Page images
PDF
EPUB

Thus much for analogies in the Old Testament Scriptures, that have respect to the modes of designating time. Not one of the cases that have been examined, (and these are all on which any reliance can be placed), answers at all the end for which an appeal is made, by the interpreters whose opinion is under examination.

But I will not content myself, in this case, with the examination of these alleged analogies. Another duty remains; and this is, to produce examples of the contrary mode of reckoning; examples which show, that in prophecy, as elsewhere, the designations of time are to be understood in their natural and obvious sense, unless there is some direction or intimation that we must not interpret them in this manner.

be

In Gen. 6:3, God announces that the days of men, fore the flood will come upon them, shall be 120 years. By the rule of one day for a year, this would amount to 43,920 years; in which case it is not so much to be wondered at, that the antediluvians were not moved by fear in consequence of Noah's threats. In Gen. 7: 4, God declares, that after seven days he will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Is this then the same as saying, that after seven years it shall begin to rain, and then shall continue to do so for a period of forty years? In Gen. 15: 13, it is predicted that Abraham's posterity shall be bondmen in Egypt 400 years. Does this mean, that they shall live there in that capacity during 144,000 years? Gen. 40: 1 predicts seven years of plenty and seven of famine to Egypt. Can this mean 2,520 years of each in succession? In Num. 14:33 it is declared, that Israel shall wander in the wilderness forty years. Does this mean 14,400 years? Does not history inform us what the exact and actual period was? In Ezek. 29: 11, 12, there is a threat of forty years' wasting to the Egyptians. Does this

mean 14,400? In Jonah 3: 4 it is declared, that Nineveh shall be overthrown within forty days; in Is. 7: 8 it is said, that Ephraim shall be broken within sixty-five years; in Is. 16: 14, that the glory of Moab shall be contemned within three years; in Jer. 25:11. 29: 10, the period of seventy years' exile is threatened; and the like in other passages of the prophets which need not be recited; and yet we never once even dream of putting a day for a year in a single instance among all these cases. Why? Because we have no intimation that the passages are not to be interpreted in the ordinary way; and nothing in the context obliges us to think of a different mode of interpretation. Even so I trust it may prove to be, in cases yet to be examined, and which constitute the basis of our present inquiry.

Nothing can be plainer, then, than that usage in the prophecies, as to designations of time, does not differ from ordinary usage elsewhere. If there be any cases where a difference is to be made out, it must be on entirely other grounds than that of analogy. We have seen that the analogy asserted can by no means be established; and therefore we cannot appeal to it. We come then to examine,

SECONDLY, whether the designations of time in Daniel and in the Apocalypse admit of a satisfactory solution on the common ground of grammatico-historical exegesis.

We must begin with the book of Daniel, because, as all will concede, the Apocalypse has followed in many respects closely in the steps of this ancient prophet. And, which is more important still, Daniel has twice brought into view a famous period equivalent to 3 years 42 months 1260 days. If the use of this number of days is symbolical in the book of Revelation, then it must be conceded as probable, that it is symbolical also in the book of Daniel; and so, vice versa. At least the great mass of recent commen

tators in the English world, who suppose that the same things are predicted in both these books, cannot well avoid such a conclusion. It is proper, therefore, that we begin with the 1260 days or 3 years in the book of Daniel.

.מוֹעֵד

We do not find this period, indeed, specifically named. But it is virtually designated in the expression time, times, and the dividing (i. e. half) of time. In chap. 7:25 (which is Chaldee), the main word is 173; in 12:7 (Hebrew), it is Both of these words are from the kindred roots and, and mean, conformably to their etymology, a set, fixed, or appointed time. Of course this happily designates the year, the appointed and usual standard for the measurement of time. A time, times, and half a time, therefore, means one year, two years, and half a year=31 years=42 months 1260 days. This is the same period on which so much turns in Rev. xI.-xIII.; and one cannot well refrain from believing, that the measure of time in both of these books is designed to be the same.

What then is the actual time which is designated, in those several passages of Daniel that have been specified? In order to answer this question we must first advert to the subject-matter of each prophecy, as developed by

the context.

The first passage, in Dan. 7: 25, is so clear as to leave no room for reasonable doubt. In vs. 8, 20, 24, the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes is described; for the fourth beast in 7: 7, 8, 11, 19-26, is, beyond all reasonable doubt, the divided Grecian dominion which succeeded the reign of Alexander the Great. From this dynasty springs Antiochus, vs. 8, 24, who is most graphically described, in v. 25, as one who "shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out (destroy) the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hands, until a time, and times, and the divid

ing of time." The long, bitter, and bloody persecutions of Epiphanes; his persevering efforts to abolish the Jewish ritual, and even to extinguish the religion which the Hebrews professed, and destroy all copies of the holy Scriptures which were in their hands; are too well known as historical facts, to need any comment here, or any specification.* The only question on which any thing needs to

* A writer in one of the periodicals of the day, who is wont to speak with unusual confidence in regard to the meaning of many prophecies, quotes Dan. 7: 21, 22, as sufficient of itself to refute all that is said here, in respect to applying the verses specified above to Antiochus Epiphanes. The sum of these verses is, that "the little horn" (beyond all doubt Antiochus) "made war upon the saints and prevailed against them," and 'the Ancient of Days came, and rendered judgment to the saints' (vindicated the cause of the pious), and restored to them the kingdom' which had been taken away by Antiochus. In other words: God appears as the vindicator of the pious and persecuted Jews, and restores to them the rightful dominion of their country. This idea is thrice repeated in chap vII.; first in the account of the vision as comprised in vs. 2-12, where vs. 9-11 are appropriated to designate the condemnation and punishment of the little horn, "whose mouth speaketh great things;" secondly, in vs. 21, 22, as already quoted; and thirdly, in vs. 2426, which are a part of the explanations given by the angel. Now the writer in question, as many others have done, appears to have mistaken the judgment mentioned in vs. 10, 22, and the dominion given to the saints (v. 22), for the last judgment and millennial dominion of the church. How palpably erroneous this is, may be seen by consulting Dan. 7: 13, 14, where the later coming of the Son of Man, and the dominion which is given him, are plainly represented as subsequent to the judgment and punishment of Antiochus, as described in the preceding context. This decisive circumstance, the writer in the periodical to whom I have adverted, in his haste and in his zeal for favorite opinions, seems to have wholly overlooked. One who feels as much confidence as he appears to possess, ought at least to look more carefully on what sort of ground he is treading.

Whatever there is of obscurity or uncertainty in respect to the

be said is: How does the result here described, viz. ‘the giving up of the saints and times and laws into his hands,'

fourth beast with his ten horns, as represented in chap. VII., it is made quite plain and palpable by chap. VIII. In Dan. 8: 8 seq., the dominion of Alexander the Great, its division among his four chieftains, and the rise of the little horn from one of these, are so plain as to be altogether undeniable. Then the characteristics of this "little horn," as given in chap. viii. 9-12, are plainly the same for substance as those given in chap. vii. 8, 11, 20, 21, 24, 25. All is rendered still more certain, by the repetition of the same characteristics in 8:22–25, which, in connection with v. 21, shows very plainly, that the "little horn" and "the king of fierce countenance" is of Grecian descent, and rules over one of the four kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander was divided.

All the real difficulty of the case arises from the fact, that the Messianic dominion described in 7: 13, 14 and again in 7: 27 is mentioned as if it were an immediate sequent of the destruction of the little horn or Antiochus. So far as the manner of the description is concerned, one might judge this to be the case; for no interval of time is designated, and none is necessarily implied by the use of appropriate particles. But in cases very numerous, both in the Old Testament and in the New, the manner of announcing the Messianic kingdom is the same. No interval between it and earlier events is specifically designated. Yet nothing can be more erroneous than the conclusion, that no interval of time, in such cases, is to be supposed. It is impossible not to allow such an interval. So here, no one could err more than to suppose, that the Messianic kingdom is to follow immediately after the destruction of the kingdom of Antiochus. The simple truth is, that the writer passes from one kingdom, restored to the ancient Jewish saints, to the description of another and greater one still future. He makes no account of the interval of time, since he is not at all concerned, for his present purpose, with chronology.

He who does not understand this common usage of the Hebrew prophets, must have made but little progress as it respects the study and the knowledge of them. He who does understand it, can find no serious difficulties in the case before us.

For more ample remarks on the subject of this usage, in regard to the Messianic predictions, I must refer the reader to what is said

« PreviousContinue »