Page images
PDF
EPUB

the period of the reign of Darius, which precisely corresponds with the actions of the ram, when first seen by Daniel, must be somewhere between the years A. C. 513 and 497; for it was then, according to the chronology of Prideaux, that the conquests of Darius, signified by the pushing of the ram, took place. Further, we are told by Rollin, that the expedition of Darius to India, by which the ram pushed south, was undertaken in the year A. C. 508. I learn also from Mr. Bicheno that according to the chronological tables of Dufresnoy, the expedition of Darius into Europe, whereby he added Macedonia, Thrace, &c. to his empire, happened in the same year. In the year, 508, therefore, the ram was pushing westward, northward, and southward; and from this period, I think, there is every reason to suppose that the commencement of the vision is to be dated.*

In the next part of the vision, Daniel beheld a new object, an he-goat with a large horn between his eyes, which came from the west with great velocity, and overthrew the ram. This symbol denoted the Macedonian empire, and the large horn between his eyes represented Alexander the Great. Within a few years after the death of Alexander, his empire was divided into four kingdoms, symbolized by the four horns which arose in the room of the great horn.

[ocr errors]

* Mr. Faber admits, that the period of the successful pushing of the ram began in the year A. C. 508, and that the date of the commencement of the vision cannot be later than that year: but he maintains that the vision is to be dated from A. C. 536, the first year of Cyrus. My reasons for rejecting this interpretation, will be found in three papers, under the signature of Talib, in the Christian Observer, for November 1808, October 1810, and May 1811.

The prophet afterwards saw a little horn come out of one of these four, "which waxed exceeding

66

[ocr errors]

great towards the south, and towards the east, "and towards the pleasant land. And it waxed 66 great even to the host of heaven, and it cast down (some) of the host and of the stars to the ground, "and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified him"self even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily (sacrifice) was taken away, and the place "of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host " was placed against the daily (sacrifice), by reason " of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the "ground, and it practised and prospered."

[ocr errors]

I shall follow the interpretation given by Sir Isaac Newton and Bishop Newton of this symbol, though some modern interpreters, and Mr. Faber among the number, have endeavoured to apply it to the spiritual empire established by Mahummud.* This little horn then I consider, with the illustrious writers above mentioned, to be a symbol of the Roman empire in the east, after its conquests extended to the territories of the he-goat. The Romans became a horn of the goat rising up in his dominions, when the kingdom of Macedon was reduced into a Roman province in the year A. C. 148. From Macedon the Roman conquests extended to the south, to the east, and towards Judea (the pleasant land), by the reduction of Achaia, Asia Minor, and Syria. The Roman horn waxed great unto the host of the sym

* In two papers in the Christian Observer, I have given my reasons for rejecting Mr. Faber's hypothesis respecting the little horn of the he-goat. See papers under the signature of Talib, in the Christian Observer for April, and November, 1808.

bolical heaven, and cast down some of them and of the stars to the ground, when Pompey took the city and temple of Jerusalem, slew a multitude of the priests employed in the sacrifices, and entered the holy of holies * (A. C. 63.) The Roman horn magnified itself even to the prince of the host, by crucifying the Lord of Glory. It took away the literal daily sacrifice of the Levitical worship, and cast down the place of his sanctuary, when Titus took the city of Jerusalem and destroyed the temple.

.

Having brought down the narrative to the period when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, the vision next passes on to the tyranny exercised by the Roman power over the church of Christ. Ver. 12. "An host was placed (or set up †) against the daily

* The context shows that the host of heaven is here used to represent spiritual objects; the symbol therefore denotes not temporal but spiritual princes, i. e. the Levitical priests, who were stars under the Old Testament dispensation, even as Christian pastors are called stars in the Apocalypse.

+ When a commentator on prophecy finds it necessary or expedient, to alter or amend our excellent English version, in order to prove his own particular hypothesis, it is always a suspicious circumstance, and I would advise the reader to exercise in all such cases a more than common degree of scrutinizing watchfulness. Having myself, in the clause now before us, somewhat altered our translation, I by no means wish to be exempted from that degree of critical jealousy, which such a circumstance calls for. But I have only changed the rendering of one verb, which signifies to give, to put, to place. The first of these senses is attributed to it by our translators in this passage, whereas, in two analogous and parallel clauses, Dan. xi. 31, and xii. 10, they have rendered it to place, or set Believing that the translation in these passages, is the accurate one, I have in like manner rendered the Hebrew phrase

up.

and a host was placed (or set up) instead of a host was given. My

(sacrifice) by reason of transgression, and it cast "down the truth to the ground, and it practised and "prospered."

In interpreting this clause, we must recollect that after the city of Jerusalem with its temple had been destroyed by Titus, there no longer remained a literal temple, or a literal daily sacrifice, and it therefore becomes necessary in the period subsequent to the above event, to interpret these objects in a symbolical sense. Now we learn in the New Testament, that the temple when used symbolically signifies the church of Christ; Sometimes, as in 1 Cor. iii. 16, it is applied to the spiritual church of true Israelites, and at other times, as in 2 Thess. ii. 4, to the visible, external, professing church. The daily sacrifice of the visible church, is a form of sound words suited to the pure worship of the Father, through Jesus Christ the only mediator between God and man, and also the due administration of the sacraments. Of this temple, the daily sacrifice is taken away, when the form of sound words is corrupted by worship addressed to other mediators than Jesus Christ, as to the Virgin Mary

interpretation of the prophecy, however, by no means depends upon this altered translation. Admitting, that the actual rendering of the phrase were accurate, the clause might be interpreted to signify that the host, or priesthood of the professing church, should be given into the hands of the Roman power, and by that power, be used as its instrument in corrupting the daily sacrifice, or pure worship of God. If the reader would see how this was fulfilled, let him look into ecclesiastical history, and particularly the acts of the second Nicene Council.

The attentive reader will see from what is contained in this note, that I consider the host set up against the daily sacrifice, to mean precisely the same thing as the abomination of desolation, in the other passages mentioned, viz. Dan. xi. 31, and xii. 10.

and the saints. The worship of the professing church then ceases to be the daily sacrifice ordained of God, and becomes an abomination in his sight.

Upon similar principles we must interpret the host set up in the spiritual temple. The Hebrew word 3 signifying an army, or a warfare, is used in the Old Testament to denote the sun, moon, and stars, the host of the visible heavens, or the angels who are the host of the invisible heavens.* In its symbolical sense, when it is applied to the literal or Levitical temple, it signifies the priests who therein ministered before the Lord; and where it refers to the Christian church or spiritual temple, the same word means the bishops and presbyters of the church, who are expressly called stars, and also angels in Rev. i. 20.

Now in the verse of Daniel which I am considering, the scene of the vision is in the professing Church of Christ, or spiritual temple. Therefore the host which is said to be "set up against the ' daily sacrifice," must mean an antichristian priestly power, established within the church, and exercising its authority against the pure worship of God, casting down the truth to the ground, and practising and prospering against it. Such was the papacy. The pope was, as we have seen in the last chapter, set up or established as a priestly power, or host, in the symbolical temple, or professing

* 1 Kings xxii. 19.

+ I would here request the reader to compare with what I have written, the description of the papal power, given by St. Paul, 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4. and to consult Bishop Newton's Exposition of that prophecy.

« PreviousContinue »