but he shall not stand, for they shall forecast devices against him.” Whether this king of the south be the same as
the one who was last mentioned we have no evidence in the chapter: he is not
only met by external force, but by internal treachery likewise; verse 26, “Yea, they [Page 143] that feed of
the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and
his army shall overflow; and many shall fall
down slain.” His power is thus
broken, but some treaty appears to be made with him, although there is secret
treachery on both sides: “and both these kings’ hearts
shall be to do mischief; and they shall speak
lies at one table, but it shall not prosper”.
The manner in which they are acting in mutual treachery is shown in the account
in verses 29 and 30
of the second expedition against
The expression at the close of the verse, “for yet the end shall be at the time appointed”,
appears to intimate that these transactions belong to the closing scenes; see verses 35 and 40.
After this first successful invasion of
The position of affairs at which we have arrived in the vision
is this: the “vile person,” who has become a
king, has been at first successful in his invasion of Egypt; a treaty has been
made between the two kings; the “vile person”
presently breaks the treaty (as he had with secret treachery intended to do),
but he finds the king of Egypt acting with equal treachery against him, and
thus he relinquishes for the present his scheme of conquest.
A new feature in the character and history of this king at
once shows itself: “He shall be grieved and return,
and have indignation against the holy covenant”; his heart had been against it before (verse 28); this appears to intimate that the Jews
are found in their own land (which is locally interposed between Egypt and
Syria), and in his return his hatred is stirred up against the worship of God,
which has been restored in Jerusalem, and of which at first he may have been,
as it were, the protector (see Remarks on chapter 8,
p. 75, and also on chapter
9, p. 93). His overt actings are against the holy
covenant and in violation of his own league of seven years, which had been
mentioned in chapter 9 and also alluded to in
this chapter (verse 23). His course of wickedness proceeds step by
step from the time that “his heart shall be against the
holy covenant”. “So shall he do; he shall even
return and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.” Here there is the commencement of a party of
apostates - of those who turn aside from God, not merely from Christ whom the
Jews have never owned nationally, but from God as God, the one who as such is
entitled to praise and worship. The
consequences of this apostate league formed round this “vile person” next [Page 145] appear: “And
arms” [arms of the body, i.e. human power, apparently, not weapons] “shall stand on
his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary
of strength, and shall take away the daily
sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that
maketh desolate.” At
this point the closing period of three years and a half commences, the latter
half of the concluding heptad of the vision of chapter
9, so that although we cannot arrange the remaining events of the
chapter as to the length of time that each of them will occupy (and several of
them are evidently general), yet from this point to the destruction of this
oppressor we find to be a period of specified duration.
Our attention is directed to the prophecy of the Lord Jesus on
the Mount of Olives, by the use which He there makes of the 31st verse of this chapter; it will therefore be
necessary to turn to Matt. 24 and Luke 21
in order to lay hold of the instructions in their full value which are here brought
before us. In Matt.
24: 3
there are three questions proposed to our Lord by some of His disciples,
relative to what He had told them as to the destruction of the temple: “Tell us when shall these things be?
and what shall be the sign of thy coming? and
of the end of the world [rather age]?”
In
His reply He brings before them moral
truth which bears on the conscience: from verses
4-14 He gives an outline of what
would be the characteristics of the dispensation; He shows how the hopes which the ancient prophets of
Israel had set before the people must be deferred as to their accomplishment
until this dispensational period should have closed. Wars, rumours of wars, evil increasing, the
people of Christ hated and persecuted for His name’s sake by all nations, and
the gospel [“of the kingdom” (verse
14)] preached for a witness to the same nations - such is the general picture,
putting the [believing and obedient*] child of faith into a [Page 146] position of waiting for a
deferred, although secure, blessing, and therefore, in that respect, resembling
much that we find in the testimony of Daniel.
All that is found in Luke 21, from verses 20 to 24,
would belong to the time which commences, or nearly so, the dispensational
period, the past destruction of Jerusalem being introduced, and the consequent
dispersion and captivity of the people, which only ends with the closing
dispensation. Then follows the important
warning, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place
(whoso readeth let him understand); then let them which be in
[* See Heb.
chs. 3. & 4. Cf. Num. ch. 14
and 1 Cor. 10: 1-11, R.V.]
The point of evil at which we can look definitely is, then,
the setting of the abomination that maketh desolate: so soon as this is done we
must regard this king, not as one of those who has been led on by the mere
motives of ambition, which are so common amongst the great ones of the earth,
but as directly energised by Satan. At this point of time belongs, I believe, the
description contained in the 32nd and three
following verses of Dan.
11.
On the one hand, there is this king corrupting by flatteries such as do
wickedly against the covenant, while on the other hand there is the activity of
the people that do know their God. I
should not regard these verses as being in
order of time subsequent to the setting of the abomination of desolation, but
as describing the condition of things at that time. Before the onward course of this king’s iniquity
is dwelt on, the prophetic statement rests for a moment upon “the people that do know their God”.
This expression is remarkable; it surely cannot mean merely
those who have the external knowledge that [Page 148] Jehovah is the God of Israel, and who do not turn aside to the
blasphemy and idolatry and evil which are coming in; it must surely imply more
than this, even those who, through the working of God’s grace, possess the real
saving knowledge of Him as revealed in Jesus Christ. In the midst of all this evil they “are strong and do exploits” [or rather “work”]; they have their work assigned them of God, and
they perform it, as we are told in the next verse – “and
they that understand among the people shall instruct many; yet they [namely, the people] shall
fall by the sword and by flame, by captivity,
and by spoil, many days.” On this verse I make three remarks: First, “they that understand” are a class of persons
definitely set before us in this vision; they are again spoken of in verse 35, “them of
understanding” “they that be wise” in chapter 12: 3,
and “the wise” of 12:
10.
To avoid all ambiguity which might be caused by the variation in the
rendering, it will be convenient to use the Hebrew word “Maskilim”, the Maskilim of the people - these then are
Israelites by nation, but though, in Jerusalem, when wickedness is coming to a
head, they are found separate from it and intelligent witnesses against
it. They must he a part of “the remnant according to the election of grace” of Rom. 11, for that
designation comprehends all of
Verse 34: “Now, when they [the people] shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help; but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.” The power of this king is now felt by the
Jews as being against them, and treatment of this kind is what we find here (as
well as in many other Scriptures) as being their portion, up to the time when
the Lord works His own deliverance for them.
Some seek to aid them, but all is fallacious, and this they are made to
feel.
“And some of them of understanding
[the Maskilim] shall fall”;
these words show that the falling by the sword, etc., in verse 33 applies to the people and not to the
Maskilim. It might be asked, if they
know their God and are doing His will, will they not be upheld by Him, as
standing in power in their place of testimony? This verse simply tells us, No!
testimony in the midst of felt and manifest weakness (like those in Heb. 11: 35-38) has been
the common position to which Christian faithfulness has led while encountering
opposition, and this is here the case with at least some of these Maskilim; “they shall fall [by the power of persecution, etc.], to try them and to purge, and
to make them white, even to the time of the end;
because it is yet for a time appointed.” Here these Maskilim disappear from our sight
for a while; the persecuting power of this king cuts off those of them who fall
into his hands, and this is continuously done, “even to
the time of the end”. Their
testimony also ceases for another reason - the Lord Jesus has taught His
people, “When ye see
the abomination of desolation, spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place
(whoso readeth let him understand); then let those that are in Judea flee unto the [Page 150] mountains,” etc. - this shows us how every obedient-hearted servant of
Christ would know that the time for testimony in Jerusalem, and even in the land
of Judah, was past; they are called on to flee, for He has commanded it.
Thus, when the abomination of desolation is actually set up,
the course of this king is simply evil: men are given over to strong delusion,
that they should believe a lie; and those who had previously given testimony
are withdrawn, either in obedience to the command of Christ or else by the
power of persecution.
From this place (verse 36)
to the end of the chapter we have the king in all his
unhindered course; he takes a place of blasphemy, even assuming divine honours.
“The king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself,
and magnify himself above every god, and shall
speak marvellous things against the God of gods”; the connection of this
is most obvious with 2 Thess.
2: 3, 4 - “that man of sin
... the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God”. The connection of
this description with the horn of blasphemy in chapters
7 and 8 is very marked: “He shall speak great words against the Most High,” chapter 7: 23; “because of the voice
of the great words which the horn spake, etc. (verse
11); “He magnified himself even to the Prince of
the host” (8: 11); “He shall also stand up against
the Prince of princes” (verse 25).
God has a purpose and definite design in allowing evil thus to
reach its height: “When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever” (Ps. 92: 7). He “shall prosper till
the indignation be accomplished (see 8: 19), for that that is determined shall be done".
[Page 151]
Verse 37: “Neither shall he regard the God of
his fathers nor the desire of women [some idol, apparently], nor regard any God; for he
shall magnify himself above all.”
And yet in secret he is found to be the slave of abject
superstition (verses 38, 39): “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 precious
stones, and pleasant things. 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.” What this object of his worship may be is
not, I think, apparent: it shows, however, the twofold acting of this king, who
takes before men the place of the supreme God, and yet is himself a secret
idolater; he is a successful conqueror, and he honours the god of forces in
strong holds.
The last six verses of the
chapter bring before us the crisis of his history: “And
at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north [now again mentioned as a
kingdom] shall come against him like a whirlwind,
with chariots, and with
horsemen, and many ships; and he” [namely the king who is the subject of this part of the chapter] “shall enter
into the countries, and shall overflow and pass
over.”
He next turns his arms towards
Verse 42: “He shall stretch forth his hand
also upon the countries; and the
The place in which he is said in verse
45 to plant the tabernacles of his palaces (as well as the blasphemy of
his assumptions) brings before us the description of a certain king of Babylon
who is spoken of in Isa.
14: the Jew there, using the song of
reproach after the future and final deliverance of his people, speaks thus: “How art [Page 153] thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in
thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I
will ascend above the heights of the clouds: I
will be like the Most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell [sheol], to the sides of the pit”, etc. An objection has been made to the application
of Isa. 14 to the antichrist on the following grounds: The
beast in the Revelation is said expressly to
be cast “alive into the lake of fire” (Rev. 19: 20). This
beast has been identified (most truly, I have no doubt) with that power of
blasphemy and evil who is spoken of so much in the book of Daniel: then the
difficulty is raised from Isa.
14: 18, 19, as though they spoke of something absolutely
incompatible with his being cast alive into the lake of fire. The expressions “those
that are slain, thrust through with a sword”,
and “a carcase trodden under feet”, have been
taken up, as though this person there called “the king
of Babylon” were actually slain and his dead body were thus treated; but
observe that this is simply a comparison: “But thou art
cast out of thy grave LIKE an abominable branch,
- the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through [plural] with a
sword; that go down to the stones of the pit; AS a carcase
trodden under feet.” The grave does not receive this king; other
monarchs have been buried, but he shall not be; the lake of fire receives him
alive;* he is too polluted even for the grave; he is loathed by it, even as men
would loathe the disgusting blood-stained raiment of a confused mass of the dead,
or a carcase trampled under feet.
* Slain indeed by the breath of Christ’s lips, but alive
in resuscitated being [and brought up
from Sheol / Hades
a short time near the end of the millennium.
See Rev. 20:
8, R.V.]
[NOTE. “Sheol” in Hebrew, is called “Hades” in Greek.
It is the place of disembodied “souls” and
“spirits” “in the heart
of the earth” (Matt. 12: 40; cf.
Psa. 16: 10 with Acts 2: 27 and verse 31).
It has separate compartments (Luke 16:
26-28). This place is NOT SYNONYMOUS with the place reserved for all who are eternally
lost,
and eternally
separated
from the presence of God after His “Great White Throne”
judgment, when “death and Hades gave up
{at the time of their resurrection} the dead
which were in them” (Rev. 20: 11, 13, R.V.).]
[Page 154]
But it is remarkable to observe how carefully the Scripture
guards us, in many points, from applying to past things and persons those
statements which it is of importance for us to know as future. To what king of
With the eleventh of Daniel that part of the vision concludes which
refers to this king; all the latter part of it, which relates to his actings after the setting of the abomination of
desolation, is of solemn interest.
Whatever be thought of the early part of the chapter, I feel that it is
of special importance not to overlook the bearing of the latter portion. It is clear from the first
verse of the next chapter that the deliverance of Daniel’s people and
the destruction of this king belong to the same time; this alone shows us the
future bearing of the latter part at least of this prophecy. He persecutes the people of God up to the
time of his destruction, for we find in chapter 7
that the saints of the most high places are given into his hand, and he wears
them out until the Ancient of Days takes his judicial place; hence we see that,
although we find the saints not kept in view [Page 155] in the latter part of this chapter,
there will be those who during his reign of blasphemy will witness in the midst
of suffering, not loving their lives
even unto the death, and overcoming
by the blood of the Lamb, and the word
of their testimony.
His reign is a time of grievous and grinding oppression to
We never can apprehend clearly the teaching of Scripture as to
these things unless we see distinctly what these two remnants are; the one may
be called a Christian remnant, the
other a Jewish remnant. The former are of “the
remnant according to the election of grace” in Rom.
11 (for that includes all the believing Israelites of this dispensation); of the latter it
is written, “the remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob,
unto the Mighty God,” Isa. 10 (the “child born”
whose name should be so called): this return is when the Lord Jesus shall have
come. and not before.
Dan. 12: 1 speaks of three of the circumstances of the time
when these things are accomplished: “And at that time
shall Michael stand up, the great prince which
standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be [rather, it shall be] a time of trouble,
such as never was since there was a nation even to that
same time; and at that time thy people shall be
delivered, every one that shall be found written
in the book.” The standing up of
Michael is of course an event which is secret from the eye of man; he is called
in the New Testament the archangel, and some have supposed that he is the same
person as the Lord Jesus: there appears to me to be no evidence to support this
thought, and a good deal to contradict it: for instance, could Jude have used such nguage
of our Lord as he does of Michael? – “Yet Michael the
archangel, when contending with the devil,
he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.” This seems to show that Michael cannot be
himself the Lord. I should, therefore,
not identify the standing up of Michael either with the Son of Man coming to
the Ancient of Days to receive a kingdom, or yet (according to the language of Psalm 90) the Lord leaving the right hand of
Jehovah because His enemies are made His footstool. It is something which in the economy of God’s
dealings closely concerns
This time is one of trouble, such as has never been equalled:
our Lord, in Matt. 24,
predicts a time of tribulation also unequalled, and that without the like ever
having been before, or to be after.
This, then, in Daniel cannot be subsequent to that in Matt. 24, for
our Lord’s words would then be contradicted; Daniel’s people are delivered at
the time here spoken of, so that there is no place for the tribulation in
Matthew as a subsequent thing, hence it follows inevitably that the same period
is spoken of in both places, the time of which it is said in Jer. 30, “It is the time of
Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be delivered out
of it.” This tribulation is
during the reign and blasphemy of the antichrist, whose fearful power will be
thus permitted of God. Past history will
afford no parallel, and the energy of Satan will then have an unhindered
character, which God at present does not permit.
Daniel’s people shall then be delivered, every one that shall
be found written in the book. This was a
point of hope to his soul; to this
the vision had tended, to what should befall his people in the latter
days. We know from other Scriptures that
the spared will be but a portion of the Jews: “And it
shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts
therein shall be cut off, and die; but the third
part shall be left therein. And I will
bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is
refined, and will try them as gold
is tried: they shall call on my name, and 1 will hear them: 1 will say, It is my
people; and they shall say, The Lord is my God” (Zech. 13: 8, 9). This speaks of those who are spared in the
land, and in Ezek. 20
we learn concerning the spared of those who have been scattered among the
nations; these shall unitedly form “the remnant that
shall return”, who will be blessed upon earth, according to all that had
been promised of earthly blessing under the [millennial] reign of Messiah.
They will know His redemption; the fountain prepared for sin and [Page 158] uncleanness will be opened to them, and of them it will then
be said, “Their sins and iniquities will I remember no
more.” It is a happy thought to
us to look on and see these blessings yet in store: Jesus saw of the travail of
His soul and was satisfied; He was the captain of salvation bringing many
sons (God’s children, given into his hand for redemption) unto glory: and
surely as belonging to the redeemed we may rejoice in seeing any truth which
tells us of the wide numbers of those “many brethren”
(younger, it is true, than the “Church of the
first-born”) of the same household of God to which we belong.
But was Daniel told merely of earthly blessing? Was there no intimation of higher and better
things to be bestowed at this very time upon some? (Verse
2:) “And many from among
the sleepers of the dust of the earth shall awake; these shall be unto everlasting life; but those [the
rest of the sleepers] shall be unto shame and* everlasting contempt.”
I have given, I believe, the most literal rendering of this verse;* it speaks of a [select] resurrection, not the general, when all shall
be called forth, but one of an eclectic character, “many [not all] from amongst the sleepers”. Just so in Rev. 20, after
“the first resurrection” has been mentioned, we
are told, “the rest
of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” It is at the coming of the Lord Jesus that
[* NOTE. The “and”
here, should be understood as a disjunction, separating two distinct
groups of disembodied souls presently waiting (in “Hades”- (for this is the place, “in the
heart of the earth” where the souls of all the dead presently are:
Matt. 12:
40; 16: 18; Luke 16: 29-31; Acts 2: 27, 34; Rev. 6: 9, 10, R.V.).
Therefore, those described above as “the
rest
of the sleepers” are resurrected when “the thousand years should be finished” (Rev. 20: 3, R.V.), (1) The words “unto
shame,” – are a description of the regenerate who will not
be “recompensed in the
resurrection of the just” (Luke 14: 14): and (2)
the words “everlasting contempt” - are a description of all the unregenerate
- “not found written in
the book of life,” and “cast into the lake of
fire” (Rev. 20:
15).
See Luke 20: 35; Phil. 3: 11; Heb. 11: 35b; Rev. 20: 4-6, etc. R.V. All these texts describe a select resurrection “out of dead ones,”
into a MILLENNIAL REWARD. See Acts 7: 4, 5; Rev. 2: 25-27; 3: 11, 21, R.V. cf. Rom.
8: 23-25; Heb. 11: 6, 26, 40; 1 Pet. 1: 5, 9, 11b, R.V. etc.]
* See “Note on The Rendering and Connection of Daniel 12: 2”, below, page 164.
[Page 159]
“Awake and sing ye that dwell in dust:
for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.” To that day belongs the statement of the same
continuous prophecy: “He shall cause them that come of
Jacob to take root:
Is anything stated as the result of this resurrection to
eternal life? Verse
3: “And they that be
wise [the Maskilim] shall shine as the
brightness of the firmament; and they that turn
many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” Here then they are described by symbols of
heavenly glory. And here are again the understanding ones, the Maskilim of chapter 11: 33,
35; we last saw them worn out by the power
of the antichrist, but now they have their portion in the day* of blessing.
The same vision tells us thus how they at length are vindicated of God.
[* 2 Pet. 3: 8.]
After a word addressed to Daniel as to the use to be made of
this vision at “the time of the end”, the direct
statement made to him ceases; he then sees two others besides the angel, and
hears the communication which passes between them: “How
long shall it be to the end of these wonders?” “And I heard the man
clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of
the river, when he held up his right hand and
his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that
liveth for ever, that it shall be for a time,
times, and a half;
and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the
power of the holy people, all these things shall
be finished.” Here there is the
same period spoken of as in chapter 7 - the
three years and a half of the blasphemous rule of antichrist as Satan’s
vicegerent; when all God’s purposes of chastening Israel shall have been
accomplished, this period ends: “It shall come to pass
that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon Mount Zion and on
Jerusalem, I will [Page 160] punish the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the
glory of his high looks” (Isa.
10: 12).
There was doubt upon the mind of Daniel as to what he now
heard: his mind was intent upon what should come after - upon what had been
spoken of in the end of verse 1, and verses 2 and 3:
“And I heard, but I
understood not; then said I, O my Lord, what shall be in
the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the
end”. This is to be taken in connection
with verse 4: “But
thou, Daniel, shut
up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many
shall run to and fro [perhaps, ‘scrutinise (the
book) from end to end’], and THE knowledge
(thereof) shall be increased.” In order rightly to apprehend these two
statements, we must go on with another portion of the last declaration to the
prophet, verse 10, “Many
shall be purified, and made white, and tried [as had been said in chapter 11: 35]; but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise [the
Maskilim] shall understand.” Thus
we see that the shutting and sealing do not imply that none shall understand or
use this prophecy, for, on the contrary, the Maskilim shall understand: we have seen them in their place of
testimony (chapter 11: 33), of suffering (verse
35), received into their celestial glory (chapter
12: 3), and now we find them
mentioned as those who are to understand and to use this book. Let this be taken in connection with what our
Lord says in Matt. 24,
“When ye see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth let him understand”
- let him be one of these Maskilim,
who know the truth of God, and are allowed to stand in the closing scenes in
such an honoured place. If sealing means
in these places a withholding of the [Page 161] knowledge of what these things are,
then it is well to observe that with such a seal the Church is not concerned,
for the word of Christ has authoritatively taken it away: “Whoso readeth let him understand.” The truth of God is in the hands of men,
written in His holy word, and yet without the heart possessed of that spiritual
understanding which is according to God, what does it avail them? – “none of the wicked shall understand”. There is such a thing as the detail of truth
being held apart from God - it is, therefore, powerless: this is not understanding.
But the wise-hearted have to know the truth of God to hold it as the
truth of God, and He will make it their safeguard in the hour of need. These prophecies of Daniel, and the
predictions of Christ in Matt. 24, will be used in the day of the setting of the
abomination of desolation in the holy place.
The Church ought therefore to know what these things are in order to
stand prepared and not find these things taking her by surprise.
Verse 11: “And from the time that the daily
sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up [see
chapter 11: 31],
there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” Verse
12: “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty
days.” Here are two
periods which have not been
previously mentioned. One thousand two
hundred and ninety days run on a month beyond the time, times, and a half; the
other period with the conclusion of which a blessing is connected is yet
forty-five days more. With regard to
these periods a few considerations only can be suggested: we must bear in mind
that the deliverance of the Jews from their oppressors is effected by the Lord
at His coming, but after that their being set in blessing as His people is not
an instantaneous result; He deals first with their consciences: [Page 162] they see Him whom they pierced; they mourn for Him and this appears to be
not a very brief time of humiliation and sorrow; it issues, however, in their
knowing the value of the vicarious sufferings of Messiah. But there are other things also to be done;
the outcasts of
Verse 13: “But go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest,
and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.”
These words close the book; the communication of God to the prophet is
completed, and whatever further inquiries he might have made, they are thus
prevented. But his soul is pointed
onward as regards himself, even as he had been before with regard to his
people. To know of the full blessing of
his people had been the desire of his heart, in those things which introduce
the vision in chapter 9, as well as this;
and these desires had been responded to by God in that way which He saw to be
the most profitable: “the end” was a point of
time to be waited for, both as to THEIR
blessing and the fullness of his personally.
Daniel was to rest, to lie in his grave amidst the other sleepers of the
dust of the earth; but in the end of the days he should stand in his lot, even that lot of which he had been before
instructed, in the [promised
earthly
inheritance* and the] heavenly glory of those who rise to
eternal life.
[* See Matt.
5: 5. cf.
Gen. 13: 14, 15; 26: 3, 4; 28: 14, 15; Psa. 37: 9, 11, 22, 29, 34, R.V.
When God promises to give this “Land,”
or this
“Earth” to any of His saints as an inheritance;
or to His Son - our Lord Jesus the Christ/Messiah after His Death (Psa. 2: 8) - He does not mean it to be understood to be in
His “new” creation (Rev.
21: 1),
or in His present abode in the highest Heaven!]
The saints of old died after having obtained a good report
through faith, not having received the promise.
In this consummation they are to be associated with others, even us,
saved by the same grace, and made members of one body. They received not the promise, that they without us should not be made perfect:
God has provided better for us than if the consummation had
been otherwise.
Thus was he instructed as to “patience
of hope” with regard to his people and himself; this is a lesson which
we too have to learn; we have to wait
for the coming day, and we are warned
of intervening darkness, but this is not to cause hope to wax dim in our souls. We have far more instruction as to these
things vouchsafed to us than Daniel had, and the hopes are presented to us more
vividly. Well then may we wait till the
end be, knowing that whether among the
dead in Christ, or those who are alive and remain till His coming, we shall
stand in our lot at the end of the days; till then Jesus is with His people, though unseen, according to his
word, “Lo, I am with you all the days, even to the end of
the age.” Then we shall see Him as He is, we shall bear His image, our vile body
being fashioned like unto His glorious body, and instead of His guidance
through the wilderness we shall ever be with Him and all His departed saints in
the heavenly city.
* *
*
NOTE ON THE RENDERING AND CONNECTION
OF DANIEL 12: 2
[Page 164]
I DO not
doubt that the right translation of this verse is what has been given above: “And many from among the sleepers of the dust of the earth shall awake; these shall be unto everlasting life; but those [the rest of the sleepers, those who do not awake at this time] shall be unto shame
and everlasting contempt.”*
The word which in our Authorised version is twice rendered “some” is
never repeated in any other passage in the Hebrew Bible, in the sense of taking
up distributively any general class which had been previously mentioned; this is enough, I believe, to warrant our
applying its first occurrence here to the whole of the many who awake, and the
second to the mass of the sleepers, those who do not awake at this time. It is clearly not a general resurrection;
it is “many from among”;
and it is only by taking the words in
this sense that we gain any information as to what becomes of those who
continue to sleep in the dust of the earth.*
[* See
our Lord’s teaching about (1) a RESURRECTION of REWARD, for those who will one day “be recompensed
in the RESURRECTION of the
just” Luke 14: 14 and (2) “of the RESURRECTION
OUT OF DEAD ONES” (Luke 20: 35, Lit. Gk.).
When we compare these with (3) the Apostle Paul’s words recorded in
Phil. 3: 11,
12a: “If possibly I may ATTAIN THE RESURRECTION OUT
OF THE DEAD ONES. Not that I already received, or already have been PERFECTED…”
– (presumably at the TIME of RESURRECTION.); and then read in Heb. 11: 35b: “But others were beaten to death, not accepting the DELIVERANCE [presumably offered on condition of a denial of
their faith] “in
order that they MIGHT OBTAIN A BETTER RESURRECTION.” We
begin to understand that this future “BETTER
RESURRECTION”, is the one mentioned by the Apostle John in his REVELATION, Rev.
20: 4-6: described as “The FIRST RESURRECTION”
(because it takes occurs before the GENERAL RESURRECTION), when “the THOUSAND YEARS should be ended”
(verse 3); for “the rest of
the DEAD did not LIVE till the THOUSAND YEARS WERE ENDED” (verse 5). This is how we should understand the meaning
of what S. P. Tregelles understands by his own words “do
not
awake at this time”; and what the Scripture itself means by the
words, “many [and therefore not all] from among the sleepers of the dust of the earth shall awake.”
That is, when our Lord returns to earth to resurrect the holy dead.
How different are these scriptural teachings, from what we are
accustomed to hearing from false prophetic teachers within the Church
today, who maintain that we can, and do, ascend into Heaven
immediately after the time of Death!
Paul likens them to Hymenius and Philetus, “who concerning the truth missed the mark,
[by] saying that the
RESURRECTION has ALREADY HAPPENED” {before
our Lord’s return to resurrect the holy dead, (1 Thess. 4: 16)} “and they are perverting
the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2: 18).]
* This
translation is given as undoubtedly correct in Gerard Kerkherdere’s
Prodromus Danielicus.
This passage has been understood by the Jewish commentators in the sense that I have stated. Of course these men with the vail on their
hearts are no guides as to the use of the Old Testament; but they are helps as
to the grammatical and lexicographical value of sentences and words. Two of the rabbis who commented on this
prophet were Saadiah Haggaon
(in the tenth century [Page 165] of our era) and Aben Ezra (in the
twelfth); the latter of these was a writer of peculiar abilities and accuracy
of mind. He explains the verse in the
following manner:
“And many:] The Gaon [i.e. R. Saadiah,
whom he often quotes] says, that its interpretation
is, those
who shall awake shall be unto everlasting life, and those who shall not awake
shall be unto shame unto everlasting contempt; just like, ‘and thy shall be a contempt’ [Isa. 66: 26, where
the English version has an abhorring], and the word is the same, and its
interpretation is shame [the word which, in the plural, preceded in Dan. 12: 2]. And the Gaon says that ‘many’ are
[here] the few
[or the lesser number]; just like ‘and many brought
gifts’ (2 Chron. 32: 23); and ‘many of the people of the land became Jews’ (Esther 8: 17); and ‘many will entreat the
favour of a prince’ (Prov. 19: 6). And the sense, according to my judgment, is
that the righteous, who died in the captivities, shall
live at the coming of the Redeemer, because of them it is written, ‘as the days of a tree are the days of my people’ (Isa. 65: 22). And then shall they feast on Leviathan, and
on Ziz [a fabulous
bird], and on Behemoth. And they shall die a second time, and they
shall live in the resurrection of the dead, when they are in the world to come,
where they shall neither eat nor drink, but shall be lightened with the
brightness of the Shechinah; and he said that thus is the interpretation of ‘and thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days’, with which the book concludes.”
These, then, are the sentiments of Aben Ezra, in which he
connects his own opinions with those of R. Saadiah.
As to the rendering of the words, he is an authority in favour of the
translation which I have given: his grammatical explanation of the force of
words is by no means affected by his Jewish exposition. Although he applies [Page 166] the first resurrection to Israel only, and gives it a thoroughly carnal character, yet he distinctly recognises
a first and second resurrection, although his doctrine as to this is directly
contradictory to that of our Lord and His apostles - so much so, as to make it
probable that the same notions had been current among the Pharisees even in our
Lord’s days. Aben Ezra says that the
dead of
It may seem hardly needful to make a remark on the opinion
that passages such as this relate only to temporal deliverance, or something of the kind. “Sleepers [Page 167] in the dust of the earth” is a fitting designation of those who sleep the sleep of
death, whose bodies are returned to
dust of the ground. If such words were
used to denote persons suffering from oppression, and thoroughly degraded, it
could only be by a figure taken from the appearance and condition of the
dead. But if such a figure were
supposed, what would be the import of the “everlasting
life” to which the sleepers awake?
Could there be such a thing as earthly, temporal, deliverance to everlasting life?
This alone shows the impossibility of thus limiting the meaning of the
passage. But, besides this distinct
point, it may well be asked, if the language of this verse be not declaratory
of a [select] resurrection of the dead, actual and
literal, is there any passage of Scripture at all which speaks of such a thing
as a resurrection? Where, at least, can
it be found in the Old Testament? And
yet we know that it is
taught there; else how could our Lord have reproved the Sadducees for their
ignorance of the Scriptures?* That the Old [Page 168] Testament, as well as the New, does
teach the resurrection of the dead is evident to every one who simply receives
the words of Scripture according to their force. Had not the Jews learned this doctrine from
God’s written Revelation, how could they have known it at all? Even the Samaritans, who have only the
Pentateuch as of divine authority, believe in the resurrection, and they prove
it from Deut. 32:
39, “I kill, and I make alive”; this is to them a sufficient warrant
for believing that God will raise [from ‘Sheol’]* the
dead.
* “We know from other parts of Scripture, that all the
righteous dead will then awake to life - ‘LIFE’ and
not ‘awake’ being the word which implies the
possession and exercise of the power of resurrection-being. The souls
of the departed saints, whilst in a disembodied state, although in
[* See Gen.
37: 35,
R.V.: “I will go down to sheol” – {the
place of the disembodied souls of the dead - Gen.
35: 18:
“… as her soul was in departing (for she died, that she called
his name Ben-oni: but
his father called him Benjamin. And Rachel died…”} - “to my son mourning” {believing his son Joseph - a type
of Christ - to be dead. Here is the
scriptural proof that the “soul” is the Person
and not the “body”, since Jacob believed the
lie, - that “an evil beast hath devoured him”
(verse 33): that is, eaten his body.]
But when we proceed further, and examine the writings of the
prophets, we find statements sufficiently explicit, in which, however, it seems
as if a well-known truth were mentioned.
And this doctrine of resurrection presents to us a point of connection
between our hopes and those of Daniel’s people. Just as their restoration and blessing shall
tell of the grace and redemption of Jesus their Messiah, so shall our
resurrection and heavenly glory speak of the efficacy of all that has been
wrought by the same Saviour. They will
see “the Church of the first-born” entering into
the [double]
blessing,* while they receive that which is earthly; but even then the heavenly things will
tell them of the hopes before them. If
it is as “children of God” that the Church [of the firstborn] receives
its higher blessings, it shall then be true of
[* See G. H. Lang’s “First Born Sons: Their Rights and Risks.”]
The Spirit of God leads our minds, in Scripture, to connect
our resurrection with
The first resurrection only is spoken of in 1 Cor. 15; the saved, and no others, are mentioned.
The order of the
resurrection is told us in verses 23, 24: first, “Christ the
first-fruits”; second, “afterwards they that are
Christ’s at his coming” ([Not] all the family of faith); third, “Then
cometh the end”, the time of the general resurrection. “Then” is not here, as in verse
54, equivalent to “at that time” but
wholly a different word, indicating successional order; the rest of the dead [both regenerate and unregenerate*] live not till the close of Christ’s
millennial reign.
[* See Rev. 20:
12, 15. cf.
Rev. 2: 25 with 3: 21 R.V. – both of which are conditional, and
dependant upon that Judgment mentioned in Heb.
9: 27, as
to who, from amongst the regenerate dead in Hades, will be “accounted worthy” to rise at the time of “the First Resurrection”. See Matt. 5: 20; 7: 21; Rev. 6: 9-11. cf. Acts 2: 34; John 3: 13; 14: 3, etc,.
“Merit (or worthiness) it must be maintained in the teeth of
all denial, as a condition and qualification for the First Resurrection.” “Others – proud,
indulgent, cowardly – are judged unworthy of Christ
and of aeonian life. Now we know from
several epistles that some [regenerate] believers will be EXCLUDED from this
* *
*
[Page 170]
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FORMER
PART OF DANIEL 11 BY PAST HISTORY
THERE
are four schemes of interpretation of Daniel 11.
First: That which regards the whole chapter as
belonging to the successors of Alexander, in
Second: That which applies the
predictions on to verse 20 to the Seleucidae and Ptolemies, and which there
supposes a trajection to be made to the closing events of
Third: An interpretation which looks at the history of Alexander’s successors as
being here given, up to and including the reign of Antiochus, to
whom it applies verses 21-32. It then
supposes a break to exist in verse 33, and then
in verse 36 brings in the antichrist.
Fourth: The explanation which I have
given in the preceding pages, supposing that from verse
21 to the end is the history of one person, and that verses 5-20
relate to the condition of the kingdoms of
I need not speak further in explanation of this view than I
have already done in the preceding pages, except in connection with the other
schemes of interpretation. If the
chapter be so joined together as I have sought to show, then no alleged past
accomplishment need detain our minds from looking onwards, and no testimony of
past history ought to hinder us from so doing.
[Page 171]
I have already remarked on the especial importance of seeing
the application of the latter part of the vision; and this
the reader will observe is similarly maintained in all except the first of the
four schemes of interpretation to which I have referred. In maintaining this, however, we ought not to
overlook what the Scripture makes the application of all the parts of the
vision.
The third of the schemes of interpretation to which I have referred above is
stated in Mr. Newton’s Prospects of the
Ten Kingdoms,* 3rd.
edition, ch. 11.
In the general application of the prophecies of Daniel he agrees with
the explanations which I have given, and so, too, as to the issue of this
vision our conclusions accord; he, however, applies verses
21-32 to the actings of Antiochus
Epiphanes against the Jews and Jerusalem, and of course he considers the
previous part of this chapter as accomplished in the early Syrian and Egyptian
monarchs. He considers it to be
impossible to suppose that prophecy does not mention Antiochus Epiphanes, who
so wonderfully foreshadowed the
antichrist. Farther than this I do not
go: I believe that Antiochus prefigured the antichrist, and that this alone leads
to terms and expressions being used in this chapter which are capable of
application to the former. Mr. Newton
considers that in this chapter it cannot be the antichrist who sets this
abomination of desolation, because it is here set by a king who returns from an
unsuccessful expedition against Egypt, instead of being the work of one who
stands in plenitude of power. I do not
think that this objection is conclusive; indeed, I should apply the remark in
another way; it shows, I think, that the early actings of the antichrist are
not characterised by that resistless power which they [Page 172] afterwards display. It is unquestioned that, from 1805 to 1812, Napoleon
was paramount amongst the sovereigns of continental Europe; and yet this same
man had been checked in his career of conquest in
* Prospects of the Ten Kingdoms of the
** However
I do not accord with the hypothesis that the fulfilment of the former part of Daniel 11 is to be sought in the history of the Ptolernies and Seleucidae, yet we may rightly, I believe,
see in the history of those kings the same kind of a condition of things as is here foretold. We know that in the Syrian kingdom there were
repeatedly
found new monarchs who arose, who might be spoken of just in the same
manner as the king who rises in verse 21.
There was again and again a reigning king of the north in possession of
The second scheme of interpretation is that which was approved by some of the
writers of the early Church, and by many, I believe, of those in later times
who retained the early opinion of a personal antichrist. It will [Page 173] be worth while to enter into the
detail of this interpretation, which to the end of verse
20 belongs equally to the third scheme also.
In opposing the Revelation of God in the Scripture, Porphyry
attacked the authenticity of the book of Daniel, which was (he said) written
after the events of the Maccabean period.
He was therefore anxious to show that from verse
21 to the end was a history of Antiochus Epiphanes, and
that the preceding verses were equally a history of his predecessors. The
former part of the chapter was admitted by Jerome to be a prophecy of the predecessors of Antiochus; the
latter part (verse 21 to end) he denied to
relate to Antiochus (however in parts it might resemble him), believing it to
belong to the antichrist. It will be
well to go through the former part of the chapter, following Jerome’s remarks on
Porphyry, and adding the dates as they stand in the tables of Petavius and Dean
Prideaux. This will show the selected
portions of history to which the prophecy has been applied.
After the four kings which should rise in Persia (verse 2) there is an interval of 146 years, from
the expedition of Xerxes, 480 B.C.,
to the invasion of Persia by Alexander, 334 B.C.; this interval or break is
clear and manifest on any of the schemes of interpretation.*
* It is
scarcely needful to mention that some early writers, in utter ignorance of
chronology and history, interpreted the fourth king to be Darius, the son of
Hystaspes, whom they identified with the last Darius, a century and a half
later. This impossible scheme, of course,
excludes a break in this part of the chapter.
Jerome understands the four parts of Alexander’s empire to be
those which existed for a short period before the battle of Ipsus, in 301 B.C.,* when Antigonus
[Page 174] possessed a large portion of Alexander’s dominions, which he here explains
to be the kingdom of the north: farther on in the chapter he interprets the
kingdom of the north to be that of Seleucus.
* I
regard the division which resulted from that battle as being clearly the
fourfold distribution of territory intended; for then, and not till then, was
there a precise division into four parts, all of which were ruled
over by some of Alexander's generals‑indeed, by the only four then
surviving.
In verse 5 Jerome
understands the strong king of the south to be Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, the first of Alexander’s successors who ruled over
* There is a difficulty in this interpretation as to the words “and he that begat her”, for we cannot apply the
prediction historically to her father.
The word, as it stands in the present Hebrew text (the article placed
usually before a noun with suffix), clearly admits of no other rendering. The margin of our English translation has “he
whom she brought forth” - a rendering which seems to have been adopted to fit
the prophecy to the history, as if the Hebrew had been … . In Theodotion’s
translation of Daniel (commonly printed as
the LXX) kai n veavis
is the rendering given: in the real LXX of Daniel nothing
can be defined as to this word. The
Vulgate has adolescentes ejus; and
in Jerome’s Commentary the rendering is juvenes ejus; the
rendering of the Syriac is adolescentulae ejus. All
this seems to show that some difficulty was felt as to this word, while at
the same time we find no united testimony to uphold any different reading from that of the present
Hebrew text.
Verses 7 and 8 were understood by
Jerome to apply to Ptolemy Euergetes, who reigned 247
to 221 B.C., and who made a successful expedition against the
* This
is a conclusion to which I should have thought the words of the prophecy would
not have led; I should have considered the identity as very obvious.
Jerome applies verse 10 to
the actings of Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus the Great, the sons of Seleucus
Callinicus; the former of these reigned from 227 to 224 B.C., when the latter
succeeded him for thirty-six years. He
says that “after the flight and death of Seleucus
Callinicus, his two sons ... stirred up with the hope of victory, and of
avenging their father, waged war with Ptolemy Philopator”.* This
Egyptian king, however, did not reign at the same time as Seleucus Callinicus;
for his rule (221 to 204 B.C.) began in the second year of his successor
Antiochus the Great. The following
verses are of course applied to the actings of the same Antiochus,
and to his wars with the kings of
* This
application of the prophecy appears to blend together events which were twenty
years apart. The flight of Seleucus Callinicus refers apparently to his defeat
by Ptolemy Euergetes, while his death took place in captivity amongst the Parthians: his two sons had no
occasion to carry on a war of revenge against
Verse 20 is applied by Jerome to Seleucus Philopator, who reigned 187
to 176 B.C., “who did nothing worthy of the empire of
* The
difficulties which lie in the way of applying this prophecy concerning “a raiser of taxes” to Selcucus
Philopator are considerable: he is destroyed, it is said, “within few days”, and yet his reign
continued for eleven years, as long
a time as that of Antiochus Epiphanes himself.
To make this suit, resort has been had by some to the “year-day system”, and thus “within
few days” has been taken as equivalent to “within few years”. The
authors of the Universal History had their minds so imbued with the
idea, as though it were a plain and simple fact, that they quote this verse “within few years”.
** Who
lived, however, after the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes.
Verse 21 brings us to the point at which Jerome’s scheme of
interpretation diverges from the first and the third of those which I have
mentioned. He considers that from this point to the end of the chapter we have
the prophetic history of one person, who was then future, and is so yet. Here, then, he supposes the great break or
interval of the vision; for he rightly saw that in the beginning of the next
chapter a resurrection is plainly spoken of as contemporaneous with the
destruction of a king whom he considered to be the same as the “vile person” introduced in this verse. He says, “Thus far
the order of history is followed, and there is no contention between Porphyry
and us.* As to the other things [Page 178] to the end of the book, he interprets them of the person of Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, the
brother of Seleucus, the son of Antiochus the Great, who reigned eleven years
in Syria after Seleucus, and took possession of Judaea, under whose reign took
place the persecution of the Law of God and the wars of the Maccabees. But we consider that all these things are prophesied of antichrist, who is to come in the last time. And when it is objected, why the prophetic
discourse should omit so many persons from Seleucus to the end of the world,
the answer is, that also in the former history, which spoke of the kings of
Persia, four only of the kings after Cyrus are mentioned, and many are passed
over; so that Alexander king of the Macedonians is suddenly introduced, and
that this is the custom of Holy Scripture, not to narrate everything, but to
set forth those things which seem to be of the greater moment.” He then speaks of the following part of the
chapter as being applicable to Antiochus, merely as a type of antichrist. It seems to
me that his solution of the difficulty is not very satisfactory; for the deeds
of Antiochus were of more consequence to the Jews than the wars of his
predecessors. A better answer on
this scheme would have been
to say that the affairs of the Syrian kingdom are treated of until the fourth
monarchy appears on the scene, and that then there is a trajection to future ages.
* This
statement goes rather too far: Porphyry
and Jerome are not in accordance as to the meaning of verse
20.
It will be observed that, in Jerome’s interpretation, events
are selected at intervals, in the history of Syria
and Egypt, to which to apply the predictions: thus the first definite event
assumed belongs to the year 248 B.C. or about seventy-five years after
Alexander’s death;* there are also points of difficulty as to the persons to [Page 178] whom the parts of the prediction are applied; so that it is not strictly
correct to say that this prophecy gives (on Jerome’s scheme) a continuous history, nor yet that the succession of
kings is distinctly denoted in the vision in accordance with the
history to which it is applied.
* This
is just where I believe the interval or hiatus actually to be - immediately
after the mention of the fourfold division.
This ought to be borne in mind; for the testimony said to be
drawn from past history is a selection of individual events taken from the
circumstances of the kingdoms of
* Although,
as previous remarks and notes have shown, there are many discrepancies between
the terms of the prophecy and the facts as alleged. Other facts appear to rest solely on Porphyry,s assertion, grounded on
what he found in the prophecy. Just so
it is a simple fact that many of the things which Rollin and similar writers
bring forward as minute accomplishments of prophecy are points only gathered
from the prophecy itself, without their being known from any independent
evidence, and therefore all turns on the accuracy with which the prophecies
have been understood as to their application and meaning. If this application be rightly known, then we
may confidently refer to the prophecy for details which it may state, whether history has transmitted such particulars or
not.
From verse 21, Jerome compares the statements of Porphyry with
the vision and with the facts of history, - vindicating, as he goes on, the
application of the prophecy in its strict sense to antichrist solely. “We will follow the order of exposition, and
briefly note according to each explanation, what our adversaries think, and
what is our opinion.” Then, after
showing how Porphyry applied verses 22 and 23 to the actings of [Page 179] Antiochus against Ptolemy Philometer (180 to 146 B.C.), he says, “But our people interpret both better and more rightly, that
in the end of the world antichrist will do these things”, etc.
On verse
27 he says, “There is no doubt that Antiochus
did make peace with Ptolemy, and that he feasted with him, and that he devised
frauds against him, and that he gained nothing by it; because he could not
obtain his kingdom, and was driven out by the soldiers of Ptolemy. Since the Scripture now says that there are
two kings whose hearts shall be fraudulent, so that they shall devise evil one
against another, this according to the history cannot be
demonstrated to be true; for
Ptolemy was of tender age, and was deceived by the fraud of Antiochus; - what
evil, then, could he devise against him?” He continues, verse by verse, to show how the
terms are applicable, in a
measure, to Antiochus, but only as a type of antichrist. He also mentions occasionally the opinions of
the Jews about the prophecy: thus, in verse 34,
“they shall be holpen with a little help”, he
says that some of the Jews understood the expression of Severus and Antoninus [Caracalla], others of Julian. On verse 36
he says, “From this place the Jews consider that
antichrist* is spoken of; that after the little
aid of Julian, a king should arise who would do according to his own will”,
etc. Porphyry, however, still supposed
Antiochus to be the subject, on to the end of the [Page 180] chapter, where Jerome says that he
indulges in dreams about this king.
* Some
may ask, “But what can Jews know about antichrist?” Many
Jewish writers both in early and in later times speak of Armillus - called also
Armillaus, and Armalgus) as
one who shall be specially raised up by Satan’s power, just before the coming
of Messiah, the Son of David. Of this
Armillus they say many wonderful things, in part borrowed from their own
Scriptures, and in part (as seems evident to me) from the book of Revelation.
They ascribe to him miraculous powers, and speak of his blasphemies and
persecutions, and they say that his end will be destruction by the breath of the
lips of the Messiah, according to Isa.
11: 4 (vide Buxtorf, Lex. Rab. in voc.).
Such is the second of the schemes of interpretation,
according to Jerome’s outline. There are
points of historic discrepancy which would prevent my receiving it on to verse 20; where, also, I fail to find that
distinct break or interval which must exist there on this
scheme. This system of explanation,
however, so far accords with what I believe to be true, in recognising that
from verse 21, to the end, is the history of
one person, who makes three invasions of
* We
really know very little about the minute points of history, brought forward as
the fulfilments, except from Jerome’s account of what Porphyry had
written. Of the sources from which
Porphyry drew, Dean Prideaux says, “He made use of the
best Greek historians extant. Such were
Callinicus Sutorius, Diodorus Siculus, Hieronymus, Polybius, Posidonius,
Claudius Theon, and Andronicus Alypius, and from them made evident proof, that
all that is written in the eleventh chapter of Daniel was truly, in every
particular, acted and done in the order as there related. ... Jerome in his
comments on Daniel makes use of the same authors that Porphyry did; and what is
in these comments are all the remains which we now have of the work of that
learned heathen, or of most of those authors which he made use of in it; for
this whole work of Porphyry is now lost, as also are most of the histories above
mentioned, which he quotes in it;
and the histories of Callinicus Sutorius, Hicronymus,
Posidonius, Claudius Theon, and Andronicus Alypius, are wholly perished, as is
also the greatest part of Polybius and Diodorus Siculus. Had we all these extant, we might from them be enabled to make a much clearer and fuller explication of
these prophecies, especially from Callinicus Sutorius, who lived in the time of
Antoninus Pius. ... There being at present no other remains of those ancient
historians (except Polybins and Diodorus Siculus),
but what we have in Jerome’s comments on Daniel, and his proem to them” Connection of the History of the Old and New Testaments, part ii, book iii, ad fin.; vol. ii, pp. 161, 162, ed.
1724, fol.).
Thus we are really limited as to our knowledge of minute
points to that which Porphyry gives as the testimony of historians, and which
Jerome relates as following Porphyry.
Dean Prideaux, after stating the point of divergence between Jerome and
Porphyry, and the manner in which the former applied from verse 21 to the end to antichrist, gives his own
opinion thus:
“The truth of the matter seems to be
this, that as much of these prophecies as relate to the wars of the king of the
north and the king of the south (that is the king of Syria and the king of
Egypt) was wholly and ultimately fulfilled in those wars. But as much of these prophecies as related to
the profanation and persecution which Antiochus Epiphanes brought upon the
Jewish Church was all typically fulfilled in them; but they were to have their
ultimate and thorough completion only in those profanations and persecutions
which antichrist was to bring upon the Church of Christ in aftertimes.”
[Page 181]
The opinion of the Jews (mentioned by Jerome) that verse 36 introduces the antichrist, coincides with
the third
scheme of interpretation which I have named.
It appears to have originated with the belief that the actings of
Antiochus Epiphanes were the subject of the middle part of the chapter,
connected with the distinct apprehension that the vision takes up the
destruction of an adversary at the time of the deliverance of the Jews and the
resurrection of the just.
The idea that the past history of Alexander’s successors is
the subject of this chapter first appears, I believe, in the first book of
Maccabees (in itself a useful and interesting piece of history). The writer knew what had just befallen his
nation in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes; he knew, too, what Daniel had
predicted, and he thought, naturally enough, that the one was the fulfilment of
the other. He applied (see 1 Macc. 1: 54) the prediction of Daniel, relative to the “abomination of desolation”, to the idol which
Antiochus had set up. He applied the Psalms, which speak of the Jews in their latter-day
trouble, to that time (compare 1 Macc. 7: 17, with Psalm 79: 3),
and seemed to think that, after the destruction of Antiochus, the promises of
blessing would be accomplished. He
seems, in chap. 9:
27, to [Page 182] take up the words of Dan. 12: 1 as to a time of unequalled tribulation. If it were taken as a fixed point that the
pollution of the temple by Antiochus is truly the “abomination
of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet”, then, of course, the
former part of the chapter would belong to what immediately preceded his reign.
The strongest ground (as I have said)
for preventing me from adopting the third scheme of interpretation is
that which relates to “the abomination of desolation”. This form of distinct idolatry is so spoken
of by our Lord in Matt. 24. that I can only
regard it as one definite object of prophecy. In this vision we have (chapter 11: 31), “they shall place the
abomination that maketh desolate.”
In this same vision (chap. 12: 11),
mention is made of “the abomination that maketh
desolate”, which I can only conclude to be one and the same thing,
referred to by our Lord as future. The
verse just quoted also mentions “the daily sacrifice”
as taken away, which connects the statement with Dan.
8: 13,
where that event is spoken of together with “the
transgression of desolation” - an allusion to the abomination, but not under the same name. Dan. 9: 27 tells us of a causer of desolation on the pinnacle of
abominations, referring, I
doubt not, to the same time and event.
But it is only in chap. 11: 31 and in chap. 12: 11 (which depends on it) that it is spoken of by
the name
which our Lord uses; to this vision, therefore, I believe that he distinctly refers, and this
reference I take as a defined point for interpreting the prophecy.
Our Lord, in His discourse on the
Mount of Olives, recorded in Matt. 24 and Luke 21,
foretells events, some long since fulfilled, some yet unaccomplished: it is
important to observe this; for if we identify “the
abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24.) with “Jerusalem
compassed about with armies” (Luke 21),
we should be [Page 183] obliged to suppose that all the
passages in which Daniel mentions this abomination are long past.
But though I object to the supposition that Antiochus
Epiphanes and his pollution of the temple are taught us in this vision, I most
freely admit that the deeds of Antiochus form a striking and solemn foreshadowing
of what shall be in the days of the antichrist.
Antiochus set up on the altar of burnt-offering an idol, and built an
altar before it upon which he sacrificed abominations. Fierce and bitter persecution was the
treatment of those who abstained from participating in these pollutions. And yet the claims and conduct of the
antichrist will go beyond this. In
reading the first book of Maccabees* (simply as a piece of uninspired history)
we may form some idea of the more fearful display of evil which is yet to be.
* The
providence of God has transmitted to us the books called Apocrypha, comprising
the uninspired writings of the Jews from the close of the Old Testament to the
time of our Lord. They are of some
importance to us, as we learn by their means what were the opinions and
feelings on subjects of divine truth in the intermediate times. In thus speaking of the Apocrypha, later
forgeries, such as the second book of Esdras, must not be included. Of all these books the first of Maccabees is
probably the most important. In John 10: 22 we
find our Lord at Jerusalem keeping the
Feast of Dedication; this was the festival instituted in commemoration of the
purging of the temple by Judas Maccabeus, and its observance by our Lord may be
considered as a sanction of the deliverance which he and his brethren wrought,
as being a distinct work of God. Without
conceding to the books of the Apocrypha any authority, I believe that we may
regard their transmission to us as designed in the providential ordering of God
for our instruction.
* * *
[Page 184]
NOTE ON PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION IN
CONNECTION WITH POPERY AND THE CORRUPTION OF CHRISTIANITY
IN the
Remarks on the different prophecies of Daniel,
I have given reasons for not interpreting the predictions of latter-day evil by
the Papacy and the Popish system.
Whether the explanation of such prophecies, by applying them to an
infidel antichrist, and a system connected with him, be
correct or not, must be considered from the terms of the Scripture itself, and
not from any preconceived thoughts. It
will not do for us to form our opinions on the solemnity and importance of a
subject first, and then to go to the Scripture to find something to support
it. The primary question must always be,
What is it that the Spirit of God speaks of in such or
such a passage? If we are sure that the
papal system does not meet the terms of a prediction, fully and wholly,
then we must not explain away the strict accuracy of prophetic language in the
hope of thus making it suit.
What is the worst form of evil which, as we are forewarned in
the Scripture, will arise prior to the second advent of Christ, and will then
receive His destroying judgment?
What are its characteristics?
What its doom? This is the real question at issue - not whether Romanism
is an evil, dangerous to souls, and opposed to the gospel of the grace of God.
Now, the terms of Scripture are plain as to two points: first,
the doom of those who own the antichrist; and second, the extent of his
influence within his own [Page 185] sphere. As to the doom, we read, “If any man worship the beast and his
image. ... the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God” (Rev. 14: 9, 10) - and
thus the adherents of this system (whatever it be) will be certainly lost. And as to the extent of the influence, this
person or system (or whatever it be) will draw all those within the sphere of
its influence (except the elect of God) into its vortex; for “all shall worship him whose names are not written in the
Lamb’s book of life” (Rev. 13: 8); that is
to say, all within the allotted scene of the actions of the beast,
except those whose names were written in the Lamb’s book of life from before
the foundation of the world, will be his worshippers. There will be, therefore, no un-renewed
hearts except those who own this antichrist.
Irrespective of all detail of prophetic circumstances, apply this
to the Papacy: the argument, then as to the countries in which we live, will
stand thus: All who shall reject the claims of antichrist in his time are the elect
of God (this is a truth of
Revelation): so that if we assume as an axiom that Popery is the antichrist,
it follows of necessity that all
who reject the claims of Popery are the elect of God. Thus,
then, all would be saved who are not Roman Catholics; as though there were none
wicked outside that pale - a doctrine which no one believes - although many
have seemed to pride themselves on being “Protestants”
almost to this degree. As we know that the unrighteous, be they Papists or Protestants, shall not
inherit the
But when we look at the certain doom of the adherents of the
antichrist, we find a new difficulty - thy will be all lost: does any one who values the grace of
God, and who knows how the Holy Ghost can savingly apply the blood [Page 186] of Christ to the soul, suppose that no one within the pale of the Church of Rome can be saved - that none of
them can be quickened by the Spirit of God to trust in that Saviour who takes
away the sins of his people? Surely many
a one has lived and died in external fellowship with
Take the declarations of Scripture, and then we see that this
doom is pronounced on all who own, or have owned, the antichrist: they are
looked on as not having “received the love of the truth
that they might be saved: and for this cause God
shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie: that they all might be
damned who believe not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2: 10-12). Thus they are all contemplated as those who
have rejected light, and who therefore have been already given over judicially
to darkness. Will this apply to all
Romanists? Are all of
necessity lost who have at any time been within the pale of that
body? The Reformers were themselves
originally all of them Papists: Luther was not merely a Roman Catholic, but
also a priest and an Augustinian monk.
Those who hold that the Papacy is the antichrist are hindered by their
love of God’s truth, and the gracious invitations of the gospel of salvation,
from adopting what might be legitimately deduced from their applications of
prophecy. Happily they do not act on any
such consequence of their opinions, and thus not a few who maintain the popish
system to be antichrist are earnest in preaching the gospel of Christ to
Romanists, instead of actually applying to them the unqualified and unmitigated
sentence of the word of God.* I rejoice that such do not [Page 187] act on their application of prophecy, but
on their own knowledge and apprehension of the gospel message: that all such
labours may be blessed in the conversion of souls must be the heart’s desire
and prayer of those who know the value of the gospel: it may be, however,
observed that every Romanist converted is a proof of the fallacy of the mode of
interpretation of which I have been speaking.
* The “Appeal” on behalf of “The
Edinburgh Irish Mission”, recently [1852] put into my hands, signed by
Drs. Begg, Cunningham, Candlish,
M‘Crie, and Duff, speaks of “the true nature of
Popery as subversive of the whole Gospel, as the man
of sin, and mystery of iniquity, doomed of God, with ALL who take part in
its abominations” (p. 2).
If this statement were correct, what benefit could result from bringing
Christian effort to bear on Romanists?
The Apostle Paul tells us (2 Thess. 2: 7) that “the mystery of
iniquity doth already work”, but that the “man
of sin” should “be revealed in his time”;
they are thus contrasted and not identical.
Hence, nothing but confusion of thought, as to Scripture truth, can
result from assuming that both of these contrasted forms of evil are the Papacy. Had either of the things been asserted
to be Romanism, the question would have been capable of discussion; but how can this be the
case when the very statement involves a contradiction in terms? But this need
not cause any surprise, since in close connection with this statement we read
of the doom of all who take part in the abominations of this system, and are
then told of efforts to deliver souls from this inevitable sentence. May all the efforts be blessed
! - for it is not on Romanists that Scripture
denounces this irreversible judgment.
This searching for Popery in Scriptures which speak of a worse
consummation would lead to strange results; and the very declarations of the
word of God would have to be softened, because the mind feels that such statements cannot be fully applied to the consequences of
Popery. If we admit that a person in the
Church of Rome may possibly be saved, in faith on the blood of Christ (not
through, but in spite of, his system), and if one who renounces his errors, and
leaves that system, accepting the gospel, may be saved, and used as an honoured
servant of Christ, then, in fact, the whole matter is conceded - that a worse
abomination than Popery is treated of in [Page 188] the prophetic Scripture, and that it
is no palliation of Popery to admit that such is the fact.
But as to palliation of Popery, I say with all confidence that
I see such consequences legitimately deducible from the application as such
Scriptures as 2 Thess.
2. to the Popedom, that were I to do this I should feel that I were
indeed palliating Romanism. What is
meant by “the
* This
notion has arisen from a ceremony connected with the creation of a new Pope, in
which he receives honours, unchristian indeed, but not as claiming the place of
God. The high altar is on
that occasion stripped of its
ornaments, and on it the Pope is set, to receive the recognition of the
cardinals, priests, and Roman people.
But the altar, when stripped of its coverings, loses with Romanists its peculiar
character; and I have seen altars at
But the application of certain prophecies to Popery, or the
contrary, does not affect the question whether that system is alike evil in its
doctrines and its practices, but only whether there is or is not a greater and
worse evil of which we are warned.
But if we do not apply certain predictions to Popery, how can
we meet it? How can we show that it is
condemned in Scripture?
To this I answer, that it is of the utmost importance for us
to see what the real turning-point is between the gospel of Christ and
Thus, every passage which sets forth the gospel of the grace
of God is utterly condemnatory of Romanism, and that not in its mere details,
but in the foundation and [Page 190] inherent principle of the
system. I do not say that the details are not condemned in Scripture, for
they are: there have often been times when it has been needful to confute and
meet these details (such as idolatrous worship, withholding of the Scriptures, persecuting
on principle); but let it
ever be remembered that in every contest a mere war of posts seldom is decisive: a petty warfare in
details will sometimes lead away
from the real centre of operations, while, if the deciding point of the war is
seen, contended for, and won, outposts fall of
necessity. Now I believe that Protestants
have often treated Romish controversy as if it were a war of posts, so as to
forget the real citadel to be attacked.
They have looked at the details of the claims of
Not so did the Reformers of the sixteenth century think and
act. With them arose the word Protestant;
and if we ask, What did it then signify? the
* It is
important to bear in mind that the canons of
The doctrinal definitions on justification were
especially drawn up to oppose the Reformers, embodying thoughts which Romanists
had previously held loosely: the definitions on Original Sin were mostly new as dogmatic statements;
and the canonisation of most of the books called Apocrypha for the first time
by that council seems to have originated in a mere mistake.
Thus, every statement which sets forth the gospel of God’s
grace is evidence against
Details of false doctrine and evils in practice and requirement have
often been argued against by Protestants, who were themselves utterly ignorant
of the answer to the vital question – “How can man
have peace with God?” On this
point (to which for many years I have been accustomed to call the attention of
Christians according to any ability which I possess) I will give the sentiments
of [the late] Dr. Cunningham, of
“I am disposed to think that, in the
discussions on popery in this country, too little prominence has been given to
what may be called the more theological parts of the question - to the guilt of
Popery in directly perverting the gospel of the grace of God, and especially by
teaching erroneous views on the subject of original sin and justification.
“The cause of all this, no doubt, is,
that many of those who have written most ably and learnedly against Popery, had
themselves largely departed from the sound theology of the Reformers, and were
not more scriptural and evangelical in their views upon these points than the
canons of the Council of Trent. When
Jeremy Taylor published a work that contained heresy on the subject of original
sin, a Papist, who was much sounder in the faith, whose views were much more in
accordance with the Bible and the Thirty - nine Articles, published a reply to it.
Archbishop Wake, in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of
England, in reply to Bossuet’s Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic
Church, virtually gave up our
whole contest with
* Evangelical
Christendom, October 1851, pp. 341, 342.
Dr. Cunningham then goes on to speak of the similar defect in
Bishop Gibson’s Preservative against Popery and other works, in which, although
particular doctrines of Romanism are well and learnedly refuted, yet, as to the
vital question of Justification through Faith, there is either an entire
silence or what is worse.
Protestantism ought not to be thus negative; it is a name full
of meaning and significance; it tells why we left the communion of
We know, in the
lamentable inroads of Rationalism, to what negative Protestantism may tend: in
thus refusing to admit the demands of Rome, the authority of God in His word
has been equally cast off: and thus we find a grievous and widespread
infidelity - a corrupting gangrene which works its way wherever the real
authority of Scripture, as the revelation of God’s will and truth, is not
rightly maintained. This is a proof that
there may be forms of error at least as
deadly and soul-destroying as those of
Rationalistic infidelity may not have as yet as concrete a
form as the Romish system presents. But
all the aspirations of Rationalism tend towards a concrete form, in which there
shall be seen the fully developed powers of man’s mind triumphing over
everything which teaches dependence on God, or the necessity or possibility of
a revelation from Him.
[Page 194]
This may be seen in not a little of the popular literature of
this country: the same feeling has been distinctly marked in other lands. Dr. Krummacher, of
Berlin, after discussing the forms of opposition to belief current in
Protestant Germany, thus concludes: “Little more is
necessary than that a mighty and talented personality should appear, who should
set himself up as the centre of Infidelity, and represent it with energetic
pathos and strong decision, and the reign of ‘the man of sin’ would be amongst us in more than a state of embryo.”*
* Evangelical
Christendom, October 1851, p. 334.
This is just what I believe to be the fact: a rejection of the
truth of God is now gaining ground, and from this will issue at last the system
and principles of him who “will deny the Father and the
Son”. This person will be “the antichrist”
in contradistinction to the “many antichrists”
that have arisen from time to time.*
* Some,
in applying all that is said of the antichrist to the Pope, have given the name
a new interpretation: they have said that “Antichrist”
is not “opposed to Christ” but “instead of Christ” - that it is in fact one who
claims to take the place of Christ as his vicar. Who, then, were the many antichrists of
But is the system of Popery nowhere condemned in the prophetic
parts of Scripture? Must we suppose that
the
antichrist is so exclusively a subject of prophecy that the “many antichrists” are overlooked?
To these questions 1 reply: First, that the less is
always included in the greater; so that whatever condemns the greater
abomination and evil condemns in its measure everything similar in kind or
character. Thus, the [Page 195] principle on which anything is condemned as evil
in Scripture being once stated, it only remains to apply it to all that is similar.
The sin of Simon Magus (Acts 8) has
rightly been applied to all trafficking in holy things, and so the
characteristics of the antichrist are applicable to all that may be similar in
kind or degree. But, Secondly, the Scripture does give to us
statements of the most definite kind as to the corruption of Christianity, such
as has
been and is found in Romanism.
Thus we read in 1 Tim. 4, “Now the spirit
speaketh expressly, that in the latter times
some shall depart [or shall apostatise] from the faith [rather from faith, that ground on which a sinner is accepted
before God through Christ’s merits], giving heed to
seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and
commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with
thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” This is a solemn warning: it tells of the
footsteps of that apostasy which, according to 2 Thess. 2, will
result in the manifestation of “the man of sin”.
Of course I do not limit this prophetic description to Popery: it includes all that is
similar throughout Christendom, whether found in Romanism, in the Greek and
I have already remarked on the fundamental falsehood of this
corrupted Christianity - the denial that it is solely through the work of
Christ for us, His one sacrifice and perfect righteousness, applied to the soul
through faith, that we are accepted of God.
Where Satan obscures this truth, he can easily lead astray in other
things: where he causes it to be denied, then he finds men his captives in a twofold bondage.
And thus has it been in the Romish system: IDOLATRY has there established itself -
entering in at first in forms hardly perceptible, until (as we now see) the
adoration of saints, images, and relics, and the conversion of the Supper of
the Lord into an object of worship as the Lord Himself, have taken a place in
men’s minds and in their religious services which could belong rightly to none
but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the one God of our salvation.
Solemn, indeed, are the consequences of idol-worship. The Gentiles of old, amongst whom the gospel
was preached at first, were thoroughly sunk in this sin; and of them the
apostle (1 Cor. 10: 20), using
the words of Deut. 32:
17, thus speaks: “The
things which the Gentiles sacrifice, thy
sacrifice to devils and not to God; and I
would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.” Did the ancient heathens think that they were adoring evil spirits – demons - when they sacrificed to
their gods and demi-gods? - when
they honoured Jupiter and Hercules? And
yet the Scripture thus teaches us that the worship did actually go to
demons: it was thus directed by Satan.
And this put the idolatrous nations under the distinct tutelage of
demons, whose power showed itself amongst them in many
ways. We should form, I believe, a [Page 197] very inadequate estimate of Romish idolatry if we were to overlook the
solemn fact that it is demon worship commingling itself with that of the living and true God; so that
Romish nations stand under demoniacal tutelage just as did the Gentiles of old.
The worship rendered to saints does not ascend to the honours
paid to the Virgin Mary, to St. Francis, or to St. Philomena,* are not received
by them, [Page 198] or by any other saints, whether real, supposed, or
non-existent; the worshipper may imagine that he honours the mother of our Lord
in the many litanies and prayers in which divine attributes are ascribed to
her: the Scripture removes the veil and shows us, not the Virgin Mary as the
receiver of the worship, but some potent demon, some especial leader under the
banner of Satan. This is the source,
then, to which we ought to ascribe the system of Rome and the arts by which it
is supported: all must be traced to demoniacal power and energy; hence the hold
which the system takes on men’s minds; hence its adaptation to the thoughts and
feelings of man’s fallen nature; hence the superhuman skill and wisdom
displayed by the followers of Ignatius Loyola and by other Romish
advocates. Whenever God is honoured in any
way, whether in His almighty power or in His works of grace, there He is
pleased to acknowledge the recognition of Himself. And thus He has shown Himself the protector
of those nations that rejected Romish idolatry, and acknowledged the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as alone worthy of all worship and praise. A
recurrence to Romish connection, a re-commingling in any way with the
maintenance of Romish idolatry, would place a Protestant nation again under the
sway and influence of those demons to whom idolatrous worship really ascends, whether
the name under which they are adored be that of Jupiter or of Simon Peter the
Apostle of Christ.
* St. Philomena is a saint greatly honoured of late years in the
Church of Rome. Her legend sets forth
that in the time of Diocletian she was the daughter of the king of
How much of this legend is
believed by Romanists appears to
me very doubtful; but, believed or not, it is publicly offered for sale at Rome
on and bookstalls - where every book, be it remembered, is subjected to
ecclesiastical censorship of the strictest kind, where not a line of Holy Scripture
may be read or possessed in the vernacular language, and where not one
statement of evangelical truth may be printed or circulated. The history of St. Philomena was said to have
been revealed to a holy nun a few years ago, by which she was informed of the
name and actions of an individual previously unknown, whose bones were
discovered in the Roman catacombs.
Perhaps, however, these legends are not believed; if so, what must be the condition of those
who render spiritual honours to beings in whom they do not believe? It is not always held needful at
Protestants have often taken pains to disprove every tale or
narrative of Romish miracles: no doubt that most of these marvels are mere
impostures, finding their [Page 199] origin either in the extreme
superstition of minds blinded by demons, in the fraud of deceivers, or in a
mixture of both. The character of the
alleged miracles is such as almost to lead minds into a condition of scepticism
as to all miracles, and this has been the case with several. But while the general character of Romish
miracles and marvels denotes weak deception, we have no occasion, I believe, to attempt to prove that they are
all
void of reality. The Scripture
records the miracles wrought by the Egyptian magicians, as well as those
performed by Moses: we read of the signs of Simon Magus, as well as of the
miracles of Philip and of the apostles.
Demoniacal power must be recognised as a fact. At the time of the Reformation the servants
of Christ did not think it needful to reject all Romish miracles; they only
sought to ascribe them to their true source.
Thus it was said in
The Scripture presents a criterion and a safeguard to those
who are watchful: “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and
giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and
the sign the wonder come to pass, whereof
he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and
let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the
words of that prophet, or that dreamer
of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth
you, to know whether ye love
the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. 13: 1-3). Thus, if any miracle be wrought in
confirmation of any contradiction of a [prophetic, or any other] truth [Page 200] previously revealed of God, then such miracle ought not to be received
as though it accredited in any way the newly introduced doctrine or opinion. The
divine miracles of Scripture were in full accordance and harmony with every
previous revelation, and their nature and character were distinctly opposed to Satanic power.
There may be miracles which in themselves give no indication
as to their source, whether it be from above or from
beneath. Miraculous power, however, in
whatever way it may be manifested, should always lead men to examine it with
attention, for it would be a proof of supernatural agency - the working either of
God or of Satan; unless, then, such power be equally connected with both
truth and holiness, it cannot
be from God: in such a case we must apply the Scripture - “The Lord your God proveth you.”
If the alleged miracles of Rome were all realities (instead of
being so often obviously the reverse), they could not accredit the Romish
system with its denial of the true gospel of Christ - a denial which involves
the solemn anathema of God declared against all who preach “another gospel” (Gal.
1: 8, 9).
The direct working of Satanic power
has been seen from time to time, but it seems manifest that this energy is
hindered and restrained in lands where the true worship of God is professed;
secret workings of the enemy may there be found, but not the same unhindered
might of evil. This might be expected to be more fully seen in heathen lands;
to be found, but in a less degree, in nations that commingle the worship of God
with the honours paid to demons; and to be restrained where God alone is
worshipped, and Christ is avowed to be the only Mediator, until such nations or their rulers countenance idolatries.
In heathen lands there are many things
which are [Page 201] incapable of explanation except on the supposition of
direct Satanic power, and Scripture would never lead us to doubt or deny that
it may
be put forth.
In our Lord’s days the most remarkable power of Satan over the
bodies
of men was seen in the case of the demoniacs, but we always find that
the sphere of our Lord’s miracles of mercy
in casting them out was in Galilee or Samaria; Jerusalem, “the city of the great king”, the place of that worship
which Jehovah still recognised, is never then mentioned in connection with
unclean spirits. After, however, Christ
had been rejected, we do find demoniacs connected with
There is a widespread incredulity at present as to Satanic agency and miraculous power - an incredulity which
needs to be dispelled, because it leads many to be blind to their danger. The working of the “mystery of iniquity” commenced
in the days of the apostles; it has
gone on, including Popery and all other forms of corrupted and corrupting
Christianity, and at length it will result in the manifestation of “the man of sin”, who will arise accredited by Satanic
miracles – “with all power, and signs and lying wonders”. Surely this is not believed by many; and yet
the Spirit of God here speaks of actual miracles and no mere deceptions of
men’s senses. What some of these
miracles are, we read in Rev. 13, where we are told of fire made to come down
from heaven in the sight of men, and an image made to speak and breathe.
If claims to miraculous power be made, let us take heed and
hold fast the truth of God; it is nowhere told us in Scripture that God will give us any new
revelation [Page 202] confirmed by miracles, but we are
warned that Satan will thus introduce the antichrist, and that in
this manner men will be
deceived. No miracle can invalidate an
antecedent fact. The fact of redemption by the blood of
the Son of God will remain as the sure ground-work of all Christian religion,
even if ten thousand miracles were wrought to disprove it; this is a truth but
little considered, and so little heed will be paid to it by men in general that by miracles they will be misled,
unless they have received the love of the truth of God into their hearts by the
operation of the Holy Ghost.
To some it may seem a dark and discouraging prospect thus to
contemplate what the issue will be of professing Christianity within the Roman
earth; to see the corruption which goes on as that which will at last increase
so as to lead to full antichristian apostasy - the rejection of God [His prophetic truths] and of Christ. But, if it be different from the prospects
which many have imagined, we have only to ask whether this is not the truth of
Scripture. If this be the case, then it
is well for us to know it, for God never instructs us by holding out false
expectations. Have not the Apostles Paul (2 Tim.
3), John (in speaking of “many antichrists” as a characteristic of “the last time”), James (5:
1-8),
Peter (2 Epistle, chap.
3), and Jude, all taught us that the
concluding days of this dispensation will be days of peculiar evil [and apostasy by those] in the Church and
in the world, up to the coming of the Lord?
But (it may be asked) how are we to
understand the Old Testament promises of widespread and universal blessing? Surely these promises shall be thoroughly
fulfilled - no word of God is vain; but fulfilled they cannot be in a dispensation in which the many take the broad way
and the few find the narrow.
However these things are opposed to the thoughts of [Page 203] many Christians, the testimony of Christ’s apostles is clear; and,
further, the Lord Himself, before He laid down His life to redeem His Church,
instructed His people as to these things.
All the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, all the instruction of John
14-17, has this character.
In Matt. 13, however, the Lord Jesus gave definite
instruction, in a series of seven parables, as to what “the kingdom of heaven” would be in its development on earth; how it would comprehend evil as well
as good; and how the evil would be found as continuing to the end of the age or
dispensation. How can “the kingdom of heaven” relate to anything evil? is a question often asked. It might suffice to refer to the chapter
itself, where the tares and the bad fishes are quite as much portions of that kingdom as the wheat
and the good fishes. We use as a common expression “Christendom” - the kingdom or dominion of Christ - by
which we exclude the world of idolaters and Mahometans, and to which we do not
consider the Jews as belonging, although many of them are locally in it. In Christendom there may be and are vast
numbers who are not at all subject to the faith and doctrine of Christ, but to
Christendom they belong as truly as do spiritual believers. Just so the Scripture phrase “the kingdom of heaven” includes all the individuals
and nations that in consequence of the mission of Christ profess His name in
any sense: if they are not heavenly themselves, it does not
alter the fact that they, in the terms of Scripture, belong to the kingdom of
heaven.
The kingdom of heaven is now known as developed on earth and
subjected to many influences; in the day of Christ it will be known as
altogether heavenly, all other
things having been put out of it and all being conformed to God.
[Page 204]
In the first parable of Matt.
13 the Lord shows that the seed sown would
in many cases produce no fruit, although in some it would; this might be
regarded as a preliminary warning not to suppose that the gospel was to produce
universal blessing. Then follow six
parables, divided into two groups of three each, as spoken respectively to the
multitudes and to the disciples, as similitudes of the kingdom of heaven - that
is, as exemplifications of some of its aspects.
In the first, that of “the tares of the field”, we have (verses 37-43)
our Lord’s own interpretation; and we thus learn that in the field especially
sown by the Son of Man there would be evil mixed with the good, that this evil would continue until the end (“let both grow together until the harvest”), and that the evil forms so conspicuous
a characteristic that the parable receives its designation (verse 36) from the tares and not from the wheat. The last parable (verses
47-50), spoken to the disciples, teaches
in some respects the same truths; the net equally enclosed the bad fishes and
the good.
Thus any interpretation of these
parables which involved the supposition that universal or widespread blessing
was predicted must of necessity be incorrect, for it would exclude the possibility
of the tares remaining till the harvest among the wheat. The two next parables - that of the grain of
mustard-seed and of the leaven - were spoken to the multitudes as that of the
tares of the field had been. This seems
to direct our thoughts to the ostensible aspects of the kingdom of heaven, as
they might be seen by the eye of mere man.
A grain of mustard-seed so grows as to
produce not a herb, but a tree, like unto that seen in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision
(Dan. 4).
Few things were more opposed to
probabilities than that this should have been the issue of [Page 205] Christianity - that instead of having to do with spiritual and unseen
things it should acquire greatness in the earth; a result which the Lord does
not explain except by the principles laid down in the interpretation of the
preceding parable, by which we see that while men slept was carried on the counter-working of Satan. Let
this be taken into consideration, and then we cannot be surprised that the tree
of earthly greatness should thus spring from a seed, from which this would not
have been looked for.
The next parable is, “The kingdom of
heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took,
and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” Whatever this parable may mean, it implies the
spread of some principle throughout a certain body until its influence becomes
universal. Does this, then, mean good or
evil? Many would reply that “the kingdom of heaven”
could not be compared to anything evil. On
this I have already remarked; but observe that the similitude has respect to
the whole
parable: the parity is not connected with one word or thing, but with
the whole
similitude. So, in the last
parable, the kingdom of heaven is likened to a net, not in itself, but in
certain circumstances and connections. There
will be a day when Christ shall
gather out of His kingdom all things
that offend, and then “the kingdom of heaven” shall be only comparable to
what is good. Thus it is from the
parable itself, and its connection, that we must judge as to whether this is a
similitude of good or evil.
The notion of universality in its aspects seems to exclude the
idea of good being here intended: those who thus interpret apply the parable
either to the spread of the gospel - the diffusion of Christianity - or else to
the results wrought by the regenerating influence of grace [Page 206] on the individual Christian. The
first of these interpretations would be in entire opposition not only to the
testimony of the apostles in their Epistles, as to the spread of evil in the
latter days of this dispensation, but also to that of the parable of the tares
of the field; the interpretation of that parable shows that evil will continue,
and the prophecies in the Epistles show that it will spread and increase. As to the second interpretation, it is
manifest that these parables do not refer to individuals separately; but even
if they did, it is not true that certain principles of grace introduced ever do
or can so transform a man as to change the carnal mind and the flesh into
something good and holy. The carnal mind
remains as really in the holiest believer as in the most abandoned sinner; it
continues to be “enmity against God, for it is not subject unto the law of God, neither indeed can be”: in the case of the believer,
new principles of life and action are introduced, spiritual powers are bestowed
for keeping
under the flesh, but the
flesh remains up to death or the resurrection-state. To apply this parable, then, to regeneration
is wholly opposed to the nature of the gospel, and to the remedy which it
proposes for fallen man.
It is thus impossible to understand this parable as teaching
the diffusion of good, without contradicting the whole analogy, as well as the
direct statements of revealed truth.
But what is leaven? It is the incipient
corruption of the mass of kneaded flour, in which that fermentation commences
to work, a small portion of which, if put into wetted flour, will produce incipient
corruption of exactly the same kind, and so leaven the whole lump.*
And thus leaven is always spoken of in the Old Testament: it
invariably means, when used there as a symbol, that which is corrupt and productive of corruption. The disciples knew the Old Testament far too
well to suppose that they were now to take this term in a good sense, unless
they were expressly taught so to do. But
is the New Testament use of the term “leaven”
different? In Matt.
16: 6 (and
the parallel place, Mark 8: 15, and
in Luke 12: 1)
the Lord warns against “the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees”.
The disciples imagined that He referred
to bread, until He showed them that He meant the doctrine - the evil doctrine [teachings] of the Pharisees and Sadducees: in Luke 12: 1 He
says, “the leaven of the Pharisees, which
is hypocrisy” - certainly not a good thing. Twice in the Epistles of Paul do we read, “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”; in the one
case it refers to [ungodly] practice, and in the other to doctrine. In 1 Cor. 5 Paul
speaks of the necessity of putting away, from fellowship in the Church, the
notorious sinner [a “brother” (verse 11, R.V.)] whom the Corinthians were inclined to
uphold. “Your
glorying is not good. Know ye not that a
little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out,
therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as
ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for
us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither
with the leaven of malice and wickedness,
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” The toleration of moral evil was leaven
introduced [“unrighteous” behaviour, “lawsuits”,
and the possibility of not inheriting “the
* In this country, where yeast is so commonly used for making
bread, what leaven really is, its nature and effects, are often but little
understood: hence it is often not known to be incipient corruption spreading
through the mass of dough, rendering the whole sour and, if not baked
presently, also corrupt.
The common notion that was attached to leaven is shown in the following sentence of
Plutarch (as cited by Wetstein): “… Now leaven is both
generated itself from corruption, and it corrupts the mass with which it is
mingled.” This sentiment of a
heathen might check the thoughts of many Christians in their interpretations of
leaven.
These are, then, all the occurrences
of leaven* in the New Testament, besides it being mentioned in the parable
itself; and in all there is one consistent meaning connected with the symbol - the
same idea of corruption as is found in the Old Testament. It would be, indeed, strange if our Lord had,
in the parable, introduced a meaning the exact opposite of every idea connected
with [Page 209] the term, and had used what not only symbolises corruption,
but is corruption, as expressive of something good.
* A
phraseology connected with leaven is current in the mouths of many Christians: they talk of a leaven
of holiness, of righteousness, the
good influence of a leaven that has been spread, etc. This mode of speech was probably borrowed from
this parable, but it also leads to a traditional interpretation of the parable itself. It is strange that the habitual use of a term should be taken from one
passage, in which it is supposed
that the term means the direct opposite of what it signifies everywhere
else. We should never hear of “a leaven of holiness”, etc., if the symbolic language
of Scripture receive its Scripture interpretation; this is a test as to the correct use of Scripture
language, or the contrary. Put, instead
of “leaven”, corruption or defilement, and then it will be seen how strange such expressions must be to
those habituated to the general use of Scripture language.
In Dante, the following lines occur:-
“Di voi pastor s’accorse il Vangelista,
Quando colei,
che siede sovra l’acque,
Puttaneggiar co’ regi
a lui fu vista:
Quella che
con le
selte teste nacque,
E dalle
diece corna ebbe argomento,
Fin che
virtute al suo marito piacque.”
Inf. xix. io6‑iii.
Some of the Italians suppose this to be “La Santa Chiesa anuata de’ sette sacramenti e
de’ dieci comandamenti
divini”, an interpretation which sounds passing strange to the ears of any
who know the Scripture use of these terms. But is this
really more strange than the popular use of “leaven”? I
might find a parallel in a verse which speaks of “the ever-blessed leaven”, as if the terms could
be compatible: “ever-blessed” might as well be
joined to “hypocrisy”, “false
doctrine”, “immoral practice”, “malice”, or “wickedness”;
for these are inspired definitions of
what leaven means.
Thus, not only the universality
expressed in the parable, but also the corrupt and corrupting thing, leaven, would
lead us to see the similitude as one of evil. Do we not see that
2 Tim. 3, etc., show us how
Christendom will be leavened with evil? And
do we not now see this to a great degree? Let an intelligent Buddhist or Mahometan come
into Christendom, and he will see the mass of the nations holding fast corrupted
doctrine, and presenting this
corruption of truth (in Scripture language leaven) to the attention of external
nations.
Thus do the three parables, spoken to the
multitudes show us what
Christendom would be in its darker characteristics, as truth would testify against its doctrinal and
moral condition.
But this was not all: the Lord gave
instruction to His disciples in the three following parables, in which we see the inner truth
of a real Church, known to Christ, and known to faith, despite of all the
external change.
The “treasure
hid in a field” shows us what Christ did for His people: they were in
the world, and because they were given into His hand to redeem, He bought the whole
for their sake. Let this be
individualised as is often done, and then the notion is introduced of all being
given up for the sake of Christ or of the gospel, in fact to procure
salvation - a doctrine utterly opposed to Christian faith; it is the
leaven which was at work amongst the Galatians.
The parable of the one pearl of great
price has often been treated as though this were something which we must
obtain - a mode of interpretation similar to that applied to the preceding
parable, and equally contradictory to the freeness of the gospel. Just as the former [Page 210] parable spoke of the Church as looked at by Christ, as that
which was precious in His sight when buried in the world, so here it is
presented under the heavenly symbol of “one pearl of
great price”; this shows us the character which the elect Church will
fully sustain in the glory and which it ought to aim at now.*
* Toplady saw plainly that Christ was here the
purchaser: -
“Deathless
principle, arise!
Soar, thou native of the
skies!
Pearl of price, by Jesus bought,
To His glorious likeness
wrought;
Go, to shine before His
throne,
Deck His mediatorial crown;
Go, His triumphs to adorn:
Made for
God, to God return.”
He individualises the
idea, however, which in the parable belongs to all the redeemed as one pearl unitedly.
The last parable brings out the issue of all in the present
dispensation - that when the net is drawn to shore, and the bad fishes are cast
aside, the good shall be gathered into vessels.
These three similitudes are parallel in an inverse order to
the former three; the last answers to the tares of the field; the “one pearl”, which has nothing about it but its own
individuality, stands in contrast to the “grain of
mustard-seed”, which grows into earthly greatness; and the treasure hid
in the field, which had to be taken out of the place where it was unseen,
contrasts with the leaven, also hidden, but which corrupts to its own corrupted
nature the mass in which it is placed.
Thus clear is it that Scripture does warn us most fully how corruption would come into the Church, and this fact is presented to us wholly
independent of any supposed applications of the predictions concerning the antichrist
to the papal system. As the apostle
mentions many antichrists, we may in that sense speak of the Papal
antichrist, or of any other, whenever we see a [Page 211] system or thing especially opposed to Christ and His Gospel; in doing this
we must not, however, forget the crisis of evil, concerning which we are
warned, and the true characteristics of the antichrist.
We must expect, in accordance with Matt. 13, that,
through all this our dispensation, tares will grow up with the wheat, so that there can be no universal blessing till Christ
has come again; and also we learn from Daniel,
from the Apocalypse, and from 2 Thess. 2, that an earthly potentate will arise to supreme
power over the Roman earth who will so fully carry out the antichristian idea of
“denying the Father and the Son” that he will succeed by persecution, and by
delusive power, in causing the name and profession of Christianity to be cast
off by all except the true spiritual
worshippers who are willing to suffer for their Master’s sake.* This interference in holy things will not give
this “man of sin” an exclusively spiritual
character: his temporal sovereignty will be supreme, but (like Nebuchadnezzar)
he will extend it to divine worship as well.
[* NOTE. The following 4 quotations are selected from: ‘The Rod Will God Spare it? By J. D. Faust:-
1. “Up to the third century the persecuted
[Pre-millennial] Christians seem to have taken [Revelation 20] as
predicting a literal resurrection of the martyrs to reign with Christ. … Others feeling, no
doubt, that a thousand year’s reign with Christ of martyrs only is not likely to be the thing intended – are fain
to include such as have been virtual martyrs, such as eminent professors.”
(David Brown, The Apocalypse: Its
Structure And Primary Predictions,
2. “ ‘If we suffer, we
shall also reign with Him.’ This was the great
incentive to the Christians of the early Church. … Pastor D. M. Panton, widely known writer and diligent student
of prophecy … Hudson Taylor and others have
been exponents of ‘select’ or ‘partial’ rapture and of a ‘partial’ reign. This
view I must say I have no hesitation whatever in accepting.” (Oswald
J. Smith, Is The Antichrist At Hand? (Tabernacle
Publishers, 1927), 30, 45. See
pp. 309.
3. “Scripture
says the reigning is contingent upon the
suffering. Second Timothy 2: 12: ‘If we suffer, we shall also reign with him:
if we deny him, he shall also deny us.’ What about the believer who has never really ‘suffered’ with Christ? What is his status in the reign? … I do not think the worldly believer will
share in the millennial reign.” (Robert T. Ketcham,
Sermons bt Ketcham, vol. 2.) See pp. 310.
4. “It being
therefore the case that the first resurrection, while open indeed to all, is a
prize which must be attained, and which, like every prize, may be forfeited, it
is at once made clear why in Rev. 20: 4-6, where the two resurrections are set, one at the opening
of the millennial kingdom and the other at its close, it is said that ‘blessed and holy’ is he
that hath part in the former, including
pre-eminently those who in varying degree had suffered for and with Jesus and
for the word of God. And that some believers not accounted
worthy of that resurrection, will rise in the second resurrection unto eternal
life, though THEY WILL HAVE MISSED REIGNING WITH CHRIST IN HIS KINGDOM,
fitly explains why at the final judgment the book of life will be opened and
searched (Rev. 20: 11-15)…” (G.H. Lang, Firstfruits
And Harvest (Conley & Schoettle,
1985), 27-28. See pp. 315, 316.]
Outside his dominion corrupt and mingled Christianity will
continue (although many there may be influenced by his delusive claims); and
thus the parable of the tares and the wheat (nominal and true professors) will
still be applicable, as we know from our Lord’s words that somewhere it must,
up to his coming again.
It is in Popery that corrupt Christianity has shown itself in
its most systematised form:
the lapsed Churches of the East may hold no more truth, and may be quite as
much tainted with idolatry and superstition, but still they do not present the
united and consolidated form of potent and influential evil which
Nominal Protestants may often have cared but little for [Page 212] the gospel of Christ, and in the practices of
Thus persecution is a stain from which few bodies of real or
nominal Christians are wholly free; the mistake, that we ought to root out the tares, has been
repeatedly made: but when Protestants have persecuted, it has been an
inconsistency, a contravention of principle, ever to be condemned and lamented;
while Romish persecution is carried out on principle, and in full accordance with that Church which still condemns as
heretics those who teach “that it is
contrary to the mind of the Spirit to burn heretics”.*
* This
stands in the “Instructions to Theological Candidates,”
still published by authority at
If Protestant States do now persecute, they show how inconsistent they are: it may, however,
be asked whether there is any body maintaining the true gospel of Christ which teaches and upholds
persecution, and whether any such acts, in nominally Protestant countries, are
not carried on in spite of those who are really actuated by Christian
principle.
Persecution is a thing which Protestants have been able to
cast aside when they learned its evil: they neither are, nor ever professed to
be, infallible. There was a time when
nonconformists at home suffered imprisonment and persecution from the same
government which compelled the nonconformists in
The continued practice of Romish persecution is shown in the
exile of Count Piero Guicciardini
and others, from
While this page is in the compositor’s hands (June 8, 1852),
the Romish authorities have sentenced Francesco Madiai,
and Rosa, his wife (already imprisoned, on suspicion, in separate cells, for
ten months), to solitary confinement, with hard labour, the one for four years and a half, the other for three years and a half, for the possession of the word of God
in Italian, and for their confession of the name of Christ! [To this note,
written in 1852, all that need be added is a reference to the Spanish persecutions from 1860 to 1863. May God grant liberty of worship in
[Page 213]
If nominal Protestants fall into any Romish doctrine, such as
non-recognition of our acceptance, solely on account of the merits of Christ
through faith, or if they adopt any Romish practice, such as devotions to
saints, or the superstitious use of crosses, pictures, or images, then
Protestantism is set aside and a spurious Popery, which insidiously borrows a
name and a garb not its own, is introduced instead. In statements of doctrine many have often almost or quite
coincided with
“To the law and to the testimony”:
through the mercy of God we have the Scriptures; and in this we stand in
contrast to
* Of late some who profess to be Protestant teachers have set
forth very Romeward doctrines on the subject of the Imputation of Christ’s
righteousness to us, and His vicarious life for us. The true doctrine of the word of God is that
our Lord, who was very and eternal God, became very man, taking our flesh and
blood, but without sin: that in life He obeyed perfectly for us, that in death
He perfectly bore the curse for us: that all His obedience in life or death was
meritorious and for us; that every suffering,
whether in life or death, was penal and for us. Many know how grievously these truths have
been set aside, and how Christ’s obedience to the law of God for us has been
denied. All who oppose these truths are
dangerously false teachers, and as such must be shunned. (See Christ the End of the Law for Righteousness. Five Letters to the Editor of the ‘Record’ on
recent Denials of our Lord’s Vicarious Life, by S. P. Tregelles, LL.D.)
It behoves us to uphold the authority of holy
Scripture, [Page 214] for this is a safeguard, and if we
have loose views on this point we lay ourselves open to the attacks of
If we cast a veil of uncertainty over holy
Scripture, then do we open the door to Romish claims, as if Scripture required
to be interpreted by some other tribunal, or else we cast aside all confidence
in Scripture as being an objective revelation from God, and are left to the
guidance of our own thoughts.
Maintaining holy Scripture in all its fullness, we may, by God’s
blessing, meet the fundamentally false doctrines of Rome, and thus sustain the
integrity of Scripture (which is impaired whenever its statements are softened, so as to apply them to Romanism) by
pointing out how Romish and Romanising doctrines are fully met by the plain
teaching of the word of God, that it is in virtue of the merits of Christ alone, applied to the soul through faith, that we are justified and
accepted from first to last, our [eternal] salvation being wholly of God’s grace.
[It has been thought that 2 Thess. 2 could
only be met by an application to Papal claims, especially through comparison
with the terms used by Pope Nicholas V in writing to the Greek Emperor. But however blasphemous the terms adopted
were, Imperial Rome had gone much further, even as the antichrist will again. “The State, which was always the real object of a Roman’s
devotion, had found a personal embodiment: and the people were willing to
concede to the Emperor the divine titles which he claimed.” - Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, by
B. F. Westcott, M. A., p. 81. He adds in a note: “The
climax was reached by Domitian, whose edicts ran: Dominus et Deus noster sic fieri jubet (Suet. Domit., c.
13).”]
* *
*
[Page 215]
CONCLUDING REMARKS
IN order
rightly to learn the things written for our instruction in the Scripture, it is
needful for Christians to mark with attention and with Spirit-taught
intelligence what the Scripture itself says. Very many of the
difficulties which are connected with the contents of the word of God arise
wholly from the thoughts which have been added to what it says, and hence there
has been a supposed obscurity about the truths there taught.
The reader of these Remarks on Daniel will, I trust, see that
everything essential for the understanding
of this portion of Scripture is to be found within the limits of the word of
God itself; and the more we can confidently lay hold of this as a principle
with regard even to one book of Scripture, the more will it lead us on in
applying it to the word of God as a whole.
These “Remarks” arose, indeed,
out of an endeavour to use this portion of prophetic Scripture simply as seeing
what it might teach. To this end I had
read the prophetic portions of Daniel with Christians at various places and times,
and these readings, and the inquiries and statements of difficulties which
arose out of them, had, I believe, their use in bringing before several minds
the definite clearness with which Scripture teaches. Subsequently I was often
requested to print the substance of these Readings on Daniel, and when I was
about to go through the book again with others, as an aid to me in writing, a Christian friend had the kindness to
take full and accurate notes of the readings. Thus, [Page 214] I had placed before me memoranda of
what had passed at the time, including the difficulties which had occurred to
particular minds, and the inquiries to which the portions of Scripture led on.
With the notes so taken before me, the “Remarks” were drawn up: in doing this I did not confine
myself to what had been thus taken down, but I rather used the notes as an
efficient aid in bringing before me points which needed attention, in order to
meet the minds of different readers. Thus,
in using the notes, I reconsidered the whole of the prophecies in Daniel, and
this was my occasional occupation during a considerable period, and in various
countries: part was prepared for publication while in England, and part in Rome
- that city to which prophecy leads us as the centre of the dominion of the
Fourth Monarchy foretold in Daniel, and in which the New Testament history
ends. I mention these particulars that
the reader may know the origin of these “Remarks”,
and how they were drawn up in their present form, and that the subjects of
which I have treated (even when apparently digressions) are real points which
arose from inquiries, etc., in readings on Daniel; and also I give this information,
that all who find my “Remarks” to be of any
assistance to them in understanding this book may know that they are materially
indebted to that Christian friend* whose notes aided me so efficiently - I
might, indeed, say essentially - and to whom I wish thus to acknowledge my
obligation.
* Miss Dorothy Trevelyan Haydon, to whom
reference is here made, has, during the preparation of the fifth edition of
this book, fallen asleep in Jesus, June 28, 1863. - 1
Thess. 4: 14. Her name
may fitly find a place here as a memorial of a Christian friendship and regard
of more than twenty-eight years’ continuance.
Close and scriptural study of prophecy
will be found [Page 217] a powerful safeguard against mere
speculation as to the future; for thus the Christian student will be in some
measure instructed as to the mind of God relative to coming events: in studying
the prophetic word, it is of essential importance that the outlines should be
truly and definitely known, for this alone can prevent mistakes being made as
to the application of specific predictions. Thus it is needful to see that no promise of universal or widespread
blessing can be fulfilled prior to the coming of Christ in clouds of glory,
and that nothing which speaks of the
people of Christ as suffering persecution or rejection can be after that time.
So,
also, if the saints are described as “reigning”,
it must be after the coming and judgment of Christ, for until then power and
authority are not given to them: if the nations of Israel are spoken of as
scattered and cast off - wrapped in blindness and unbelief - it must be
previous to that event.
Thus we must learn in prophecy how to distinguish the
characteristic marks of different periods, else we
shall seek for the fulfilment of promises to be effected through the preaching
of the gospel and similar means, which never can be thus accomplished. This only can tend to disappointment, and to a
feeling of painful uncertainty as to the force of Scripture promises, in which,
indeed, there can never be anything really doubtful; for every promise of God
is as secure as He is unchangeable, and is confirmed in Christ His Son. Those predictions which relate to “the Jews, the Gentiles,
and the
The book of Daniel has an especial value in leading the minds
of Christian students to clear and well-defined [Page 218] thoughts as to Gentile prophecy, and
thus it is a key to many other parts of Scripture. We must not look in these visions for details connected with the glory of Christ when
He shall have taken His kingdom, nor yet for the particulars which belong to
Israel’s final forgiveness and restoration: on the contrary, here we have
everything of the outline of the prophetic history of those ruling over the
earth, up to the time when Christ takes His Kingdom and when Israel is
restored. The prophets testified before
hand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow: but while
this is their general scope, we find different but harmonising features of
truth presented in different books; so that here we have before us more of what is introductory to the glory than
of the glories themselves; though just as plainly as it is here predicted that “Messiah shall be cut off”, so are we also instructed
as to “one like unto the Son of Man” receiving a
kingdom, and of “the stone”, which shall fall in
judgment upon the whole fabric of Gentile power, becoming a great mountain, and
filling the whole earth.
Let the scope of prophecy be attended to, and let the
application of prophecy be learned from the Scripture itself; then we shall be
kept from those speculations which have so painfully hindered many from
avowedly using prophecy at all; although all Christians’ who believe that they
may apply a single warning or promise of Scripture, do this in
some measure. The prophetic word is a light shining in a
dark place; but if the speculations of men intervene, all on which the shadows
fall is involved in obscurity.
Whatever is learned from Scripture can never weaken or set
aside one of those foundation truths on which the [Page 219] hopes of the believer are set for
time and for eternity. Prophecy may display new details of truth,
it may give new and fuller views of the glories of Christ, it may teach the
Christian his true place in the prospect of this world’s judgment, but it can
never shake one point of those truths which are the basis of Christian
profession. I wish to speak distinctly
of this, because I know that when any new truth is learned there are some minds
that wish to find new truths on every
possible point; and thus they incline to doubt or deny even the fundamental
verities which had been previously learned.
There are points of Christian truth which ought to be so known
from the word of God as to be felt to be beyond question or discussion. I do not speak merely of those points which
relate to the being of God, the Trinity, the true Godhead, proper manhood (real
though sinless), and atonement of Christ, but of such also as relate to the
application of these truths to us. Thus
we ought to hold firmly fast what the Scripture teaches as to our condition by
nature as lost sinners, the reality of God’s wrath against men as sinners, and
the need of his being reconciled to them, and the absolute truth of the
sacrifice of propitiation rendered
by Christ, and the imputation of His righteousness to those who believe. If any of these points are touched by those
who profess to aim at advance in divine truth or “progress”,*
then we need not wonder if questions should be raised as to the [Page 220] reality of the Church’s connection with the priesthood and mediation of
Christ, or its standing in covenant relations. “Justification through
faith”, the turning point of all Christian truth in its application to
our souls, might just as well be called in question.
* “It has been said by some of late
that there never can be any progress in real truth, unless we get rid of the
absurd doctrine of imputation. No doubt
it is a doctrine peculiarly adverse to the schemes of those who wish to make
men happy apart from Christ. Men say, Where is it taught in Scripture? We might rather ask, Where
is it not taught? Every page that alludes to the altar sending
up the sweet-smelling savour of its offerings teaches it. Would the Scripture, which cannot lie, teach
me that that ascends for me which does not ascend for me? and
if it ascends for me its excellency is attributed to me; and that is imputation.”
- Thoughts on Parts of Leviticus, by B. W. Newton, p. 14.
Scriptural study of prophecy leads to no such truth-rejecting
results. In fact we might be sure that Scripture
never could lead to doubt or denial of its own fundamental doctrines. Any supposed conclusions in opposition to such
truths might well lead the mind to pause, and then to rest assured that free
speculation about the truth of God had been substituted for learning from
his word.
The belief of evangelical Protestants on fundamental truths is
clear and defined: such points may be regarded as settled,
and settled for ever. We have no
occasion to discuss over again (as though none had inquired into the teaching
of Scripture) points on which orthodox Christians have been agreed for ages,
and which have been stated in scriptural Confessions of Faith, such for
instance as the doctrinal Articles of the Church of England, the Heidelberg
Catechism, the Old Scottish, and the Westminster Confessions.
I know that some deprecate all reference to “Creeds,
Confessions of Faith, and Articles of Religion” (applying to them
designations such as I will not here repeat), as if any such reference were an
acknowledgment that they possess an authority, or as though “opinions of men were
maintained instead of the truth of God”.
I do not speak of such documents as possessing authority, for that belongs to holy
Scripture alone, and its authoritative teaching is learned from its direct
statements, or else by necessary deductions therefrom. But I do refer to orthodox confessions of
Christian doctrine as showing [Page 221] the record of what holy servants of
Christ in past ages, have believed. The
Scripture is the alone standard of appeal; but in learning from Scripture I do
not desire to forget that the Church of God is one body dwelt in by one Spirit,
and that the communion of saints is a truth; so that I would gladly know what
holy and intelligent Christians now living have learned from the word of God,
not as deferring to their authority, but as being willing to
be shown what the Scripture teaches. And
just as I value the teaching of the living, so do I prize the instruction given
by the dead; and thus I am glad to learn from Athanasius
or Augustine, from Anselm or Bernard, from Luther, Tyndale, or Calvin, or (in
later days) from Ussher, Owen, Bunyan, Pearson, or
Romaine - even as I would if I had lived in the days of any of these. Granted, that in many things I differ from all
or any of these: am I, therefore, to be blind to the truths which they held and
taught? Ought I not to be thankful for
the instruction from Scripture, and resting on Scripture authority
alone, which I may receive through any of Christ’s servants in past ages? And thus I have been accustomed to refer, in
common with orthodox Christians in general, to the confessions of faith of evangelical
Protestants as embodying those foundation truths of Christianity which cannot
be regarded as points at all debatable. They
rest on the sure warrant of holy Scripture, to which
they direct as the source of all their authority.
I know that it has been said, “The
moment you define, you limit: human definitions are not DIVINE INFINITUDES.” The force of this argument rests entirely in
its form
and seeming point; but is it soberly meant that we are to have no definite
thoughts at all about divine truth? A
definition does set up a limit: the only [Page 222] thing of which we have to be careful is that the definitions are such as
Scripture teaches, and that the limitations are such as exclude error. The early Church had especially to combat
false doctrine relative to the Trinity and the person of Christ the Lord; and
thus in defining that the Son of God was Himself “very
God”, “of the substance of the Father, begotten
before the worlds”, it set a limit against the unscriptural speculations
of those who denied His Godhead. So,
too, as to His manhood: in defining that He was “man
of the substance of his mother born in the world”, a limit was marked
out against those who denied the verity of His humanity both in body and soul. The authority of all such limitations is
always the Scripture on which they are based; such, for instance (in the points
to which I have referred), as the distinct teaching that Christ is “God over all, blessed for ever”,
that “He took part of the same” “flesh and blood” as his “brethren”,
although “without sin”. And so, too, at the
Reformation, the definition “that we are justified
freely for Christ’s sake through faith” was at once a limit against the
endeavours to introduce self-righteousness.
This, then, is the use which I would make of orthodox
confessions of faith; I value them as showing what points of Christian verity
have been distinctly apprehended, and I would learn from them even as I would
learn from a letter, or from the spoken words of a living Christian whom I knew
and honoured.
“But (it is said) why not keep to Scripture words simply?” Those who thus object are not themselves
accustomed so to restrict themselves; but the real reason is that error
commonly seeks to shelter itself behind Scripture terms used in new senses, and thus it is needful occasionally
so to state a definition of doctrine as shall meet this mode of evading
the force of Scripture. It [Page 223] has been truly said that “definitions which were
unknown before error was introduced have become needful from that time and
onward”; they become, in fact, safeguards for the maintenance of
Scripture truth.
It is of the deepest importance to see that there are
foundation truths which can never be admitted to be at all debatable ground. Such truths should be thoroughly learned from
Scripture; and so far from their being invalidated by their being contained in “creeds and confessions of faith”, this fact only
shows how general a thing has been their place in the apprehensions of
Christians.
The apostle tells us to be ready to give an account of the hope that
is in us: a mere stringing together of Scripture expressions will not suffice
for this: it behoves us, therefore, to be able to give an intelligent statement of
what the Scripture teaches as the ground of Christian confidence.* And thus the
confession of our faith, even though in our own words, or in those of
Christians who have gone before us, is our AMEN
to what the Holy Ghost has taught in the Scripture. How can any such Amen be responded if foundation truths are at all involved in
uncertainty?
* And so, if Christians are not to express Scripture doctrines
in their own words, they cannot uphold God’s ordinances of teaching and preaching.
A mere string of texts will often edify
but little, even though they may be well chosen; whereas the same texts, properly
explained, might be found to
be most valuable and profitable teaching. This is not departing from Scripture, but using Scripture, and that for the
very purposes for which God gave it forth (2 Tim.
3: 17).
It has, indeed, been asked whether an adherence to the theological opinions which have
been commonly received is consistent with the development of truth. On this it may be observed that there is no development
of Christian truth, but the revelation was given perfect and complete [Page 224] to the apostles of Christ, and it is written complete in the New
Testament. Thus, if the doctrines stated
by Christians in any past age are scriptural, then let them be adhered to as
they stated them; not indeed using them as lords over our faith, but as
students of Scripture, by whose experience we may be aided, if we believe in
the Communion
of Saints as a fact. It has
indeed been said that “very likely such points as the
nature and true character of divine inspiration have not been understood by the
good and holy men who have preceded us”. And this has been defended by the assertion
that they were less qualified for
thought or discernment than the moderns, as “we have
the advantage of knowing all that they thought and knew on the subject”.*
If then we have the advantage of being
able to refute all that Christians of former ages knew and held as foundation
truths, then, indeed, there would be a “development”
- but whether of the truth of God or of
the lie of Satan is the real and momentous question.
* It
might be well asked, whether those who can thus think and write, do really know
what holy men, whose consciences were exercised about the truth of God, did think and know on fundamental doctrines.
Intellectual acuteness is a very
different thing from the spiritual intelligence granted to the prayerful and humble
Christian. It is a vain thing for any to seek to exalt themselves
by speaking in language of scorn and disparagement of the holy men who have
gone before us. Granted that they may
have been ignorant of many things; if we know them at all, we know them from
the word; and must we not say that they did use well and for God’s glory what
they had learned (whether much or little) from the same word?
But can there be no progress in divine truth? Is not prophecy a case in point? Surely there may be progress; but this is not
to be attained by turning our backs on all that the babe in Christ should know
of the ground of our acceptance before God, and of the authority of His holy
word, but by knowing all foundation truths as unquestionable, and then holding all that may
afterwards be learned in harmonious connection with them.
[Page 225]
If we rightly learn a new truth, it will never lead us to
undervalue those previously known. And
thus with regard to prophecy; we may learn the second advent of Christ to be
foretold as needful before any time of millennial blessing can arrive: we may
apprehend something of glories which shall then come to pass; but even if these
things are new to us, or to other Christians who have firmly held the
foundation doctrines of evangelical belief, why should we undervalue truths
previously learned? or why should we engage in a vain
search for new truths as to what
the grounds of our acceptance are - what the relations in which the Church
stands to God the Father, and to the Son, as redeemed by Him, and what its
connection with His atonement, priesthood, and mediation, and with the new
covenant scaled with His blood?
* *
*
[Page 226]
APPENDIX
SAMUEL PRIDEAUX TRWELLES, LL.D.
HIS LIFE AND LETTERS
MANY well
qualified students do not hesitate to claim that Dr. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles was
in fact the greatest Biblical scholar of the nineteenth century. He was born at
* That
Tregelles became a Presbyterian after his dissociation from the
From his early childhood he was remarkable for a retentive
memory. At the age of twelve he entered
The Western Morning News as recently as January 17th, 1957,
said: “Largely self-taught, personally modest and
gentle-natured, Tregelles must rank as the most learned man ever associated with
Plymouth; which was remarkable in the last century for producing several noted
scholars in Divinity and Biblical literature, notably the celebrated deaf
workhouse lad, John Kitto; Dr. R. F. Weymouth, best
known for his New Testament in Modern Speech; and more recently, the erudite Dr. Rendle
Harris. A portrait of him painted about
1870, by the local artist
As a young man, Tregelles was drifting from Christian teaching.
Christendom’s
misapplication of the Scriptures of the Prophets and the Psalms utterly failed
to satisfy his keen sense of proportion. His intelligence recoiled
against the glosses, traditions, explanations and interpretations of the
spiritualizing schools and would have driven him to the verge of infidelity. But it pleased the [Page 228] Lord to draw his attention to prophetic
truth through a tract on that subject which changed
his whole outlook on religion and life; indeed, God used it as a means which
wrought the vital change of his regeneration. What a student
he became! What a scholar! What books
and translations of the ancient languages and Bible manuscripts! Henceforth his
cousin B. W. Newton became his helper spiritually, and in his publications,
financially.
After conversion, the iron works could not hold him; he was
led forward into the plan of his life work. His ambition was not less than that of an
authenticated Greek Text of the New Testament.
He returned to
(1) For the formation of a text of the
Scriptures on the authority of ancient copies, without allowing “the received text” any prescriptive right.
(2) To give to the ancient versions a
determining voice as to the insertion or non-insertion of clauses, letting the
order of the words rest wholly upon the MSS.
(3) To give the authorities to the
text clearly and accurately, so that the reader might at once see what rests
upon ancient evidence.
In order that he might himself collate the ancient Uncial MSS.
(i.e. the earliest written in capitals) he went abroad in October 1845. He spent five months in
At other great libraries he received every facility - at the
Augustinian Monastery in
By 1850 his writings had become known all over the world, and
his ripe scholarship was acknowledged in Europe and
In 1862, on Lord Palmerston’s
recommendation, he was granted a Civil List Pension of £100 and in Mr.
Gladstone’s administration this was supplemented in 1870 by a further £100. His portrait in oil, by Lane, was placed in
the Polytechnic Hall, in
The Dictionary of
National Biography gives
a copious review of his life-story of literary and linguistic accomplishments (Vol 57 (1899), pp. 170 f).
Articles by Dr. Tregelles are to be found in: Cassell’s Dictionary, Smith’s
Dictionary of the Bible, Kitto’s Journal of Sacred
Literature.
* *
*
[Page 231]
INDEX
Aben
Ezra on Dan. 12:
2, 165
Abomination of desolation, 106,
146, 182.
Advent of
Christ, Second, 22, 23,
29
Alexander’s
Empire included in the
Abrose’ words of, used, 183
Ancient of Days, judgment of, 38,
39, 41
Antichrist,
doom of adherents, 186 in Daniel 11, 179
Jewish
notion of, 180 meaning of the word, 194 rise of the kings of north and south, 141, 152
Antichrist’s
idolatry, 151
Anti-Scriptural
year-day system, 126
Apostasy, 145
Armillus, 180
Artaxemes, decree of, 100
Association in empire, 57, 62
Augustus, 57
Autocracy, 17
Babylonian empire, 12
Bambino of Ara
Celi, 197
Beast, dreadful and terrible, 36
Beasts, the four, 32
Belshazzar's blasphemy, 30
Birks on the year-day theory, 119
Blasphemy of
the horn, 37 persecuting power, 82
Blayney’s alterations in our English Bible, 76
Boniface
III “Universal Bishop”, 70 VIII, 72
Roman, 56
Roman law in, 74
Brute (Walter) inventor of
the year-day theory, 112
Budding of the fig tree, 1
Calling
of God, 47
Cassander, kingdom of, 79
Chaldee portions of Scripture, 7
Charlemagne,
age of, 70 crowned emperor, 65
Chittim (
Chronology, Ussher’s
122
Church
builded on Christ “the stone”, 22 defined, 47 on
earth till the end, 110
Claudia, 56
Clay and iron, 19
Clouds of heaven, 38
Coblentz, division of the empire at, 66
Comparison
of chapter 11 with 7
and 8, 83
Conder, Josiah, 69, 112
Confessions, 95 of faith, 222
Contrasts in Daniel
7, 50
Corrupt Christianity, 44
Covenant,
holy, indignation against, 144 with Antichrist,
105
Cunningham (Dr.) quoted, 193
Daily sacrifice, 87
Daniel a
witness against the year-day theory, 125 confession for his people, 94
Dante quoted, 208
Darius’s decree, 29
Days
understood literally by the early Church, 112
Deliverance of Daniel’s people, 157
Demoniacal power real, 200, 202
[Page 232]
Demons, worship of, 197
Desolation, transgression of, 90
Destruction of Antichrist, 153
Dispensation, characteristics of, 49
Divisions of the book of Daniel, 7 of heptads, 90, 106 of the
under Diocletian, 57
under Valentinian, 58
under Areadius and Honorius,
61
Domitian,
blasphemy of, 214
Dragon
gives power to the beast, 86
East and West, division into, 59
not to be excluded from tenfold division, 70
Edward III, Imperial Vicar, 66
Elect, all
rejectors of Popery not, 185
Elliott for
the year-day system, 120 quoted by Conder, 113
Emperor
excommunicates the Pope, 71
Evil, full at the Lord’s coming, 87 Worst form of, 46
Exposition
of the year-day theory, 127
Faith, departure from, 196
Fallacy and falsehood of the year-day theory, 125
Flight from
Foundation
truths never shaken, 294
Four parts
of Alexander’s empire, 80
Fourth
kingdom of Daniel 7, 14, 17
Gabriel sent forth, 97
Gentiles brought into the Church, 6
German empire, 68
Grecia, king of, 78
Grecian
empire, 14
Heptads,
Seventy, 93
Hiddekel, scene of Daniel’s last vision, 129
Hills of
Historic transmission, 249
History not revelation, 14
Holy, Most, 100
Holy Place, abomination in, 108
Horn, last,
not the Papacy, 69 of blasphemy, future, 41, 42 the great,
broken, 79
Horns (Ten) of the fourth beast, 36
Host of heaven cast down, 87
Identity of horns in chapters 7
and 7, 83
Idolatry
of
Imputed
righteousness a necessary doctrine of Christianity, 219
Indignation, time of, 78, 80
Innocent III, Pope, 71
Interpretation of Daniel 11, 171
Interval in
prophecy, 80, 134
in the seventy weeks, 110
Ipsus. battle of, 62, 79
Jeremiah’s
prophecy, 93
Jerome on Daniel
11, 173
Jewish
commentators on Dan. 12: 2, 164
Joachim
(Abbot), 124
Justification
the turning-point of popery, 192
Justinian’s reign and the Papacy, 69
King assuming divine honours, 150
of
rise of one after the ten, 37
Kingdom of heaven, 204 of the
Son of Man, 38, 40
taken by the saints, 45
Kingdoms, four 32
Knowledge of God, 149
Krummacher (Dr.), 194
[Page 233]
Language of Daniel 7 prophecy of, 127 time
of Daniel’s last vision, 130
time of Alexander’s kingdom, 133
Leaven, parable of, 205
Legions stationed in
Leo III, Pope, 70
Leopard with wings and four heads, 34
Life everlasting, 167
Lion with eagle’s wings, 34
Lists of the kingdoms, 48, 49
Luther quoted, 73
Lysimachus, kingdom of, 79
Maccabees in Daniel 11, 182
Man of sin, 150
Maskilim, 149,
160
Media and
Medo-Persian empire,
12, 13, 14
Messiah the Prince, 103
Metals in the image, 14
Michael the
Miracles of
Modes of teaching Scripture, 8
Mustard seed, parable of, 204
Names, variation of, 133
Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion, 12
Net, parable of, 210
Nobility, European, 63
North, kings of, 136
Obedience, duty of, 1
Odoacer, 64
Olives, Mount of, 145
Otho becomes emperor, 65
Palacologus (Andreas) transfers the empire, 67
Papacy,
last horn not the, 42, 68
Parables, instruction
by, 8 of Matthew 13,
204
Patience of
hope, 163
Pearl,
parable of, 210
People, evil power
derived from, 18 of the saints, 47,
49
Persecution, 212
Philomena (
Plutarch on leaven, 207
Popery and prophecy, 186
Popes independent sovereigns, 73
Prideaux (Dean). 181
Prince that shall come, 103
Progress, 219
Prophecy,
exactitude of its fulfilment, 28
Prophetic
day or year, 112 interpretation and corrupt
Christianity, 184
Protestantism
not to be negative, 193
Ptolemy, kingdom of, 79
Pudens, Linus and
Claudia, 55
Remnant saved, 158
Remnants, two, 156
Resurrection, first 159 Jews
on, 156
Roman character impressed, 63
Romanism,
concrete evil of, 195 disguised, 213
Sacrifice,
daily, 87
St. Peter’s
not the
Saints
allowed to suffer, 48 take the kingdom, 47 warred against, 38,
41
Sanctuary cast down, 87
Saxon rule, rise of, 65
Scripture
proof for the year-day theory, 115, 161 sufficiency of, 10
Second kingdom, 13, 35, 78
Seleucus, kingdom of, 79
Septenary reckoning, 97
Seven-hilled
[Page 234]
Seven “times”
of Nebuchadnezzar’s years, 125 years covenant
with the prince, 105
Seventy
heptads, 92
Shushan,
scene of vision, in Daniel 8, 76
Son of man
receives the kingdom, 39, 40
Sower, parable of, 204
Spirit, how given, 92
Stars as a symbol, 87
Stone, a
designation of Christ, 21 in connection with
Study of prophecy, 216
Summary of chapter
8, 91
Synchronism
of horns in chapters 7 and 8, 83
Tares
of the field, 204
Tenfold division of the Roman earth, 35
Ten-horned beast, 41
Ten horns of the fourth beast, 36, 37 Kingdoms, lists of, 69 Kings to be
of Roman earth. 62.
Testimony in
Third kingdom, 14, 36, 78
Time and times,
and dividing time, 42, 106,
162
Times of Nebuchadnezzar and
year-day, 125
Toplady quoted, 210
Trajan’s empire, extent, 56
Transgression of desolation, 89
Transgressors come to the full, 85
Treasure hid, parable of, 209
Tribulation unequalled, 131, 157
Tribuneship and the plebeians, 54
Truth, God
works by, 114 not novelty, 122
Twelve
hundred and sixty days, 45, 106
Twentieth of Artaxerxes, 101, 102
Two horns of the ram, 76
Two
thousand three hundred days, 88
Understanding
ones, 148
Ussher’s chronology, l00,
l01
Vigilius heretical pope, 69
“Vile person”,
140, 141
Vision,
Daniel’s last, 128 of Nebuchadnezzar, 10 of the four beats, 32
Week
of Daniel, the last, 103
Xerxes
invades
Year-day theory, 111 a false
addition to Scripture, 124, 126
-------