5-NRLF. 315 REMARKS BOOK OF DANIEL, REMARKS BOOK OF DANIEL, IN REGARD TO THE FOUR KINGDOMS, ESPECIALLY THE FOURTH; THE '2300 DAYS;' THE SEVENTY WEEKS; AND THE EVENTS PREDICTED IN THE LAST THREE CHAPTERS. BY ffiAH CHASE, D. D. PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IN THE NEWTON THEOLOG UNIVERSITY GOULD, KENDALL AND LINCOLN, 59 Washington Street. 1844. -$, Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, BY IRAK CHASE, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. PRESS OP W. S. DA MB ELL, 11 CORNHILL. PREFACE; THE following essay was first published as an article in the Christian Review, for March, 1842.. Its object is to present^ such facts and considerations -as may aid the reader in his efforts to understand one 'of ..the' most difficult of the sacred books. Hence, if it possess any value, it must be valuable at all times, and* not merely during a transient excitement. The writer has endeavored to make the discussion intelli- gible to all, and, at the -same time, satisfactory to the learned, . so far as it proceeds. Whatever could not be expressed in plain English, has been* placed ambng the notes. These can be best appreciated by .those who consider the nature of the subject, and are desirous of having accurate references and proofs, whenever, they can be obtained,. instead of vague or unsupported assertions. For the sake of brevity, -much has been omitted which might otherwise have been' introduced. To set forth the history of opinions respecting the prophecies of Daniel, would, of itself, require a volume.. But, certainly, it is more important to show what the true explanation of a passage -is, than to exhibit a multitude of clashing opinions respecting it 5 and the best mode of tearing down error is to build up the truth. The writer is grateful for the candor and kindness which have been exhibited in most of the notices which he has seen of this essay. When he considers how different some of his views are from those which have generally prevailed, lie is not surprised at any indication that all are not prepared to receive them. Besides, on a complicated subject, like some of those which are discussed in the following pages, we are very liable to have our minds so occupied with certain facts or considerations, as to pass unconsciously over others which are equally important. In view of this, it may be accounted for, that the limitation contained in Dan. 8 : 13, has not been duly regarded, in treating of what is said in the 14th verse. Here it ought to be distinctly borne in mind, that, the period which was to elapse, was to begin, not with the time when only the host or people were to be oppressed, but with the time when 'BOTH the sanctuary and the host ; were 'to be trodden under foot/ It is the combination of these two calamities that marks the point from which we are to reckon. This, however, even the author of the valuable and timely ' Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy/ seems to have overlooked. The right view of many a passage has been prevented by misapprehending the connection or the meaning of a single word. In Dan. 9: 21, the prophet speaks of the heavenly messenger whom he had seen in a vision about fifteen years before, (for then occurred what is stated in 8 : 16,) as now approaching him, and saying, " O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee ; for thou art greatly beloved : therefore understand the matter and consider the vision." The word vision , in this address, is equivalent to the word prediction, as in Is. 1:1, and is expressive of what was in the mind of the speaker, a view of the events which he announces in the verses immediately following. He could not have had any reference to the word vision, which, in the 21st verse, occurs in the record, afterwards made, of this interview. In our common version there is an ambiguity which disappears in the original. We need not wonder that the minds of many have, within a few years, been greatly agitated by an expectation of the speedy fulfilment of certain predictions in the Book of Daniel. The way for- this was prepared by some of our standard English writers on the Prophecies, men of former ages, venerated for their piety and their erudition. They wrote with the best of motives 5 but ; it must be acknowledged, they were, in some degree, under the influence of erroneous principles of interpretation 5 and their errors, along with their excellencies, have entered intb our popular commen- taries and into our family Bibles. Dr. Scott, in his notes on Dan. 8 : 13, 14, after quoting, with approbation, the remarks of Lowth and JNewton, adds, "No doubt the end of the two thousand and three hundred days, or years, is not very distant." Instead, now, of being offended, or of looking scornfully at those who have only carried out and applied according to their best understanding, the principles taught by bishops and learned commentators, let each one for himself; first of all, see to it that he be prepared to meet, without dismay, whatever may occur, and to stand before his final judge ; and then, let him, as his situation and circumstances may permit, endeavor, with fervent prayer, and diligent study, and holy living, to ascertain what God has revealed, and what he has enjoined. There was much of candor and of good sense in the reply which Mr. Miller once made to an individual who had asked what would convince him that his explanation was wrong: ' Give a better one. Cast down your rod j and if it become a serpent that swallows up mine and all the rest, very well. I will then give up. But it is of no use to reproach and ridicule me/ Happy, indeed, would it be, if the sentiments expressed in this reply were suitably laid to heart by all concerned. Churches and all who seriously inquire for the meaning of the Scriptures have a right to expect sound and convincing instruction, especially from those religious teachers who have been highly favored in respect to opportunities for intellectual improvement. May our common Lord behold in these and in all who would be regarded as his disciples, that meekness, that fidelity, and that fraternal affection, which become us in this frail and imperfect state, and which constitute the best evidence of our having a part in that kingdom ' which shall not be destroyed. 7 NEWTON THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION, December 23, 1843, CONTENTS. Page. PREFACE, iii INTRODUCTION, - - 9 THE FOUR KINGDOMS, ESPECIALLY THE FOURTH, - 12 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 30 THE '2300 DAYS,' ' . . 67 THE SEVENTY WEEKS, 73 EVENTS PREDICTED IN THE LAST THREE CHAPTERS, 77 CONCLUSION, - - - 84 REMARKS ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL. IN the third century, Porphyry, a learned and in- genious heathen, wrote a work consisting of fifteen books, against the Christian religion. Alluding to that work, Jerome, about the middle of the fifth century, says, in his preface to his commentaries on Daniel : ; Porphyry directed his twelfth book against Daniel. He contended that it was composed, not by him whose name it bears, but by some one who re- sided in Judea in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes.* The writer, he said, had not so much predicted events that were future, as he had, under the form of prophecy, narrated those which were already past. What he had stated, down to the time of Antiochus, contained true history ; but whenever he had ventured beyond that time, he had fallen into error, because he was ignorant of the future. Porphyry was skilfully answered by Eusebius, bishop of Csesarea, in three * This persecutor reigned from the year 175 to the year 164, B. C. 10 INTRODUCTION. books,* by Apollinaris, in one large book;f and before these, in part, by Methodius. '{ An imperial edict condemned the work of Porphyry to the flames. But Jerome has extracted from the twelfth book, and preserved several passages ; and he has made good use of the historical facts, which Porphyry had collected. In the seventeenth century, Spinoza, of Holland, and Hobbes and Collins, of England, seemed to tread more or less in the steps of Porphyry. Spinoza, in his Tractatus TJieologico-Politicus, spoke of the first seven chapters as consisting of Chaldaic annals not written by Daniel. Hobbes, in his Leviathan, sug- gested such doubts respecting the Prophets, as seem to insinuate a conclusion more unfavorable than is expressed. And Collins openly assailed the genuine- ness of the book of Daniel. In the eighteenth century, Semler, of Germany, rejected the divine authority of this book, because he found in it no such utility to mankind as might be expected in communications given by a special inter- position on the part of God. Sender's contemporary, John David Michaelis, led the way to a critical examination respecting the genu- ineness of the book. He asserted very decidedly the genuineness of the first two and the last six chapters, * The eighteenth, nineteenth anil twentieth of his lost work, in twenty-five books, against Porphyry. t Bishop of Olympus, in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre His two books against Porphyry are lost. I In the twenty-sixth book of his thirty against Porphyry ; which are lost. INTRODUCTION. 11 and attached no great importance to his doubts res- pecting the genuineness of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth chapters. Eichhorn went further. Still, in the first two editions of his Introduction to the Old Testament, he ventured only to reject the first six chapters. He defended the genuineness of the last six. But Corrodi, in his work on the canon of the Bible, and in his History of Chiliasm, assailed the whole book. He, like Porphyry, asserted that it was fabricated by a deceiver, in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Eichhorn was now encouraged to reject, not only the first six chapters, but also the other six. Bertholdt, De Wette, and, indeed, most of the German authors in the present century who have written on the sub- ject, have done the same. But Jahn, in his Intro- duction to the Old Testament, and Hengstenberg, in an elaborate dissertation of 360 pages octavo,* have ably defended the genuineness of Daniel. It ought to be remarked, that some, without intend- ing to detract at all from the divine authority of the book, have supposed that certain portions of it were written by another hand than that of Daniel. Sir Isaac Newton says, "The six last chapters contain prophecies written at several times by Daniel himself; the six first are a collection of historical papers, writ- ten by others."f Another English writer J suggests, * Beitr'ige zur Einleitung ins A. T. erster Band. Die Authentic des Daniel, &c. Berlin, 1831. t Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, I, p. 10. : Edward Wells, in the first part of the eighteenth century. 12 THE FOUR KINGDOMS. that the first chapter was written after Daniel's death. In these and similar ways, it was supposed that we could best account for the commendations bestowed upon Daniel. But the unity of the book, that is, that the book was written by some one author, has, for several years, been generally admitted by those who have been well qualified to judge. Its genuineness we need not here discuss. A full and satisfactory view of the whole subject, so far as the main question is concerned, may be found in those works of Jahn and Hengstenberg which we have already mentioned. THE FOUR KINGDOMS ; ESPECIALLY THE FOURTH. More than two thousand years before the birth of Christ, Ninus conquered Babylon, and annexed it to the Assyrian empire. From that time onward, history can do little more than give us a bare and imperfect register of the names of his successors. We can only conjecture what changes of dynasty, during that long period, may have occurred ; what schemes of ambition or of improvement may have been cherished ; and what scenes of blood and perfidy, of pomp, of wretch- edness, and of rejoicing, may have been displayed. But it may be regarded as probable, that after the successful conspiracy against the life of Sardanapalus, the empire was divided into three kingdoms, Media, Babylon, and Assyria.* *See Schlosser'a Geschichte der Allen Welt, Bd. I, 1, s. 172; and Heeren's History of the States of Antiquity, pp. 2429. THE FOUR KINGDOMS. 13 At length, about seven hundred and seventy years before Christ, the energetic Pul became king of As- syria ; and he is the first king of Assyria that is men- tioned in the sacred Scriptures.* He was succeeded by Tiglathpileser, who seized that part of the ten tribes, which was east of the Jordan ; by Shalmaneser, who so entirely subdued them, that they ceased to be a kingdom ; by Sennacherib, who threatened Jerusa- lem, in the time of Hezekiah, and lost, in one night, without the intervention of any human hand, one hundred and eighty-five thousand of his army ; and by Ezarhaddon, who invaded Judea, in the reign of Hezekialrs son, Manasseh, "took him among the thorns, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon," which had become the capital of the Assyrian empire. f Not long after the death of Ezarhaddon, Nabopolas- ser, the Chaldean,who is also called Nebuchadnezzar I, restored the kingdom of Babylon to its independency of the Assyrian power. Indeed, he put an end to this power, having, two years before, established his own throne at Babylon. The empire which he founded, is commonly called the Babylonian, or the Chaldee- Babylonian, although, sometimes in the Bible, and frequently by the Greek writers, it is also called the Assyrian. He was succeeded by his son, Nebuchad- nezzar II, who sometime before had been associated with him in the government, and who is generally denominated simply Nebuchadnezzar. It was he * 2 Kings 15: 19. t 2 Chron. 33 : 11. Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, B. x, c- 3. 2* 14 THE FOUR KINGDOMS. who took Jerusalem, and carried the Jews captive to Babylon, six hundred and seven or six hundred and six years before the Christian era.* By the skill and bold perseverance of Cyrus, the Persian prince, Babylon came under the dominion of his uncle, Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares II, in the year 539, B. C. Darius, after this, reigned two years. And then Cyrus, who had married the daughter of Darius, inherited the whole united empire. The ancient Greek writers, Herodotus, Xenophon and Ctesias, we are aware, do not agree with each other, in several particulars, respecting Cyrus. But whether he obtained possession of Media by vanquishing his grandfather Astyages, or by marrying the daughter of his uncle, the great fact of his founding the Medo- Persian empire remains the same ; and it would com- port well with his character to combine in his favor the claims of conquest and of friendly and matrimonial alliance. This empire, the Medo-Persian, continued for about two hundred years, when it was entirely overthrown by Alexander the Great, who subdued the last king, Darius Codomanus, in the year 331, B. C. Eight years after this overthrow of the Medo-Per- sian empire, Alexander died at Babylon, that is, in the year 323, B. C. Immediately after his death, violent disputes arose among his generals and princi- pal officers. But after eight days, they agreed to * It is computed that he reigned alone, from 605 to 562, B.C., 43 yrs. Evil-merodach,from562to560, ... 2 " Neri-glissor, from 560 to 556, ... 4 " Lavorasoarchad, nine months, jfrom 556to539,I7 " THE FOUR KINGDOMS. 15 exclude from the succession Hercules, a son of Alex- ander, by his wife Barsina, and to place on the throne Alexander's hrother, Aridaeus, an illegitimate son of king Philip. He was a man who had not the full use of his rational faculties. They also agreed, that if the queen Roxana, who was expecting soon to become a mother, should bear a son, he should share the throne with Aridaeus. In a few weeks, she bore a son ; and he was recognized, according to the agree- ment. But the two kings, being both incapable of reigning, were placed under Perdiccas, as guardian and regent. At the same time, the administration of the various portions of those vast territories, which had yielded to the sway of the great conqueror, was committed to a considerable number of the principal officers, some holding superior and others subordinate stations. But afterwards, Aridaeus and the infant king, with his mother, Roxana, were assassinated ; and thus passed away the mighty kingdom of Alex- ander. Antigonus, at first, had Lycia, Pamphylia, and the greater Phrygia. After the death of Antipater, he was the most powerful of all the generals of Alex- ander. He ruled with absolute authority in all the provinces of Asia Minor. He bore the title of gene- ralissimo, and had an army of seventy thousand men, and thirty elephants, " which no power in the empire was, at that time, capable of resisting."* He con- ceived the design of grasping the whole empire. He began by displacing those subordinate officers, on * Rollin, B. xvi. History of Alexander's successors, sect. \v. 16 THE FOUR KINGDOMS. whose co-operation in executing his plan he suspected that he could not rely. Among these was Seleucus, who was then governor of Babylon. He discovered that his name was on the list of the proscribed. He escaped in season, and hastened to Egypt. And he soon succeeded in engaging Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Lysander in a league against Antigonus. A desperate and bloody struggle ensued. But in about two years, Seleucus entered Babylon, the ancient seat of empire, amidst the acclamations of the people. At length, "he not only established himself in the possession of Media, Assyria, and Babylon, but re- duced Persia, Bactriana, Hyrcania, and all the prov- inces on this side of the Indus, which had formerly been conquered by Alexander."* In a decisive battle, near Ipsus, a city of Phrygia, Antigonus was defeated and slain. Then, in the year 301, B. C., about twenty-two years after the death of Alexander, the four confederate chieftains divided the whole empire among themselves, thus : Ptolemy had Egypt, Libya, Arabia, Caelo-Syria, and Palestine ; Cassander had Macedonia and Greece ; Lysimachus had Thrace, Bithynia, and some of the provinces beyond the Hellespont ; Seleucus had many provinces in Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and, in a word, the East, from the Euphrates to the Indus. After the death of Cassander and his sons, the un- * Rollin, Vol. II, p. 147, (4to ed.) Compare Thirlwall's History of Greece, Vol. VII, p. 283.- THE FOUR KINGDOMS. 17 popularity of Demetrius, arid the disaffection with Pyrrhus, Lysimachus obtained possession of the ter- ritories which had been allotted to Cassander ; and, at length, Seleucus, having waged war with Lysima- chus, vanquished and slew him, and added all his vast possessions to his own ; so that what had constituted the great body of Alexander's kingdom was now divided only between Seleucus and the successor of Ptolemy. Ptolemy himself had deceased. Of all the generals of Alexander, Seleucus was now the only survivor, " victorious over conquerors them- selves," and hence, emphatically denominated Se- leucus Nicator, that is, the Conqueror. Except what had been assigned to Ptolemy, and a few com- paratively inconsiderable territories, he had re-united the whole empire of Alexander.* Arrian says, " It seems to me beyond a doubt, that Seleucus, succeeding to the great dominion, was the greatest king among Alexander's successors ; that in mind he was the most royal, and that next to Alex- ander himself, he ruled over the most extensive ter- ritory."! And Appian asserts, that " from Phrygia to the river Indus all obeyed Seleucus. "f " The do- minions of this last prince," says Rollin, " are usually called the kingdom of Syria, because Seleucus, who afterwards built Antioch [on the Orontes], in that province, made it the chief seat of his residence, in * Von Muller's Universal History, Vol. I, p. 111. t De Expedit. Alexandri, L. VII, p. 164, B. ed. Steph. J De Rebus Syriacis, c. 55. '^4nb y&Q fygvylaq knl rtOTCt- HQV Ivdov &vw, n&vra . 18 THE FOUR KINGDOMS. which his successors, who from his name, were called Seleucidas, followed his example. This kingdom, however, not only included Syria, but those vast and fertile provinces of Upper Asia, which constituted the Persian empire."* He also built innumerable other cities ; for, amidst the ravages of war, many had been greatly injured, and others entirely destroyed. Among the new cities were sixteen bearing the name of Antioch, and nine, of Seleucia. One Seleucia was near the mouth of the Orontes, and served as a sea- port for the capital, Antioch, which was about twelve miles further up the river. But the most important was the Seleucia on the Tigris, between thirty and forty miles north-east of Babylon ; from which it rapidly attracted the inhabitants, by the superior ad- vantages enjoyed in the new city; and thus con- tributed greatly to the final ruin and desolation which had been predicted in respect to that ancient capital. Indeed, it soon drew away the business and the wealth of the old city so completely, that it was itself some- times denominated Babylon. We have already mentioned the first triumphant en- trance of Seleucus, when the gates of ancient Babylon were promptly opened to receive him. With that event, in the year 312, B. C., commences the era of the Seleucidae, or of the princes of the race of Se- leucus. It is frequently called the era of the Greeks, or the Syro-Macedonian era. It was the general era employed in the Grecian states of Asia, and in the empire founded by Seleucus and his successors. f * B. VII, History of Alexander's successors, c. 1, sect. 1. t Smith's Chronological Eras, p. 93. 19 The Arabians denominate this epoch the era of the two horned ; that is, of Seleucus the powerful ; for on some coins he is represented with two horns of an ox on his head ; the horns, doubtless, being intended as emblems of power. The Jews had no other epoch until A. D. 1040 ; when, being expelled from Asia, by the Caliphs, and scattered about in various coun- tries of Europe, they began to date from the creation. The usage among the Jews is exemplified by the following passage in the first book of the Maccabees, 1 : 7 10. "So Alexander reigned twelve years, and then died. And his servants bare rule, every one in his place. And after his death they all put crowns upon themselves ; so did their sons after them many years : and evils were multiplied in the earth. And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus sirrnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome ; and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks." We have, then, in this sketch, glanced at four dis- tinct dominions, which might well stand forth, with peculiar prominency, in the visions of a Jewish prophet at Babylon, or at Shushan, in the days of the long and mournful exile : 1. The Babylonian or Chaldee -Baby Ionian ; 2. The Medo-Persian ; 3. That of Alexander ; 4. That " of the Greeks," his successors, especially the Seleucida and the Lagida, or princes of the race of Seleucus and of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus. 20 THE FOURTH KINGDOM. That the fourth empire was that of the successors of Alexander (among whom Seleucus was pre-eminent), appears from the fact, that Daniel himself distinguishes between the kingdom or dominion of Alexander and that of his successors. In chapter 11:3, it is said, " A mighty king shall stand up, and shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will." Then, in the fourth verse, it is immediately added, "And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken ; and shall be divided towards 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," that is, besides his posterity. The Roman empire did not succeed, or come in the place of, the three former monarchies. Extensive countries lying beyond the Euphrates, formerly con- stituting a large and important part of those empires, were never conquered by the Romans. That a new empire may be said to have succeeded some other, it is not sufficient that this new one be extensive and powerful, but it is requisite also that the later over- come or swallow up the earlier. Thus the Babylo- nians, when they ceased to exercise authority, gave way to the victorious Persians. And the Persian empire could not be said to be destroyed, before Alexander the Great, having subdued the Persians, transferred the empire to himself. The emperor Augustus in his will, which, after his death, was publicly read in the Senate, "bequeathed to his successors the advice of confining the empire THE FOURTH KINGDOM. 21 within those limits which nature seemed to have placed as its permanent bulwarks and boundaries ; on the west, the Atlantic ocean ; on the north, the Rhine and the Danube; on the east, the Euphrates ; and towards the south, the sandy deserts of Arabia and Africa."* The advice was followed by the more prudent of the emperors ; and its wisdom was taught to the others by bitter experience. Over the regions beyond the Euphrates, Seleucus and his descendants continued to reign for nearly seventy years. Then a successful revolt, under Ar- saces, led to the establishment of the Parthian empire, which continued till A. D. 229 ; when a rebellion was excited, and a Persian dynasty was founded by Adschir-Berbekan, or Artaxerxes, who subjected all Central Asia to his dominion. This race of Persian sovereigns continued to reign, until Persia, A. D. 636, was attacked by the Caliph Omar, and became a prey to the Arabs and Turks. f Now, it is most certain, that the wars with these Parthians and Persians were, as a whole, unsuccess- ful. They were even signally disastrous to the Ro- mans. Trajan, it is true, once achieved a splendid victory over the Parthians ; but his success was only temporary. What he had gained was soon lost, partly by himself, and partly by Adrian, his im- mediate successor. How, then, could the Roman empire be considered as one of those which were to succeed what had been the Medo-Persian ? * See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 1. t Kotteck's Allgemeine Geschichte, Bd. IT, e. 128. 3 22 THE FOURTH KINGDOM. If there be no special reason to the contrary, it is natural to suppose that the fourth empire should suc- ceed the third, as the third had succeeded the second, and the second the first ; that is, in the same age, and not after the lapse of many ages. Some of the imagery which is employed to set forth these successive kingdoms or empires, is such as in- dicates a very close connection. And this part of the imagery must be allowed to modify and interpret that part which is less definite. The image which Nebu- chadnezzar saw, presents such an idea of continuity, as suggests that the succession was, in each case, direct and entire. But the empire which had suc- ceeded that of the Medo-Persian, never, as such, passed over, directly to the Romans. Those parts of it which, at length, came under Roman sway, came under it as distinct acquisitions, and at times far remote from each other. We have already seen, too, that it was only some parts of it that ever yielded to Roman power, and these not the parts which, in the time of Daniel, would naturally be considered the most essential. Besides, we have already seen that Daniel himself distinguishes between the empire of Alexander and that of his successors. He says, expressly, that Alexander's kingdom shall be broken ; and shall be divided towards the four winds of heaven, and not to his posterity ; shall be plucked up, even for others. Words could hardly express more strongly the ter- mination of Alexander's empire. And if this termin- ated with himself, it must not be confounded with THE FOURTH KINGDOM. 23 that of his Greek successors. His empire, as t such, stood pre-eminent and alone. It was the third. Hence theirs was the fourth. It had passed over directly and entirely to them. And viewed thus, as a whole, in their hands, it corresponded well with the prediction in Dan. 7 : 23. ki The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces." It was different from the other empires ; for it was not under the sway of one individual, or of one dy- nasty, but of several ; and especially, at one time, of four, and at a later period, of two,. It was " strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things."* And yet it was " divided,"! and became partly strong, and partly " broken. "J It was no longer the kingdom of Alexander, although it was equally extensive. It had passed into other hands than those of his posterity. It was no longer united, although its several parts had many charac- teristics in common. It was divided among Greek commanders that had been trained in the ambitious and bloody school of the great conqueror. The earth trembled and groaned under the collisions, the long- continued and destructive wars which ensued. It was, as it is repeatedly denominated in the Maccabees and other ancient writings, the kingdom of the Greeks; and in reference to the four confederated chieftains, among whom, at a memorable period of its history, it was distributed, it is mentioned collectively by Daniel (8 : 23) as " their kingdom." * Dan. 2 : 40. t Dan. 2 : 41. ! Dan. 2 : 42. 24 THE FOURTH KINGDOM. Here is a kingdom expressly named by the sacred writer himself, distinct from that of Alexander, and immediately succeeding his ; a kingdom possessing the characteristics predicted as belonging to the fourth ; a kingdom peculiarly prominent and terrible to the Jews, as threatening their holy religion with utter extermination, at a most dark and perilous period before the coming of the Messiah. Why, then, should we look elsewhere for the fourth kingdom ? What is said respecting the ten horns of the fourth beast, in Dan. 7 : 7, 8, compared with the 24th verse (from which it is evident that they indicate ten kings, and not ten kingdoms) , corresponds with the facts as they occurred in the kingdom of the Greeks, that is, by way of eminence, in the dynasty established by Seleucus. " The fourth beast . . . 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 ; and it had ten horns. 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 a man, and a mouth speaking great things." In the 24th verse, it is added, " The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise : and another shall rise after them ; and he shall be diverse from the first [or former ones*] , and he shall subdue three kings." Such were the vision and its explanation ; and the following is a list of the kings or aspirants to the THE FOURTH KINGDOM. 25 crown of that dynasty, before Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the throne : 1. Seleucus I. Nicator, founder of the dynasty, 312 B. C. 2. Antiochus I. Soter from 279 B. C. to 260. 3. Antiochus II. Theos .... 260 245. 4. Seleucus II. Callinicus ... 245 226. 5. Seleucus III. Ceraunus ... 225 223. 6. Antiochus 111. the Great . . . 223 187. 7. Seleucus IV. Philopator . . 186 175. ( 8 Heliodorus. ? 9. Ptolemy IV. Philometor, king of Egypt. ( 10. Demetrius I. Soter, son of Seleucus Philopator. After a residence of twelve or thirteen years at Rome, as a hostage, Antiochus Epiphanes, the younger brother of Seleucus Philopator, was ex- changed for the king's only son, Demetrius, who was now sent to that city in his place. While the son and the brother of the king were thus absent, the brother not having yet returned, Heliodorus, the royal treasurer, seized the opportunity to remove the king secretly by poison, and elevate himself to the throne. Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt, also aspired to the throne of the deceased Seleucus Philopator, as being his nephew. Demetrius, the late king's only son, though he was young, and now far away, had claims decidedly superior to those of any other individual. Indeed, according to the commonly acknowledged views on the subject, he was the natural and rightful heir to the crown. These three, the usurper Heliodorus, the aspirant Ptolemy, and Demetrius, the legitimate heir, all stood 26 THE FOURTH KINGDOM. in the way of Antiochus Epiphanes. But by his management, he removed them all out of his way. So far as it respected his possession of the throne, they were "plucked up," before him, and "subdued" by his artifices. For he negotiated most skilfully with Eumenes, king of Pergamus, and with Attains the brother of Eumenes, and with the various parties of the Syrians ; so that soon there was strikingly fulfilled in him the prediction which, in speaking of the de- ceased king, proceeds : " And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom ; but he shall come in peace- ably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries."* So exact is the correspondence between what is said of the ten horns of the fourth beast, and what occurred in the kingdom of the Greeks. But if we attempt, as many have done, to apply it to the Roman empire, the application becomes exceedingly arbitrary ; and it is, as we have already shown, at variance with the explanation given in Dan. 7 : 24. That the little horn mentioned in Dan. 7:8, indi- cates Antiochus Epiphanes, a king that arose out of one of the four branches of the empire of the Greeks, is confirmed by Dan. 8 : 8, 9. " The he- goat waxed very great ; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken : and for it came up four notable ones, towards the four winds of heaven, and out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceed- ing great toward the south [Egypt], and toward the east [Armenia, &c.], and toward the pleasant land " [Palestine]. *Dan. 11:21. THE FOURTH KINGDOM. 27 Here it is manifest, that the power indicated by the little horn was to arise, not out of the Roman empire, but out of one of the four notable powers which should succeed the empire of Alexander. It was in the days of these kings, implied and predicted in the second chapter, that the God of heaven would set up or cause to stand* a kingdom which was not to be destroyed ; that is, he would preserve, sustain, and gloriously vindicate the true religion, the worship connected with the promises made to the patriarchs and prophets, and with the coming of the Messiah , in whom all the nations were to be blessed. These kings might seek only their own aggrandizement, regardless of the great Ruler on high, and of the interests of their fellow-men. They might rule, and rage, and pass away. An- tiochus Epiphanes might persecute and threaten to destroy the people and the worship of the Most High, according to the representation in the 10th, llth, and 12th verses of the 8th chapter. After the striking al- lusion, in the ninth verse, to his enterprises in Egypt, in the East, and in Palestine, it is added : " And it [the horn, indicating Antiochus Epiphanes] waxed great, even to the host of heaven [the worshippers of Jeho- vah], and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he mag- nified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his [Jehovah's] sanctuary was cast down. And the host, together with the daily sacrifice, was given *n is : 1 -T abundantly sustained by the usage of the Hebrew language. See Lev. 26:25. Ezra 9: 7. Jer 32:4. t The original Chaldee, VD"1 11DTD. is tnus correctly expressed : ITT : T in the Septuagint, 6(JOVOi iiiOijUUV, thrones were placed, not ' the thrones were cast down.' THE FOURTH KINGDOM. 29 him. The judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake : 1 beheld, even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away ; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his king- dom, that which shall not be destroyed." In a manner somewhat similar, David, in the eight- eenth Psalm, from the sixth verse to the eighteenth, represents the Lord as interposing to deliver him " from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul:" " In my distress I called upon the Lord, And cried unto my God j He heard my voice from his palace, And my cry came before him into his ears. Then the earth quaked and trembled j The foundations of the mountains rocked and were shaken. Because his wrath was kindled. A smoke went up from his nostrils ; And fire from his mouth devoured 5 Burning coals shot forth from him. He bowed the heavens, and came down; And darkness was under his feet ; And he rode upon a cherub and did fly ; 30 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. Yea, he came flying upon the wings of the wind. And he made darkness his covering ; His pavilion round about him was dark waters and thick clouds of the skies. At the brightness before him, his thick clouds passed away ; Then came hailstones and coals of fire: Jehovah also thundered from heaven. And the Most High uttered his voice, Amid hailstones and coals of fire: He sent forth his arrows, and scattered them ; Incessant lightnings, and discomfited them: Then the channels of the deep were seen, And the foundations of the earth were revealed, At thy rebuke, O Jehovah, At the blast of the breath of thy nostrils: He stretched forth his hand from above j he took me, And drew me out of deep waters: He delivered me from my strong enemy 5 From my adversaries, who were too powerful for me: They fell upon me in the day of my calamity, But the Lord was my stay." OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, WHICH HAVE BEEN URGED AGAINST THE PRECEDING VIEW. Against our regarding the kingdom of the Greeks as distinct from that of Alexander, some objections are urged by Hengstenberg.* The first is derived from Dan. 7:6. " There," he remarks, " it is said of the third kingdom, Afterwards I beheld, and lo, another beast, like a leopard [or panther], which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl ; and the * In his Beitr'dge zur Einleitung, &c., s. 203. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 31 beast had also four heads ; and dominion was given to it." " Here," he adds, " the kingdom of Alex- ander, manifestly, is symbolized, together with that of his principal successors." But, we reply, a wing naturally indicates flying, or rapid movement ; and an extraordinary number of wings, uncommon rapidity. Now, in the passage before us, as the four wings indicate great swiftness, the uncommon rapidity of Alexander's conquests ; so, the four heads may naturally indicate his extensive authority, established as it was in all directions, in the north, and in the south, in the east, and in the west. In the next clause, the reason for such a symbolical representation seems to be mentioned in plain language ; and or for, as the original word is sometimes most correctly rendered,* For dominion was given to it. The idea of rapidity is expressed in the parallel passage, Dan. 8 : 5, by its being said that the he-goat which came from the west, touched not the ground. And the idea of extensive authority is expressed in the same passage (ver. 8), " the he- goat became very great ; ' ' and in the other parallel passage, Dan. 2 : 39, which speaks of a third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth." But the acute and learned author asserts that this explanation is precluded by the vision, Dan. 8: 8, " the great horn was broken, and for it came up four notable ones, toward the four winds of heaven ;" and by Dan. 8 : 22, " Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall arise out of * See Gen. 20: 3. 32 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. the nation, but not with his power." " If," he asks, " if now the four horns here symbolize the four king- doms (Egypt, Syria, Thrace, and Macedonia) arising out of Alexander's kingdom, how can it fail to be perceived, that the four heads, mentioned in Dan. 7 : 6, symbolize the same kingdom?" We reply, 1. The visions are not the same, but were seen at the distance of two years from each other. 2. The images, manifestly, are not the same. 3. They do not stand in the same connection with other things which serve to modify and indicate the meaning. 4. They do not relate to the same period of time, the one having reference to the third kingdom while it was Alexander's, and united ; the other having reference to the separate kingdoms (as such), which arose out of his, after his death. 5. In Dan. 11:4, the kingdom of Alexander, as we have already had occasion to show, is clearly dis- tinguished from that of his successors : and hence we are guarded against confounding what pertains to the one with what pertains to the other ; for what is at all ambiguous ought to be explained by what is clear. 6. In 1 Maccabees 1:6, it is said of Alexander, " Wherefore, he called his servants, such as were honorable, and had been brought up with him from his youth, and parted his kingdom among them, while he was yet alive." These words Hengstenberg in- troduces to prove that, in the time in which they were written, the Jews considered the kingdom of Alexander and that of his successors to be the same. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 33 But can this parting of his kingdom be that breaking, dividing, and plucking up which are asserted of it in Dan. 11:4? Does it not, manifestly, refer merely to Alexander's distributing of offices to be held under his own authority ? The words immediately follow- ing those which Hengstenberg introduces, makes the matter quite clear: " So Alexander reigned twelve years, and then died. And his servants bare rule, every one in his place. And after his death, they all put crowns upon themselves ; so did their sons after them, many years : and evils were multiplied in the earth. And there arose out of them a wicked root, Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, the king, who had been a hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks." This very rapid and general sketch accords with what we learn abundantly from other sources, namely, that the regal authority of Alexander's chieltains was not bestowed on them by him, but was usurped by themselves, in opposition to the claims of his posteri- ty ; that, in connection with this, the earth suffered multiplied evils ; it was trodden down, and laid waste ; and that, in adverting to the era introduced by Seleu- cus, the Jews were accustomed to view the dominion of the Greeks as, in some peculiar sense, beginning with that era, and, of course, as being distinct from the dominion of Alexander. In certain connections, the sway of the Greeks, it is most obvious, might be mentioned in a general 4 34 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. manner, so as to include that of Alexander, since he was a Greek, and he is expressly mentioned as " the king of Grecia," in Dan. 8: 21, and "the prince of Grecia," in Dan. 10: 20. But this is not at all the point under discussion. We wish to ascertain simply whether here, in this passage from the book of the Maccabees, and in the other connections which are actually presented, the dominion of Alexander and that of his successors, are exhibited as being one and the same, or as being distinct. Hengstenberg's second objection is, that " the man- ner in which the fourth kingdom is described makes the assumption impossible that it is the kingdom of Alexander's successors." 1. " From Dan. 2 : 33, 40," he says, " it is evi- dent that a kingdom is described which at first formed a whole, and only at a later period was divided. This is specially clear in verse 41. That the feet and toes of the colossus are partly of iron and partly of clay is here thus explained ; the fourth kingdom shall be divided. But if the division is symbolized by this mixture, then the entirely iron legs must symbolize an undivided kingdom." We suppose, that in the colossal figure which ap- peared to Nebuchadnezzar, as well as in all the other imagery of this book, we are to look for a very general outline, and not for a minute specification. But it is natural to have the attention particularly directed to the multiplied divisions in the later times of the kingdom of the Greeks, that is, of the two branches, the Seleucidae and the Lagidae, which even in the age OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 35 of Alexander's successors, came to comprise almost entirely the mighty empire. And if, in this connec- tion, it was natural to advert not only to the feet and to the toes, the divisions of the extremities, but even to an incongruity in the constituent suhstances of each of these, is it necessary to limit the idea of division to this incongruity ? May not the same idea, to some extent, at least, be indicated also by the natural di- visions of the extremities? And, without wishing to urge the consideration unduly, we would ask, Is it not a remarkable fact, that the fourth kingdom, as sym- bolized in the great image, by his legs of iron, does, from the latter part of its earliest age, appear in two great divisions, corresponding, to speak in general terms, to the two great and long-continued divisions into which Seleucus and Ptolemy brought the Greek empire, and with which the Jews were connected the most closely, and often, the most unhappily? 2. It is suggested that the kingdom of Alexander's successors was not sufficiently mighty, and terrible, and diverse from others, to correspond with the rep- resentation of the fourth kingdom.* But this suggestion has, we trust, been obviated by the statements made in a preceding part of this discussion. Only let it be borne in mind, that " their kingdom" must be viewed sometimes as a whole, and sometimes as divided ; that it was as extensive as that of Alexander ; that it contained all the elements of might and terror that his did ; that these were fear- fully developed by being brought, as they often were, * In chap. 2: 40, and chap. 7. 7. 36 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. into collision with each other ; and that, from its fre- quently hostile and terrible aspect toward the Jews, it might well be exhibited to the eye of a Jewish proph- et as exceedingly fierce and dreadful ; while, in some other respects, and especially, at its latest periods, it might be "partly strong and partly broken." Hengstenberg's third and last objection is, that, " If we consider the fourth kingdom to be that of the Greeks, we cannot point out the ten kings or king- doms, which, according to the 7th chapter [verses 7, 8, and 24], were to arise from the fourth king- dom, nor the king who was to annihilate three of these." Our reply is, that we have pointed out ten individ- uals ; seven of whom sat on the throne, and three that had pretensions to it were prevented by the arts of Antiochus Epiphanes. Not that he "annihilated" them, or put them all to death ; but, so far as it res- pected his possession of the throne established by Seleucus, he uprooted and subdued them. And this, we have shown, he did by artful negotiation, rather than by force and slaughter, according to the predic- tion in Dan. 11:21, " He shall come in peaceably and obtain the kingdom by flatteries." Bishop Newton, in his well-known work on the Prophecies, after mentioning, in terms of approbation, Sir Isaac Newton's opinion, that "the little horn could not be drawn for Antiochus Epiphanes, but must be designed for some other subject," proceeds to say, " There are, then, two ways of expounding OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 37 this prophecy of the little horn, either by understand- ing it of Antiochus Epiphanes, and considering Anti- ochus a type of Antichrist ; or by leaving him wholly out of the question, and seeking another application." He prefers to leave him wholly out of the question, and thinks that what is said of the little horn is not so well adapted to him, as to the Romans. Another reason for his preference he states as follows : " The first great horn was the kingdom of Alexander and his family. The four horns were four kingdoms, not of his family, but only of the nation. Four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation. And doth not this imply," he asks, " doth not this imply, that the re- maining kingdom, the kingdom of the little horn, should be not of the nation?" By no means, we reply ; for Daniel himself says expressly, " And out of one of them ' ' (that is, out of one of the four notable horns that indicated directly the four peculiarly dis- tinguished chieftains, and hence, indirectly, the four kingdoms which, through them, were to arise from the nation), " came forth a little horn."* The venerable Bishop lays it down, as an established principle, that " a horn, in the style of Daniel, doth not signify any particular king, but is an emblem of a kingdom." The imagery of prophecy and of parables, we reply, need not always be applied with the utmost precision. It is often sufficient, if it suggest the general idea in- tended to be conveyed, and leave it to every one's good sense, in view of all the circumstances, to per- *Dan. 8: 9. 38 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. ceive the precise meaning. Thus, in our Lord's explanation of the parable of the sower, we are in no danger of any misapprehension. Sometimes in ex- plaining one and the same emblem, we may say in- differently, a king or a kingdom is indicated ; for we naturally associate the idea of a kingdom with that of a king. Sometimes one and the same emblem may be spoken of as indicating either famine or wast- ing hunger. But in other cases, more precision is intended, and the connection is such as to limit the application of the image to its appropriate meaning. In the case before us, we cannot admit the principle which Bishop Newton has laid down, and from which he and others have deduced so important consequences. We cannot admit that " a horn, in the style of Daniel, doth not signify any particular king, but is [directly and exclusively] an emblem of a kingdom." It will, we hope, be sufficient to oppose to this principle the explanations which the prophet himself has given : Dan. 7 : 24 (compared with verses 7 and 8), " The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise ; and another shall rise after them ; and he shall subdue three kings ; and he shall speak great words against the Most High." And Dan. 8: 21, "The great horn, that is between his eyes, is the first king." In view of passages like these, need we remark, that if, in the style of Daniel, the great horn indicates one particular king, Alexander, the little horn may, in the same style, indicate another particular king, An- tiochus Epiphanes ? The prophecy was understood in this manner by OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 39 Josephus, the Jewish historian. In paraphrasing that explanation of the vision, which is given in the latter part of the eighth chapter of Daniel, he says, " That by the great horn, which sprang out of the forehead of the he-goat, was meant the first king ; and that the springing up of four horns upon its falling off, and the conversion of every one of them to the four quarters of the earth, signified the successors that should arise after the death of the first king, and the partition of the kingdom among them, and that they should be neither his children, nor of his kindred, that should reign over the habitable earth for many years ; and that from among them there should arise a certain king, that should overcome our nation, and their laws, arid should take away their political govern- ment, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered, for three years' time. And indeed, it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass."* If now, as we have seen, the little horn in Dan. 8 : 9, arises from one of the branches of the Greek em- pire, and indicates Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn in the parallel passage, Dan. 7:8, must arise from the same source, and indicate the same individ- ual ; that is, it must arise from the Greek empire. In the latter passage, including the seventh verse, it is further manifest, that the little horn arises from the empire indicated by the fourth beast. Hence, the * Antiquities of the Jews, B. X, c 11, 7. 40 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. empire indicated by the fourth beast must be the Greek and not the Roman. Jerome explains one of these two parallel passages, Dan. 8 : 9, as indicating Antiochus Epiphanes, and says, "He fought against Ptolemy Philometor and the Egyptians, that is, against the south; and against the east, and those who attempted a change of gov- ernment in Persia ; and, lastly, he fought against the Jews, took Judea, entered into Jerusalem, and in the temple of God set up the image of Jupiter Olympius."* Hengstenberg, and his worthy coadjutor Haver- nick,! are, like Jerome, constrained to admit that Antiochus Epiphanes is here pointed out ; but, like Jerome, too, and most of the ancient fathers, they suppose that Antiochus Epiphanes ivas a type of Anti- christ, and that what is predicted of him here (in Dan, 8 : 9, and in the eleventh chapter, from the 21st verse onward) was fulfilled partly in him, and will be fulfilled, entirely in Antichrist.^ * S. Hieronymi Opera, Tom. Ill, col. 1105. f In his Commentar 'fiber das Buck Daniel. I The words of Jerome (Tom. Ill, col. 1127) are: Hucusque ordo historiaesequitur; et inter Porphyriumacno3tros,nullacoutentioest. Caetera quae sequunlur usque ad finem voluminis, illeinterpreiaiur super persona Antiochi qui cognominatus est Epiphanes, frater Seleuci, filius Antiochi Magni; qui post Seleucum undecim annis regnavit in Syria; obtinuitque Judaeam,sub quolegis Dei persecutio, et Machabaeorum bella narrantur. Nostri autem haec omnia de Antichristo prophetari arbitrantur, qui ultimo lempore futurus est. Quumque rrmlta quaepostea lecturi et exposituri sumus, super Anliochi persona conveniant, typum eum xolunt Antichristi habere; tt quae in illo ex parte praecesserint , in Antichristo tx toto esse complenda.Thua far [to the end of Dan. 11 : 20] the order of OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 41 This supposition we are not prepared to admit ; for it rests on what we deem to be an erroneous principle of interpretation ; namely, that predictions of Christ, and so of Antichrist, are to be explained as being predictions, first, of a type, and then of the antitype. Against this we have much to object ; but we have room to mention only a few considerations. 1. The manner in which Christ and his apostles advert to the ancient predictions respecting the Mes- siah, is unfavorable to such a principle. In explain- ing a prediction, they never tell us that it relates primarily to the Psalmist or Prophet, and secondarily to the Messiah ; nor do they ever intimate, that it was composed by the writer in reference to himself, while it can be properly interpreted in reference only to another. On the contrary, there are instances in which they have most manifestly represented the writer as distinguishing between himself and the subject of his prophecy. What is the fact in Matt. 22 : 41 45, where our Saviour refers to what David had said of him in the 110th Psalm? " While the history continues ; and between Porphyry and our Christian exposi- tors there is no controversy. The other things which follow, to the end of the book, he interprets as relating to Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, brother of Seleucus, and son of Antiochus the Great. After Seleucus, that king reigned in Syria eleven years. He took possession of Judea; and in his reign occurred the persecution of the Jewish religion, and the wars of the Maccabees. But our Chris- tian expositors think that all these things are predicted concerning Antichrist, who is to come in the last time And since much that we are yet to read and explain corresponds to what took place in connection with Antiochus, they wish to have him a type of Antichrist; and they suppose that those things which may have preceded in him partly, will be completed entirely in Antichrist. 42 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord? saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" Let the reader call to mind, also, the manner in which the apostle Peter, in Acts 2 : 25 30, mentions a passage in the 16th Psalm, . . . . " Men and breth- ren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepul- chre is with us unto this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath$o him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ, to sit on his throne ; he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrec- tion of Christ." In like manner, the Ethiopian treasurer, in Acts 8 : 34, assumes it as a matter of course, that, in the pas- sage which he was studying, Isaiah had written on some one subject, of one individual, or of another. And the subsequent account gives us no intimation of his being wrong on this point. He inquires, "Of whom speaketh the prophet this ? Of himself, or of some other man?" 2. The principle adopted by Jerome is contrary to the general simplicity which characterizes the oracles of God. It confounds things which are different, and seems to make the Scriptures of truth assert of one person what is true only of another. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 43 3. It is contrary to the principles of interpretation, which the common sense of men approves on all other subjects. And we have seen no sufficient reason why, in explaining the sacred Scriptures, we should admit a principle, which all would reject in the interpretation of other books that are worthy of our confidence. Bishop Newton contends, strenuously, that the kingdom indicated by the fourth beast was the Roman. In urging that this interpretation is " the most conso- nant to the sum of all ancient writers, both Jews and Christians," he adduces a passage from the Tar^um or Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Prophets. This Paraphrast is supposed by several able writers to have lived as early as a little before the time of our Saviour. He did not write on the Book of Daniel. The passage adduced is from his Targum on Habakkuk 3 : 17, 18, (Though the fig-tree shall not blossom, Nor fruit be on the vine, Though the produce of the olive fail, And the fields yield no food, The flock be cut off from the fold, And no herd be in the stalls j Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, 1 will joy in the God of my salvation,) and is as follows : " For the kingdom of Babylon shall not continue, nor exercise dominion over Israel ; the kings of Media shall be slain, and the strong men of Greece shall not prosper ; the Romans shall be blotted out, nor collect tribute from Jerusalem. Therefore, because of the sign and redemption which thou shaU 44 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. accomplish for thine anointed, and for the remnant of thy people, they who remain shall praise thee," &c. Here it is obvious, that it was very natural for the Paraphrast to mention the Romans, who had now become most powerful, and had recently subjected the Jews to their domination ; but, it is certain, that he was not explaining any passage in the book of Daniel ; and it is, we think, most probable, that he was not making any allusion whatever to the prophecy before us. What he says is as consistent with our interpre- tation, as it is with that of Bishop Newton ; although it may have contributed greatly to the introducing of the Roman empire in the explanation of this prophecy by subsequent Jewish interpreters. The phrase, " the kings of Media," cannot well mean the Medo-Persian empire, represented by the second beast. In saying the kings [or princes] of Media shall be slain, there was probably an allusion to the prophecy of Jeremiah 25 : 25 27, " And all the kings of the Medes . . . thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you ;" a prophecy which Cyrus seems to have been in part the instrument of executing, when, in addition to his own hereditary crown of Persia, he secured to himself that of his uncle and father-in-law, Darius the Mede, and, according to Herodotus, established his authority in Media by force. The opposition which he had occasion to crush, would, it is obvious, be most likely to be made by the Median nobles and piinces, resisting the pretensions of a foreigner. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 45 If our supposition respecting the allusion be correct, there could have been no reference here to the second empire, in the prophecy of Daniel. And if there is none to the second, we ought not to conclude, without evidence, that there is to the fourth, as such, nor to this particular prophecy at all. Without any refer- ence of this kind, a pious Hebrew, expatiating on such a passage as Hab. 3 : 17, 18, and cherishing trium- phant faith in a coming Messiah, might say, in effect, that whatever calamities may befall others, however God may punish and destroy those who either dis- regard him or afflict his people, still he shall be the hope and the joy of all who trust in him. He might say this, and specify three or four classes of the guilty and proud, who either had been or would be abased. Even if it could be proved, that, a little before the time of our Lord, that is, when the Roman power was becoming oppressive and terrific to the Jews, this Jewish Paraphrast understood a part of Daniel's vision as having reference to the Romans, we ought not to adopt his opinion, without sufficient evidence of its correctness. When Napoleon was filling Europe and many of the remotest portions of the civilized world with the terror of his movements, there were not wanting res- pectable authors who thought that they could see him and his movements clearly portrayed in the book of Daniel and in the Apocalypse. Like these authors and others in almost every age, Jonathan Ben Uzziel may have been influenced in his interpretation of prophecy by having his vision filled too exclusively 5 46 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. with the events and circumstances of his own day, instead of having it sufficiently enlarged and enlight- ened by a comprehensive survey of the events and circumstances of other days. But whatever may have been this writer's own opinion, the manner in which he has expressed him- self, we mean his mentioning the Romans as about to be destroyed (though he may have intended no reference to Daniel's vision), and the propensity, to which we have just now adverted, of being influenced too much in our interpretations by what is occurring in our own day, were constantly inclining the Jews who came after him to associate in their minds the Roman empire with the vision of Daniel. In this way, a vague opinion that the fourth great and terrible empire was that of the Romans, might easily become current among the Jews, writhing, as they were, under the domination of Rome, and look- ing anxiously for a Messiah, who, as they supposed, would deliver and avenge their nation, and lead them to universal conquest. A splendid passage from Dionysius of Halicarnas- sus, a Greek writer in the reign of Augustus, is ad- duced by Bishop Newton, as being " very pertinent to our present purpose." It is this : " The Macedonian empire having overturned the force of the Persians, in greatness indeed of dominion exceeded all the king- doms which were before it. But yet it did not flourish a long time ; but after the death of Alexander, it began to grow worse and worse. For, being immediately distracted into several principalities by his successors, OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 47 and, after them, having" strength to go on to the sec- ond and third generation, it was weakened by itself, and at last was destroyed by the Romans. And yet it did not reduce all the earth and sea to its obedience. For neither did it possess Africa, except that part adjoining to Egypt ; neither did it subdue all Europe, but only northwards it proceeded as far as Thrace, and westwards it descended to the Adriatic sea. But the city of Rome ruleth over all the earth, as far as it is inhabited ; and commands all the sea, not only that within the pillars of Hercules, but also the ocean, as far as it is navigable, having first and alone of all the most celebrated kingdoms, made the east and west the bounds of its empire ; and its dominion hath continued not a short time, but longer than that of any other city or kingdom."* Doubtless, the Macedonian or Greek dominion, as we have already stated, might, in certain connections, be mentioned in a general way, so as to include both that of Alexander and that of his successors ; and nothing hindered Dionysius from mentioning it in this manner. But does this prove that it is exhibited thus in Daniel's vision? Doubtless, Rome had art exten- sive dominion ; but does this prove, as a matter of sober history, that she ruled over all the earth, as far as it was inhabited? that she commanded every sea, the whole broad ocean itself, as far as it was navi- gable ? and that she made the east and the west the only bounds of her empire ? * Antiq. Rom., B. I, c. 2 and 3. 48 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. Panegyric so extravagant might flatter the self- complacency of the Romans ; but it is poorly adapted to aid those who endeavor to view things as they are. Josephus, who lived at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, is supposed, by Bishop Newton and by Hengstenberg and others, to have thought that the empire indicated by the fourth beast was the Roman. He may have thought so ; for he may have overlooked the parallelism, the correspond- ence of the little horn in Dan. 7:8, with the little horn in Dan. 8:9; and he may, in some measure, have felt the influences which we have mentioned as being likely to modify the views of his countrymen. More than two centuries had passed away, since the oppressions inflicted by Antiochus Epiphanes ; while those inflicted by the Romans were still fresh and constantly before his eyes. It is remarkable, however, that Josephus, in his account of Daniel, does not mention that prophet's vision, narrated in the seventh chapter, concerning the four beasts ; although he gives a full statement concerning the other vision, recorded in the eighth chapter, and concerning the image which, as narrated in the second chapter, Nebuchadnezzar saw in a dream. In setting forth the prophet's explanation of this dream, as addressed to the king, he proceeds : 11 The head of gold denotes thee and the kings of Babylon that have been before thee ; but the two hands OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 49 and arms signify that your empire shall be dissolved by two kings ; but theirs a certain other man that shall come from the west, clothed in brass, shall destroy ; and this new empire another, resembling iron, shall cause to cease ; and moreover shall domineer over all, as it is the nature of iron to be harder than gold, and silver, and brass. Daniel," he adds, " de- clared also the meaning of the stone to the king ; but I do not think it proper to relate it, since I have only undertaken to describe things past and done, but not things that are future ; yet if any one be so very desirous of knowing truth, as not to wave such points of curiosity, and cannot curb his inclination for under- standing the uncertainties of futurity, and whether they will happen or not, let him be diligent in reading the book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings."* This is the only passage adduced from Josephus to prove that he considered the fourth kingdom to be * Antiq., B. x, c. 10, 4. 'H (JL^P %Qvo~ri xeq)a^ as IB Idfyov xal TOvg ngb o~ov fiacrdelg Bafivkwviovg ot>Tag, dt de duo %eTQeg xal 01 d)|MO or}{i dvo 7taTakvdT](Teo~dat, fiavikewv TJ\V ^e^ TJ\V d exewuv sTegug ng dno dvaewg %akxbv r\iicpiea[jivog) teal vafaTjv &kkr] lcr%vv Qfjioia (T^TJ^O, xai x^aTTJcret dk &$ anav TT\V TOV morning, as designating time. * For an ample statement of the principles involved in the syntax of Hebrew numerals, we refer our readers to Ge- senius' Lehrgebaude, s. 694700, 181, and to JMordheimer's Critical Grammar, Vol. II, B. Ill, c. xi, particularly p. 147 149, 932936. The only special difficulty here, which these eminent philologers have not, quite satisfactorily, furnished the means of removing, arises from the omission of the conjunction (i) between the words of which we have been speaking. Ge- senius, in his Lehrgebaude, 122, s. 519, without assigning any reason or proof, merely says, ' ^pnj Ipy, Dan. 8 : 14, is a kind of compound, vv%Or{UQOV- J Of his labors as a Hebraist, we cannot speak disrespectfully 5 and of his urbanity we cher- ish a grateful recollection, saddened by the thought that he 60 THE "2300 DAYS." of that number, one thousand one hundred and fifty. In Dan. 12 : 11, 12, where periods of days are foretold, has passed away. But we must not be expected to be con- vinced by being referred to his decision, without some evi- dence of its correctness. In the Hebrew Bible there are not wanting examples in which the conjunction is omitted, very much as it is in the case before us. See Is. 27 : 4. Who will give me the briers and thorns, jVlSP YDt# 5 I s - 32 : 13. Upon the land of my people shall come up thorns and briers, YD$ Vl'pJ ^ s * ^3: 11- Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, 173)? ntSPQ 5 J er - 3 : 21. A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel. ^J-Unfl \p3j Ezek. 42: 13. The. north chambers and the south chambers ... are holy, CDIYin m'DitfS J1S3SH fil'DttfS 5 JNah. 3:1. Wo to the bloody city ! it is all full of to'and robbery, p^ t2TI35 an d Eccl. 10: l...In reputation for wisdom and honor, ^133^ 71 10 3H D- See, a ^ so ; Ex. 22 : 27. T T : T Ex. 23 : 11, and Neh. 4 : 17, and other passages. Will any one say that each of these examples is a kind of compound ? Some of them, in other connections, are found with the conjunction inserted. In 2 Kings 24 : 16, it is said of the king of Babylon that he carried away from Jerusalem into captivity all the men of might, seven thousand, and the carpenters and smiths a thou- sand, n^H 15073711 Itf^nnv Here, although the conjunction I vv :--: TT iv : is inserted, no one doubts that the words signifying carpenters and smiths are to be so taken that each carpenter is to be reckoned on 7 and each smith one. And in our passage, even if the conjunction had been inserted, the words might well be taken in a distributive sense, according to the connection. Much more' clearly, then, are they to be taken thus, as the matter now stands. For, as a conjunction connects words, THE "2300 DAYS." 61 the expression in the original is different. It is the appropriate one,* corresponding to our English word days. The sense which we have given is corroborated, ' 3 . By a comparison with the period indicated in the parallel passage, Dan. 7 : 25. There, in explaining the vision of the four beasts, it is said of the impious persecutor who was to arise, " He shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the so the omission of it between words where it is usually in- serted, naturally presents them with a peculiar distinctness. The form of expression, in this respect, becomes similar to that which is presented by the mere repetition of a noun j and such a repeating sometimes indicates distribution j as I'T^S *ny ^7^? ea h herd by itself, Gen. 32 : 17. In the want of a case entirely corresponding, preserved to us in the limited remains of the language, we may be per- mitted, for the sake of illustration, to suppose the following announcement, as having some points of resemblance to the one which we have been examining. l There shall arise a monarch who shall oppress the people in various ways j and, at length, he shall become pre-eminently distinguished for divorcing, in a tyrannical and cruel manner, persons that were happily united in the bonds of matrimony. How far, it was asked, shall he thus extend the calamity of divorce ? And the prophet replied, min t^^l D/S^N H&K #\X "! Unto two thousand and three hundred husbands, wives. 7 . . . We should understand him, and we think that a Hebrew would understand him, as having spoken of so many wedded persons, each being contemplated distinctly. And this, it is manifest, would be, in effect, though indirectly, saying, Unto one thousand one hundred and fifty couples. 62 THE "2300 DAYS." saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws : and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and a dividing of time."* The words, a time and times, or one year and two years, and a dividing of time, or a fraction of a year, it is manifest, express, though in a somewhat indirect and peculiar manner, three years and a part of a year ; a period equivalent to that which is expressed here by one thousand one hundred and fifty days. 4. By a comparison with subsequent statements in the book. The number 1150 very well corresponds with the idea of a gradual progress of events, as de- veloped by what we find in the eleventh and twelfth verses of the twelfth chapter : 1150 ; 1290 ; and 1335. During a period, then, of 1150 days, both the sanc- tuary and the host (the Jewish people) were to be trodden down. It is not merely the oppression of the Jews, but it is, in connection with that oppression, the desecration of the sanctuary, even to the taking away of the daily sacrifice, that is here held forth to view. To oppress the people in their worldly and temporal interests was bad enough ; but to interdict their sacred rites, the worship of the only living and true God ; to darken and pollute the brightest and holiest spot on the earth, the very sanctuary from which the light and blessings of the true religion were to go forth to all the families of man, was, indeed, a horrible profana- *In itself; the original Chaldee word, j43> which is literally translated a dividing, is indefinite. Frequently, but not always, it is used to signify a half. The part or fraction may be more than half, or it may be less, according to the connection. THE "2300 DAYS." 63 tion. It is this which is here presented in bold relief. On this, as the most atrocious and comprehensive of all crimes, the eye of the holy messenger is fixed. And in reply to the question, How long, in, connection with the other oppressions, how long shall this dese- cration of the sanctuary continue ? he announces the period to which our attention is now directed. Then, he adds, the sanctuary shall be cleansed ; the true worship shall be restored. Such was the prediction. What, let us now in- quire, was the fulfilment? In the first chapter of the first book of the Macca- bees, there is an account of the impious tyranny Which Antiochus Epiphanes exercised towards the Jews. After mentioning the early encouragement which he gave to apostasy from the Jewish to the Greek re- ligion, the cruelty and. rapacity which he manifested at Jerusalem in the one hundred and forty-third year of the Seleucidae, upon his suspecting the Jews of a disposition to revolt from him, the account proceeds : " And after two years fully expired, the king sent his chief collector of tribute unto the chief cities of Juda, who came unto Jerusalem with a great multi- tude, and spake peaceable words unto them, but all was deceit : for when they had given him credence, he fell suddenly upon the city, and smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel. And when he had taken the spoils of the city, he ; set it on fire, and pulled down the houses and walls thereof, on every side. But the women and children took they captive, and possessed the cattle. Then builded they the city 64 THE "2300 DAYS." of David with a great and strong" wall, and witn mighty towers, and made it a strong hold fo-r them. And they put therein a sinful nation, wicked- men, and fortified themselves therein. They stored it also with armor and victuals, and when they had gathered together the spoils of Jerusalem, they laid them up there, and so they became a sore snare : For it was .a* place .to lie" in wait against the sanctuary, and an- evil ' adversary to Israel. Thus they shed innqcent blood on every side of the sanctuary, and defiled .it ; in- somuch that the inhabitants of Jerusalem fled be- cause of them : whereupon the city was made* a habitation of s'trangers, and became strange to those that were born in her ; and her own children left her. Her sanctuary was laid Waste like a wilderness, her feasts were turned into mourning, her Sabbaths into reproach, Jier honor into contempt. As had been her glory, so was her dishonor increased, and her excel- lency was turned ijito mourning'. Moreover, king" Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that -all should be one people ; and every one should leave his laws.' So all the heathen agreed according to the commandment -of the king. Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols', and profaned the Sabbath. For the king had sent letters, by messengers, unto Jerusalem and the cities of Juda, that they should follow the strange laws of the land ; and forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings, "in the temple $ and that they should profane the Sabbaths and festival days ; . and pollute the sanctuary -and holy temple ; set up altars, THE "2300 DAYS." 65 and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine's flesh, and unclean beasts ; that they should also leave their children uncircumcised, and make their souls abominable with all manner of uncleanness and pro- fanation ; to the end they might forget the law, and change all the ordinances. And whosoever would not do according to the command of the king, he said he should die. In the self-same manner wrote he to his whole kingdom, and appointed overseers over all the people, commanding the cities of Juda to sacrifice, city by city. Then many of the people were gather- ed unto them, to wit, every one that forsook the law ; and so they committed evils in the land ; and drove the Israelites into secret places, even wheresoever they could flee for succor. Now .the fifteenth day of the month Cisleu, in the hundred and forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol-altars throughout the cities of Juda, on every side ; and burnt incense at the doors of their houses, and in the streets. And when they had rent in pieces the books of the law, which they found, they burnt them with fire. And wheresoever was found with any the book of the testament, or if any consented to the law, the king's commandment was, that they should put him to death. Thus .did they by their authority unto the Israelites every month, to as many as were found in the cities. Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sac- rifice upon the idol-altar, which was upon the altar of God."* * 1 Mace. 1 : 2959. 66 THE "2300 DAYS." The fourth chapter of the same first book of the Maccabees presents a signal victory of the Jews, who, in the name of the living God, had valiantly con- tended for the rights of their nation. We allude to the victory over the powerful army commanded by Lysias, whom Antiochus, during his own expedition into Armenia and Persia, had entrusted with the general superintendence of affairs, and especially with the subduing of the Jews, and the exterminating of the Jewish religion.* " Then," it is narrated, " then, said Judas and his brethren, Behold, our enemies are discomfited ; let us go up to cleanse and dedicate the sanctuary. Upon this, all the host assembled themselves together, and went up into Mount Zion. And when they saw the sanctuary desolate, and the altar profaned, and the gates burned up, and shrubs growing in the courts as in a forest, or in one of the mountains, yea, and the priests' chambers pulled down, they rent their clothes, and made great lamentation, and cast ashes upon their heads, and fell down flat to the ground upon their faces, and blew an alarm with the trumpets, and cried towards heaven. Then Judas appointed certain men to fight against those that were in the fortress, until he had cleansed the sanctuary. So he chose priests of blameless conversation, such as had pleasure in the law ; who cleansed the sanctuary, and bare out the defiled stones unto an unclean place. And when, as they consulted what to do with the altar of burnt - offerings, which was profaned, they thought it best * 1 Mace. 3 : 3136. THE "2300 DAYS." 67 to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach to them, because the heathen had defiled it. Wherefore they pulled it down ; and laid up the stones in the moun- tain of the temple, in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to show what should be done with them. Then they took whole stones, according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former ; and made up the sanctuary, and the things that were within the temple, and hallowed the courts. They made also new holy vessels, and into the temple they brought the candlestick, and the altar of burnt- offe rings, and of incense, and the table. And upon the altar they burned incense ; and the lamps that were upon the candlestick they lighted, that they might give light in the temple. Furthermore, they set the loaves upon the table, and spread out the vails, and finished all the works which they had begun to make. Now on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month, which is called the month Cisleu, in the hundred forty and eighth year, they rose up betimes in the morning, and offered sacrifice according to the law, upon the new altar of burnt-offerings, which they had made. Look, at what time and what day the heathen had profaned it, even in that was it dedicated with songs, and citherns, and harps, and cymbals. Then all the people fell upon their faces, worshipping and praising the God of heaven, who had given them good success. And so they kept the dedication of the altar eight days, and offered burnt-offerings, with gladness, and sacrificed the sacrifice of deliverance and praise."* * 1 Mace. 4 : 3656. 68 THE "2300 DAYS." Thus, it appears, that the temple was purified on the twenty-fifth day of Cisleu, in the hundred and forty-eighth year of the era of the Seleucidag, just three years from the time of its greatest profanation, the actual performance of heathen rites, or the offer- ing of sacrifice to Jupiter on the altar of Jehovah.* At the same time, it is manifest, that the daily sacri- fice was taken away sometime before the time of that greatest profanation, that is, before the twenty-fifth day of the month Cisleu [November], in the hundred and forty-fifth year of the era of the Seleucidae. Apollonius, "the chief collector of tribute," the officer sent by Antiochus Epiphanes, arrived at Jeru- salem in the preceding June, and began the work of oppression.! But he proceeded gradually. The number and the nature of the events which occurred before the consummation of the heathen worship, were such as to require considerable time ; especially, his " building the city of David with a great and strong wall, and with mighty towers," was, in all probabili- ty, the work of several months. When this " strong hold " was completed, he and his forces could easily overawe and destroy all who approached the temple to offer the customary sacrifices. "For it was a place to lie in wait against the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel. Thus they shed innocent blood on every side of the sanctuary and defiled it."{ Doubtless, the fortification was intended to enforce at Jerusalem the decree which Antiochus Epiphanes, * Compare Josephus's Antiquities, B. XII, c. 7, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. t Jahn's Heb. Commonwealth, p. 266. 1 1 Mace. 1 : 36, 37. THE "2300 DAYS." 69 in the course of the summer, had issued at Antioch, enjoining the heathen Greek worship throughout his dominions. In framing this specious general " act of uniformity," his main object, unquestionably, was to suppress and exterminate the Jewish religion. He sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the other Jewish cities, that they should obey the laws of the land ; " and forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple."* History has not preserved the precise date of the decree, nor of the time of its being proclaimed at Jerusalem, nor of the time when the completion of the newly erected strong- hold enabled Apollonius, the instrument of the king's tyranny, to carry it into execution, so as actually to take away the daily sacrifice. But among the Jews the very day may have been long remembered as a day of darkness and terror. It is surely enough for us to be so abundantly as- sured, as we are from history, that the period during which both the sanctuary and the host (the Jewish people) were trodden down, was three years and somewhat more ; that this fraction of a year was certainly less than six months ; and that, in all proba- bility, it was considerably less. This answers to the prediction ; for 1150 days make three years and a few months. The result, in the present case, so far as it can be ascertained, is substantially the same, whether we reckon solar or lunar years. But in the time of those to whom the understanding of the prophecy was * 1 Mace. 1 : 44, 45. 70 THE "2300 DAYS.' the .most important (to say nothing of other times, either earlier or later*) , the year of the Hebrews con- sisted of twelve lunar months, of which the first had thirty days and the next twenty-nine^, and' so fhe rest successively and alternately thus': Order of rr Civil year. onths in the Sacred year. Names of the Months. Number of Days. Months nearly corresponding. I 7 ' Tizri, 30 September. 2 8 . Marchesvan. 29 October. 3 9' Cisleu. . 30 November. 4 ' 10 Thebet. 29 December. 5 11 Sebat. 30 January. 6' 12 Adar. 29 February. 7 ' 1 Nisan(brAbib) 30 March. 8 2 Jiar. 29 April. 9 3 Si van. 30 May. 10 4 Thaumuz, 29 June. 11 5 Ab. 30 July. 12 ' 6 Elul. 29 August. 354 To adjust this lunar year to the course of the sun, it became customary, once in three years to add a month, a second Adar, -.immediately after the month of that name. Whether this was done in the present case or not,' we have not the -means of determining with certainty. If it was," we are to add 29 days to three times 354, = 1062, and the amount, * 1091, will be the number of days in the three years. Now history, as we have seen, shows that both the sanctuary and the host were trodden down, so that the daily sacrifice was taken away during three years (= 1091 days, as we are now supposing), and some- what more. * See Ideler's Handbuch der Chronologie, Bd. I, s. 477. . THE" "2300 DAYS." 71 Hence we have the predicted period, 1150 days. f Three years = 1091 ) ' The fulfilment < and ( = 1150 ( somewhat more, 59 ) Fifty-nine days would make two successive Jewish months, as they consisted of thirty days and of twenty- nine alternately ; and thus the period predicted and fulfilled would be three years and two months. But in such a case as the one before us, where the whole time brought .to view is so short, it seems to us most probable that an intercalary month was not added, as making a part of the three years; and if it was not, then we are to reckon merely 1062 as the number of days in tho three years, and the period predicted and fulfilled would be three years and three months. The whole number of the days, however, is the same, 1150, as if the month were added to the three years ; for what is not thus reckoned as belonging to the main portion of the period, is reck- oned as belonging to that fragment of it which im- mediately preceded the main portion. Thus : The period predicted, 1150 days. ( Three years = 1062 \ The fulfilment I and ( = 1150 \ somewhat more, 88 } If we reckon back eighty-eight days from the 25th of Cisleu (November) , we are brought, by the Jewish computation, to the 25th of Elul (August), three months. Accordingly, three years and three months, as we have already stated, would be the period pre- dicted, and, doubtless, fulfilled. 72 THE "2300 DAYS." Respecting the precise day when that fragment commenced, when the daily sacrifice was actually taken away, the histories which have been trans- mitted to us, are silent ; but they testify abundantly respecting the year and the part of the year. They exhibit clearly certain points of time very near each other, within which the day must be placed. Their whole testimony, so far as it goes, and it goes so far as to mark the time with admirable, though not with perfect and absolute precision, harmonizes entirely with the prediction, and leaves no room to doubt that, were our histories a little more complete, were they as definite as the prophecy, the harmony between the prediction and the fulfilment would be found to be absolutely perfect. So much it has seemed requisite to say respecting " the vision of the evening and the morning ;" a vision which, we are constrained to regard as predicting, not two thousand and three hundred days, but so many times of offering the daily or perpetual sacrifice, evenings and mornings, every evening being reckoned one, and every morning one. The whole period thus amounts only to one thousand one hundred and fifty days, that is, three years and some months, the period which actually elapsed between the haughty and tyrannical taking away of the daily sacrifice, under the authority of the impious Antiochus Epiphanes, and the restoration of the true worship, through the pious and patriotic efforts of Judas Maccabeus and his coadjutors. THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 73 THE SEVENTY WEEKS. In the ninth chapter is recorded the prediction of the seventy weeks. It was communicated " in the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes," the same who is called by the Greek historians, Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages. This was about fifteen years after the vision mentioned in the eighth chapter. The subject, then, may well be considered as being distinct from the one there pre- sented. Indeed, the ninth chapter is a record com- plete in itself; and it seems to have no particular connection either with the parts by which it is pre- ceded, or with that by which it is followed. The occasion was such as would most naturally lead the prophet to think, not of Antiochus Epiphanes, but of God's designs of mercy and the unworthiness of the people. Some of the expressions in the paragraph beginning at the 24th verse, cannot be satisfactorily explained otherwise than as having reference to the coming of the Messiah. Others are, in themselves, ambiguous, and should be explained by what is more clear and definite. That there is in this paragraph a reference to the Messiah and to events connected with his coming, seems to us to be confirmed by the authority of our Saviour himself, in his own predic- tion concerning the overthrow of Jerusalem. But on the reasons for this opinion, and on the various objec- tions which have been ingeniously urged against it, we cannot here expatiate. The seventy years of the captivity, which had com- 7* 74 THE SEVENTY WEEKS. menced in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, the year 607, B. C., were now hastening to their close ; for it was now the year 538, B.C. Sixty- nine of the seventy had elapsed. After speaking of those seventy years, it was natu- ral hi itself, and it accorded well with the genius of the Hebrew language, to proceed to speak of seventy sevens, or weeks, or septemized periods ; it being easily understood, in such a connection, while the word years was still sounding, that they were septemized periods of years ; especially in view of the nature of the events predicted, which manifestly could not come within the compass of only seventy times seven days. From a comparison of Dan. 9 : 25, with Neh. 2 : 1 6, it is evident that the point from which these seventy weeks of years were to be computed, is the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, when the command went forth to Nehemiah to build Jerusalem. This corresponds with the year 455, B. C., according to Hengstenberg, instead of 446, according to the com- mon supposition. He labors with much ingenuity and erudition, and, it would seem, successfully, to show that Artaxerxes began to reign, not in the year 465, B. C., but 474.* Deduct nineteen ; and, coin- * Christologie des Altes Test. 2 Theil. s. 541, or, in Prof. Keith's translation, Vol. II, p. 394. It is with much pleasure that we refer our readers to the admirable discussion of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel, which may be found in the latter part of that volume, and to the remarks of H'ivernick, in his elaborate commentary ; although we do not entirely agree with either of these authors ih some of their views on this great and difficult subject. Chronologers of dis- tinguished merit differ from each other, in their computations, a few THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 75 tiding with the twentieth of that monarch's reign, we have 455, B. C., which coincides with the year of Rome, (U. C.) 299. The seven year -weeks (=49) and the sixty-two (= 434) , mentioned by Daniel in the twenty-fifth verse, make 483 years " unto the Messiah." If we add this number to that year of Rome, 299, we are brought to the point at which the sixty-ninth year-week terminates, 782, U. C., the fifteenth year of the reign of the emperor Tiberius, when, according to Luke 3 : 1 , John the Baptist, the harbinger of the Messiah, appeared in the wilder- ness of Judea and on the banks of the Jordan. That greater personage, whose near approach he announc- ed, was born six months after him ; and, as stated by Gieseler,* we may take it for granted that six months after him he also appeared in public. The whole period of which we are treating is dis- tributed into three portions. The first consists of seven year- weeks ; the second, of sixty-two; and the third, of one. The first ends with the complete restoration of the city ; the second with the public appearing of the Messiah ; and the third with the full years. ' If now,' as it is pertinently remarked by Hengstenberg, in speaking on the period of sixty-nine weeks of years, ' if now, we compare history with this, it must appear, even to the most preju- diced, in the highest degree remarkable, that among all the current chronological determinations of this period, not one differs over ten years from the testimony of the prophecy. This wonder must rise to the highest pitch, when it appears from an accurate examination of these determinations, that the only one among them, which is cor- rect, makes the prophecy and history correspond with each other, even to a year.' * In his Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I, p. 36. 76 THE SEVENTY WEEKS. confirming of the new covenant. This last portion is divided into two parts. In the midst of it the great propitiatory sacrifice was offered, which, in effect, was to supersede all the offerings of the Jewish ritual. What a period in the world's history were those seven years, the central point of which exhibited the Saviour expiring on the cross ! After, as well as before, the death of the holy victim, his work of confirmation proceeded. At that time, pre-eminently, there were infallible proofs con- nected with his resurrection from the dead, his ascen- sion to heaven, his sending the promised influence on the day of Pentecost, his enabling the apostles to per- form various miracles, and above all, his causing the proclamation of the gospel to be accompanied by the transforming energies of the Holy Spirit upon the souls of men. Here, amidst these scenes of divine grace and power, .after including time sufficient to complete the ''one week," the last portion of the whole period, the seventy weeks might well be considered as ended. But closely connected with what has been mentioned, though lying beyond this limit, were certain important events ; and, surely, there was nothing to hinder a brief adverting to them in this place.. In Jer. 25 : 11, 12, the punishment of Babylon is predicted immediately after the prediction of the seventy years' captivity. So here, the punish- ment of the Jews is predicted immediately after the prediction of the long-continued and signal interposi- tions of God in their behalf. The principal part of the people, by murdering the Messiah and by con- EVENTS PREDICTED. 77 tinuing in unbelief, having excluded themselves from his kingdom and its blessings, are at length given up a prey to the host of a foreign prince ; the polluted temple is destroyed ; the bloody and impious city be- comes a desolation. The prediction, -partly anticipated in the twenty- sixth verse, and fully brought out in the latter portion of the twenty- seventh, we cannot doubt, relates to the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the Hebrew commonwealth by Vespasian and Titus, at the head of a Roman army, A. D. 70. So it was regarded by Josephus ;* and by a greater than Jose- phus, for our Saviour, in his own prediction of that catastrophe, refers to a particular point in its progress, as the point at which his disciples would see "the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet. ' 'f EVENTS PREDICTED IN THE LAST TffREE CHAPTERS. In his last three chapters, Daniel relates the vision which he had " in the third year of Cyrus," the 533d B.C. Hence, it was about four years after the vision recorded in the ninth chapter. A brief introduction and an account of the vision extend to the beginning of the eleventh chapter. Then the heavenly messen- ger, after adverting, in the first verse of this chapter, to his having helped Darius the Mede (doubtless in his conquest of Babylon) , proceeds to predict as follows : * Jewish War, B. IV, c. 6, 3. Antiq. of the Jews, B. x, c. 1 1 , 7. t Matt. 24 : 15, 16, and Mark 13 : 14. Compare Luke 21 : 20. 78 EVENTS PREDICTED Verse 2. The four- Persian kings who succeeded Cyrus, namely, Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis, Darius Hystaspes, and Xerxes I, whose in- vasion of Greece led to the destruction of th.e. Persian monarchy. 3. Thejconquests of Alexander the Great. 4. The division of his kingdom. 5. The power of the king of the South, Ptolemy Lagi j king of Egypt, and the superior power of ojie of his princes, Seleucus Nicator, in Syria," Asia Minor, and the East. (See Appian/c. 5557, 61, 62.) 6. The treaty between Ptolemy Philadelphus and 4-ntiochus Theus B. C. 249 7 8. The war 'of Ptolemy Euergetes against Syria, in the years 246 245 9. The ineffectual expedition which Seleucus Callinicus made against Egypt .... 244 10 -11. The efforts of his sons Seleucus Ce- raumis (see Polyb., I V, 48), and Antiochus the Great,, especially the expedition- of the latter-against Egypt 219 12. The victory gained by Ptolemy Philopator over Antiochus the Great . . . . . .217 13 17. The expedition of Antiochus the Great against Ptolemy Epiphanes ..... 202 and the giving his daughter Cleopatra in marriage to that king of Egypt .... 197 18 19. The taking of Rhodes, Samos, and many other islands by Antiochus the Great ; his discomfiture by a Roman consul, &c.; and his expedition against Thrace . . .197 IN THE LAST THREE CHAPTERS. 79 20. The reign of Seleucus Philopator, and his attempt to take away the treasures in the temple of Jerusalem ..186 21 45. The character and acts of Antiochus Epiphanes ; particularly his wars against Egypt, his persecutions of the Jews, his desecration of the temple, his expedition to Persia, and his death 175164 The twelfth chapter concludes the vision and the message. In view of the appalling trials which were to be endured, the promise of divine aid is given to the faithful ; the hope of a glorious resurrection, to the martyr. ... u At that time, thy people shall be delivered, every one that is found written in the book," all that survive ;* "and, [as having been en- gaged worthily or unworthily in this great contest,] many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, [at the call of God, whenever that shall be,] some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever- lasting contempt. And 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." It ought not to be forgotten, that the sustaining power of the hope of " a resurrection unto everlasting life," is strikingly exemplified in the case of the mother and her seven sons, who, as recorded in the seventh chapter of the 2d book of the Maccabees, were tortured to death in the persecutions inflicted by Antiochus Epiphanes. f To the interrogation in the sixth verse of this twelfth chapter, How long shall it be to the end of * Comp. Is. 4:3. t See, particularly, vs. 9, 14, 23, 29, and 36. 80 EVENTS PREDICTED these wonders? it is replied in the seventh, " a time, times, and a half," that is, (probably, without intend- ing to be entirely definite,) three years and a half. Then these wonders of persecution might be expected to terminate with the persecutor's coming to his end. In the eleventh verse, we have a more definite state- ment of the period indicated in the seventh verse, by " a time, times, and a half:" " From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abom- ination that maketh desolate set up, shall be a thou- sand two hundred ninety days." We have already shown, that, from the taking away of the flaily sacrifice to its restoration, 1150 days were to elapse. Hence, if we take 1150 from 1290, the remainder will be the number of days, after that restoration, before the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, the event predicted in general terms at the close of the eleventh chapter. The remainder is 140. In 140 days, then, from the 25th of Cisleu in the 148th year of the Seleucidae, the tyrant was to " come to his end;" that is, on the 17th of Jiar (April), in the year 149 ; or, if an intercalary month, a double Adar, be reckoned, on the 18th of Nisan (March) , in that year. The event, if it was to occur at all in that year, could not occur sooner than some- time in the month of Nisan, the month with which, in the first book of the Maccabees, the civil as well as the sacred year of the Jews was reckoned as com- mencing.* Now, as we have seen, it was to occur * In the second book of the Maccabees, the civil year is reckoned as commencing six months later, with the month Tizri ; and this is, probably, the more correct computation. But whether the era of the Seleucidae and the civil year began with Nisan or Tizri, is, in IN THE LAST THREE CHAPTERS. 81 in that year ; and, according to 1 Mace. 6 : 16, it did then occur ; for it is there recorded that Antiochus Epiphanes died " in the hundred forty and ninth year." Besides, the events recorded in the fifth chapter of the first hook of the Maccabees, as occur- ring between the restoration of the daily sacrifice and his death, would seem to require a period of, at least, 140 days, or somewhat more than four months. But what is it that was to occur forty-Jive days later still? For this is the difference between a " thousand two hundred and ninety," and a " thousand three hun- dred and Jive and thirty " the number which marks the period next mentioned. Antiochus died in Persia, among the mountains of Paratacene, at a great distance from Palestine. Ac- cording to the first book of the Maccabees, " There came one who brought him tidings into Persia, that the armies which went against the land of Judea were put to flight ; and that Lysias, who went forth first with a great power, was driven away of the Jews ; and that they were made strong by the armor and power, and store of spoils, which they had gotten of the armies whom they had destroyed : also, that they had pulled down the abomination, which he had set up upon the altar in Jerusalem, and that they had compassed about the sanctuary with high walls, as before, and his city Bethsura. Now," it is added, " when the king heard these words, he was astonish- ed and sore moved ; whereupon he laid him down the present case, of no importance. It is sufficient that the com- putations in the first book of the Maccabees are consistent with themselves. 8 82 EVENTS PREDICTED upon his bed, and fell sick for grief, because, it had not befallen him as he looked for. And there he continued many days ; for his grief was ever more and more ; and he made account that he should die. .... Then called he for Philip, one of his friends, whom he had made ruler over all his realm ; and gave him his crown, and his robe, and his signet, to the . end he should bring up his son Antiochus, and nour- ish him up for the kingdom. So king Antiochus died there in the hundred forty and ninth year."* From a statement in the second book of the Maccabees, it is further evident, that, on hearing of the success of the Jews, he had been transported with rage, and had hastened his march towards Palestine, to satiate his vengeance, " threatening to make Jerusalem the bury ing-place of the whole Jewish nation. "f His death may have been concealed for some time, even from most of his own army ; and it may not have been gen- erally known to the patriotic Jews, until more than a month after its actual occurrence. The facilities for travelling and for the rapid transmission of news were incomparably less than those to which we are accus- tomed. Besides, Philip, the regent, knowing the power and ambition of Lysias and others at home, would naturally wish to conceal the death of the king, till he could himself return, and get the person of the heir to the throne, who was now only nine years of age, into his own possession ; and knowing the dis- affected state of the Jews, he would, doubtless, do * 1 Mace. 6 : 516. t 2 Mace. 9 : 4. Rollin's Anc. Hist., B.X1X, c.2, 3 ; Vol.11, p. 366. IN THE LAST THREE CHAPTERS. 83 his utmost to conceal from them, as long as possible, the knowledge of an event so adapted to cheer their hopes and to confirm them in their rebellion. But when, at length > the intelligence arrived, -who can wonder at their regarding the sudden fall of the per- secuting tyrant as a most signal interposition of divine Providence to rescue them from his terrible grasp ? The arrival of that intelligence, forty-five days after the event, seems to be predicted in the twelfth verse, " Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thou- sand three hundred and five and thirty days." We here make no positive assertion ; but, in view of all the known circumstances, we submit this solu- tion as being the most probable one. The case, if we mistake not, resembles, and, in some respects, surpasses that which called forth the splendid song of exultation over the fallen king of Babylon , pre- sented in the fourteenth chaptej^S^SiQ pronheeies of* Isaiah: //***, Of fnt>^, '^7> How hath the oppr< The whole earth is They break forth in * Humanly speaking, had Antiochus Epiphanes not fallen, he would have exterminated the true religion from the face of the earth , and cut off for ever the hope of the coming of Him in whom the nations were to trust, and through whom unnumbered millions of the human family were to be " saved, to sin no more." But now, Daniel is assured, the promise made to the fathers would not fail. The Messiah would come. 84 CONCLUSION. " Go thou thy way till the end be ; for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." Thou shalt go down to the grave in the cheering confidence that, ultimately, as allotted thee by the gracious pur- pose of God, thou shalt participate in all the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom, the kingdom which shall not be destroyed. _^____^__ Our task is ended. We did not undertake it hastily. We were, in some measure, aware of its difficulties and its perils. We saw the waves strewed with many a wreck. How could we be indifferent specta- tors ? Or how could we assume the office of a pilot, before examining, carefully, these dangerous waters ? And when we seemed to ourselves to have ascertained the true and safe course, amidst the concealed rocks and shoals, how could we refuse to point it out ? We take no pleasure in differing from good and devoted men, whether among the dead or among the living. We would treat them with courtesy and kindness ; but we must be permitted to bow, with the profoundest reverence, to the majesty of divine truth, whenever it is discovered. How far we have suc- ceeded in discovering it, we submit to the candor and intelligence of our readers. They will of themselves perceive that, if our views be correct, some theories which have obtained extensive favor, must fall ; and others, if retained, must be supported by other evi- dence than any derived from the book of Daniel ; but that this book, at the same time, is full of interest, and presents some of the most important and striking predictions. * 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWEI LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. LIBRARY UIC RFC ^ 1956 Vw-V *- ivW- REC'D CD DEC 3 1956 LD 21-100m-6,'56 rB9311slO)47fi General Library University of California YA 03625 I $-5% UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY