.^^ 
 
 0^ 
 
 ^'V 
 
 Ofe" -S'^ 
 
 T> 
 
 REESE LIBRARY 
 
 OK THh 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 /Vmvm/, \ynba^ iss ^ 
 
 Accessions Ao.^y^^/// S/ie/J No. . 
 
 Z¥ ^ ri3 
 
Digitized by tli^ jjiternet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/criticalhistoricOOfolsrich 
 
CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 
 
 PROPHECIES OF DANIEL 
 
 BY 
 
 NATHANIEL S. FOLSOM. 
 
 
 /?> 
 
 
 BOSTON : 
 CROCKER & BREWSTER. 
 
 NEW YORK : DAYTON AND NEWMAN. — ANDOVER : AILEN, MORRILL 
 AND WARD WELL. 
 
 1842. 
 
^ 
 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, by 
 
 NATHANIEL S. FOLSOM, 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 
 
 ANDOVER : 
 Allen, Morrill & Wardwell, Printers. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The followiDg work contains not a commentary on the en- 
 tire Book of Daniel, but an interpretation of the prophetic parts 
 found in chapters ii, vii, viii, ix, xi, xii, with particular regard 
 to those passages which are supposed by many to predict the 
 personal advent of our Savior A. D. 1843. There are also pro- 
 phecies in chapters iv, v, pertaining to the kings of Babylon 
 alone, but they need no explanation. The narrative portions 
 which occupy the remainder of the Book, require little or no 
 aid to be readily understood ; and what difficulties exist in them, 
 will generally be found solved in those allusions to the narra- 
 tive parts, which an interpretation of the prophetic has made 
 necessary. 
 
 It may appear to some a foolish and to others an unnecessa- 
 ry matter, to notice what is technically called " Millerism ;" for 
 the time is at hand which will effectually test its truth or its 
 falsehood. But surely no Christian, no serious man should look 
 on with indifference, when any portion of the popular mind is 
 agitated throughout, and swells and heaves tumultuously, to cre- 
 ate what evil it may, and then die away as it may. The admo- 
 nition given of old, " Refrain from these men and let them alone, 
 for if this work be of men, it will come to nought," — is of value 
 so far as the duty to refrain from acts of violence is concern- 
 ed, but ill applies to the discussion of any truth, or the arrest 
 of any evil. Not a few have adopted Mr. Miller's views who 
 are sober-minded and discerning on every other subject, and 
 many more are searching the Scriptures to see whether these 
 things are so, and they ask for light. They have not been ac- 
 customed to study the prophecies, and they see not why A. D. 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 1843 may not be the date as well as 1866, etc. which have been 
 fixed on by others. They also feel that one great element of 
 truth is in the doctrine of the second advent, as advocated by 
 Mr. Miller — 
 
 " The Lord will come ! but not the same 
 As once in lowly form he came, 
 A silent lamb to slaughter led, 
 The bruised, the suffering and the dead. 
 
 The Lord will come ! a dreadful form 
 With wreath of flame, and robe of storm, 
 On cherub wings, and wings of wind, 
 Anointed Judge of human kind." 
 
 To this truth Mr. Miller owes the greater part of his success. 
 Possibly also this element of truth has not received the atten- 
 tion in modern preaching it did in the primitive age, and it 
 comes to the people now as something comparatively new to 
 them. For inquirers on this subject, it will not be a thankless 
 or useless task to have written. 
 
 Only small portions, however, of this work will be found de- 
 voted to the modern doctrines of the personal advent of our 
 Lord, A. D. 1843. What is said, is said plainly, and he who 
 runs may read that whatever else may be derived from Daniel, 
 the doctrines above mentioned cannot. Whoever wishes to 
 turn to those portions at once will find them chiefly on pages 
 29, 30, 42—44, 72, 73, 78—80, 84,fel40, 160, 161, 166, 167, 
 173, 212— 21 5, 229. The general scope of the Interpretation will 
 throw more light than any particular parts of it. But the pro- 
 phecies of Daniel contain vastly more than can be interesting 
 only to those who wish to see it satisfactorily shown that he 
 does not predict the end of the world, A. D. ]843. The 
 study of them makes it necessary to introduce much historical 
 matter of great practical value and of the deepest interest. A 
 higher end still, and one which it is the object of this Interpre- 
 tation to promote more than any other, is the impression which 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 these prophecies make, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, 
 who should come hito the world — an impression which the writer 
 has himself experienced more deeply than before, unless he is 
 deceived, and which he would impart to others. Prophecy and 
 miracle have not yet done all they were designed to do, and 
 can do, in working with the teachings of our Lord and his 
 apostles to produce a tranquil, firm faith, and a righteous life. 
 
 The order of study pursued has been from the more full, 
 and expanded, and clear prophecies to the more brief, and com- 
 prehensive and difficult. It is obvious on a general perusal, 
 and it is acknowledged by all who have studied these prophe- 
 cies, that the general scope of each prophecy or vision is the 
 same, or that they all tend to the same events. It would ap- 
 pear therefore most proper to investigate the latter prophecies 
 first, and especially chap. xi. The prophecy next in clearness 
 is chap, viii, and no one disputes that it is entirely parallel with 
 chap. xi. Having studied and closely ascertained the meaning 
 of these two chapters, the next in order is seen at once to be 
 chap, vii, which is parallel with chap, viii, through the series of 
 kingdoms as far as to the announcement of a new one to be set 
 up by the God of heaven, which seems to be its own unfold- 
 ing ; and parallel entirely with chap, vii, is chap, ii, at least in 
 its events, though diflferent in description. From these the 
 way is open to chaps, ix. and xii, which contain the remainder 
 of the prophetic portions. The appearance of order in Com- 
 mentary, beginning with the first of the book to be interpreted 
 and proceeding through to the last, has been sacrificed to what 
 has been judged to be at least in this instance the true and 
 philosophical mode of investigation. The path by which the 
 author has reached his results, is one by which he has chosen 
 to lead others. 
 
 Those familiar with the history of Commentai-y, will see that 
 
 the general current of interpretation, which designates the fourth 
 
 kingdom as the Roman, has not been pursued. The author must 
 
 refer for all his reasons to his book, and would only here say 
 
 1* 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 that he could not find the Roman kuigdoin, except incidentally, 
 in chap, xi, which is pai'allel with chap, viii, and with the 
 first part of the prophecies in chapters ii, vii. But in his in- 
 terpretation, though he came to it unaided by what others had 
 said, he finds himself sustained by some who have written on 
 the subject with much ability, as for instance in the Christian 
 Review, March Number, for this present year. The con- 
 tinuance of the opinion that the fourth kingdom is the Ro- 
 man, is humbly conceived to be the use it has served in the 
 controversy of Protestants with Roman Catholics, and the in- 
 fluence of great names like Sir Isaac Newton, and perhaps 
 the manner in which so good a man as Bishop Newton has 
 spoken of those who have embraced the opposite opinion, as be- 
 ing only influenced by a "fondness of disputing about the plainest 
 points," and as maintaining the "strange wild conceit of Gro- 
 tius," or taking part with the infidel Porphyry. There is also 
 the coincidence between the language of Daniel on the fourth 
 kingdom, and of John on persecutions after Christ ; which has 
 seemed to identify them. But most certainly many events dif- 
 ferent in the New Testament from the Old, are yet described 
 in the same language. And it is natural that great oppressors 
 and persecutors, who must in so many general points resemble 
 each other, should be described in nearly the same language. 
 Great bad men are much alike, and hence so many very diverse 
 applications of ihe prophecies. But the prophecies cannot de- 
 scribe all the great bad men in the world, all the persecutors 
 of the saints. The context must guide to the particular individ- 
 uals designated ; and the context of Daniel by its specifications 
 eind dates, shows that he had particular individuals m view, and 
 not a class. It is the aim of this Interpretation, scrupulously 
 and faithfully to obey this guide. 
 
 It remains to make a few remarks on the Book of Daniel it- 
 self. The history of the holy man whose name it bears, is given 
 
PREFACE. VU 
 
 SO fully in connexion with his prophecies, as to need no notice 
 here. He uttered his first prophecy soon after he was intro- 
 duced to the court of the king, and when he could not have 
 been more than twenty-three or four years of age. His first 
 vision was revealed to him forty-eight years after his first pro- 
 phecy ; his final vision, in the third year of Cyrus — which must 
 have been near the close of his life, for he was then at least 
 ninety or ninety-five years of age, and we hear no more of him 
 afterward. 
 
 The Book bears throughout the impression of one and the 
 same hand. The chief appearance of diversity is that from verse 
 fourth of chapter second to the end of chapter seventh, it is writ- 
 ten in the Chaldee language, but the remainder is in Hebrew. 
 This is a peculiarity worthy to be noticed, but it aflfects not the 
 question whether the whole is the work of one individual, if that 
 individual understood both languages — and there cannot be a 
 doubt that Daniel understood them both. Why he thus wrote, 
 it may now be impossible to be ascertained ; only conjecture 
 can supply the reasons. All that is written in Chaldee, related 
 particularly to the Chaldean kings or people, except chapter 
 second in part, and also chapter seventh in part. It was fit that 
 the Chaldeans should have these events, and also the whole 
 of the vision of the series of kingdoms, in their own native lan- 
 guage. There were great objects to be gained by the influence 
 which Daniel should exert over the nation that conquered his 
 people ; and we can see from the period of Nebuchadnezzar's 
 dream and onward, how a divine Providence ordered all things 
 so that Daniel might throw his protection over his countrymen, 
 meliorate their captivity, and perhaps secure the decree for their 
 restoration. The existence of these records in the Chaldee lan- 
 guage, would of course further this influence, and in this is an 
 adequate reason for a part of these prophecies being found in that 
 language. Perhaps, too, as the Hebrew language became at that 
 time greatly corrupted, many of his countrymen born in Chal- 
 dea would understand the Chaldee better tlian the Hebrew, 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 That these prophecies were veritable prophecies of Daniel, 
 whose name they bear, we have the surest grounds for believ- 
 ing. Whatever apparent difficulties may be presented, there is 
 the authority of him who referred his disciples to " Daniel the 
 prophet," Matt. 24: 15, Mark 13: 14, under circumstances too 
 serious to admit of any doubt that he spake from his own 
 knowledge and faith. It seems idle to say, as does Rosenmiil- 
 ler, that our Savior spake only according to the received opin- 
 ion of his coteraporaries. What purpose would he gain by it? 
 Why not place the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem 
 on his own sole authority, if there had been no prediction ut- 
 tered by a prophet of old ? What more difficulty is there in 
 believing that even our Lord uttered a prediction of the future 
 destruction of Jerusalem, than that Daniel did ? Why must not 
 both be cast aside, if either ? 
 
 There is also the testimony of Josephus, B. x. c. 11. sec. 7, 
 which will be found in the Interpretation. Some among the 
 later Jews have been disposed to set Daniel aside, but there is 
 no existence of a doubt up to the Christian era. 
 
 The internal evidence is itself strong, as even those acknow- 
 ledge, who deny that Daniel was the author. Says one of this 
 class, Rosenmiiller, " There is nothing to be found in the book 
 which might not come properly from Daniel ; since he was 
 born a Hebrew, educated at the court in Babylon, imbued with 
 the learning of the Chaldeans and of the Magi, and especially 
 skilled in interpreting dreams ; so that there seems to be scarce- 
 ly a reason why we should doubt he was the author of the 
 book." But then say those who doubt the genuineness of the 
 book, there are the strange events mentioned, such as his being 
 cast into the lion's den, etc., and there is the wonderful partic- 
 ularity of events in the closing vision. But if the book is to be 
 regarded as not genuine because of the miraculous events, what 
 book in the Scriptures will stand ? There were final causes in 
 the Captivity and the Restoration worthy of this miraculous in- 
 terposition ; and a miracle in any age like that of being un- 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 harmed in a lion's den, or thrown into a seven times heated 
 furnace, and coming forth without a touch or smell of fire on 
 the garments, is not greater than prophecy. In regard to the 
 particularity of events, it is indeed wonderful, and it is well 
 known that Porphyry, an ancient opposer of the Bible and Chris- 
 tianity, argued on that account that Daniel's prophecies niust 
 have been written ajler the events, and they were to be found 
 too all recorded in history.* But the particularity of the prophe- 
 cies of Daniel is not more remarkable than some of the pro- 
 phecies of our Savior, and nothing but denial without the sha- 
 dow of a substantial proof is brought against either. 
 
 The voice which itself speaks from these veiy prophecies is 
 louder than any external proof, and he who hearkens to it will 
 find it difficult not to feel that they came from a holy man of 
 old who spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost, from that 
 man of God whose name is imperishably inscribed on his pro- 
 phecies. 
 
 The great and leading object of these prophecies seems to 
 be, to fix the era of the first advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and to teach that the kingdom of God would be set up at the 
 close of a series of kingdoms, the last of which had been a great 
 oppressor of the Jews. They were also to confirm and strength- 
 en the godly in times of great trial, cheering them with pro- 
 mises of strength equal to their day, and a full participation in 
 every blessing promised as the fruits of the reign of the Messiah. 
 The same ofiice of confirming and strengthening, the visions 
 of Daniel still perform, and were designed to perform, in helping 
 the disciple more firmly to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and, 
 believing, to have life through his name. They are still the 
 more sure word of prophecy, a light shining in a dark place 
 over the manger, and cross, and sepulchre of Jesus, and over 
 the mount of his ascension to God's right hand, until the day 
 dawn, and the day-star arise in our hearts, (2 Pet 1 : 19,) until 
 with all the other helps there is produced that firm experience 
 
 * Comm. p. 10. 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 of Christ formed in us the hope of glory, which is surer than all 
 outward proof, higher than all miracle — until the dawn of per- 
 fect peace, and the star of an unchanging confidence, give the 
 foretokens of the eternal day of glory when God shall be all 
 iu all. 
 
 Is there not, moreover, a use for these prophecies of which we 
 scarcely have begun to think — that they will be a great and effec- 
 tual means in persuading the Jews that their Messiah has indeed 
 come ? On their hearts has long been die vail ; but when they 
 begin in the great depths of their sorrows to seek the Lord, the 
 vail shall be taken away, and perceiving all that the prophets have 
 spoken of Jesus, shall become his disciples. The great moral 
 drama of this world will not be closed, until the Jews shall be 
 introduced to bow the knee to Jesus, and confess that he is 
 Lord to the glory of God the Father. Then shall even those 
 prophecies which have seemed only to shadow forth spiritual 
 mercies by temporal imagery, be even literally fulfilled in un- 
 exampled earthly peace and prosperity. Then in the Father's 
 own time when all things are subdued unto him, shall the quick 
 and the dead be made to stand before Christ the Judge, whose 
 appearing as compared with his first advent to receive his king- 
 dom, is worthy to be preeminently distinguished as his second 
 COMING. To wait for Christ's appearing, is not to expect every 
 moment that he will come forth from his throne in heaven, but 
 to have those vivid feelings respecting it which every thought- 
 ful Christian has at least at limes, when that period, even though 
 it be a thousand years ofi^, shall seem to be hastening on, soon 
 as the sun which sets to-day shall come on the morrow. It is 
 to look for the providential indications of his coming, as gather- 
 ed from the progress of his kingdom, and as a disciple to feel 
 that the arrival of that kingdom is made inseparably connected 
 with his own efforts to extend it through the whole world. 
 
 Haverhill^ Mass, 
 July 18, 1842. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Page. 
 The long warfare between the kings of Egypt and Syria, with 
 the calamities it brought on the Jews, .... 13 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The desecration and the cleansing of the sanctuary, . . G2 
 SECTION IIL 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The four beasts, the little horn of the fourth, and the reign of the 
 Son of man, . 93 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER II : 31 45. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar's Dream, 141 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER IX : 24 27. 
 
 The vision of the seventy weeks, 164 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER XII. 
 Conclusion, 201 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE LONG WARFARE BETWEEN THE KINGS OF EGYPT AND 
 SYRIA, WITH THE CALAMITIES IT BROUGHT ON THE JEWS. 
 
 Chapters x, xi, xii, contain one vision. Chap. x. is in- 
 troductory, and needs no explanation except what will be giv- 
 en under the other two. 
 
 1 Also I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to con- 
 firm and strengthen him. 
 
 The introduction does not end with chap, x, but extends 
 through this verse, and through the first clause of the verse 
 following. 
 
 Darius the Mede, was the Cyaxares II, son of Astyages, of 
 profane history. He was king of Media, when Babylon was 
 taken by the confederate armies of the Medes and Persians, 
 under the command of Cyrus, then a Persian prince, the son 
 of Mandane, Cyaxares' sister, and of Cambyses, her husband, 
 king of Persia. Darius " was made king over the realm of 
 the Chaldeans" (9: 1) in the year 538 before the Christian 
 era, and the Medes and Persians then began to flow together 
 into one empire — Cyrus consenting that his uncle should 
 have a joint title with him in the government, and yielding 
 him the first place of honor during life. On the death of Da- 
 rius, about two years afterward, Cyrus, who had married the 
 2 
 
14 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL II: 1. 
 
 daughter of Darius, became sole head of the empire. Comp- 
 Dan. 5: 28, 31 and Isa. 45: 1—3. 
 
 Whom did the angel stand to confirm ? Darius, cr Mi- 
 chael ? The two last verses of chap. x. read thus : — *' And 
 now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia : and 
 when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Graecia shall come 
 
 and there is none that holdeth with me in these things 
 
 but Michael your prince." The word translated holdeth is 
 only another form of the same verb translated to conjirm; 
 and the meaning is, that none but Michael joined his strength 
 with Gabriel's, none but Michael assisted and upheld him 
 against the princes of Persia and Greece. Thus also, 10: 
 13, — " The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me 
 one and twenty days : but lo Michael; one of the chief 
 princes, came to help me ; and I remained there with the 
 kings of Persia." As the angel Gabriel had said, 10: 13, 20, 
 21, that Michael helped him, so here, in 11: 1, he says that 
 he once helped Michael. The assistance rendered by Mi- 
 chael to Gabriel, was not long before Gabriel appeared in 
 this vision to Daniel, viz. in the third year of the reign of Cy- 
 rus, 534 B. C. (See 10: 1.) The aid rendered by Gabriel 
 to Michael was in the first year of Darius, five years before 
 Michael rendered a similar service to him. It was not Da- 
 rius, therefore, but the angel Michael, the tutelar angel of 
 the Jewish nation, whom Gabriel " stood to confirm." 
 
 This language is probably symbolical, though it has for its 
 basis the real existence and agency of angels ; and by it events 
 are described which are narrated in plain terms in sacred his- 
 tory. After the Jews had returned to their own land, agree- 
 ably to a decree of Cyrus in the first year of his reign, and 
 had begun to build their temple, *' the people of the land 
 hired counsellors against them to frustrate their purpose, all 
 the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Da- 
 rius, [Darius the son of Hystaspes,] king of Persia," Ezra 4: 
 4, 5. This opposition began as early as the second year of 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 2. 15 
 
 the return of the Jews, (Ezra 3: 8,) and some injurious in- 
 fluence would seem to have been exerted on the mind of Cy- 
 rus, and to have led Daniel to observe a season of humilia- 
 tion and fasting, 10: 2, 3. During that period of anxiety, 
 Daniel searched the Scriptures still more carefully, (see 10: 
 12,) to understand whether deliverance from captivity was 
 then truly to come to his countrymen ; how soon also the 
 greater deliverance by their Messiah was to come. And the 
 twenty-one days during which Gabriel is represented as hav- 
 ing been withstood by the prince of Persia, 10: 13, corres- 
 pond with the time during which Daniel was fasting. For 
 the event symbolized by the declarations in 10: 20 — " When 
 
 1 am gone forth, lo, the prince of Graecia shall come" — see 
 under 11: 3. 
 
 2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand 
 up yet three kings in Persia ; and the fourth shall be far richer than 
 thp.y all : and by his strength through his riches, he shall stir up 
 all against the realm of Graecia. 
 
 The word " the truth,'' is, in 10: 21, " that which is noted 
 in the scripture [or book] of truth" — i. e. what is purposed 
 surely to take place. With this clause the introduction ends ; 
 and here, or at the end of the first verse, should have been 
 the division of chapters x and xi. 
 
 This revelation was made to the prophet, as already noticed, 
 in the third year of the reign of Cyrus, (10: 1,) and it rela- 
 ted to long warfare ; for such is the meaning of the word in 
 that place translated " time appointed." After Cyrus, who 
 died 529 B. C, were (1) Cambyses his son, the Ahasuerus 
 mentioned in Ezra 4: 6, whose reign closed 522 B. C. ; (2) 
 Smerdis, an impostor and usurper, the Artaxerxes mentioned 
 in Ezra 4: 7, who perished after a reign of about seven 
 months; (3) Darius, the son of Hystaspes, who married 
 the daughter of Cyrus, and died 486 B. C, having reigned 
 thirty-six years. The fourth king was Xerxes I, who having 
 
16 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 3. 
 
 made preparation throughout all the Persian empire for three 
 years together, invaded Greece, 480 B. C, at the head of an 
 army of five millions, including the attendants of the camp — 
 though this number, as indeed most accounts of numbers 
 given by the Greek historians of their enemies, may be re- 
 ceived with considerable abatement. He also formed an alli- 
 ance with the Carthagenians, and engaged them to muster 
 an army, (which were collected partly out of Africa, and 
 partly out of Spain and Gaul, and numbered 300,000,) to ha- 
 rass the Greek colonies in Sicily and lower Italy, while he 
 should fall on Greece itself. To prepare such an expedition, 
 and sustain so vast a multitude, caused immense expense ; 
 and yet was his wealth still superabundant. There is a re- 
 mark of Herodotus, which strikingly confirms the last clause 
 of this verse — ■" What nation was there," says the Greek 
 historian, " that Xerxes led not out of Asia into Greece ?" 
 
 3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great do- 
 minion, and do according to his will. 
 
 This was Alexander the Great, who ascended the throne 
 of Macedon, 336 B. C. Between the death of Xerxes and 
 the commencement of Alexander's reign, there was an inter- 
 val of one hundred and twenty years ; and eight kings more 
 sat on the throne of Persia, the last of whom was Darius 
 Codomanus. Alexander having subdued Egypt and Asia 
 Minor, and destroyed Tyre and Gaza, proceeded against 
 Darius, conquered him, and became master of the whole Per- 
 sian empire, 331 B. C. He was now lord of all the nations 
 between the Hadriatic Sea and the river Ganges. He ruled 
 with despotic sway ; and it may be said of him as was said 
 by the prophet of a king of Babylon, " Whom he would he 
 slew, and whom he would he kept alive, and whom he would 
 he set up, and whom he would he put down," Dan. 5: 19. 
 
 When Alexander was in Palestine, and had taken Tyre, 
 he sent out commissaries to obtain provisions. The Jews 
 
IJNTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 4. 17 
 
 refused to furnish supplies, alleging their oath of subjection 
 to Persia. Alexander was so enraged, that as soon as he de- 
 stroyed Tyre, he marched against Jerusalem, to punish the 
 Jews as severely as he had punished the Tyrians. He was 
 met by the high priest and sanhedrim in their official costume, 
 and by all the people in white robes, in solemn procession, 
 out of the city ; and whether from awe at the spectacle, or 
 from recollecting, as Josephus relates it, that the very person 
 now^ high priest appeared to him in a dream, in Macedonia, 
 and in the name of God promised him success in the war 
 against Persia, (though this dream was probably a device by 
 Alexander to turn the omen of the religious procession to good 
 account, for the encouragement of his army,) whether from 
 one cause or the other, his rage was subdued, he himself did 
 homage to the God of Abraham, and became the patron of 
 the Jews. To this event does the angel probably allude, 10: 
 20, when he says, " And now will I return to fight with the 
 prince of Persia ; and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of 
 Graecia shall come." 
 
 The reason why Xerxes was the last Persian king spoken 
 of, is probably that his expedition into Greece first led the 
 way to the downfall of his kingdom. For he met with a se- 
 ries of disastrous defeats, which stimulated the Greeks to 
 make successive expeditions on their part into Persia, until 
 under Alexander they conquered it. The expedition of 
 Xerxes was in effect the ruin of Persia, and so historians re- 
 gard it. 
 
 4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and 
 shall be divided toward 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. 
 
 Alexander perished, of a drunken debauch, or, as some say, 
 of poison, at the age of thirty-three, after a reign of about 
 twelve years, when he stood at the height of his conquests. 
 2* 
 
18 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 4. 
 
 His kingdom was broken like a potter's vessel. Great confu- 
 sion arose, on his death, in respect to the succession. For 
 though he had a son by his wife Barsina, named Hercules, 
 and another child was expected by Roxana, and a natural 
 brother, Aridaeus, was living, he refused to bequeath his 
 sceptre to either of them, or to any one else, except, as he 
 said, "to the most worthy." It was at last settled in a con- 
 ference of his officers, that Aridaeus should be proclaimed 
 king ; the expected child by Roxana, if a son, be associated 
 with him in the empire, and the government of the provinces 
 be distributed among the generals. The expected heir was 
 born, Alexander Aegus. Aridaeus was put to death, with 
 many of his friends, after a reign of seven years, by Olympias, 
 Alexander's mother, who had now, by means of her grandson, 
 gotten the power into her own hands. Next she herself was 
 slain, by Cassander, governor of the province of Macedon, in 
 revenge for the death of his brother, one of the number of 
 Aridaeus' friends that had been put to death. Being ambi- 
 tious of the throne of Macedon, Cassander slew the young 
 king also, at the age of fourteen, with his mother, 310 B. C. 
 And in the year following, Hercules, the remaining son, and 
 his mother, were despatched by the governor of the Pelopon- 
 nesus, where they then were. 
 
 In the year 304 B.C., many of Alexander's generals, among 
 whom the government of the provinces had been distributed, 
 took the name of kings, as they were already in reality, and 
 falling into war and alliance among themselves, were reduced 
 to four, between whom there was a formal division of the 
 kingdom, 301 B. C. ; viz. Cassander, who had Macedonia 
 and Greece on the west of Palestine ; Lysimachus, who had 
 Thrace, Bithynia, and part of Asia Minor, on the north ; 
 Seleucus, who had Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Syria, on the 
 east and north-east, and also considerable territory in Asia 
 Minor ; Ptolemy, son of Lagus, who had Arabia, Egypt and 
 Libya on the south, also Palestine and Ccele-Syria, i. e. Hoi- 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL lit 5. 19 
 
 low Syria, the valley lying between the two ridges of the Leb- 
 anon mountains, and extending from the 32nd to the 33d de- 
 gree of latitude, sometimes, however, including more — the 
 eastern boundary line being the mountains on the east and 
 north-east of the Jordan, embracing Philadelphia, and sweep- 
 ing around Damascus. The phrase " toward the four winds 
 of heaven," does not probably denote here this exact divi- 
 sion of four, but means that Alexander's kingdom was di- 
 vided asunder in every direction. Compare Matt. 24: 31, 
 " He shall gather his elect from the four winds." Thus was 
 Alexander's kingdom plucked up forever, and others besides 
 his heirs were established in his place. 
 
 5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes ; 
 and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion ; his kingdom 
 shall be a great dominion. 
 
 The king of the south was the king of Egypt, viz. Ptolemy, 
 son of Lagus — the words " south" and " north" being used 
 to denote the countries lying in those directions from Pales- 
 tine. He was the first established in his kingdom, and hav- 
 ing gained possession of Jerusalem by treachery, ( Josephus 
 xii. 1,) he claimed Palestine in the partition of the kingdom. 
 " One of his princes," means another of Alexander's chief- 
 tains, viz. Seleucus Nicator, who assumed the title of king 
 of Syria; in the next verse "king of the north." Ptolemy 
 was a powerful prince, but Seleucus became mightier than 
 he, and the race of kings, that sprung from him, stronger 
 than the Egyptian, as the sequel of the chapter will show. 
 He is called by the ancient historians " the greatest king after 
 Alexander." He subjected to his sway all the countries from 
 the Hellespont to India, and the era of the Seleucidae dates 
 from his reign. The history of these two kings is now alone 
 taken, because the others had no concern with Judea, and 
 were soon displaced. Judea fell now to one, and then to the 
 other of them, as it had also to Greece, and Persia, and 
 Babylon. 
 
20 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 6. 
 
 6 And in the end of years they shall join themselves together; for 
 the king's daughter of the south shall come to the king of the north 
 to make an agreement : but she shall not retain the power of the arm ; 
 neither shall he stand, nor his arm : but she shall be given up, and 
 they that brougltt her, and he that begat her, and he that strength- 
 ened her in these times. 
 
 About fifty years had elapsed from the division of the king- 
 dom in 301 B. C, and Ptolemy I, Seleucus I, and Antio- 
 chus I, Soter, his son and successor, were dead. Ptolemy II, 
 Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy 1, and Antiochus II, Theus, 
 son of Antiochus I, were now on the thrones of Egypt and 
 Syria, — the appellations " king of the north," and " king of 
 the south," being used here for the race of the two respective 
 monarchs of Egypt arid Syria. They had been engaged in 
 war with each other, until a peace was agreed on, solicited 
 by Antiochus TI, on account of revolts in his eastern provinces. 
 The conditions, to which Antiochus II. submitted, were, that 
 divorcing his first wife Laodice, and disinheriting her chil- 
 dren, he should marry Ptolemy's daughter, Berenice, and 
 settle the succession of the kingdom on her male issue. Be- 
 renice accordingly came, accompanied by her father, and a 
 large retinue of Egyptian servants, first to Pelusium, and 
 thence by sea to Syria. The phrase which describes the ob- 
 ject of her coming, and which is translated " to make an 
 agreement," is literally to effect an adjustment, or ratify peace. 
 Ptolemy II. died two years after his daughter's marriage, and 
 thus she retained not the power of the arm, i. e. her father's 
 aid to Syria and herself. " He that begat her," and " strength- 
 ened her" was taken away by death. Antiochus also was 
 soon to fall. For having now nothing to hope or to fear from 
 his old enemy, and recent ally, (*' arm,") he removed Bere- 
 nice, and recalled Laodice, who, to prevent a repetition of 
 her disgrace, and redeem her children from disinheritance, 
 took an early opportunity to poison her husband. She also 
 caused Berenice, with her infant son, and very many of her 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 7 ^9. 21 
 
 Egyptian o.7«"^"'ants, {" they who brought her,") to be slain, 
 and by a decree forged in the name of the deceased king, 
 procured the succession of the kingdom to Seleucus II, Cal- 
 iuicus, her eldest son, 246 B. C. 
 
 For the phrase " he that begat her," there is the marginal 
 reading, in the English Bible, " he whom she brought forth," 
 — i. e. her son who was slain along with her. This reading 
 may be the true one, but it requires an alteration of the pre- 
 sent vowels of the Hebrew word. 
 
 7 But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand uj) in his estate, 
 which shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress 
 of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall 
 
 8 prevail : and shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with 
 their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and gold ; 
 
 9 and he shall continue more years than the king of the north. So 
 the king of the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall re- 
 turn into his own land. 
 
 "A branch of her roots," was her brother Ptolemy III, 
 Euergetes, by the same father Ptolemy II, whom he succeed- 
 ed on the throne of Egypt. He hastened, with the army, 
 (the definite article is in the original, also the preposition 
 commonly rendered to, which may describe his coming forth 
 to the army to place himself at their head,) to avenge the 
 death of his sister. He made himself master of almost all 
 Syria, slew Laodice, and was subjugating the Syrian pro- 
 vinces in the east, when he was obliged to return home, to 
 quell a sedition that arose in his absence. The " fortress of 
 the king of the north," was probably Seleucia, a. fortified 
 place, the sea-port of Syria, one of the nine cities of that 
 name built by Seleucus I. It lay near the mouth of the 
 Orontes, which, flowing from the Lebanon mountains, emp- 
 tied into the north-eastern section of the Mediterranean. 
 Ptolemy took this city, among others in Syria, placed in it 
 an Egyptian garrison, which held possession for about thirty 
 years, until Antiochus the Great recaptured it. (Comp. under 
 
22 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 7 9. 
 
 verse 10.) The chief city of Syria, and residence of the Sy- 
 rian kings, was Antioch, fifteen miles above Seleucia, on the 
 same river, built also by Seleucus I, and named in honor of 
 his father, or, according to some, of his son and successor, 
 Antiochus I. There is no mention in history, that Ptolemy 
 took Antioch itself. He returned to Egypt, carrying vi^ith 
 him out of the Syrian provinces an immense quantity of ves- 
 sels of silver and gold, and idols to the number of twenty-five 
 hundred, among which were many that Cambyses, son of 
 Cyrus, had seized in an expedition into Egypt, and carried 
 into Persia. The word translated "princes," has in the 
 original the primary meaning o^ molten images, which is doubt- 
 less its signification in verse 8. 
 
 Some translate the phrase, " shall continue more years," 
 etc., " shall continue some years after the king of the north." 
 This indeed expresses the same sentiment ; but the preposi- 
 tion used in this particular connexion, is the common parti- 
 cle to denote the comparative degree. 
 
 The last clause of verse 9, grammatically reads. He [the 
 king of the north] shall come against the kingdom of the 
 king of the south, and shall return to his own land. Seleu- 
 cus Callinicus prepared a great army against Ptolemy to re- 
 cover the dominions which Ptolemy had seized, but he was 
 defeated. A peace having been concluded between them, 
 at the instance of Ptolemy, 243 B. C, Seleucus, some twelve 
 years after, marched into the east, to subdue the province of 
 the Parthians, which had revolted from him. He was over- 
 thrown, taken prisoner by Arsaces governor of the Parthians, 
 and confined there until he died of a fall from his horse, 226 
 B. C. Ptolemy III. out-lived him some four or five years. 
 
 10 But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude 
 of great forces : and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and 
 pass through : then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his 
 fortress. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 10, 11. 23 
 
 The sons of Seleucus Callinicus were Seleucus III, Cerau- 
 nus and Antiochus III, the Great. Seleucus Ceraunus suc- 
 ceeded to the throne, and chiefly by the instrumentality of his 
 kinsman Achaeus, was excited (" stirred up") to proceed at 
 the head of an array to the recovery of what had been lost in 
 his father's reign ; but proving inefficient, he was poisoned by 
 two of his generals. He was succeeded by his younger bro- 
 ther Antiochus, B. C. 223, then a youth of only fifteen years 
 of age. On the death of Ptolemy III, Euergetes, and the 
 succession of his son Ptolemy IV, Philopater, B. C. 221, An- 
 tiochus was influenced by his prime-minister Hermias to pro- 
 ceed directly against the king of Egypt ; but his first cam- 
 paign effected but litde. His second resulted in the recap- 
 ture of Seleucia, and in getting possession also of Ptolemais, 
 Tyre and Damascus, cities of Coele-Syria, with many cities 
 of Palestine, which, in the partition of Alexander's kingdom, 
 had been assigned to the king of Egypt. He also took Phil- 
 adelphia beyond Jordan, a place of great strength, the an- 
 cient Rabbath-Ammon, rebuilt by P. Philadelphus, and call- 
 ed by his name. The clause, " then shall he return," etc. 
 seems to denote, not the return of Antiochus to his own city, 
 (comp. verse 7,) but his penetrating to one of the fortified 
 cities of the king of Egypt — perhaps Philadelphia, to which 
 he marched, after several battles on the sea coast. Or the 
 word " return" may be connected with the following verb, 
 and have the force of the adverb again, (which is a very fre- 
 quent Hebrew usage,) and here describe his march on his se- 
 cond expedition as far as Raphia, a frontier fortress of Egypt. 
 
 ] 1 And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and he 
 shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the 
 north : and he [the king of the north] shall set forth a great multi- 
 tude ; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. 
 
 P. Philopater in person now took the field, at the head of 
 a large army of 70,000 foot, 5,000 horse, and 73 elephants. 
 
24 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 12 14. 
 
 and encamped at Raphia. Antiochus met him with an army 
 of 62,000 foot, 6,000 horse, and 102 elephants, and experi- 
 enced a total defeat. 
 
 12 And when he hath taken away the multit\ide, his heart shall be 
 lifted up ; and he shall cast down many ten thousands : but he 
 shall not be strengthened by it. 
 
 P. Philopater was a profligate king, easily elated, and too 
 fond of pleasure to pursue the advantage he had just gained, 
 —otherwise, he might have deprived Antiochus of his whole 
 empire. He made peace with Antiochus on condition of the 
 cession of Palestine and Coele-Syria, and thus gave Antio- 
 chus opportunity to recruit. Much discontent followed in 
 consequence of his lenity to Antiochus, which terminated in 
 open rebellion. 
 
 13 For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a mul- 
 titude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after cer- 
 tain years with a great army and with much riches. 
 
 Antiochus having been on an expedition of several years 
 in the east, to subdue rebellions, and strengthen his domin- 
 ion, now returned with the reputation of a great and valiant 
 prince, and with resources vastly increased. 
 
 14 And in those times there shall many stand up against the king 
 of the south : also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves 
 to establish the vision; but they shall fall. 
 
 To " establish the vision " seems to denote the vision 
 against the king of the south, viz. that " many shall stand up 
 against the king of the south." About the time of the re- 
 turn of Antiochus from the east, Ptol. Philopater died, and 
 Ptolemy V, Epiphanes, his son, was placed on the throne, at 
 five years of age, 204 B. C. There was a conspiracy formed 
 against him in Egypt, as soon as his father died. Very soon 
 after this, Antiochus, and Philip, the fifth king of Macedon 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 15. 25 
 
 from the death of the sons of Cassander, entered into a league 
 to seize and divide the dominions of the young king. Those 
 designated by the phrase " robbers of thy people," — robbers 
 of the prophet's countrymen, — could not have been the Ro- 
 mans, as some have supposed ; for the Romans were not 
 against, but for the young king, and therefore did not con- 
 firm the part of the vision which relates to the king of the 
 south. Thfe phrase has been supposed by others* to designate 
 violent men among the Jews, who seized the opportunity of 
 Antiochus' entrance into Palestine, in the second year of 
 Ptolemy's reign, to revolt from Ptolemy, to whom they were 
 then subject, and join Antiochus against him, but who were 
 afterwards severely chastised by Scopas, General of the Egyp- 
 tian forces, sent to recover Palestine, while Antiochus was 
 absent on an expedition against the king of Pergamos. To 
 this it seems an almost insuperable objection, that those who 
 joined Antiochus are called " upright ones," in v. 17. The 
 phrase more probably designates Scopas himself, who, while 
 discharging his commission to subdue the Jews, had enrich- 
 ed himself with plundering them. He, too, plotted against 
 Ptolemy's life, in the ninth year of his reign, but neglecting 
 the opportunity to strike the blow at once, was discovered^ 
 and, with his accomplices, who perhaps were in the army 
 with him, and shared some of the plunder, put to death. 
 
 The phrase is literally, sons of burglars of thy people. In 
 the Septuagint it is, sons of the pests of thy people. The 
 same word translated " robbers," is applied to wild beasts, 
 Is. 35: 9, where it is translated " ravenous.'''' It is also ap- 
 plied to those who spoiled and devastated the Jews, Ezek. 7: 
 22. The word sons denotes here, as also in many other 
 places, the class or kind of persons. 
 
 15 So [Heb. And] the king of the north shall come, and cast up a 
 mount, and take the most fenced cities : and the arms of the 
 
 * Rosenmuller, Bishop Newton. 
 3 
 
26 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 16, 17. 
 
 south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall 
 
 16 there be any strength to withstand. But he that cometh against 
 him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand be- 
 fore him : and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his 
 hand shall be consumed. 
 
 Antiochus besieged and took Sidon, Gaza, and other forti- 
 fied cities in Palestine. Those armies which were as arms 
 to Egypt, for its defence, even its choicest troops, he easily 
 repulsed, and no insurmountable obstacles stood in his way. 
 He then with a small detachment entered the province of Ju- 
 dea, — " the glorious land," (comp. verse 20, also Ezek. 20: 
 6, 15) ; but he there encountered so much resistance from 
 an Egyptian garrison left in Jerusalem, that to reduce it he 
 was obliged to summon his whole army. As he was occu- 
 pied some time in taking the garrison, the sustenance of the 
 land was consumed by the soldiers. And Josephus well re- 
 marks on the war between Antiochus and Egypt, that whe- 
 ther the former was conqueror, or was beaten, it was the fate 
 «^the Jews to suffer, like a ship tossed in a tempest between 
 the angry billows, Antiq. xii. chap, iii, sec. iii. The last 
 clause may however read. He shall stand in the glorious 
 land, and destruction shall be in his han^. There are soiilfe 
 who apply these two verses to the Romans, but it does vio- 
 lence to the context, and proceeds on the suppositon that the 
 Romans are designated by the phrase " robbers of thy peo- 
 ple." It would, moreover, be improper for the Romans to 
 receive the title of " king of the north," merely for the victory 
 they afterwards obtained over Antiochus, (verse 18) ; be- 
 cause they did not take his kingdom from him, nor make 
 fiim tributary, but simply required him to pay the expenses 
 of the war. 
 
 17 He shall also [even] set his face to enter with the strength of 
 his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him ; thus shall he do : 
 and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her ; 
 but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 18, 19. 27 
 
 Antiochus had fully determined to undertake the conquest 
 of Egypt, and was devoting all his strength to the work. 
 The Jews, here called " upright ones," (i. e. compared with 
 the surrounding heathen, or so called because they were a 
 nation consecrated to God,) had transferred their allegiance 
 from Ptolemy to him, and now aided him against their for- 
 mer master. He gave his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy, 
 for the furtherance of his ambitious schemes, and used hii? 
 influence to induce her to betray her husband. But she es- 
 poused her husband's cause, and joined with him in congratr 
 ulating the Romans for the victory they obtained over hei 
 father. The last clauses may, however, read. And he shall 
 give him a young damsel to ruin it, [i. e. his land,] but it [vizr. 
 this device] shall not stand, neither shall it be for him. 
 
 18 After this shall he turn his face unto tlie isles, and shall take 
 many : but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach 
 offered by him to cease : without his own reproach he shall cause 
 
 19 it to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face toward the foit 
 of hiS own land : but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found. 
 
 By " isles," is meant, probably, not islands which he took 
 along the coast of Asia Minor, but the Peloponnesus, and the 
 isles and maritime towns of Greece, then under the protection 
 of the Romans, and confederate with them. Antiochus, to 
 stop the growing power of the Romans eastward, and to 
 check their interference in aid of Egypt against himself, had 
 resolved to wage war against them. With a fleet of about 
 three hundred vessels, he took Rhodes, Samos, Colophon, and 
 penetrated to Euboea, a large island on the eastern coast 
 of Greece. The next season, the Romans came against 
 him, under Acilius, the Consul, and the two armies met at 
 Thermopylae, where Antiochus' army were all cut off", but 
 about five hundred. The year after, conquered both by sea 
 and land, on the coasts of Asia, by the Romans under Lucius 
 Scipio, thei Consul, he submitted to a disgraceful peace, the 
 
28 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 20. 
 
 conditions of which were, that he should quit Asia Minor, 
 and pay the expenses of the war, estimated at 15,000 talents ; 
 five hundred down, twenty-five hundred on the ratification of 
 the treaty by the Senate, and the remaining twelve thousand 
 in twelve successive years. He returned to Syria, [in the 
 original it is^br^s, or strong holds, plural; i. e. not Antioch 
 only, but the fortified cities of his land ;] thence went into 
 his eastern provinces, to replenish his exhausted treasury, en- 
 tered a temple in the province of Elymais in Babylonia, to 
 seize its treasures, and there perished, with his followers, a 
 victim to the rage of the people at his sacrilege, 187 B. C, 
 after a reign of thirty-six years. Some of the ancient histo- 
 rians say, that he was slain in a drunken carousal by his own 
 men. The victory which the Romans obtained over him, 
 was without one reproachful defeat on their part. The phrase 
 " for his own behalf," v. 18, is the same in the original with 
 the phrase " upon him," at the close of the verse, and the 
 preposition may be rendered either for or upon. The clause 
 literally reads — But a prince shall cause his reproach (i. e. 
 the reproach offered by Antiochus) to cease for him — i. e. to 
 Antiochus' own disadvantage. 
 
 20 Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes, in the glory 
 of the kingdom : but within few days he shall be destroyed, nei- 
 ther in anger, nor in battle. 
 
 " The glory of the kingdom," is doubtless Palestine, which 
 was the best portion of the kingdom, (comp. note to v. 16, 
 also the designation "fattest places of the province," v. 24.) 
 " A raiser of taxes," etc. is, in the original, one who shall 
 cause the exactor to pass over the glory of the kingdom. — 
 " Stand up in his estate," (to stand upon his base, or in his 
 stead,) is used in the next verse, and also v. 7, to denote regu- 
 lar succession to the empire. To " be destroyed neither in 
 anger nor in battle," is to be despatched in some secret man- 
 ner, instead of beinor slain either in a civil commotion, as was 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 21. 29 
 
 Antiochus the Great, or in war. All these things agree in 
 Seleucus IV, Philopator, and in him alone. He succeeded 
 Antiochus the Great, of whom he was the eldest son. Through 
 the whole of his reign, he was obliged to extort from his suV 
 jects the one thousand talents a year, to pay his father's debt 
 to the Romans. The very event of his sending money-col- 
 lectors into Judea, is recorded in 2 Mace. iii. He reigned 
 only for the short space of ten years, and was "destroyed" 
 by poison administered by Heliodorus, his treasurer, 176 B. C. 
 There are those who, in their calculation of the end of the 
 world in 1843, apply this 20th verse to Augustus Caesar, and 
 make it a chief point in the construction of their chart of 
 chronology. Now Augustus Caesar cannot be here meant; 
 for, first, Augustus, at Rome, did not succeed Antiochus the 
 Great, in Syria. Antiochus being removed, like a statue 
 from its pedestal, Augustus was not set up in his stead. Se- 
 condly, he was not taken away within few days, but reigned 
 forty-five years. Thirdly, he was not " destroyed," not kill- 
 ed in battle, nor despatched in a secret manner, but he died 
 peacefully, in the bosom of his attendants, at the advanced 
 age of seventy-six. To apply the verse to him, therefore, is 
 at variance as well with history, as with the scope of the chap- 
 ter and laws of language. True, it is recorded in Luke 3: 
 1, that "there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that 
 all the world should be taxed." But Augustus is not the only 
 monarch who has taxed the people of his empire, or the peo- 
 ple of Judea ; and two monarchs who agree only ia one re- 
 spect, while they totally differ in others more important, can- 
 not be one and the same. 
 
 21 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 
 peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 
 
 The same interpreters suppose that this " vile person " was 
 Tiberius ; but as Augustus was not designated in the prece- 
 3* 
 
30 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 21. 
 
 ding verse, neither can his successor, Tiberius, be meant in 
 this. It is, moreover, equally opposed to history ; for the 
 sovereignty of Rome was repeatedly tendered by the Senate 
 to Tiberius, and at last accepted. 
 
 To Seleucus IV, Philopator, Antiochus IV, Epiphanes 
 succeeded, and to him alone does this description answer. 
 He also is the individual designated by " king of the north," 
 and " the king," throughout the remainder of the chapter — 
 as will be made abundantly manifest. 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes was younger brother to Seleucus IV, 
 and had been sent to Rome by his father, Antiochus the 
 Great, as a hostage for the fulfilment of the conditions of 
 peace. Seleucus IV, some time after he ascended the throne, 
 recalled his brother, having first sent to Rome, Demetrius, 
 his own son and lawful heir. Meantime, Seleucus was de- 
 stroyed before Antiochus Epiphanes reached home. Helio- 
 dorus, the treasurer who poisoned Seleucus, as above men- 
 tioned, was aiming to get the throne, and he had the consent 
 of a large portion of the people. There were a part also in 
 favor of Ptolemy VI, Philometor, a youth only twelve years 
 old, who had succeeded to Ptolemy V, Epiphanes, and whose 
 mother was sister to the deceased king, Seleucus, and there- 
 fore to Antiochus. But Antiochus Epiphanes, by flattering 
 professions and promises, having obtained the help of Eume- 
 nes, king of Pergamos, and of Attalus, his brother, procured 
 the Expulsion of Heliodorus, and securely seated himself on 
 the throne, with no open resistance on the part of the people 
 — they, too, having been conciliated by his flattering profes- 
 sions. 
 
 The phrase " honor of the kingdom," is not exactly the 
 same with " glory of the kingdom," v. 20, and seems to be 
 employed to denote the majesty of royalty, not Palestine, 
 which had already been called "glory of the kingdom." 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes was most fitly called " a vile person." 
 He lounged about the streets of Antioch, drunk, and caroused 
 
^ or THE ^ 
 
 UK-IVERSI^ 
 
 TERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 
 
 with the dissipated, sung songs and played on 
 promote their merriment, and gratified his brutal lust in open 
 sight of the people. So outrageous were his acts of folly and 
 shame, that he was often called, not by his title, Epipha- 
 nes, the illustrious^ but Epimanes, the mad-man. He would 
 parade the streets of Antioch in a long robe, with a garland 
 of roses on his head, and if any attempted to pass by him, he 
 would pelt them with stones, which he carried concealed un- 
 der his garment. At games in honor of Jupiter Olympius, 
 in the groves of Daphne, near Antioch, he rode, in proces- 
 sion, on a miserable horse. At the feast, suddenly throwing 
 up his cup and food, he ran the whole circuit of the table, 
 and in the concluding entertainment by comedians, played 
 antics, naked, along with them. Such are only a few exhi- 
 bitions of his vileness, among the many which history records. 
 
 22 And with the arras of a flood shall they be overflown from be- 
 fore him, and shall be broken ; yea, also the prince of the covenant. 
 
 The very first year of his reign opened with injuries to 
 the Jews. Onias, at that time High Priest, was removed, to 
 give place to Jason his brother, who had obtained it of the 
 king by paying a large sum of money, and by promising to 
 use the influence of his station in bringing the Jews over to 
 heathen manners and customs. Onias had held the office 
 twenty-four years, and it is recorded that " the laws were kept 
 very well, because of the godliness of Onias the High Priest, 
 and his hatred of wickedness," 2 Mace. 3: 1. 
 
 As soon as Jason entered upon his office, he began, in ac- 
 cordance with his promise, to induce his countrymen to 
 adopt heathen manners and customs ; he set them a signal 
 example, in sending to Tyre, to the celebration in honor of 
 Hercules, at which the king was present, an offering of three 
 hundred talents ; he instituted the exercises of the gymna- 
 sium, in Jerusalem, which seduced the priests as well as the 
 
32 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 22. 
 
 people from regular attendance on the duties of the temple, 
 2 Mace. 4: 12, 14, 18, 19. 
 
 In the year 172 B. C, Jason's younger brother, Menelaus, 
 by offering a still higher price for the high-priesthood, re- 
 ceived an appointment from the king to the office, and Jason 
 was required to retire. Menelaus found his brother's party 
 too strong for him, and he returned unsuccessful to Antioch. 
 On his solemnly abjuring the Jewish religion, along with his 
 followers, and promising to bring the whole nation to aposta- 
 tize to the religion of the heathen — an event which Jason 
 had not yet accomplished, to any general extent — he obtained 
 such aid from the king as Jason could not resist, and became 
 established in the high-priesthood, 171 B. C. Then began 
 to ensue a wide-spread, general apostasy.* This same year 
 also, Menelaus, on being summoned before the king, because 
 he had neglected to pay the price of his promotion, left his 
 brother, Lysimachus, as his deputy, who took many of the 
 golden vessels out of the temple, to discharge Menelaus' debt 
 to the king. This act of Lysimachus produced a tumult in 
 which he was slain, near the treasury, within the precincts of 
 the temple. 
 
 Onias, after long confinement at Antioch, was treacherous- 
 ly slain at the instigation of Menelaus, whom he had severely 
 reproved for the recent sacrilege committed by Lysimachus. 
 His removal, terminating in violent death, (though his death 
 was not with consent of the king,) is described in the last 
 clause of the verse, — "yea, also the prince of the covenant" 
 [shall be broken]. Substantially the same appellation is given 
 to the high priests in Is. 43: 28, viz. " the princes of the sanc- 
 tuary." Prince of the covenant, means head of the religious 
 institutions of the Jews, or, which is the same thing, head of 
 the sanctuary where those institutions were observed. Some 
 
 * It is observed in Henry's Commentary, that Josephus dates this 
 defection in the 142nd year of the Seleucidte, — i. e. 171 B. C. — ^the 6th 
 month and 6th day of the month ; but this date cannot be found. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 23. 33 
 
 interpreters have translated this last clause *' the prince that 
 is allied with him," viz. Ptolemy Philometor, his nephew. 
 But it is a great objection to this interpretation, that the word 
 " covenant" always means, in Daniel, the holy covenant of 
 the Jews, and that the idea of alliance, when meant, is con- 
 veyed by another word — which is also used twice in this pro- 
 phecy, viz. in verses 6, 23 ; where in v. 6, it is translated 
 " shall join themselves together," and in v. 23, " after the 
 league made with him." 
 
 Nor can the phrase " prince of the covenant," mean our 
 Lord Jesus Christ ; for the " vile person" being Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, and not Tiberius in whose reign our Lord Jesus 
 was crucified, so the object of that vile person's violence could 
 not have been our Savior. Christ is indeed called the " me- 
 diator of the new covenant," and in Mai. 3: 1, is designated 
 as the " messenger of the covenant." But it is to be remem- 
 bered that he shares many names in common with others, 
 such as "Apostle and High Priest," etc. Heb. 3: 1. 
 
 To the calamities above narrated, and to yet others follow- 
 ing them, was the language most applicable, " With the arms 
 of a flood [as by a wide-reaching flood], shall they be over- 
 flown from before him." 
 
 23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully : 
 for [Heb. and] he shall come up and become strong with a small 
 people. 
 
 The context would seem to denote a league made with the 
 Jews. Josephus remarks, on an occasion which will be no- 
 ticed under verse 28, that Antiochus Epiphanes " pretending 
 peace, got possession of the city by treachery, and ventured 
 to break the league he had made," Book xii. ch. v. sec. iv. 
 And again, in his second book against Apion, sec. vii., " He 
 [the king] attacked us while we were his associates and 
 friends." With comparatively small forces, reduced under 
 the reign of hi? two predecessors, he had become mighty ; and 
 
34 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 24. 
 
 his success and growing power led him to violate the pledges, 
 which he had given, in his feebler condition, to induce the 
 provinces attached to his kingdom still to adhere to him. 
 
 Possibly the first clause of verse 23, has its explanation in 
 the following note in Prideaux's Connexions, Vol. II. p. 129, 
 where he quotes from Athenseus, " These expenses were made 
 partly out of the prey, which, contrary to his faith given, he 
 took in Egypt, from king Philometor, then a minor." 
 
 24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the 
 province ; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, 
 nor his fathers' fathers ; he shall scatter among them the prey, 
 and spoil, and riches : yea^ and he shall forecast his devices against 
 the strong holds, even for a time. 
 
 In the year 173 B. C, Antiochus sent Apollonius to Egypt, 
 to congratulate the young king on the occasion of his becom- 
 ing of age, and receiving the crown — for until then, the af- 
 fairs of Egypt were conducted by the regency of his mother, 
 with the assistance of the ministers of state. He learned, on 
 Apollonius' return, that the Egyptian government were " not 
 well affected to his affairs," and were intending to recover 
 Palestine. He accordingly " provided for his own safety," 
 and " came to Joppa, and from thence to Jerusalem, where 
 he was honorably received of Jason, and of the city, and was 
 brought in with torch-light, and with great shoutings ; and 
 so afterward went with his host unto Phenice," 2 Mace. 
 4: 21, 22. This expedition of Antiochus was to prevent the 
 frontiers and fortified cities from falling into the hands of Ptol- 
 emy, and to put all things into a thorough posture of defence. 
 He had come into the possession of the territory of Palestine 
 and Coele-Syria, securely, and without open resistance — or 
 possibly the word " peaceably" may denote both in this verse 
 and verse 21 , comparatively quiet times. He scattered among 
 his soldiers and partizans, most freely, gold, silver and re- 
 wards, the spoils of the provinces in which he gave them rule, 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 25, 26. 35 
 
 or through which he led them in his expeditions — and this 
 to attach them more closely to his interests. Profusion and 
 prodigality were characteristic of him. In his drunken mo- 
 ments, he often threw money among the crowd, and gave gold 
 to entire strangers whom he accidentally met, and sometimes 
 presented great sums of money to cities in his kingdom. 
 There is a remark, in point, in 1 Mace. 3: 30, " He feared he 
 should not be able to have such gifts to give so liberally as he 
 did before ; for he had abounded above the kings that were 
 before him." Comp. also 2 Mace. 5: 15, 16, quoted under 
 verse 28. 
 
 25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king 
 of the south with a great army ; and the king of the south shall be 
 stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army ; but he 
 shall not stand : for they shall forecast devices against him. 
 
 Two years after Ptolemy VI. was crowned, Antiochus re- 
 solved not to wait for the threatened expedition of Egypt into 
 Palestine, but himself to carry the war into the enemy's coun- 
 try. He marched toward the frontiers of Egypt, where he 
 met Ptolemy's army ; and mainly by stratagem and great- 
 er skill, [" forecasting devices," laying and executing his 
 schemes,] he obtained the victory. At this time he attempted 
 nothing further, but returned to Tyre, put his army into win- 
 ter quarters, and made preparations for a vigorous campaign 
 the next season. 
 
 26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, 
 and his army [the army of Antiochus] shall overflow : and many 
 shall fall down slain. 
 
 In the opening of the year 170 B. C, Antiochus began his 
 next campaign. It is thus narrated in 1 Mace. 1: 17 — 19, 
 " He entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, 
 and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy, and made war 
 against Ptolemee king of Egypt : but Ptolemee was afraid of 
 
36 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11; 27. 
 
 him, and fled ; and many were wounded to death. Thus they 
 got the strong cities in the land of Egypt, and he took the 
 spoils thereof." Ptolemy's army met Antiochus' on the bor- 
 ders of Egypt, and were overcome, and Pelusium, a frontier 
 city, was taken by the invaders. Antiochus followed up his ad- 
 vantage, poured his forces into Egypt as a flood, penetrated 
 into the heart of the empire, made himself master of all but 
 Alexandria, and Ptolemy himself came into his hand§. 
 
 By the phrase " they that feed of the portion of his meat," 
 are designated the king's ministers, Comp. Dan. 1:5, 15, 19. 
 Now Eulseus, prime minister of state, to whom the young 
 prince's education was intrusted, had corrupted him with all 
 manner of luxury and effeminacy. Together with Lenna^us, 
 his associate minister of state, after having demanded, in the 
 name of the young king, the territory of Palestine, he adopted 
 measures most inefficient and inadequate ; and it was proba- 
 bly through the influence of these same ministers that Ptole- 
 my surrendered his person to Antiochus. Thus " they that 
 fed of the portion of his meat," prepared the way for these 
 disastrous defeats. The word rendered " destroy" literally 
 means to break, and is found elsewhere in such connections 
 as the following — " Reproach hath broken my heart" — " I 
 have broken the arm of Pharaoh," Ps. 69: 20. Ezek. 30: 21. 
 It denotes not the literal destruction of his person, but the 
 ruin of his fortunes, the overthrow of his power. 
 
 27 And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they 
 shall speak lies at one table ; but it shall not prosper : for yet the 
 end shall be at the time appointed. 
 
 Antiochus and Ptolemy each endeavored to circumvent the 
 other. Antiochus, at whose table Ptolemy ate, professed, 
 but falsely, to manage the aff*airs of Egypt as guardian to the 
 young king, his sister's son. Meantime the Alexandrians, 
 looking on Philometor as lost, and having his younger brother 
 with them, put him on the throne, with the title of Ptolemy 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 28. 37 
 
 Euergetes II. Antiochus, who had found Alexandria too 
 strong for him, laid a scheme, at the close of an expedition 
 the year following, to engage the two brothers in war, so that 
 the whole kingdom, weakened by intestine troubles, might be- 
 come his surer and more easy prey. But Philometor began now 
 to be roused by his misfortunes from his effeminacy and sloth ; 
 he saw through the plots of Antiochus, and the two brothers 
 coming to an agreement that both should reign conjointly, 
 they sent embassadors to Greece for auxiliary forces. Thus 
 what seemed to promise so well for Antiochus' prosperity, 
 amounted to nothing. His power to oppress was not to con- 
 tinue, his kingdom not to grow more and more extensive, and 
 powerful, and permanent, but to be broken to pieces and de- 
 stroyed, at the time appointed in the councils of Heaven, 
 Comp. verse 36. The word translated " time appointed," is 
 here altogether different from that in 10: 1, See under verse 2. 
 
 28 Then shall he [Heb, And he shall] return into his land with 
 great riches ; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant ; 
 and he shall do exploits^ and return to his own land. 
 
 While Antiochus was in Egypt on his second expedition, in 
 the year 170 B. C, a report spread at the north that he 
 was dead, and Jason, who had been compelled to give place 
 to Menelaus, (see under verse 22,) now thinking it a favorable 
 moment to recover his office, marched to Jerusalem with a 
 thousand men, and aided by many of his party residing in the 
 city, forced Menelaus into the fortress on mount Zion, and 
 made great slaughter of those he thought his adversaries. 
 An exaggerated rumor of the occurrence reaching Antiochus, 
 and leading him to suppose the Jews had revolted, he hastened 
 thither on his return to Antioch, laden with the rich spoils of 
 his Egyptian campaign. Jason fled at his approach, and fi- 
 nally perished a miserable exile, in Lacedemonia. Antiochus 
 entered Jerusalem with his army ; and though it had not re- 
 volted, yet he was so enraged at learning the people made great 
 4 
 
88 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 29. 
 
 rejoicings at the report of his death, that he plundered the city, 
 and slew 40,000 of its inhabitants, and made slaves of as many 
 more.* " Not content with this, he presumed to go into the 
 most holy temple of all the world ; Menelaus, that traitor to 
 the laws, and to his own country, being his guide : and taking 
 the holy vessels with polluted hands, and with profane hands 
 pulling down the things that were dedicated by other kings to 
 the augmentation, and glory, and honor of the place, he gave 
 them away." He also " carried out of the temple 1800 tal- 
 ents," 2 Mace. 5: 15, 16, 21. Comp. also, 1 Mace. 20—24. 
 Having perpetrated these deeds, and " left governors to vex 
 the nation — at Jerusalem, Philip, for his country a Phrygian, 
 and for manners more barbarous than he that set him there ; 
 and at Gerizim, Andronicus ; and beside, Menelaus, who 
 worse than all the rest bare an heavy hand over the citizens, 
 having a malicious mind against his countrymen, the Jews," 
 2 Mace. 5: 22, 23 — having done these things, he returned to 
 his own land.t The phrase " he shall do exploits" is, in the 
 original, like that in v. 17, " thus shall he do," — i. e. shall 
 accomplish his purpose. 
 
 29 At tlie time appointed he shall return, and come toward the 
 south ; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter. 
 
 At the time appointed in the councils of heaven, he went 
 again to Egypt with a large army of foot and cavalry, enraged 
 at the combination of the two Ptolemies, and determined to 
 
 * It is said in 2 Mace. 5: 1 1 , that Antiochus "took the city by force 
 of arms." Josephus says, Book xii. chap vii., that he "entered the city 
 without fighting, those of his own party opening the gates to him." 
 Probably he used force at first, the inhabitants through fear making 
 some resistance against his entrance ; but soon the gates were opened 
 in the manner Josephus relates. 
 
 t Prideaux and others relate, that Antiochus sacrificed a swine at 
 this time, and with part of the flesh made a broth which he sprinkled 
 all over the temple. But it is not mentioned by Josephus, or in the 
 two books of the Maccabees. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 30, 31. 39 
 
 wage a more furious war. But this expedition, unlike either 
 of the others, was destined to be abortive, and calamitous to 
 himself. The clause " it shall not be as the former, or as the 
 latter," may read, it shall not be the latter time as at the former. 
 
 -l) For the ships of Chittim shall come against him ; therefore he 
 shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy 
 covenant : so shall he do [and shall execute his purpose] ; he 
 shall even return, and have intelligence with tliem that forsake the 
 
 31 holy covenant. And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall 
 pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily 
 sacrijicr, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. 
 
 Kittim, or Chittim, occurs in Gen. 10: 4, as a name of one of 
 the sons of Javan, by whom the isles of the Gentiles were di- 
 vided. As in many other like instances, the name of the per- 
 son was given to the place which he settled. Chittim is gen- 
 erally mentioned in the Bible as a place to and from which the 
 communication was by ships, Num. 24: 24. Jer. 2: 10. Ezek. 
 27: 6. Is. 23: 12. It is applied, in 1 Mace 1: 1, to Macedonia 
 and Greece. The following is from Josephus, Book i. ch vi. 
 sec. i. — Cethimus [Chittim] possessed the island Cethima : it 
 is now called Cyprus ; and from that it is, that all islands, and 
 the greatest part of the sea-coasts are named Cethim [Chittim 
 or Kittim] by the Hebrews." — The phrase " holy covenant," 
 is synonymous with the sacred institutions, the holy religion, of 
 the Jews. — The phrase, "sanctuary of strength," is literally 
 sanctuary, the strong place — which it truly was. Tacitus, 
 in his History, Bk. v. sec. 12, speaks of it as built " after the 
 manner of a citadel and proper wall : the porches by which it 
 was surrounded were a most excellent fortress." This epithet 
 of strength is found also in Ps. 96: 6, — " Strength and beauty 
 are in his sanctuary." 
 
 The words " daily sacrifice," are in the original, the per- 
 petual. The phrase is found in full, in Num. 28: 3, 6, 10, 
 etc. ; also Ex. 29: 38 — 42, (where the account of its institu* 
 
40 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 30, 31. 
 
 tion is given) viz. the continual burnt offering, i. e. the sacri- 
 fice continually offered morning and evening. The epithet 
 " the continual," (for it has the article,) distinguishes it from 
 the other sacrifices, and would naturally become the familiar 
 and elliptical designation of this chief rite. 
 
 The clause, " arms shall stand on his part," means that 
 armed forces shall stand forth at his command, shall be con- 
 stituted by him and sent forth to execute his purpose. 
 
 When Antiochus entered Egypt on his last expedition, 168 
 B. C, he marched direct to Alexandria, the reduction of 
 which would have made him absolute master of the whole 
 kingdom. But he encountered an unexpected obstacle. 
 Ptolemy Euergetes II, whom the Alexandrians placed on the 
 throne, had sent to Rome for aid, and the Senate decreed to 
 send an embassy of three distinguished individuals, whose 
 commission was to go to Antiochus, and inform him that if he 
 persisted in the war, the Roman nation would thenceforth 
 treat him as an enemy. They came first to Brundusium, a 
 seaport in the heel of Italy, thence sailed to the coast of Greece, 
 thence by way of Chalcis, and the islands Delos and Rhodes, 
 to Alexandria. They met Antiochus four miles above the 
 city, as he was proceeding to besiege it. Antiochus recog- 
 nized in Popilius, one of the ambassadors, an acquaintance 
 during his former residence at Rome, and he extended his 
 hand to salute him. But Popilius declined, until he knew 
 whether Antiochus were the friend of Rome, and would com- 
 ply with the decree of the Senate. Antiochus requested time 
 for deliberation ; but Popilius drew with his staff a circle 
 round him in the sand, and demanded an answer before he 
 stepped out of it. Through dread of the Roman power, he 
 answered affirmatively. He immediately left Egypt, and to 
 give vent to his chagrin and rage at being thus baffled in his 
 designs, he detached from his army, on his return to Antioch, 
 a body of 22,000 soldiers, under Apollonius, one of his gene- 
 rals, to ravage Jerusalem. The particulars of Apollonius* 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11*. 30, 31. 41 
 
 attack are thus given in the first and second books of the Mac- 
 cabees, 1: 30—40. 5: 25, 26, — '' Coming to Jerusalem, and 
 pretending peace, he forbore till the holy day of the sabbath, 
 when taking the Jews keeping holy day, he commanded his 
 men to arm themselves. And so he slew all them that were 
 gone to the celebrating of the sabbath, and running through 
 the city v/ith weapons slew great multitudes. 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 wo- 
 men and children took they captive, and possessed the cattle. 
 Then builded they the city of David with a great and strong 
 wall, with mighty towers, and made it a strong hold for them, 
 and it was a place to lie in wait against the sanctuary. Thus 
 they shed innocent blood on every side of the sanctuary and 
 defiled it : insomuch that the inhabitants of Jerusalem fled be- 
 cause of them : whereupon the city was made an habitation 
 of strangers, and became strange to those that were born in 
 her, and her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness." 
 From this time forth, the daily sacrifice ceased. 
 
 These ravages were with the concurrence and counsel of 
 some of the apostate Jews. Josephus describes Menelaus as 
 "the origin of all the mischief, by persuading Antiochus 
 Epiphanes to compel the Jews to leave the religion of their 
 fathers," and adds that he " had been a wicked and impious 
 man, who, in order to get the government to himself, had 
 compelled his nation to transgress their own laws," Book xiK 
 ch. ix. sec. vii. Throughout these persecutions, and those 
 which followed, apostate Jews entered into the wicked designs 
 of the king, and delivered up such as they could find faithful 
 to their religion. Comp. Josephus, Book xiii. ch. i. sec. i. 
 
 There followed still worse oppressions. Antiochus wrote 
 to the provinces of his kingdom, that all should leave their 
 own religious institutions, and conform to such as he should 
 appoint ; and he sent officers to Jerusalem and the cities of 
 Judea, to enforce his decree. " Then many of the people 
 4* 
 
42 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 30, 31. 
 
 were gathered 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 Casleu 
 [about the 5th of Dec], in the hundred forty and fifth year, 
 (i. e. of the Syrian epoch, 168 B. C), they set up the 
 abomination of desolation, dedicated the temple to Jupiter 
 Olympius, 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 whosoever was found with any book of the testa- 
 ment, or if any consented to the law, the king's command- 
 ment was, that they should put him to death. Now the five 
 and twentieth day of the month, they did sacrifice upon the 
 idol-altar, which was upon the altar of God. At which 
 time, according to the commandment, they put to death cer- 
 tain women, that had caused their children to be circum- 
 cised. And they hanged the infants about their necks, and 
 rifled their houses, and slew them that had circumcised 
 them," 1 Mace. 1; 52—61. 2 Mace. 6: 1—6. The placing 
 of the idol-altar on the altar of God, and the sacrifice upon it, 
 was the profane act and token, by which the sanctuary was 
 thenceforth to be desolate. And shortly, shrubs began to 
 grow in the deserted courts of the Lord, as in a forest, I Mace. 
 14: 38.* 
 
 * Verses 30, 31 have received a most erroneous interpretation firom 
 several recent writers, who calculate the end of the world in A. D. 
 1843, The taking away of the daily sacrifice, they assert to be 
 the abolition of the pagan sacrifices, in the Roman empire, and 
 they assign this event to A. D. 508. But they come down to it 
 from their point of departure in verses 20, 21 : and it can need no 
 further words to show, that in that point they made a total mistake, 
 and therefore have erred all the way. The king under whom the 
 daily sacrifice — the continual burnt-offering — was taken away, was, 
 as the context shows, the same king mentioned in verse 21 ; and that 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 32 35. 43 
 
 32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt 
 by flatteries : but the people that do know their God shall be strong, 
 
 33 and do exploits. And they that understand among the people shall 
 instruct many : yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by 
 
 M captivity, and by spoil, many days. Now when they shall fall, 
 they shall be holpen with a little help : but many shall cleave to 
 
 35 them with flatteries. And some of them of understanding shall 
 fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to 
 the time of the end : because it is yet for a time appointed. 
 
 Events already narrated illustrate these verses in part. 
 Some others will now be adduced from the two histories of 
 
 king was Anliochus Epiphanes, to whom all history assigns deeds 
 that correspond precisely with the predictions in these two verses. 
 
 In respect to a regular morning and evening sacrifice among the 
 heathen — the continual burnt-oiTering — the Bible nowhere alludes to 
 such a thing, and it applies the phrase " the continual burnt offering," 
 to no other sacrifices than were offered by divine command on the 
 altar of God. 
 
 The advocates of this interpretation affirm that the first clause of 
 verse 30 — " the ships of Chittim shall come against him" — denotes 
 the incursions of the Goths upon the Roman empire. Now to say 
 nothing of making the Romans synonymous with " king of the 
 north," when in fact the Romans were not masters of Syria, the 
 application of Chittim to the Goths is manifestly against the ancient 
 usage. For Chittim was applied to the islands and coasts of the 
 Mediterranean, but the Goths inhabited northern and central Europe. 
 Moreover they made their incursions against Rome not in ships, but 
 by land. 
 
 The advocates of the interpretation abovementioned also affirm, that 
 the phrase "sanctuary of strength" denotes the city Rome, and yet 
 they bring, and can bring, no scriptural authority whatever for such 
 an application. The word " sanctuary" primarily denotes the holy 
 tabernacle, or the temple in Jerusalem. It is figuratively applied to 
 Jehovah^ Is. 8: 14 ; to heaven, Ps. 102: 19 ; and to Judah, Ps. 114: 2. 
 See further on 8: 11—14. 
 
 As to the time fixed on for the abolition of the pagan sacrifices, viz. 
 A. D. 508, it altogether contradicts history, and is a mere arbitrary 
 assumption without the support of one historian who assigns any im- 
 portant event to that year. Gibbon, in his chapter on the " Final De- 
 
44 INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 11: 32 35. 
 
 the life and times of the Maccabees, in which every specifica- 
 tion in these verses has a remarkable fulfihnent. There dwelt 
 in the humble village of Modin, in the tribe of Dan, be- 
 tween Jerusalem and the Mediterranean, a priest by the name 
 of Mattathias, who had five sons, John, Simon, Judas Mac- 
 cabeus, Eleazar and Jonathan. To this village the king's offi- 
 cers came to carry into effect the recent decree. They address- 
 ed Mattathias in language which furnishes an instance of the 
 " flatteries" used to " corrupt" the Jews, and which, as we 
 
 struction of Paganism," says, that the emperor "Theodosius attacked 
 superstition in her most vital part by prohibiting the use of sacrifices. 
 The temples of the Roman empire [A. D. 390] were deserted or de- 
 stroyed ; but the ingenious superstition of the Pagans still attempted 
 to elude the laws of Theodosius, by which all sacrifices had been se- 
 verely prohibited. The inhabitants of the country disguised their 
 religious, under the appearance of convivial, meetings. These vain 
 pretences were swept away by the last edict of Theodosius [A. D. 
 392] ; which inflicted a deadly wound on the superstition of the Pa- 
 gans. And so rapid, yet so gentle, was the fall of paganism, that 
 only twenty-eight years after the death of Theodosius, [he died A. 
 D. 395,] the faint and minute vestiges were no longer visible to the 
 eye of the legislator;" Vol. 11. pp. 183 — 194. Comp. Milman's note 
 to p. 187 ; also Gieseler's Church History, Vol. I. pp. 180—190. It 
 is true indeed that notwithstanding the edicts of Theodosius, all idol- 
 atrous worship was not rooted out; but the public heathen sacrifices 
 were utterly taken away, and the fatal blow had been given to Pagan- 
 ism itself, which, after lingering many years, finally died out of the 
 empire, about A. D. 600. It is worthy of notice, that those who cal- 
 culate the end of the world in 1843, fix on the year 1798 as the date 
 when Papacy was virtually ended, though it still lingers. So, to be 
 consistent, must they assent to the year 392, as the date when the 
 heathen sacrifices were actually abolished, and pagan worship virtu- 
 ally ended, though it lingered some years longer. The assertion in 
 the prophet, " shall take away the daily sacrifice," leaves them indeed 
 no alternative but to fix on the year 423 (395-f-28), as the furthest 
 possible period for the abolition of the pagan sacrifice, if they will 
 have that to be the meaning of the phrase ; and they must change 
 their mode of reckoning, or insist upon it that the world came to an 
 end some hundred years ago. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 32 35. 45 
 
 have already seen, influenced many to abandon their religion. 
 '' Thou art a ruler," said they, " and an honorable and great 
 man in this city, and strengthened with sons and brethren. 
 Now therefore come thou first, and ftilfil the king's com- 
 mandment, like as all the heathen have done, yea and the 
 men of Juda also, and such as remain at Jerusalem ; so shall 
 thou and thy house be in the number of the king's friends, 
 and thou and thy children shall be honored with silver and 
 gold, and many rewards." In his case they were unsuccess- 
 ful ; and in the answer he returned, and his subsequent deeds, 
 and the deeds of his sons, and of his sons' followers, we have 
 a fulfilment of what is asserted in these verses. " Though 
 all the nations," Mattathias answered with a loud voice, 
 " though all the nations that are under the king's dominion 
 obey him, and fall away every one from the religion of their 
 fathers, yet will I, and my sons, and my brethren, walk in 
 the covenant of our fathers. We will not hearken to the 
 king's words, to go from our religion, either on the right 
 hand or the left." When one of the Jews came forward, in- 
 duced by the king's flatteries, to sacrifice on the idol-altar, 
 Mattathias rushed on him, and slew him, and the king's com- 
 missioner with him, and pulled down the altar, and crying 
 with a loud voice through the city, " Whosoever is zealous 
 of the law, and maintaineth the covenant, let him follow me," 
 he and his sons fled into the mountains. Thit was the rally- 
 ing cry, which called together '* all such as were voluntarily 
 devoted to the law," and " all they that fled for persecution." 
 Having " joined their forces, they went round about, and pull- 
 ed down the altars, and what children soever they found with- 
 in the coast of Israel uncircumcised, those they circumcised 
 valiantly, and they recovered the law out of the hand of the 
 Gentiles." Mattathias, old in years, but young in valor and 
 hope, died, having first charged his sons, — "Be ye zealous 
 for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of your 
 fathers." " In his stead rose up Judas, called Maccabeus, 
 
46 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 32 35. 
 
 whom his father Mattathias had also named as his successor. 
 " He was mighty and strong even from his youth up. He 
 put on a breastplate as a giant, and girt his warlike harness 
 about him, and made battles, protecting the host with his 
 sword. In his acts he was like a lion, and like a lion's whelp 
 roaring for his prey. For he pursued the wicked, and con- 
 sumed those that vexed his people, and salvation prospered 
 in his hand." With a band so small in comparison with the 
 enemy, that they asked, on the enemy's approach, *' How 
 shall we be able, being so few, to fight against so great a 
 multitude and so strong," they waged four signal battles, in 
 which they defeated and routed the enemy. The first was 
 against Apollonius, the governor of Samaria, (the same whom 
 Antiochus had detached to ravage Jerusalem and take away 
 the daily sacrifice,) who came upon Judas and his band with 
 a large army, but was defeated and himself slain; whose 
 " sword also Judas took, and therewith he fought all his life 
 long." Next, Seron, lieutenant of Coele-Syria, came against 
 Judas, and a second time the Jews were successful. At this, 
 Antiochus was so vexed, that he " gathered together all the 
 forces of his realm," to crush at once the rising Jews; but 
 being, at this moment imperatively obliged to go in another 
 direction, (as will be hereafter related, v. 44,) he thereupon 
 took half his forces with him, and committed the other half 
 to Lysias, a prince royal, with orders to proceed at once to 
 Jerusalem. Lysias, occupied in affairs of state, committed 
 the army to Nicanor and Gorgias, distinguished and expe- 
 rienced men, who accordingly went forth ; Nicanor, in his 
 confidence of success, proclaiming that he would sell Jews 
 at the rate of ninety for a talent, and lending after him mer- 
 chants to buy them. And yet with such a host they did not 
 encounter Judas in open battle; but a detachment of 5000 
 was sent under Gorgias, to surprise and cut off Judas by 
 night. Judas heard of it, and counter-marched to surprise 
 the main body of Nicanor. He came upon them at early 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 32 35. 47 
 
 dawn, with his band then numbering only 3000 against 35,000, 
 and totally routed them, and slew 3000 — each brave Israelite 
 his man. The detachment returning, and perceiving the re- 
 sult, which the tents beginning to be set on fire plainly de- 
 clared, they also fled. At intelligence of this, "Lysias, con- 
 founded and discouraged, gathered together, the next year 
 following, (165 B. C.) 60,000 choice men of foot and 5,000 
 horsemen. So they came into Idumea, and pitched their 
 tents at Bethsura, and Judas met them with 10,000 men." 
 The enemy were again totally defeated, and 5,000 of their 
 number slain. " 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 Sion. 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, they rent their 
 clothes, and made great lamentation, and cast ashes upon 
 their heads." There were soldiers yet in the fortress to hin- 
 der any from going to worship in the sanctuary. '* Then Ju- 
 das appointed certain men to fight against those in the for- 
 tress, 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 bear out the defiled 
 stones, and built a new altar of burnt-offering, and hallowed 
 the courts, and made new holy vessels — the candlestick, the 
 altar of incense, and the table of shew-bread ; and upon the 
 altar they burned incense, and the lamps that were upon the 
 candlestick they lighted, and set the loaves upon the table, 
 and spread out the vails." Having completed the whole, 
 " they rose up early on the morning of the 25th day of their 
 9th month Casleu, (about the 15th of Dec.) in the 148th 
 year of the epoch of Syria, (165 B. C.) and offered sacrifice 
 according to the law upon the new altar of burnt offerings." 
 Then was the daily sacrifice, which had been taken away 
 
48 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: ^2 35. 
 
 restored. On that same day was the temple ** dedicated with 
 songs, and citherns, and harps, and cymbaJs, and all the peo- 
 ple fell upon their faces, worshipping and praising the God of 
 heaven, who had given them good success. They kept the 
 dedication of the altar eight days, and sacrificed the sacrifice 
 of deliverance and praise ; they also decked the fore front of 
 the temple with crornis of gold, and with shields, and the 
 gates and chambers they renewed, and hanged doors upon 
 them." This feast of dedication was made thenceforth an 
 annual festival to be celebrated eight days. It was observed 
 even down to our Savior's time, and he attended its cele- 
 bration, John 10: 22. It is called by Jcsephus, the Feast cf 
 Lights, because the city was illuminated as expressive of the 
 pe<^le's joy, Antiq. B. xii. c. 11. At the same time when 
 they had purified the sanctuary and renewed the daily sacrifice, 
 they also " builded up the mount Sion with high walls and 
 strong towers round about, lest the Gentiles should come and 
 tread it down, as they had done before."* 
 
 There were many other instances of individual godly men 
 and women, whose sufferings and heroic constancy further 
 illustrate this prophecy. They were among the wise who in- 
 structed many. No threats nor promises could induce them 
 to forsake the religion of their fathers, no tortures intimidate 
 them ; but they met death courageously and cheerfully, in 
 its most appalling forms. There was an aged man named 
 Elleazer, a chief scribe, whom the king's officers had tried 
 in vain with persuasions to eat swine's flesh offered in sacri- 
 fice on one of the pagan altars. They then forced a piece 
 into his mouth, but he spat it out again ; and on being urged 
 to partake secretly of meat of his own providing, and appear 
 as though he ate swine's flesh, that he might thus escape the 
 violent death his refusal would inevitably bring on him, he 
 nobly replied, " It becometh not our age in any wise to dis- 
 semble, whereby many young persons might think that Elea- 
 
 • For all these quotations, see 1 Mace, chaps. 2 — 4. 
 

 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL ^, , _, 
 
 zer, being fourscore years old and ten, were n^T^.gSne to 
 a strange religion ; and so they, through mine hx-pocrisy, and 
 desire to live a little time and a moment longer, should be 
 deceived by me, and I get a stain to mine old age, and make 
 it abominable. For though for the present time I should be 
 delivered from the punishment of men, yet should I not es- 
 cape the hand of the Almighty, neither alive nor dead. 
 Wherefore now manfully changing this life, I will shew my- 
 self such an one as mine age requireth, and leave a notable 
 example to such as be young, to die willingly and coura- 
 geously for the honorable and holy laws." When he had thus 
 spoken, he went voluntarily to the place of torture ; and be- 
 ing just ready to expire under the stripes inflicted, he groan- 
 ed and said, " It is manifest unto the Lord, that hath the ho- 
 ly knowledge, that whereas I might have been delivered from 
 death, I now endure sore pains in body by being beaten ; but 
 in soul am well content to suffer these things, because I fear 
 him." Thus he died, " leaving his death for an example of 
 a noble courage, and a memorial of virtue, not only unto 
 young men, but unto all his nation."* 
 
 Another instance was that of the torture of seven brothers 
 with their mother, before king Antiochus himself, whose 
 presence at Jerusalem was probably occasioned by intelli- 
 gence of the constancy of the Jews ; and this he was deter- 
 mined to break by the most violent measures. The eldest of 
 these brothers, who was the first to speak, exclaimed — '* What 
 wouldest thou ask or learn of us ? We are ready to die, rather 
 than to transgress the laws of our fathers." Antiochus in a 
 rage, and to make him such an example of severity as he 
 supposed would at once subdue the others, commanded a 
 cauldron to be made red hot, into which he threw him yet 
 alive, having first cut off the hands and feet and tongue of 
 his victim, the other brethren and the mother looking on; 
 " and as the vapor of the pan was for a good space dispersed, 
 
 * 2 Maccabees, ch. vi. 
 5 
 
50 INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL I J: 32 35. 
 
 they exhorted one another with the mother to die manfully." 
 They then seized the second, with a savage violence that 
 " pulled off the skin of his head with the hair," and asked, 
 " Wilt thou eat, before thou be punished throughout every 
 member of thy body ?" And on his answering " No," he was 
 made to undergo the same torture with his brother ; and with 
 his expiring breath he said, " Thou like a fury takest us out 
 of the present life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, 
 who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life." After 
 him the third came forward, and " putting out his tongue and 
 holding forth his hands, as required, he said courageously, 
 These I had from heaven ; and for his laws I despise them ; 
 and from him I hope to receive them again. Insomuch that 
 the king, and they that were with him, marvelled at the 
 young man's courage and that he nothing regarded the pains." 
 Next came the fourth, whom " they tormented and mangled 
 in like manner," and who, when he was about to die, spake 
 to the king, — '* It is good, being put to death by men, to look 
 for hope from God to be raised up again by him : as for thee, 
 thou shalt have no resurrection to life." And thus on to the 
 seventh, the youngest, whom the king, wishing to redeem 
 himself from the disgrace of a total failure, endeavored to 
 corrupt by flatteries, and " also assured him with oaths, that 
 he would make him both a rich and a happy man, if he would 
 turn from the laws of his fathers ; and that also he would take 
 him for his friend, and trust him with affairs. But when the 
 young man would in no case hearken unto him, the king call- 
 ed his mother and exhorted her that she would counsel the 
 young man to save his life." ^he promised him that she 
 would counsel her son. She had already counseled them 
 all, she had " exhorted every one of them in her own lan- 
 guage, filled with courageous spirits, — I neither gave you 
 breath nor life, neither was it I that formed the members of 
 every one of you ; but doubtless the Creator of the world, 
 who formed the generation of man, and found out the begin- 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 32 35. 51 
 
 ning of all things, will also of his own mercy give you breath 
 and life again, as ye now regard not your own selves for his 
 laws' sake." Then " bowing herself toward the king, and 
 laughing the cruel tyrant to scorn," she addressed her young- 
 est son " in her country language in this manner : I beseech 
 thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all 
 that is therein, and consider that God made them of things 
 that were not ; and so was mankind made likewise. Fear 
 not this tormentor, but being worthy of thy brethren, take 
 thy death, that I may receive thee again in mercy with thy 
 brethren." While the mother was yet speaking these words, 
 the young man said, " Whom wait ye for 1 T will not obey 
 the king's commandment ; but I will obey the commandment 
 of the law that was given unto our fathers by Moses. And 
 thou, that hast been the author of all mischief against the He- 
 brews, shall not escape the hands of God. For our breth- 
 ren, who have now suffered a short pain, are dead under 
 God's covenant of everlasting life; but thou, through the 
 judgment of God, shalt receive just punishment for thy pride. 
 But I, as my brethren, offer up my body and life for the laws 
 of our fathers, beseeching God that he would speedily be mer- 
 ciful unto our nation ; and that thou by torments and plagues 
 mayest confess, that he alone is God. Then the king, be- 
 ing in a rage, handled him worse than all the rest, and took 
 it grievously that he was laughed to scorn. So this man di- 
 ed undefiled, and put his whole trust in the Lord. Last of 
 all, after the son, the mother died."* 
 
 While these transactions took place in Jerusalem, the Jews 
 suffered much out of it. Their trials did not end with the 
 splendid victories of Judas already related, and the purifica- 
 tion of the sanctuary. That very purification displeased the 
 heathen round about ; and making common cause with Anti- 
 ochus, they resolved " to destroy the generation of Jacob," 
 and accordingly began the work. The men in many places 
 * 2 Maccabees, cb. vii. 
 
52 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 32 35. 
 
 were slain by the thousand, their property borne away, 
 their wives and children sold into captivity. In Gilead and 
 Galilee they were in the greatest peril, besieged in their ci- 
 ties, and would have perished but for the timely aid of Judas 
 in the former, (to whom they in their extremity sent,) and of 
 Judas' brother Simon in the latter ; who routed the enemy, 
 rescued many that were already taken and reserved for a 
 dreadful death, and brought the survivors into Judea, a place 
 of greater safety for them. In the absence of Judas, a band of 
 Jews sallied forth from Jerusalem, thinking to do some valiant 
 act, but it was unadvisedly, and against the directions of Ju- 
 das; and 2,000 of them perished.* Thus while the children 
 of Israel were falling " by the sword, and by flame, by captiv- 
 ity and by spoil, many days," they received help. But as yet, 
 it was comparatively " little help." They were still exposed 
 to the attacks of a strong and numerous army. There was 
 yet, even in the city itself, in the fortress on Mount Zion, 
 the Syrian garrison of soldiers, who constantly annoyed the 
 people, and often slew them. There were apostate Jews who 
 hastened to the court of Antioch, and earnestly urged more 
 decisive measures against the growing power and success of 
 Judas. It added to their troubles that many joined the band 
 of Judas, with only flattering words — with insincere profes- 
 sions of loyalty, and perhaps some with intentions to betray 
 the cause they espoused. It is mentioned that after Judas 
 had fought two battles victoriously, and was about to attack 
 the host of Nicanor, '* they that were fearful and distrusted 
 the justice of God, fled, and conveyed themselves away," 2 
 Mace. 8: 13. There were those also who are spoken of as 
 having *' revolted from him," 1 Mace. 7: 24. 
 
 These severe trials into which the godly of the nation fell, 
 and through which all who were spared suffered everything 
 but death itself, were ordained for a season as the trials of 
 their faith, which would at last be found unto praise, and 
 
 * For these instances, see 1 Mace. ch. v. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 36. 53 
 
 honor, and glory, Comp. 1 Peter 1: 6, 7. An end should 
 come to their calamities. There was a time set for it, and 
 it should now begin to be hastened by the removal of that 
 king, under whose despotic power they had been compelled 
 thus to suffer.* 
 
 'rid And the king shall do according to his will ; and he shall exalt 
 himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak 
 marvellous things against the God of gods; and shall prosper till 
 the indignation be accomplished : for that that is determined shall 
 be done. 
 
 ^ Verses 31 — 35 have the sanction of so high an authority as Sir 
 Isaac Nev/ton for their application to the Roman empire. The par- 
 ticular reason assigned by him, and by Bishop Newton who follows 
 him, is, the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of their application 
 to Antiochus Epiphanes ; and among the chief instances cited, are 
 the declarations, " they that understand among the people shall in- 
 struct many," and " they shall be holpen with a little help." But in 
 the light of the facts presented, such a reason is seen to be without 
 just foundation, and those very instances to have a most adequate and 
 proper parallel in events in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. Sir 
 Isaac's mode of interpretation is as* follows: — The phrase translated 
 "on his part," he says may signify after him; and he adduces the 
 phrase in 11: 8, translated " more years than," which he says signifies 
 some years after the king, etc. The word " arms," which means the 
 military power of a kingdom, he says here denotes the Roman Empire ; 
 and the clause reads thus : " And after him arms, (i. e. the Romans,) 
 shall stand up." 
 
 Now it is true that the preposition found in the phrase " on his 
 part," does sometimes mean " after," but its meaning is always deter- 
 mined by the context. In 11: 8, as we have seen, it is far from re- 
 quiring such a signification. In verse 31 , the whole context is against 
 it. (See the interpretation of verse 36.) In regard to the phrase 
 " arms," it is found in this chapter in connexion with the king or em- 
 pire that employs them^ (see verse 15,) and therefore is not taken as 
 the empire itself. It is the arms which a king or nation uses for at- 
 tack or defence, and in verse 31, manifestly belong to the king already 
 spoken of, and again mentioned in the phrase "on his part," or "at 
 his command," the pronoun being used instead of the noun. 
 5* 
 
54 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 36. 
 
 The angel here resumes the description of the personal ex- 
 ploits and character of the king, from which he had digressed 
 to speak of the victims of his power. Some expositors apply 
 vs. 36 — 39, to Papal Rome, and the remainder of the chap- 
 ter to the Ottoman empire. Others apply vs. 31 — 35, to Papal 
 Rome, and the remainder of the chapter to Napoleon Bona- 
 parte. But if we are ever to obey the laws of language, and 
 to be guided by the context, we are directed here, most ex- 
 plicitly, to Antiochus Epiphanes. " The king" has the defi- 
 nite article, which is never put in the Hebrew for the indefi- 
 nite, but always marks some person or thing definite at least 
 to the mind of the writer ; and in such a context as this di- 
 rects attention to what has already been made the subject of 
 discourse. (2) In respect to the kings mentioned in this 
 chapter, something is told of the termination of their reign ; 
 but unless the history of the king given in vs. 21 — 32, is re- 
 sumed, it is left in the midst. The end of his predecessor is 
 given, and the end of the one before that; but no end of the 
 king, whose history is commenced in verse 21, occurs until 
 the close of the chapter. It must therefore be the history of 
 one and ihe same king. (3) Up to verse 36, the reader is 
 brought no further down than the reign of Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes. Every one must feel the unexampled transition from 
 the king of Syria to the Pope of Rome, or to Napoleon Bo- 
 naparte. From a temporal reign long before Christ, to the 
 reign of Christ, there are indeed frequent instances of sudden 
 transition, in the prophets, but not from one temporal reign 
 in one country, to another in a distant country, with nothing 
 to prepare the reader for the transition. From verse 2 to 
 verse 3, in this chapter, there is an interval of more than a 
 hundred years, but the absence of the article from the phrase 
 " mighty king," and the specification of circumstances, leave 
 no one in doubt whom the prophecy means. If, however, 
 there should be something in the language of verses 36 — 45, 
 making it impossible to apply it to the king, whose history is 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 37 39. 55 
 
 given in the verses preceding, then it cannot be so applied. 
 But if there is nothing, then all usage and authority require 
 us to apply it to him. If the language is remarkably descrip- 
 tive of him, then it is a confirmation that he alone is meant. 
 No one acquainted with the history whether of the Pope, or 
 of the Ottoman empire, or of Bonaparte, will fail to perceive 
 that to neither of them does the language so literally apply as 
 to Antiochus, nor can be applied to them throughout except 
 by transcending historical truth. 
 
 The prophecy now proceeds to set forth the character of 
 Antiochus in a more particular aud comprehensive manner. 
 The character given of him in this verse 36, has already been 
 illustrated in the notes to the verses preceding. That he lit- 
 erally spake impious words against the god of heaven, is con- 
 firmedby the appellation of " blasphemer" given him in 2 
 Mace. 9: 28. It is remarked also in 1 Mace. 1: 24, on the 
 occasion of the sedition of the deposed Jason, and the sub- 
 sequent march of Antiochus to the city, that " when he had 
 taken all away, he went into his own land, having spoken 
 very proudly." The prediction, "shall magnify himself above 
 every god," had its accomplishment in his abolishing the re- 
 ligious worship of whatever Deity he saw fit, whether of the 
 Jews or of others, and in his setting up the worship of whom 
 he chose. In his disposal of the Deities to be worshipped, he 
 magnified himself above them all, as his inferiors. This verse 
 therefore has its full accomplishment in Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes, though some profess to make the language a reason 
 for not applying it to him. 
 
 37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of 
 women, nor regard any god : for he shall magnify himself above 
 
 38 all. But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces : and a god 
 whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, 
 
 39 and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do 
 in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall ac- 
 knowledge and increase with glory : and he shall cause them to 
 rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain. 
 
56 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 37 39. 
 
 By " the desire of women," is not meant licentious plea- 
 sures, — an interpretation which some have given, and found 
 in it a reason for not applying it to one so infamously licen- 
 tious as Antiochus Epiphanes; but it means the delight of 
 women, (its frequent signification,) i. e. the object in which 
 they delighted, viz. their idols Astarte and Anaitis, which 
 were assiduously worshipped by the women of Syria. The 
 position of this phrase in the sentence, demands such an in- 
 terpretation, and the original sanctions it. Compare also the 
 explanation of the word '* princes," in verse 8. These idols, 
 together with those worshipped from ancient times by the 
 men of Syria and the East, and honored by his fathers, he 
 set aside for the introduction of the gods worshipped in Greece, 
 particularly Jupiter Olympius, and Hercules, who is well de- 
 noted by the phrase " god of forces," i. e. the god of strong 
 holds, (for the word translated " forces " is the same word 
 with that translated in verses 7, 10, etc. as ^^ fortress,'''' only 
 one is in the plural and the others are in the singular.) Her- 
 cules is the god whom, as we have seen, he honored in the 
 games celebrated at Tyre. That Hercules was this " god of 
 strong-holds," is the more probable from the fact, that the 
 Grecian Hercules was of Phenician origin, and those cities 
 of Greece which were originally Phenician colonies, celebra- 
 ted feasts in honor of him, and sang his exploits, (See Article 
 on Hercules in American Encyclopedia.) In Tyre therefore, 
 which belonged to Phenicia, Antiochus doubtless found the 
 worship of Hercules already existing ; a worship remarkably 
 fitted to suit such a person as Antiochus, and it was also 
 Greek. Hercules is represented as brawny and muscular, 
 with small head and spirited face, short thick neck, high 
 chest, strong and brawny shoulders, with a lion's skin and a 
 club. 
 
 " In his estate," does not denote in the reign of Antiochus, 
 but in the stead of the god of his fathers ; or the pronoun may 
 be rendered their, and refer to the gods of his country in 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 40, 41. 57 
 
 general. " Pleasant things," are any costly, beautiful offer- 
 ings whatsoever. 
 
 Verse 39, commencing with the second clause, may lite- 
 rally read as follows — Whosoever acknowledges him [i. e. 
 *' the god of strong holds,"] he will increase with honor, and 
 cause them to have dominion over many, and distribute the 
 land [among them] for [their] reward. The disposition to 
 honor and reward such as complied with his humor, has al- 
 ready been sufficiently noticed. Antiochus, however, did not 
 himself care for any god, (see verse 37,) but as law-giver and 
 religion-giver, he would pull down and build up as he chose. 
 The first clause of verse 39 seems to imply that Antiochus 
 introduced the worship of Hercules, (the god whom his 
 fathers acknowledged not,) into all the fortified places of 
 Syria. 
 
 40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at 
 him : [viz. at " the king," i. e. of the north :] and the king of the 
 north shall come against him [viz. the king of the south] like a 
 whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships ; 
 and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow, and pass 
 over. 
 
 The angel now coming to the downfall of the Syrian, re- 
 capitulates and sums up the events immediately preceding it, 
 with the addition of a few particulars. As we have already 
 seen under verse 27, the young king of the south, Ptolemy 
 VI, Philometer, had roused himself from his effeminacy, and 
 adopted measures to repel Antiochus ; and Antiochus had 
 rushed again into Egypt with greater fury. See verse 29. 
 While hastening to Alexandria against the two Ptolemies, he 
 sent also a fleet to Cyprus, to secure that island as the key 
 to Egypt. 
 
 41 He shall also enter into the glorious land, and many countries 
 shall be overthrown: biiit these shall escape out of his hand, ercw 
 Edora, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 
 
58 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 42, 43. 
 
 His invasion of Palestine subsequently to his repulse in 
 Egypt, has been already noticed in verses 30 — 39. The 
 vv^ord rendered " countries,''^ though not in the original, is 
 probably implied, as the adjective is feminine. While he 
 ravaged almost every country in and around Palestine, history 
 mentions no invasion and spoil of Moab, Edom, and the chief 
 places of the Ammonites. An ancient commentor, Theodo- 
 ret, who applies this passage to Antichrist, does indeed assert, 
 that Antiochus " having overthrown these nations, constitu- 
 ted rulers over them, one of whom was Timotheus the com- 
 mander of the Ammonites." But his only authority is 1 
 Mace. 5: 6, etc., and that gives him no support whatever. 
 For the historian of the Maccabees only asserts, that when 
 the nations round about heard that the sanctuary was renew- 
 ed, they began lo make common cause with Antiochus and 
 to harass the Jews. The Ammonites, also, and the Edomites, 
 came against them ; but they were not under the rule of An- 
 tiochus, nor was Timotheus, the commander of the former, 
 appointed by Antiochus. They were independent nations, 
 and had their own commanders, and were the old enemies of 
 the Jews. 
 
 42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries : and the 
 
 43 land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the 
 treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of 
 Egypt : and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall he at his steps. 
 
 The first clause is a repetition, for the sake of emphasis, 
 of the declaration in the preceding verse, and introduces the 
 affirmation respecting Egypt, the particulars of which have 
 been given in notes to verse 28. It is not here asserted that 
 Antiochus invaded and possessed Libya and Ethiopia, as 
 some suppose, who would make it an impossible thing to ap- 
 ply the passage to Antiochus. It only asserts that the Libyans 
 and Ethiopians, who were held as slaves in Egypt, ceased to 
 be the slaves of Ptolemy, and became the attendants and ser- 
 vants of Antiochus. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL ll". 44. 59 
 
 44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble 
 him : therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and 
 utterly to make away many. 
 
 He had returned to Antioch, as already related, from his 
 last expedition into Egypt, and to console himself for his fail- 
 ure in that, was carrying forward his project to conform all 
 parts of his empire to one standard of worship and laws. With 
 characteristic recklessness, and devotedness to pleasure, not- 
 withstanding the condition of his kingdom, he was celebra- 
 ting games in the neighboring grove of Daphne, in honor of 
 Jupiter Olympius, when he heard at that place of two signal 
 defeats of his armies by Judas Maccabeus. The effect of this 
 news on Antiochus, with accompanying events illustrative of 
 this verse, are related in part by the author of the first book 
 of the Maccabees, 3: 27 — 37, *'Now when king Antiochus 
 heard these things, he was full of indignation : wherefore he 
 sent and gathered together all the forces of his realm, even a 
 very strong army. He opened also his treasure, and gave his 
 soldiers pay for a year, commanding them to be ready when- 
 soever he should need them. Nevertheless, when he saw 
 that the money of his treasures failed, and that the tributes 
 in the country were small, because of the dissension and plague 
 he had brought upon the land, in taking away the laws which 
 had been of old time; he feared that he should not be able 
 to bear the charges any longer, nor to have such gifts to give 
 so liberally as he did before : for he had abounded above the 
 kings that were before him. Wherefore being greatly per- 
 plexed in his mind, he determined to go into Persia, there to 
 take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money. 
 So he left Lysias, a nobleman, and one of the blood royal, to 
 oversee the affairs of the king from the river Euphrates to 
 the border of Egypt : and to bring up his son Antiochus un- 
 til he came again. Moreover he delivered unto him the half 
 of his forces, and the elephants, and gave him charge of all 
 things he would have done, as also concerning them that 
 
60 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 45. 
 
 dwelt in Juda and Jerusalem : that he should send an army 
 against them, to destroy and root out the strength of Israel, 
 and the remnant of Jerusalem, and to take away their memo- 
 rial from that place; and that he should place strangers in 
 all their quarters, and divide their land by lot. [Compare 
 verse 39.] So the king took the half of the forces that re- 
 mained, and departed from Antioch, his royal city, the hun- 
 dred forty and seventh year [166 B. C] ; and having passed 
 the river Euphrates, he went through the high countries." 
 This discontinuance of tribute money from his eastern pro- 
 vinces of Persia and Media, together with the revolt of Ar- 
 taxias king of Armenia which lay to the north-east of An- 
 tioch, (the "high countries,") were the tidings out of the 
 east and north, which troubled him ; and the fear and per- 
 plexity it produced, with a treasury exhausted by his extrava- 
 gant expenses and lavish gifts, lest through failure of means 
 to subdue the Jews, he should be thwarted even in this de- 
 sire of his heart, as he had been in Egypt, goaded him to des- 
 peration, and he went forth resolving to make those eastern 
 and northern countries an example of his severity for the 
 trouble they caused him, Tacitus also speaks of this expe- 
 dition of Antiochus, and confirms the facts already adduced. 
 In his notice of the Jews, Book v. sec. viii., he says that 
 " king Antiochus endeavored to root out their superstition, 
 and introduce the customs of the Greeks ; but he was hinder- 
 ed from making that most vile nation any better, by the war 
 of the Parthians ; for at that time Arsaces revolted." 
 
 45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palaces between the 
 seas, in the glorious holy mountain : yet he shall come to his end, 
 and none shall help him. 
 
 "The tabernacles of his palaces" may be the towers and 
 fortress he caused to be built in the city of David, — the holy 
 mountain of Zion, — between the Dead Sea and the Mediter- 
 ranean, as though at this point he held fast the land from 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 11: 45. 61 
 
 shore to shore (see under verse 31) ; as though by possess- 
 ing Jerusalem he kept in his hand the key to the whole 
 territory, and could both hold the Jews in subjection, and 
 resist the attempts of Egypt to get Palestine again into its 
 power. Or the idea may be that of pitching his palace-tenls 
 on mount Zion, to signify his successful entrance, as leader 
 of armies, into Jerusalem, and his establishment as Prince of 
 the province, jast as Alexander pitched his tents in Persepolis, 
 and became master of Persia. With either interpretation, 
 the verse does not present the event as taking place chrono- 
 logically after those mentioned in the preceding verse ; but 
 it is a description to heighten the effect of the declaration of 
 his end. All his strength, and glory, and dominion were now 
 to depart ; his hold on Palestine and on his numerous pro- 
 vinces, loosed ; the ties by which he held the world fast to his 
 embrace, forever sundered. Arrived in the East, he had 
 made an incursion upon the city of Elymais, situated a little 
 south of the border of Media, near the river Tigris, for the 
 purpose of plundering a temple of Diana there, " a very rich 
 temple, wherein were coverings of gold, and breastplates, and 
 shields, which Alexander son of Philip had left there." It is 
 supposed not to have been the same temple which Antiochus 
 the Great, his father, attempted to plunder, and perished in 
 the attempt. That was in the ^romWe of Elymais, this in 
 the city Elymais. Antiochus Epiphanes was repulsed by the 
 inhabitants, who assembled in alarm to protect their temple. 
 He was preserved from a fate like his father's to perish more 
 miserably. He effected a retreat to Ecbatana in Media. He 
 here received intelligence, which only aggravated him the 
 more — that his army in Judea had been routed ; the heathen 
 altars he had set up pulled down, and the desecrated temple 
 purified, by Judas Maccabeus. In a paroxysm of rage, he 
 immediately commenced his return to Syria, threatening 
 " that he would come to Jerusalem and make it a common 
 burying-place of the Jews." He commanded his charioteer 
 6 
 
62 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL II: 45. 
 
 to drive on, with the utmost rapidity, stopping neither by day 
 nor by night. His excitement and over exertion brought on 
 him a disease of the most malignant kind (most probably the 
 Asiatic cholera) ; yet he would not slacken his speed, until 
 by some accident he was thrown out of his chariot with vio- 
 lence to the ground. Bruised and exhausted, he was taken 
 upon a litter, and still borne forward on his journey ; but 
 even (he motion of that was too painful to be endured, and 
 he was compelled to stop at an obscure town called Tabae, 
 on the confines of Persia and Babylonia, where his disease, 
 increasing in virulence, became, in God's hands, a divine 
 judgment, and he died 164 B. C, in the midst of anguish of 
 body, exceeded only by his remorse. He came to his end, 
 and there was none to help him — not though in his anguish 
 he now humbled himself before that God, above whom he had 
 once exalted himself — not though he said, "It is meet to be 
 subject unto God, and that a man that is mortal should not 
 proudly think of himself, as if he were God" — not though he 
 " vowed also unto the Lord, that the holy city he would set 
 at liberty, and the holy temple, which before he had spoiled, 
 he would garnish with goodly gifts, and restore all the holy 
 vessels with many more ; yea, and that he would go through 
 all the world that was inhabited, and declare the power of 
 God." He found no place for repentance in the purposes of 
 heaven as to the time and manner of his death, though he 
 sought it carefully and with tears. " Thus the murderer and 
 blasphemer, having suffered most grievously, as he entreated 
 other men, so died he a miserable death in a strange country 
 in the mountains," 1 Mace. vi. 2 Mace. ix. 
 
 Note. — Dr. Adam Clarke, who follows the interpretation of Bishop 
 Newton on vs. 31 — 45, makes the following observation : "From the 
 beginning of the chapter to the end of verse 30, all is very clear and 
 plain, relative to the Grecian, Syrian, and Egyptian histories; from 
 verse 31 to the end, the mode of interpretation is not so satisfactory 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL VIII. od 
 
 in its application to the times since Christ. Yet possibly these alone 
 may be intended: though the whole might be, with considerable ease, 
 applied to the remaining part of the Syrian and Egyptian history. 
 
 SECTION IL 
 INTERPRETATION OF CHAP. VIII. 
 
 THE DESECRATION, AND THE CLEANSING OF THE SANCTUARY. 
 
 It is manifest, on the perusal of this chapter, that it con- 
 tains the substance of chap. xi. So do all interpreters re- 
 gard it, however their views differ in respect to the mean- 
 ing of them both. In 8: 1—8, 20—22, there is a full de- 
 scription of what is given only in an outline, in 11: 1 — 4; 
 and there is given in 8; 9 — 12, 23 — 25, only an outline, quite 
 enigmatical and brief, of what is presented with great fulness 
 and particularity in 11:21 — 45. One event is foretold in 
 chap. 8: 14, which is not explicitly mentioned in chap, xi., 
 though implied in vs. 33 — 35. It is the event of the cleans- 
 ing of the sanctuary J which is made the chief proof-text by 
 those who teach that the world will come to an end in 1843. 
 The same event is also alluded to in chap. 12: 7, 11. But 
 the interpretation of that chapter, though it is a continuation 
 of the vision in chaps, x. and xi., is not needed to understand 
 chap. viii. It itself needs the interpretation of the other chap- 
 ters for its own explanation, because it seems to present in 
 an outline a few things which are given elsewhere more fully; 
 just as 11: 1 — 4 has a summary description of events foretold 
 more fully in 8: 1 — 8, 20 — ^22, though the predictions re- 
 corded in chap. xi. are on the whole an expansion of the pro- 
 phecy in chap, viii., and contain the key to its most difficult 
 passages. One portion of chap. viii. is easy to be understood, 
 
64 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 1,2. 
 
 and interpreters entirely agree as to the events designated. 
 But on verses 9 — 14, and 23 — 25, there is much diversity of 
 opinion. If the reader, as it is hoped, has accepted the re- 
 suhs of the interpretation of chap, xi., he will come to the 
 meaning of the more difficult parts of this chapter with much 
 satisfaction and certainty. 
 
 1 In the third year of king Belshazzar, a vision appeared unto me, 
 even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. 
 
 Belshazzar began to reign about 555 B. C. He was the 
 Nabonadius, or Nabonnid, of profane history, and reigned 
 seventeen years. He is called Nebuchadnezzar's son, 5: 22. 
 But as Evil-merodach succeeded Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. 52: 
 31, and as Jeremiah predicted that the nations of the earth, 
 having served Nebuchadnezzar, his son, and his son's son, 
 should then serve themselves of the king of Babylon, 27: 7, 
 Belshazzar was doubtless son to Evil-merodach, although 
 this fact is not expressly mentioned ; and Nebuchadnezzar 
 was called his father by the usage which often makes that ap- 
 pellation synonymous with ancestor. Evil-merodach was 
 murdered in the second year of his reign by Neriglissar, his 
 brother-in-law, who then ascended the throne, and died after 
 a reign of four years. Laborosoarchad, Neriglissar's son, a 
 minor, next succeeded, and after nine months was murdered 
 by his nobles, who put Nabonnid, or Belshazzar, on the 
 throne, with his mother Nitocris for queen regent, and Jere- 
 miah's word was fulfilled in him as the last of the Babylonian 
 kings, Comp. Dan. 5: 39, 31. 
 
 If the phrase " at the first," be taken as it is, it refers to the 
 vision in chap, vii., as the first which Daniel had, and makes 
 this the second. It may however mean, in the first year of 
 his reign. The visions in chaps, vii, viii, precede in the or- 
 der of time the events narrated in chap. v. 
 
 2 And I saw in a vision ; and it came to pass, when 1 saw, that 1 
 was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam ; 
 and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8*. 2. 65 
 
 Shushan was Susa, the winter residence of the Persian 
 kings after Cyrus, as Ecbatana was their residence in sum- 
 mer, Esther 1: 2. Neh. 1: 1. Its received its name from the 
 abundance of lilies that grew in the region. Ulai, (the an- 
 cient Ulaeus, or Choaspes, and modern Kerrah,) on which it 
 was situated, was a stream emptying into the Tigris and Eu- 
 phrates after their confluence. Elam, the province, was Ely- 
 raais, so called doubtless from Elam, the son of Shem, (Gen. 
 10: 22,) who settled there. Shushan was its capital. 
 
 It would seem, from the structure of the verse, that Daniel 
 was here in person, not by vision, as Ezekiel when at Baby- 
 lon was by vision at Jerusalem. A comparison of Daniel 
 with Ezek. 8: 8, and 40: 2, will show that the language in 
 the two cases is quite different. And the two cases them- 
 selves are different ; for when Ezekiel was by vision at Jeru- 
 salem, his vision particularly concerned that city ; but Dan- 
 iel's vision concerned Persia no more than Greece, and it 
 concerned Jerusalem most of all ; and therefore, under such 
 circumstances, there is no propriety in saying that he was, 
 by vision, at a palace in a Persian city. No particular signi- 
 ficance is to be sought in his being at Elam ; but he states 
 where he was when he had the vision, just as John states that 
 he was " in the isle that is called Patmos," when he had the 
 visions of the Revelation. 
 
 Elam was probably at this time appended to the dominions 
 of Belshazzar, and its capital made his occasional residence; 
 and Daniel was either sent there on official business, or pre- 
 sent with the king. But when Cyrus began to obtain pos- 
 session of the territory round about Babylon, it was probably 
 united to Persia, as indeed it was originally a Persian pro- 
 vince, and with ancient writers, though not in the Scriptures, 
 was the name for the whole of Persia. Comp. Jer. 49: 34 — 
 39, where the prophet asserts that Elam should be ravaged, 
 [probably by Nebuchadnezzar,] and afterwards be delivered 
 [probably by Cyrus.] 
 
 6* 
 
66 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 3. 
 
 In modern Chuzistan, are the ruins of a city stretching 
 twelve miles from one extremity to another. The largest 
 pile is a mile in circumference, and one hundred feet high. 
 Large blocks of marble covered with hieroglyphics, are often 
 found. Here was doubtless the ^ncient Susa, and" here is 
 shown " Daniel's sepulchre," to this day. Josephus relates, 
 that at Ecbatana, (it ought to be Susa,) Daniel built a mar- 
 ble tower of great beauty and skill, which remained, even so 
 late as his day, in a state of perfect preservation, a place of 
 sepulchre for the kings of Media, Persia, and Parthia, and its 
 care entrusted to a Jewish priest. 
 
 3 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold, there stood be- 
 fore the river a ram which had two horns : and the two horns tcere 
 liigh, but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up 
 last. 
 
 The expression "lifted up my eyes," shows that the pro- 
 phet had this vision not in a dream, but awake. See also verse 
 17, and compare Num. 24: 34. 
 
 The ram, an emblem of strength and combativeness, is 
 well chosen to represent the Medo-Persian empire. The 
 horns fitly represent the two first kings, or race of kings — 
 Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian, (see on 11: 1,) the 
 latter of whom, with the Persian race of kings, became more 
 powerful than Darius, or the Median race of kings which 
 ended in him. Cyrus towered higher than his predecessor, 
 and the Persian race higher than the Median. It has been 
 supposed by many, (and it is the only point of difference be- 
 tween commentators on verses 1 — 8,) that the horns designate 
 kingdoms, not kings. Says Bishop Newton, " A horn in the 
 style of Daniel doth not signify any particular king, but is an 
 emblem of a kingdom,"* and in this he is followed by those 
 who teach that the end of the world will be in 1843. Now 
 there occurs in this very chapter, verse 21, a use of the word 
 " horn " with the signification of king, viz. " The great horn 
 
 * Newton on the Prophecies, p. 248. 
 
7ERS 
 
 ing" 
 is indeed sometimes synonymous both in common usage, and 
 in the Scriptures, with kingdom. It is so used in this chap- 
 ter, in the same verse where the phrase " first king " occurs, 
 viz. *' And the rough goat is the king of Graecia." But with 
 this signification of kingdom in the phrase king of Graecia, it 
 becomes the more clear that the word king in the phrase 
 " first king," is to be taken literally. Bishop Newton him- 
 self, however inconsistently, admits this same meaning — for 
 speaking of the "little horn," verse 9 below, he says, "The 
 little horn did not typify a single person, but a succession of 
 men, claiming such powers as are there specified." A suc- 
 cession of men is the race or dynasty of princes, not the na- 
 tion itself — so do those in effect use the word, who deny that 
 it means kings. As to the use of the word " horn " in the 
 Scriptures, it is everywhere an emblem of power and glory, 
 and when spoken of in connection with a nation, means the 
 royal power, which was the glory of the nation, Ezek. 29: 
 21. Jer. 48: 25. 
 
 4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward ; 
 so that no beast might stand before him, neither was there any that 
 could deliver out of his hand ; but he did according to his will, and 
 became great. 
 
 The Medo-Persian nation pushed its conquests westward as 
 far as the Aegean sea, or Archipelago ; northward into Ar- 
 menia, Col-chis, Iberia and Scythia ; and southward into 
 Arabia, Egypt, and Libya It also made conquests in India on 
 the east, but so inconsiderable as to be unworthy of particular 
 notice. Its main strength was exercised toward the west, 
 and north, and south ; and it became the dominant empire 
 of the world. Wherever it directed its energies, no nation 
 could oppose effectual resistance, none had allies able to res- 
 cue them. 
 
 5 And as I was considering, behold an he-goat came from the west 
 on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground : and 
 
68 INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 8: 5-^7. 
 
 6 the he-goat kad a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to 
 the ram that had two horns, which f had seen standing before the 
 
 7 river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him 
 come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against 
 him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns : and there was 
 no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to 
 the ground, and stamped upon him : and there was none that could 
 deliver the ram out of his hand. 
 
 There was presented to the prophet, while he was consid- 
 ering what was the meaning, and what would be the issue of 
 the vision, the emblem of a he-goat, (in the original, the he- 
 goat of the goats, i. e. the leader of the flock,) denoting more 
 impetuosity, and strength, aud fleetness than the ram. The 
 prophet is told, verse 21, that this goat represents the king 
 (or kingdom) of Greece, and that the conspicuous horn be- 
 tween his eyes (the horn in that position indicating both sa- 
 gacity and strength) represents the first king. It needs not 
 language so explicit even as that of verse 21, to satisfy us 
 that the Grecian empire under Alexander the Great is meant 
 in vs. 5 — 7. His rapid marches in which he overran Asia 
 in so short a time, his impetuous onsets, the fall of the Medo- 
 Persian empire, and the destruction of the long race of kings 
 springing from Darius and Cyrus, are graphically described. 
 He started from Macedon early in the spring of 334 B. C. 
 with an army of about 30,000 foot and 5000 horse, crossed 
 the Hellespont into Asia, and had reached the river Granicus 
 in Mysia, when a Persian army of 100,000 foot and 10,000 
 horse, (some say 20,000 foot and as many horse,) stood on 
 the opposite bank to dispute the passage with him. He allow- 
 ed his army no time to rest, but himself led on the right wing 
 of his cavalry into the river, and though repulsed at first, ef- 
 fected a landing, followed by all his army with shoutings and 
 trumpets. A close and severe battle was fought, which result- 
 ed in a signal victory on the side of the Greeks. He thence 
 passed into Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phrygia and Cap- 
 padocia, subduing all to his sway ; thence into Cilicia to a 
 
INTERPRETATIQN OF DANIEL 8: 5 7. 69 
 
 pass in its eastern extremity near the city Issus, where in a 
 plain bounded by mountains on one side, and by the sea on 
 the other, and parted by a river running across it, he was met 
 by the Persian army commanded by Darius in person. Alex- 
 ander marched towards him at first slowly, until he came to the 
 river, then with his right wing plunged in, and soon both ar- 
 mies were engaged hand to hand, with dreadful slaughter, 
 some on this side of the river, and some on that side — the Per- 
 sian cavalry having also crossed the river toward the Mace- 
 donians in the beginning of the engagement. Victory de- 
 clared itself a second time on the side of Alexander, and Da- 
 rius was one of the first to flee, first in his chariot, and then 
 on horseback, throwing down bow, shield, and royal mantle. 
 From Asia Minor, Alexander marched back into Syria, de- 
 stroyed Tyre, entered and subdued Egypt, and also made the 
 visit to Jerusalem mentioned under 11: 3, 4. In the spring 
 of 331 B. C, he set out again for the conquest of Persia, cros- 
 sed the Euphrates and Tigris, and met Darius with his forces 
 not far from the city Arbela. Here in the year 330 B. C, in 
 the month of October, just about two years after the battle of 
 Issus, and at a place about as far east from that, as Issus 
 was from the Granicus, a battle was fought more furious and 
 bloody than the preceding, and terminated in the entire defeat 
 of the Persians. Darius escaped, a fugitive with a few thou- 
 sand followers. He had twice sued for peace, proposing to 
 give up to Alexander all the territories between the Helles- 
 pont and the Euphrates ; but Alexander insisted on entire 
 submission, or a decision by battle, and in his last letter thus 
 addressed him — " I attack neither prisoners nor women, but 
 turn my rage against such only as are armed for the fight. 
 Since Darius still continues by letters and by money to insti- 
 gate my soldiers to betray me, and my friends to murder me, 
 I therefore am determined to pursue him with the utmost 
 vigor, and that not as an enemy, but a poisoner and an 
 
70 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 5 7. 
 
 sin." The impetuosity and fury of the attack corresponded 
 with the threats, and toward the close it could better be call- 
 ed a slaughter than a battle. The Persian cities, with their 
 immense treasures, now lay open to Alexander. He forthwith 
 entered Babylon, Susa, and Persepoiis ; in which last city, the 
 capital of Persia, and richer than all the cities he had taken, 
 when he had satiated his soldiers' appetite for plunder, he 
 added the barbarity and the folly of burning the magnificent 
 palace of Xerxes, himself leading the way with a lighted 
 torch, and the Macedonians following his example. From 
 Persepoiis he started again in pursuit of Darius, but this un- 
 fortunate king was reserved for a more ignoble end than to 
 fall into the hands of Alexander. Two of his generals had 
 conspired against him to deliver him up, if necessary to pre- 
 serve themselves against Alexander, or, if they should escape 
 the hands of the Macedonians, destroy him and usurp his 
 throne. At the approach of Alexander, they wished to hurry 
 Darius along with them in flight ; but he had discovered their 
 designs, and refused. They immediately turned upon him 
 with their spears, and left him in his chariot covered with 
 mortal wounds. He breathed his last, just as the conquer- 
 ing monarch came up, and in him the Persian empire ended, 
 having continued 206 ye irs from the accession of Cyrus. 
 Thus did the Macedonians under Alexander cast down and 
 trample under foot the empire of Persia, and lay its horns of 
 glory — its monarch, sceptre and throne — low in the dust. 
 
 The emblem of the ram with its two horns is preserved, 
 because they stand for the two racesi,i\\e twofold dynasty, of 
 kings that hud swayed the Medo-Persian sceptre, and because 
 the first horn, Darius I, was not broken off, to give place to 
 the second and higher, Cyrus ; (comp. verse 8, and 7: 8, 20, 
 24 ;) but the two lines met together in Cambyses, the son of 
 Cyrus and of the daughter of Darius I, and the two horns 
 remained the emblems of the original two races of the Medo- 
 Persian kings. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 8, 9. 71 
 
 8 Therefore [Heb. And] the he-goat waxed very great: and when 
 he was strong, the great horn was broken ; and for it came up four 
 notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. 
 
 After the conquest of Persia, Alexander marched into In- 
 dia. Returning, he made Babylon his capital, where embas- 
 sadors came from all parts of the world, to present the hom- 
 age and fealty of their respective nations, and he gave audi- 
 ence to them with all the majesty and pomp of the greatest 
 monarch of the earth. But he gave himself up to luxury and 
 excess, and soon perished. He died, no son of his succeed- 
 ing, except to the name, but without the authority, of king, 
 and that only for a very short season. The conspicuous horn 
 was broken off, the race of kings destroyed, and others arose 
 in its place. See further, in explanation of this verse, on 11: 
 3, 4. The four horns denote, like the two in 8: 3, and the 
 one in 8: 5, four kings, or races of kings, viz. those be- 
 tween whom Alexander's empire was divided, as mentioned 
 under 11: 4. 
 
 d And out of one of them came forth a Ittle horn, which waxed 
 exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward 
 the pleasant land. 
 
 From Seleucus, one of those four horns, or from the race 
 of the Seleucidae, descended Antiochus Epiphanes. The 
 emblem of a " little horn," branching off from one of the 
 great horns, well describes him, and his small beginnings, as 
 younger son of Antiochus the Great, of the race of the Seleu- 
 cidae ; as hostage at Rome during the reign of his elder bro- 
 ther, Seleucus Philopator ; as the illegal successor to his bro- 
 ther, while the son and heir of that brother was living ; as 
 the " vile person to whom they gave not the honor of the 
 kingdom," but who ** obtained it by flatteries ;" as a monarch 
 of comparative insignificance at first, because the resources 
 of the Syrian empire were well nigh exhausted, and its terri- 
 tory circumscribed within narrow limits. The increase of 
 
72 INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 8: 9. 
 
 his power, and the extension of his kingdom over Egypt, over 
 Armenia and Persia, and over Palestine "the pleasant land," 
 (rather the glorious land, for it is the same word translated 
 "glorious" in 11: 45,) are denoted by the growth of the lit- 
 tle horn, and its extension toward the south, etc. as already 
 illustrated under 11: 21 — 45. 
 
 It is objected by those who make horn synonymous with 
 kingdom, that '* Antiochus Epiphanes, instead of being an- 
 other kingdom growing out of the Syrian government, was 
 that horn or government itself." But this objection depends 
 on an interpretation, which, as we have seen, is opposed by 
 the usage of the chapter itself, and is not adhered to by those 
 who make the objection. The explanation, which the wri- 
 ters above alluded to give of the little horn, will be seen to 
 be forced, and altogether foreign from the mode of the pro- 
 phet in other places. Says Bishop Newton, " Is it not more 
 applicable to the Romans, who first subdued Macedon and 
 Greece, the capital kingdom of the goat, and thence spread 
 their conquests 1 When the Romans first got footing in 
 Greece then they became a horn of the goat."* Others fol- 
 lowing him in the objection, but differing from him in the 
 explanation, and calculating the end of the world in 1843, 
 say that the little horn was the Papal power, which sprung 
 out of the Greek empire as follows : — " Constantine the Ro- 
 man emperor removed the seat of empire to Constantinople. 
 After his death, the Roman empire was divided between his 
 three sons — Constantius, who inherited the east, and the 
 other two the west. The Greek kingdom had again become 
 an independent government under Constantius, but on the 
 death of his brothers, the whole empire came into his hands, 
 and the Roman empire was again united. But A. D. 356, 
 the Huns invaded the Roman empire, and between 356 and 
 483 there were nine other independent kingdoms within the 
 
 * Prophecies, p. 249. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 9. 73 
 
 Roman empire. But during aJl this time, the eastern or 
 Greek empire, as it was called, remained entire and indepen- 
 dent. In A. D. 534, the Greek emperor Justinian constitu- 
 ted the Bishop of Rome head of all the churches, and, 538, 
 conquered Rome, and established the Pope in his see."* Thus 
 the little horn sprung out of the great one. 
 
 As to the first explanation by Bishop Newton, the symbol 
 would favor it somewhat, if it had been a little horn graffed 
 (if such an expression may be used) upon one of the large 
 ones, not growing out of it ; or if this one of the great horns 
 had been destroyed, and the little one had grown up in its 
 place. Besides, Palestine lay toward the east ; and if the 
 prophet had meant to describe the conquests of the Roman 
 empire, he would not have said both " toward the east,'^ and 
 " toward the pleasant land." Nor, if events must be taken in 
 the order of the prophecy, would he have said toward the 
 south, and toward the east ; but toward the east and toward 
 the south, because, as says the Bishop, they " first subdued 
 Greece," or the east, " and thence spread their conquests." 
 
 As to the second explanation by those who find the Pope in 
 the little horn, it is mere castle-building without materials ta- 
 ken from history. The subjects of Justinian were not called 
 Greeks except by the Goths in reproach,! nor was -the eastern 
 empire called the Greek empire. It was the Roman empire 
 in the east ; and Justinian as Roman emperor appointed two 
 of his creatures, Vigilius and Pelagius I, successively to the 
 Papal see.| In 533, five years before he conquered Rome, 
 (according to these writers,) he published as Roman empe- 
 ror, his famous code of Roman laws called Pandects (univer- 
 sal code) or Institutes, for the regulation of the empire. 
 
 We see the impossibility of applying the little horn, whe- 
 ther to the Roman empire, or to the Papacy. We come back 
 
 '' Litch's Address to the Clergy, pp. 78 — 80. Miller's Lectures, etc. 
 t Gibbon's Roman Empire, Vol. III. p. 97. 
 X Giesler's Church History, Vol. I. p. 341. 
 
 7 
 
74 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 10 12. 
 
 to Antiochus Epiphanes. If, in verse 21, an individual king, 
 or race of kings, may be designated by the emblem of a horn, 
 (and a writer on the latter hypothesis of the two above men- 
 tioned remarks that '* all expositors are agreed that this text, 
 [verse 21] points out the Macedonian kingdom, and the not- 
 able horn Alexander the Great,"*) then may an individual 
 king, or race of kings, be designated by the little horn in verse 
 9 ; and if the events predicted agree in him, that little horn was 
 Antiochus Epiphanes. Thus far in this verse, we have seen 
 that they do agree. It will also appear, that all that is assert- 
 ed of the little horn in this chapter, has been asserted in ch. 
 xi, of one whom the context and laws of language allow to 
 be no other than Antiochus Epiphanes ; and if he is meant 
 there, he must be meant here. It should confirm the convic- 
 tion that the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes, to learn that 
 he is spoken of in 1 Mace. 1: 10, in a manner corresponding 
 perfectly with Daniel, — " And there came out of them [i. e. 
 out of " Alexander's servants who after his death put crowns 
 upon themselves ; so did their sons after them,"] a wicked 
 root, Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the 
 king." And says even Bishop Newton, while he applies it 
 not to Antiochus Epiphanes but to the Roman kingdom, 
 " This little horn is by the generality of interpreters, both 
 Jewish and Christian, ancient and modern, supposed to mean 
 Antiochus Epiphanes. So Josephus understands it, and so 
 Jerome explains it."f 
 
 10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven ; and it cast 
 down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped 
 
 11 upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the 
 host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place 
 
 12 of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him 
 against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast 
 down the truth to the ground ; and it practised, and prospered. 
 
 In illustration of verse 10, and the first clause of verse 11, 
 * Litch's Address, p. 76. t Prophecies, p. 247. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 10 12. 75 
 
 compare the following : " Thou hast said in thine heart, I 
 will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars 
 of God : I will sit also [even] upon the mount of the congrega- 
 tion, in the sides of tlte north : J will ascend above the heights 
 of the clouds ; I will be like the Most High," Is. 14: 13, 14. 
 " Thou, O Belshazzar, hast lifted up thyself against the Lord 
 of heaven ; and they have brought the vessels of his house be- 
 fore thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives and thy concu- 
 bines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the 
 gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which 
 see not, nor hear, nor know : and the God in whose hand thy 
 breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified." 
 Dan. 5: 22, 23. Also 2 Mace. 9: 8, 10,— most remarkably in 
 point, as the historian is speaking of A. Epiphanes — " And 
 thus he that a little afore thought he might command the 
 waves of the sea, (so proud was he beyond the condition of 
 man,) and weigh the high mountains in a balance, was now 
 cast on the ground ; and the man, that thought a little afore 
 he could reach to the stars of heaven, no man could endure 
 to carry for his intolerable stench." 
 
 The appellation "prince of the host," does not seem to be 
 synonymous with the phrase " prince of the covenant," in 11: 
 22, though the word " host" seems to be figuratively used, at 
 least in the middle clause, for the ministers and priests of the 
 temple — the Jewish hierarchy — perhaps also for the worship- 
 pers in the temple. In verse 25, it is exchanged for " Prince of 
 princes," and what is here asserted respecting " the prince of 
 the host," is expressed in a parallel clause in 11; 36, "he 
 shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods." It 
 does not therefore here denote )Jke high-priest, but Jehovah. 
 Compare also the following: "As I live saith the King, 
 whose name is the Lord of hosts." " Lift up your eyes on 
 high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth 
 out their host by number." " Thus the heavens and the 
 earth were finished, and all the host of them," Jer. 46: 18, 
 
76 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 10 12. 
 
 Is. 40: 16. Gen. 2: 1. If the first clause of verse 11 denotes 
 more than the utterance of words of blasphemy, (see the ex- 
 planation of the corresponding clause in 11: 36,) it is to be 
 taken in the sense that what is done against God's servants 
 is done against himself — a principle expressed so forcibly in 
 Zech. 2: 8, " He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his 
 eye." Jerusalem, and the temple, and the Jews, were the 
 city, and sanctuary, and people, of the Lord of hosts. 
 
 The phrase "by him," in the middle clause of verse 11, 
 is bi/ it, i. e. by the little horn, or the king it denotes. The 
 phrase " place of his sanctuary," in the last clause of verse 
 II, means the place of the sanctuary of " the prince of the 
 host," compare Is. 60: 13, 14, " The glory of Lebanon shall 
 come unto thee, to beautify the place of my sanctuary, and 
 they shall call thee Zion, the Holy One of Israel." The 
 place of his sanctuary was Zion, " city of our God, the moun- 
 tain of his holiness," Ps. 48: 1, 2. See further on verse 14. 
 
 The first clause of verse 12 literally reads, An host was 
 set against the continual [burnt offering] by reason of trans- 
 gression. "An host" often means an armed soldiery, and such 
 is doubtless its significance here, the prophet passing from 
 one meaning to the other, and perhaps using the word host of 
 the little horn with some significance, as comparing it with 
 the host of the king of heaven against whom the little horn 
 thus magnified itself. Instead of " by reason of transgres- 
 sion," where the prophet would be made to suggest the 
 great wickedness of the Jews as the reason of the invasion, 
 it may read, with transgression — that is, an armed soldiery 
 shall be sent to commit the great transgression of taking 
 away the morning and evening sacrifices of the sanctuary. 
 See further on verse 23.* The casting down of the truth 
 
 * There is one other interpretation which the first clause of v. 12 
 may literally have, though it indeed amounts to the same, viz. The 
 host shall be given up, in addition to the sanctuary, to the transgres- 
 sion. That is, God's chosen people, including some of the brightest 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 13. 77 
 
 to the ground, by the armed soldiery, or by him who sent 
 them, was the overthrow of divine institutions, the prostration 
 of God's holy religion, the abolition of his law. He who sent 
 the army accomplished his purposes, (" practised," which is 
 the same word in the original translated "shall deal," and 
 ^'thus shall he do," in 11: 7, 17,) he prospered in his de- 
 signs. How can language more appropriately describe, than 
 do these verses, the towering ambition of Antiochus Epipha- 
 nes, his deeds against Jerusalem, against the temple, against 
 the Jews, as already illustrated under 11: 22, 28, 30 — 36? 
 Is it possible, in the light of these facts, not to find that An- 
 tiochus Epiphanes is the little horn here described ? Is this 
 prophecy in chap. viii. any more than the germ of the full pro- 
 phecy in 11: 21 — 45? But even more light is to be given 
 us in vs. 23 — 25, to enable us to discern who it is ; and it will 
 then be seen whether the remark has been made with any ac- 
 curacy by Bishop Newton and others, (Prophecies p. 247,) 
 that "Antiochus Epiphanes doth indeed in some features very 
 much resemble the little horn, but upon a nearer view and 
 examination it will evidently appear, that in other parts there 
 is no manner of similitude or correspondence between them." 
 
 13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto 
 that certain saint which spake, How long shall he the vision con- 
 cerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to 
 give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot ? 
 
 These saints, i. e. the holy ones, the angels of God., are in- 
 
 ornaments and highest rulers of the nation, shall be given up, along 
 with the temple, into the hands of the transgressors their enemy. 
 The word " transgression " may be used elliptically for men of trans- 
 gression, or as tlie abstract for the concrete, (See Ezek. 2: 7, where 
 the words " most rebellious" in our Translation, are in the Hebrew, 
 rebellion, i. e. men of rebellion.) The sentiment of this first clause 
 is found in the verses immediately preceding, and may be here re- 
 peated to give it emphasis, just as the first clause of v. 7 repeats the 
 sentiment contained in v. 6. 
 
 7* 
 
78 INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 8: 14. 
 
 troduced by a sort of scenic representation before the pro- 
 phet, to make the whole more impressive. The " transgres- 
 sion of desolation," is the same substantially with " abomina- 
 tion of desolation," 11: 31, though it seems to have here a 
 larger signification ; and it rather confirms the interpretation 
 given of the first clause of verse 12 — " An host was set against 
 the continual [burnt-offering] with transgression." The 
 question " How long shall be the vision concerning the daily 
 sacrifice," is literally, How long the vision — viz. the contin- 
 ual [burnt-offering] and the transgression of desolation ? (or 
 desolating transgression?) Our translation expresses the 
 sense, and the same sort of grammatical construction is found 
 in other places.* It is, How long shall be the period in the 
 vision, which covers the taking away of the daily sacrifice, 
 and the giving up of the sanctuary and its worshippers to be 
 trodden under foot 1 How long shall it be from the begin- 
 ning to the end of the desolating transgression ? 
 
 14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred 
 days ; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. 
 
 The words " sanctuary," and " daily sacrifice," in verses 
 13, 14, must refer back to the words " sanctuary," and " dai- 
 ly sacrifice," in verses 11, 12, and designate the same things, 
 and have the same meaning which those two words express 
 in 11: 31, whatever be the events asserted respecting them. 
 It is the same " sanctuary " which was to be " cast down," 
 and " trodden under foot," that was also to *' be cleansed." 
 How is it possible to read this chapter, and not see and feel 
 it must be so ? What usage whether of Scripture or of com- 
 mon sense can be brought to justify the separation of these 
 words in so close a connexion, and making sanctuary meaipi 
 one thing in verses 11, 13, and another thing in verse 14? 
 And yet this separation is made by those who teach the end 
 of the world in A. D. 1843, and who make this passage the 
 
 * See Stuart's Heb. Gramm., Syntax, on Apposition. 
 
^ or TBB 'V 
 
 VERSITY 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL J^^J^^ «. '^ "^^ 
 
 great proof-text to support their doctrine. ThesS^^ilers are 
 divided as to the meaning of the word " sanctuary " in verse 
 11 — some affirming that it means "Paganism's sanctuary,"* 
 and others admitting, that it means " the Jewish sanctuary," 
 while these last affirm, inconsistently enough, that in 11: 31, 
 it means the city Rome.t But all of them take the word 
 " sanctuary " in verse 14, in a different sense from that in vs. 
 11, 13, while they also differ from each other as to the meaning 
 of the word in verse 14 — some of them affirming that it means 
 the Christian church,}: and others that it means the earth.§ 
 
 In respect to the meaning " Paganism's sanctuary," it has 
 been sufficiently shown, under 11: 31, that it is impossible 
 to make any such application of the word. And where was 
 the place of Paganism's sanctuary ? Was it Rome? Was 
 it an abstract term for the Pagan system throughout the Ro- 
 man empire ? So the writer alluded to seems to consider it ; 
 for he says, " The place of Paganism's sanctuary was then 
 cast down, and in its place a new system of idolatry was set 
 up — viz. the worship of saints and images."|| But who can 
 fail to see that this is a construction harsh and unwarranta- 
 ble to the last degree 1 
 
 As to the meaning assigned by the writers above mention- 
 ed to "sanctuary" in verse 14, i. e. either "the Christian 
 church," or " the earth ;" it is said in support of the former, 
 that the use of the word is supported by Heb. 8: 2, where our 
 Lord Jesus Christ is called " a minister of the sanctuary, and 
 of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." 
 Now this meaning cannot be applied to Dan. 8: 14, and the 
 sentiment be, that at the end of 2300 years the true Chris- 
 tian church shall be cleansed. The true tabernacle and 
 sanctuary in Heb. 8: 1, is the inner sanctuary of all true 
 saints — it is the spiritual building of God, eternal in the hea- 
 
 * Litch's Address to the Clergy, p. 81. 
 
 t Miller's Lectures, pp. 40, 41. t Litch, p. 83. 
 
 § Miller, Fitch, etc. || Litch, p. 81. 
 
80 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 14. 
 
 vens, and is called " true " in distinction from the earthly, 
 temporary, and perishable. It is the greater and more per- 
 fect tabernacle, not made with hands, Heb. 9: 11, and con- 
 cerning it the sacred writer declares " the heavenly things 
 themselves to be purified with better sacrifices," than the 
 earthly ; and he adds, that " Christ is not entered into the holy 
 places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, 
 but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God 
 for us," Heb. 9: 23, 24. The true sanctuary is already 
 CLEANSED, in the sense in which that word is used in the epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews, and it is a monstrous mistake to confound 
 the two words together as used in Daniel and in Hebrews. 
 
 The only passage adduced in support of the interpretation, 
 " the earth," is in Is. 60: 13, '* The glory of Lebanon shall 
 come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box to- 
 gether, to beautify the place of my sanctuary ; and I will make 
 the place of my feet glorious." Now to whom does Isaiah 
 address this ? It is to Zion, as the context shows, "And the 
 Redeemer shall come to Zion," — " and they shall call thee, 
 The city of the Lord, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel." 
 Zion was God's holy hill, Ps. 2: 6. " The Lord of hosts 
 dwelleth in mount Zion," Is. 8: 18. " The Lord of hosts 
 shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem," Is. 24: 23. 
 The error in applying " sanctuary " in Is. 60: 13, to the earthj 
 arose doubtless from confounding it with Is. 66: 1, " Thus 
 saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my 
 footstool." But so the sanctuary is also called, 1 Chron. 28: 
 2, " As for me I had in my heart to build an house of rest 
 for the ark of the covenant, and for the footstool of our God." 
 We come back then to what is asserted in verse 14, of the 
 sanctuary — having seen, if anything in the world can be seen, 
 that the word does not, and cannot, mean "the earth," or 
 "the Christian church," in verse 14, nor in vs. 11, 13, and 
 11: 31, mean " the city Rome," or " Paganism's sanctuary," 
 which was no sanctuary at all ; but that it designates God's 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 14. 81 
 
 holy temple in Jerusalem, and that alone. The place of God's 
 sanctuary was to be cast down ; the temple, and its ministers, 
 and its worshippers, to be trodden under foot for 2300 days. 
 At the expiration of that period, the sanctuary should be 
 cleansed. 
 
 The 2300 days is, in the original, word for word, evening 
 morning two thousand and three hundred. It is a manifest 
 allusion to the evening and morning continual burnt-offering, 
 which was to be taken away, and it also harmonizes with the 
 >[ewish mode of calling the evening and morning one day. 
 So long were the predicted calamities to last, and at the ex- 
 piration of this period *' the sanctuary " should " be cleansed," 
 or, as it is in the original, be made right, absolved from trans- 
 gression, i. e. be recovered from the desolating transgression ; 
 the declaration doubtless looking back to the word " trans- 
 gression," in the preceding verse. The sanctuary which had 
 been desecrated, should be restored to its former state. 
 
 We have seen on 11: 32, that the sanctuary was recovered 
 from the desolating transgression, and purified from its pollu- 
 tions by Judas Maccabeus, in the year 148th of the Seleuci- 
 dae, (B. C. 165,) the 9th month, Casleu, and 25th day of the 
 month, (about December 15th — Casleu beginning in our No- 
 vember and ending about the 20th of our December.) From 
 this point, then, must the 2300 days be reckoned back. Al- 
 lowing 365 days to the year, we have a period of 6 years and 
 110 days ; or allowing 360 days to the year, we have a period 
 of 6 years and 140 days, which (reckoning the months alter- 
 nately of 29 and 30 days,) reach back from the 25th of the 
 month Casleu, in the 148th year of the Seleucidae, (165 B. 
 C.) to the 142nd year of the Seleucidae, (171 B. C.) and the 
 third of the month Elul, (about August 24th,) or the third of 
 the month Ab (about the 24th of July). 
 
82 INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 8: 14. 
 
 
 
 148 Sel. era, 
 142 « « 
 
 
 
 
 6 years. 
 
 
 Casleu 
 
 Marchesvan 
 
 Tizri 
 
 Elul (to the 3rd 
 
 day)_ 
 
 25 days, 
 29 
 30 
 26 
 
 110 days. 
 
 Casleu 
 
 iVI arches van 
 
 Tizri 
 
 Elul 
 
 Ab (to the 3rd day) 
 
 25 days, 
 
 2!) 
 
 30 
 
 2i) 
 
 27 
 
 140 days. 
 
 Now it has appeared under 11: 32, that sometime in the 
 142nd year of the Seleucidae, (171 B. C.) Menelaus, an apo£» 
 tate from the religion of his country, accompanied by an 
 armed band, with the authority and sanction of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, seized the office of high priest ; commenced his 
 career by causing to be committed a sacrilege which was at- 
 tended with the pollution of the sanctuary by blood ; procur- 
 ed the death of the godly Onias, the lawful though deposed 
 high priest ; brought on a wide-spread and thorough apostasy 
 of the Jews from their religion, and probably occasioned even 
 the frequent suspension of the stated morning and evening 
 sacrifice, inasmuch as the priests under the administration of 
 his predecessor Jason had begun to despise the duties of the 
 temple, and neglect the sacrifices. In these events, there is 
 certainly adequate fulfilment of the prediction that " the sanc- 
 tuary and the host," should " be trodden under foot." The 
 prophecy in this chapter does not circumscribe the events by 
 the entire and final taking away of the daily sacrifice; which 
 did not occur until 168 B. C. But it speaks of injuries and 
 oppressions in a manner which in the light of history we can 
 perceive both includes that event, and more. Those injuries 
 were of sufficient magnitude to make them an era from which 
 to reckon, while as we shall see on chapters vii, and xii, there 
 are given other dates, which specifically meet the final sus- 
 pension of the daily sacrifice. In regard to the commence- 
 ment of the desolating transgressions under Menelaus, though 
 it be impossible to verify the exact date from history ; it is 
 
INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 8: 14. 83 
 
 enough if history furnishes us with a year in the reign of An- 
 tiochus Epiphanes, in which those transgressions took place, 
 and there is sufficient scope for the 2300 days between that 
 year and the year in which the sanctuary was cleansed. 
 And this is more than we have in many other specifications 
 of time mentioned in the Bible — for instance the date of 
 " three years " in the prediction of the ruin of Moab, Is. 16: 
 14.* Commencing, then, with the desecration by Menelaus, 
 in the 142nd year of the Seleucidae, (171 B. C.) we come 
 down, at their expiration in the 148th year of the Seleucidae, 
 (165 B. C.) to the event of the purification and dedication 
 of the sanctuary by Judas Maccabeus. Then was the sanc- 
 tuary cleansed, and the prophecy fulfilled. 
 
 Instead of the number 2300, some have divided it, consid- 
 ering it 2300 times of sacrifice ; and as there were two sacri- 
 fices each day, they thus reckon it 1150 days. Their inter- 
 pretation is as follows : The 1150 days, reckoning years as 
 lunar years, (354 days to the year,) and adding an intercala- 
 ry month for every three years, would be just three years and 
 two months ; or, omitting the intercalary month, would be 
 just three years and three months. They consider this the 
 exact period during which the daily sacrifice was taken away. 
 For although they admit that Apollonius arrived at Jerusa- 
 lem in the month of June, B. C. 168, (which could not have 
 been but little short of six months, on the lowest calculation, 
 and may have been between six and seven months, before the 
 final act of desecration on the 25th of the month Casleu,) 
 they suppose that circumstances required considerable inter- 
 val of time before he effected the suppression of the daily sa- 
 
 * It is more, certainly, than those have, who fix on-tte^ftr A. D. 
 508, as the time of the abolition of the pagan sacrifices, as we have 
 seen under 11: 31 ; fiar, they have no authority in any history what- 
 ever for such a date. And yet one of them thus speaks — " It is not 
 known precisely how long Antiochus Epiphanes oppressed the Jews. 
 But if the period is 2300 literal days, those who thus apply it are bound 
 to show a literal fulfilment." — Litch, p. 78. 
 
84 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 14. 
 
 orifice. Now the perusal of the history of the events as giv- 
 en in 1 Mace. 1: 29 — 40, and 2 Mace. 5: 24 — 26, is very far 
 from making an impression that Apollonius was three or 
 four months executing his mission to interrupt and cut off the 
 temple worship. Such an interpretation has certainly but a 
 small degree of probability in its favor. It is difficult, more- 
 over, to reconcile the number 1150 with other specifications 
 of time found in these prophecies, as will be seen on chap, 
 xii. But the greatest objection is, that the text seems natu- 
 rally to read 2300 periods of united morning and evening, 
 and so most commentators and readers feel obliged to re- 
 gard it. 
 
 Some interpreters, as Rosenmiiller, disregard both the 
 number 2300 and the 1150, as exact designations of time, 
 and consider the 2300 as a definite put for an indefinite num- 
 ber. But as we shall see that the other numbers, indisputa- 
 bly many of them, are exact designations of time, why should 
 it not be so also with the number 2300 1 
 
 Instead of the period 2300 days, many suppose it to be 
 2300 years, and they call the da.ys prophetic days — days be- 
 ing taken for years. But against this mode of interpretation 
 it is to be observed, (1) that the phraseology in 8: 14, is dif- 
 ferent from any passage in the Bible where we find the word 
 days. It reads indeed, that " the evening and the morning 
 were the first day ;" but nowhere, unless it be in this chap- 
 ter, do we find the phrase " evenings and mornings" as the 
 synonyme of the word days, and substituted in its place. 
 If then any example could be found in Scripture, where days 
 are reckoned as years, the peculiarity of 8: 14 is sufficient to 
 exempt it from the rule. But (2) the authorities which are 
 quoted from' the Bible to sustain such a mode of reckoning, 
 do not, when closely examined, give the least support to it 
 whatever. One passage is Ezek. 4: 6, " I have appointed 
 thee each day for a year." These days of Ezekiel are not 
 prophetic days, in the sense in which many suppose ; they 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 14. 85 
 
 show no established mode of reckoning time, but they are 
 emblematic days. The prophet was directed to lie so many 
 days on his side, and was told that as many days as he should 
 thus lie, just so many years should Israel and Judah be pun- 
 ished for their sins. Another passage is in Numbers 14: 34, 
 "each day for a year." This too is emblematic. The spies 
 had searched the land forty days, and Moses was commanded 
 to say that as many days as the spies were searching the 
 land, just so many years should the Israelites wander in the 
 wilderness — "each day for a year." To make the cases 
 parallel, and to have ground for applying either of the fore- 
 cited passages to explain this in Daniel, it ought to be that 
 Daniel was " considering" (verse 5) these things for 2300 
 days, and that as many days as he was considering them, so 
 many years was the vision to be in its accomplishment. 
 
 Those who make the 2300 days so many years, are divided 
 in their opinion as to when the years commence. Bishop 
 Newton, followed by Dr. Adam Clarke and some others, date 
 them from the rise of the he-goat — about 336 B. C. — which 
 would make them reach down to about A. D. 2000 — when 
 according to them, Rome is to be destroyed, the Jews re- 
 stored, and the millennial jubilee of universal holiness and 
 peace ushered in. Others, commencing with the re-peopling 
 of Jerusalem by Nehemiah 444 B. C, make them reach down 
 to A. D. 1856. Mr. William Miller and those who adopt his 
 calculations, commence with " the going forth of the com- 
 mandment to restore and build Jerusalem," (for their authori- 
 ty, and how much support it has, see the interpretation of chap. 
 9: 24 — ^27,) and they fix the termination of the period in 1843, 
 when, according to their assertion, this present earth shall 
 be destroyed with fire, and the final judgment take place. 
 We have seen how unauthorized and contradictory of sacred 
 usage, is this last theory, which makes the cleansing of the 
 sanctuary the destruction of the world. It may suffice fur- 
 ther to say on all these calculations, that the passage reads, 
 8 
 
86 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 14. 
 
 ** To how long a time extends the vision concerning the daily 
 sacrifice, and the desolating transgression, that both the sanc- 
 tuary and the host shall be trodden under foot ?" The period 
 must begin with the giving of the sanctuary to he trodden un- 
 der foot. The disregard of what lies so obviously on the face 
 of the passage, vitiates all the calculations in question. 
 
 If the " days" could be reckoned as years, then being 
 reckoned from the *' transgression to give both the sanctuary 
 and the host to be trodden under foot," they must reach 
 down to about A. D. 2130, and the fulfilment of the declara- 
 tion, — "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed," — be sought 
 in the deliverance of Jerusalem, " the place of his sanctuary," 
 even now "trodden down of the Gentiles" (Luke 21: 24) ; 
 in the restoration of the worship of the temple, not indeed 
 with the rites of Moses, but with the simplicity of Christ ; in 
 the true elevation of the host, the lifting up of the Israel of 
 God, no longer the rejecters of their Messiah, but at last 
 brought in with the fulness of the Gentiles, Rom. 11: 25. 
 That the Jews will become a Christian people, is indeed fore- 
 told in the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testaments, 
 as plainly as anything ever written by inspired men. That 
 they will even become again a nation in Palestine, where, 
 being delivered out of the hand of their enemies, they may 
 serve God without fear, in holiness and righteousness, seems 
 an event alike demanded by the language of some of the 
 plainest prophecies, and among the indications of God's pro- 
 vidence. But such events can be supported here, only by 
 considering the passage as typical, as indeed the ancient fa- 
 thers considered that part which relates to Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes — making him a type of Antichrist— vilnWe they also 
 applied the whole of it primarily to him. But there is no more 
 authority to consider Antiochus Epiphanes, or the cleansing 
 of the sanctuary, typical, than there is so to consider Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, and the seventy years captivity, and the restora- 
 tion of temple worship after the return from Babylon. Anti- 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8*. 15 19. 87 
 
 ochus was a type indeed of all the great bad men and des- 
 pots of his class; and in this sense every vile person is a type 
 — a representative of his class. 
 
 15 And it came to pass, when I, even I, Daniel, had seen the vision, 
 and sought for the meaning, then behold, there stood before me as 
 
 IQ the appearance of a man. And 1 heard a man's voice between 
 the hanks o/Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man 
 to understand the vision. 
 
 While Daniel was seeking for the meaning of the vision, 
 Oabriel appeared before him, not near, but at some little dis- 
 tance. Whether the angel who requests Gabriel to commu- 
 nicate the meaning of the vision to the prophet, was one of 
 the holy ones mentioned in verse 13 ; whether it was, as the 
 Jews suppose, Michael, mentioned in chap, x, and whether 
 Gabriel was also the one who uttered the declaration con- 
 tained in verse 14, may properly enough be taken in the af- 
 firmative, though of course there is only conjecture to sup- 
 port it. 
 
 17 So he came near where 1 stood : and when he came, I was afraid, 
 and fell upon ray face : but he said unto me. Understand, O son 
 
 18 of man : for at the time of the end shall he the vision. Now as he 
 was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward 
 
 19 the ground : but he touched me and set me upright. And he said, 
 Behold, I will make thee know v/hat shall be in the last end of the 
 indignation : for at the time appointed the end shall he. 
 
 The phrase " upright " in verse 18, is the same in the origi- 
 nal with " where I stood," in verse 17 ; except that in v. 18 
 it has the preposition upon before it, and reads literally, 
 caused me to stand upon where I stood. The posture of Dan- 
 iel when the angel drew near to him, and the phraseology in 
 the last clause of v. 18, further shows, (if indeed so small a 
 circumstance need again be noticed,) that this vision was 
 seen by the prophet waking and not in a dream. The eifect 
 of the angel's approach was to cause him to fall to the ground 
 
88 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 20 22. 
 
 and stupefy him with awe, so that he became insensible in the 
 midst of the angel's communication. But roused and lifted 
 up by the angel, he again heard his words. 
 
 The declarations, " at the time of the end shall be the 
 vision," — " I will make thee know what shall be in the last 
 end of the indignation ; for at the time appointed the end shall 
 be ;" — seem to imply that this vision looks not only to the 
 end of the calamities under Antiochus Epiphanes, but further ; 
 that the calamitous events here narrated are to be in the last 
 period of those judgments of which the captivity itself was a 
 part, and which would be succeeded by the times of the Mes- 
 siah. See under 7: 27. 2: 44. 12: 1. 
 
 20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns arc the kings of 
 
 21 Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king of Grecia : and 
 the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. 
 
 See on vs. 3 — 7. The word Graecia is in the original 
 Javan^ who was the son of Japheth, and settled Ionia, (Gen. 
 10: 4,) the country of Homer, and a name designating the 
 whole of Greece. The word " kings" in verse 20, and " king" 
 in the first clause of verse 21, is an instance, as above men- 
 tioned, of king taken for kingdom. The epithet *' rough," or 
 shaggy, is added to describe more graphically Alexander's 
 formidableness and strength. He is called the first king, be- 
 cause his predecessors had only Macedon ; he was the first 
 over the extended empire of the Greeks. Or the first king 
 may denote the first in point of eminence and glory. 
 
 22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four king- 
 doms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. 
 
 It deserves to be noticed that the prophecy does not say 
 expressly that the four horns symbolize four kingdoms, but 
 it presents the events that correspond ; it says that four king- 
 doms shall arise out of the nation, i. e. of which Alexander 
 the great horn was the first king. Or the word " kingdoms" 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 23. 89 
 
 may merely denote reigns, and have chief respect to the kings 
 whose reigns are thus spoken of. Those reigns were not 
 with the power and glory of Alexander's. See on 11: 4, and 
 
 8:8. 
 
 23 And in tiie latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors 
 are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understand- 
 ing dark sentences, shall stand up. 
 
 Here the " little horn " is exchanged for the word " king,^'' 
 under circumstances that leave us no liberty to suppose that 
 nation is meant ; and the interpretation of verses 3, 9, in which 
 horn was considered emblematical not of a kingdom, but of a 
 king, is confirmed. The portrait of a king of fierce counte- 
 nance, and understanding dark sentences, (literally, versed in 
 fraud,) describes Antiochus still more graphically, as the epi- 
 thet rough was used, the better to describe Alexander ; and it 
 remarkably corresponds with assertions in 11: 23, (first clause,) 
 24, 25, 27, 30, 44, etc. He stood at the height of his pros- 
 perity about 170 B. C, one hundred and thirty-one years from 
 the division of the kingdom in 301 B. C. It was the latter 
 time of the reign of the four horns. For from the year 170 
 B. C. to the overthrow of Syria, (see on 2: 44,) was only the 
 space of 105 years ; and Macedonia was added to the Roman 
 empire 166 B. C, and Egypt, the last of them, fell not long 
 afi:er Syria. The declaration " when the transgressors are 
 come to the full," looks back to verses 12, 13 — '* on account 
 of transgression," — " transgression of desolation," — i. e. when 
 the impiety of many of the Jews was as a cup running over, 
 or, (if the idea conveyed by the phrase '^ with transgression,^^ 
 be the true one,) when the wickedness of those four nations 
 was about reaching its height, and their latter time was fast 
 running out. A similar expression is used by our Savior, 
 " Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers," Matt. 23: 32. 
 
 24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power : and 
 he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and 
 
 8* 
 
90 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 24, 25. 
 
 25 shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And tlirough his 
 policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand ; and he shall 
 magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many : 
 he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes ; but he shall 
 be broken without hand. 
 
 That he became potent not by his own inherent might, see 
 on 11: 21, 23. It was even by the aid of apostate Israelites, 
 that he succeeded in his designs upon that nation, 11: 30. 
 His resources were those of cunning, and fraud, and flattery ; 
 by these he prevailed, as shown in the instances of his acces- 
 sion to the throne, and his conduct in the war with Ptolemy, 
 and his proceedings against the Jews. Fraud prospered in 
 his hand through his superior worldly policy and foresight, 
 and enabled him to destroy wonderfully, though he was not 
 in himself a truly mighty man. — "The mighty and the holy 
 people," is in the original, literally, "the mighty and the peo- 
 ple the saints." They seem to be distinguished — the " mighty" 
 denoting other people beside the Israelites, and the Israelites 
 designated as the people the saints. Comp. the declarations, 
 Fear the Lord, ye his saints, Ps. 34: 9. Also 11: 17, 32, 33, 
 and 12: 7. " The people the saints," may distinguish the true 
 Israelites, the faithful to their religion, from the false. The 
 " peace" by which he destroyed many, may denote the im- 
 punity, the safety to himself, with which he did it, and may 
 have been the cause of his self-complacency (" shall magnify 
 himself in his heart.)" Or it may denote the secure, unsus- 
 pecting condition in which those were on whom he came as 
 a beast of prey springs on his unwary victim. The phrase 
 " Prince of princes," is the same in effect with " prince of 
 the host," and "God of gods," 8: 11, and 11: 36. Comp. 1 
 Tim. 6: 15. — The mode of Antiochus Epiphanes' death is 
 here strongly given. There is no room for doubt in regard to 
 the manner of his death, as there is respecting Antiochus the 
 Great, 11: 19. He died not by poison, nor by the hands of 
 others, but an unseen power smote him to the earth, 11: 45. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 26, 27. 91 
 
 The "little horn" was "broken," — his very race was de- 
 stroyed, as was Alexander's, soon after his death ; (see on 
 12: 1 ;) but the "great horn " whence he branched forth yet 
 stood, and the descendants of Seleucus still sat upon the 
 throne. 
 
 26 And the vision of the evening and the morning vt'hich was told 
 is true : wherefore shut thou up the vision ; for it shall he for 
 many days. 
 
 "The evening and the morning" is the same phrase with 
 that found in verse 14, and there translated " days," except 
 that in verse 26 the article is used to show what evenings and 
 mornings were meant. The vision may be thus named, be- 
 cause though other events are described besides the desecra- 
 tion of the temple etc., they are narrated chiefly as introduc- 
 tory to that. Many days were to elapse before that vision 
 should come to pass ; for the prophet had this vision in the year 
 553 B. C, and the series of desecrations of the temple com- 
 menced in 171 B. C. — a period of 382 years. Daniel is di- 
 rected to shut up the vision, when he had recorded it, as a sym- 
 bol that the words would be in effect sealed, until understood 
 in the light of those times to which the vision related. But 
 it was to be relied on, and should certainly come to pass. 
 
 27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days ; afterwards 1 
 rose up, and did the king's business. And I was astonished at the 
 vision, but none understood it. 
 
 The effect of so exciting a scene, and of the announcement 
 of such events yet to take place, after his native city and his 
 countrymen had already suffered so much, was too great for 
 the physical energies of the prophet, and his strength was ut- 
 terly exhausted. He was hindered from attending to the 
 king's business on which he came to Shushan, being for some 
 days confined to his couch by great debility. But " none un- 
 derstood," [the matter,] none knew the cause of his sickness. 
 
92 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 8: 27. 
 
 He communicated at that time the vision to no one. Possi- 
 bly, though not most naturally, the last clause of the verse 
 may mean, that when he recovered so as to be able to attend 
 to the king's business, no one, to whom he communicated 
 the vision, understood its meaning. 
 
 The interpretation thus given of the vision recorded in ch. 
 viii, should not be dismissed without noticing the confirma- 
 tion it receives from Josephus. " Daniel hath informed us," 
 (says the Jewish historian, Antiq. B. x. ch. 11, sec. 7,) " that 
 God interpreted the appearance of this vision after the fol- 
 lowing manner : He said that the ram signified the kingdoms 
 of the Medes and Persians, and the horns those kings that 
 were to reign in them ; and that the last horn signified the 
 last king, and that he should exceed all the kings in riches 
 and glory : that the he-goat signified that one should come 
 and reign from the Greeks, who should twice fight with the 
 Persian, and overcome him in battle, and should receive his 
 entire dominion : 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 should arise a cer- 
 tain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, 
 and should take away their political government, 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, ac- 
 cording to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years be- 
 fore they came to pass." 
 
 In remarks preceding this quotation, in the same section, 
 Josephus confounds events noticed in the vision recorded in 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL VII. 93 
 
 chaps. X, xi, and xii, with those of the vision in chap, viii ; for 
 he speaks of the phenomenon of Gabriel's appearance, and the 
 flight of Daniel's companions, (10: 6, 7,) as happening when 
 Daniel saw the visions of the ram, etc. ; and that the higher 
 horn (in chap, viii.) was the king who " should exceed all the 
 kings in riches and glory," (11: 2.) He also says nothing 
 of the 2300 days ; but he speaks not only of the " three years," 
 but also of the number " 1296 days," as the period during 
 which the little horn should " forbid the sacrifices to be offer- 
 ed," — a period which he doubtless takes from 12: 11, viz. 
 1290 days — which will be explained in the proper place. 
 But this only shows that the two visions, though twenty years 
 apart, stood in the historian's mind as mainly one and the 
 same — as indeed they are, with the exceptions mentioned in 
 the introduction to the interpretation of this chapter. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF CHAP. VII. 
 
 THE FOUR BEASTS, THE LITTLE HORN OF THE FOURTH, AND 
 THE REIGN OF THE SON OF MAN. 
 
 This chapter is an expansion of the prophecy contained in 
 chap. ii. All commentators so regard it. Says Bishop New- 
 ton, " What was revealed unto Nebuchadnezzar in the se- 
 cond year of his reign concerning the four great empires of 
 the world, was again revealed unto Daniel, (chap, vii,) with 
 some enlargements and additions."* The study of this fuller 
 vision, therefore, will more readily introduce us to the mean- 
 
 * Prophecies, p. 201. 
 
94 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL VII. 
 
 ing of the events predicted, and prepare us to understand, 
 more satisfactorily, the prophecy as recorded in chap. ii. 
 
 On comparing chap. vii. with those already examined — 
 chaps, xi. and viii. — we see a resemblance in part, and we 
 see also that chap. vii. contains the prediction of events not 
 mentioned in the other two. The resemblance is between what 
 is said of the second beast in chap, vii, and the ram in chap, 
 viii, and the three kings of Persia in chap, xi; between what 
 is said of the third beast in chap, vii, and the he-goat in chap, 
 viii, and the mighty king in chap, xi ; between what is said 
 of the little horn in chap, vii, and the little horn in chap, viii, 
 and the *^ vile person" in chap. xi. The things not men- 
 tioned in chaps, viii. and xi, which are found in chap, vii, are 
 the first beast, and that kingdom, which, arising after the 
 others symbolized by the four beasts, should never be de- 
 stroyed. Respecting this fifth kingdom, commentators (with 
 only one or two exceptions, which will be noticed in the pro- 
 per place), are agreed that it is the kingdom of Christ ; and 
 this interpretation seems to compel the assent of the reader. 
 But there is not so general agreement as to the fourth king- 
 dom, and the object designated by the little horn. Most of 
 the early christian writers, and some of the Jewish, consid- 
 ered the fourth kingdom to be the Roman, and the little 
 horn to be literally and primarily Antichrist ; though, as be- 
 fore observed, the early christian writers regarded the little 
 horn in chap, viii, as literally and primarily Antiochus Epipha- 
 nes, and only a type of Antichrist. Bishop Newton, Adam 
 Clarke, etc. and those who suppose the world will end in 
 1843, go along with the ancients in the interpretation of 
 chap, vii, while feeling compelled to disregard the typical in- 
 terpretation, they leave them on chaps, viii. and xi, and in the 
 interpretation of chap, viii, and the latter part of chap, xi, throw 
 Antiochus Epiphanes wholly out, as we have seen. Others 
 among the moderns, who go along with the ancients on chaps. 
 xi. and viii, leave them on chap, vii, and find the fourth king- 
 
OF Tli£ 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 1, 1^^ -^ 05' 
 
 n 
 
 dom in that of Alexander's successors, particularly Syria and 
 Egypt, and the little horn in Antiochus Epiphanes. While 
 interpreters thus range under two classes, in respect to the 
 meaning of the fourth kingdom in chap, vii, there is by no 
 means perfect agreement in each class by itself, in the mode 
 of explaining what is said of that fourth kingdom. In the 
 midst of so much diversity, it may be presumptuous to feel 
 any confidence in guiding the reader to satisfactory and sure 
 results. But we come to this chapter now, with the help of 
 chaps, xi. and viii, and with the almost universal assent of 
 modern interpreters that the little horn is the same king, or 
 the same dynasty of kings, both in chaps, vii. and viii ; that 
 they are the same exploits mentioned in chaps. 11: 31 — 36, 
 in 8: JO — 12, and in 7: 11, 21, 25. So affirm both classes 
 of interpreters above mentioned, and they but affirm what it 
 requires no uncommon sagacity to see to be the truth. If 
 the reader, then, has accepted the results of the interpretation 
 of chaps, xi. and viii, he has a clew to guide him through 
 this more difficult prophecy ; and coming from the plain to 
 the more obscure, from the more expanded vision of the little 
 horn, and the kingdom with which it was connected, to this 
 more sententious and enigmatical, he will, even though not 
 all obscurity be removed, (as it is hoped it will be,) attain to 
 a satisfactory conclusion in regard to the meaning of chap. vii. 
 
 1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a 
 dream and visions of his head upon his bed : then he wrote the 
 dream, and told the sum of the matters. 
 
 See on 8: 1. The use of the third person when a prophet 
 speaks of himself, is quite common, Comp. 10: 1. Is. 18: 1 — 
 4. Rev. 1: 1, 2. The visions which he now had, and the 
 summary (or, as it is in the original, heads) of which he re- 
 lates, were not when he was awake and standing, as in chap, 
 viii, but in a dream and on his couch. 
 
 2 Daniel spake and said, 1 saw in my vision by night, and behold, 
 the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. 
 
96 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 3, 4. 
 
 " The great sea" was the Mediterranean, which lies behind 
 Palestine on the west, and was so called from the lesser seas, 
 or lakes, such as the Salt (or Dead) Sea, Gen. 14: 3, and the 
 Sea of Galilee or Tiberias, John 6: 1. The rushing forth of 
 the four winds of heaven together on the sea, is emblematic 
 of civil commotions and revolutions. The Mediterranean is 
 chosen as the place of scene, because it was a fit emblem, 
 from its greatness, of the events that were to happen. 
 
 3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from 
 
 4 another. The first was like a lion, and had eagles' wings ; 1 be- 
 held till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from 
 the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's 
 heart was given to it. 
 
 While the hurricanes and whirlwinds were raging on the 
 great sea, these four emblematic beasts rose in succession as 
 to fit music ; they were born in the midst of wars and com- 
 motions.* The explanation is given in verse 17, that these 
 four great beasts represent four kings, or kingdoms; the 
 word " king" being here used by metonyme for kingdom^ as 
 in 8: 21. See also 7: 23, " The fourth beast shall be the 
 fourth kingdom upon earth." 
 
 * Such fabulous monsters as the lion with two wings, and the leo- 
 pard with four wings and four heads, were not unusual emblems among 
 the ancient nations, and they have some kindred with the modern 
 heraldry. It is said that winged lions have been found among the ru- 
 ins of Persepolis. There is also the Egyptian sphinx^ a creature with 
 a female human head on the body of a lion, always crouched down, 
 with its fore paws stretching forward. One of these statues has been 
 removed to Paris, and is twenty-two feet long, made out of a block of 
 red granite. Another, near Gizeh, recently uncovered from the sands 
 in which it was embedded, is about 150 feet long and sixty-three feet 
 high — the body is made out of one block of stone ; the paws, which 
 are extended fifty feet in front, are made of masonry. The metaphor- 
 ical designation of lions, eagles, leopards, and bears is often applied 
 in the Bible to the nations that oppressed Jerusalem, Jer. 5: 6. Ezek. 
 17: 3, etc. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 3, 4. 97 
 
 Without question, the first kingdom was the Chaldean. 
 This monarchy had its origin in revolutions, and grew great 
 by wars and conquests and spoil. It first sprung out of the 
 Assyrian empire, which had existed about 1300 years, when 
 its unity was broken about 747 B. C, and it became two 
 kingdoms — one under Arbaces, or Tiglath-Pileser, (2 Kings 
 16: 7,) whose capital was Nineveh, and who was called the 
 king of Assyria; the other under Belesus or Nabonassar, 
 (supposed by many to be the Baladan mentioned in 2 Kings 
 20: 12,) who had Babylon, and was called the king of Baby- 
 lon, or Chaldea. An earlier Assyrian king is mentioned in 
 the Scriptures — Pul — about 770 B. C. ; but it was before the 
 division of the kingdom. In 680 B. C, Assyria under Esar- 
 haddon, (2 Kings 19: 37,) the third in descent and suc- 
 cession from Tiglath-Pileser, seized Babylon during an in- 
 terregnum, and re-united Assyria and Chaldea. In 626 B. 
 C, Nabopolassar, a general in the Assyrian army, seized 
 Babylon, erected his throne there as king of Babylon, and 
 the unity of the Assyrian kingdom was again broken. In 
 612 B. C, Nabopolassar entered into an alliance with Asty- 
 ages king of Media, (father of Darius I,) and destroyed Nin- 
 eveh, and thus again united the Assyrian and Chaldean em~ 
 pires ; Babylon being the metropolis, with Syria and Judea 
 among its provinces.* In 610 B. C, Pharaoh-Necho, king 
 of Egypt, jealous of the consolidated power of Nabopolas- 
 sar, waged war against him, proceeded as far as Carche- 
 mish on the Euphrates, one third the way between Damas- 
 cus of Syria, and Babylon, obtained a victory over the As- 
 syrian army, and returning through Judea, made it tribu- 
 tary. Nabopolassar rallied his forces, and having associ- 
 
 * According to Robinson in Calmet, and Encyc. Amer., it was As- 
 tyages, (or Cyaxares 1,) who sought the help of Nabopolassar against 
 Nineveh, and Assyria became a Median province, Art. Media, p. 667. 
 For as graphic and sublime a picture as pen has ever painted, see 
 the prophet Nahum's description of the ruin of Nineveh, chaps. 1 — 3. 
 
 9 
 
^ INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 3, 4. 
 
 ated his son Nebuchadnezzar vvitli him in the sovereignty, 
 sent him to recover the losses recently sustained. Nebuchad- 
 nezzar was successful, and after an absence of about tvv^o 
 years, w^as suddenly called home by the death of his father. 
 He became the most powerful monarch of his times. Under 
 him, as well in his subsequent reign, as in his previous com- 
 mand of the army, the empire showed the strength and 
 courage of the lion, and advanced to dominion with the swift 
 and far flight of the eagle. Tributary to it were not only 
 Judah and Syria, but also Tyre, Sidon, Arabia and Egypt. 
 The prophet Habakkuk thus describes it, 1:6 — 8, "Lol 
 raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, which 
 shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the 
 dwelling places that are not theirs. They are terrible and 
 dreadful : their judgment, and their dignity shall proceed of 
 themselves. Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, 
 and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and their 
 horsemen shall come from far ; they shall fly as the eagle 
 that hasteth to eat." Under Nebuchadnezzar's successors, 
 the empire began to decline. Its " wings were plucked," its 
 power to make far conquests gone; and it was deprived of 
 its richest provinces. It " was lifted up from the earth" — 
 this lion, once so furious, became enervated, grew tame, and 
 could now be handled.* " A man's heart was given to it" — 
 its wild, furious disposition had departed, it was no longer 
 the king of the beasts of prey, but timid, Comp. Ps. 9: 20, 
 " Put them in fear, O Lord ; that the nations may know them- 
 selves to be but men." Chaldea was no longer the invading, 
 conquering nation it once was, but became luxurious and in- 
 
 * Bishop Newton assigns to the verb "lifted up," the meaning 
 taken away from the earth. But this the word will not bear. It is the 
 same word found in 4: 34 — " lifted up mine eyes." There is also the 
 marginal reading in our Bibles, " The wings thereof were plucked 
 wherewith it was lifted up" — i. e. on its career of conquests. But this 
 is unsupported in the original. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7*. 5. 99 
 
 nctive, and afraid to meet its foes, until at last the nation 
 shut itself up within the walls of Babylon against the Medo- 
 Persian army under Cyrus. And here, while its monarch 
 and a thousand of its nobles were revelling in the palace at 
 a banquet, (chap, v,) and the nation was secure, not in the 
 consciousness of valor, but only in the strength of their walls, 
 and the abundance of their provisions, Babylon was entered 
 at dead of night by the well-known expedient of turning the 
 Euphrates, which ran through the city, out of its course, and 
 marching up the bed of the river into the city. 
 
 Possibly the last clauses may mean, as some suppose, that 
 Nebuchadnezzar, who once walked in pride, was afterwards 
 abased by the King of heaven, chap. 4: 28 — 37 ; or that the 
 Chaldeans, subdued by the Medes and Persians, became more 
 gentle and humane. But these do not seem adequately to 
 express the symbol. 
 
 5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up 
 itself on one side, and It had tluee ribs in the mouth of it .between 
 tlie teeth of it : and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. 
 
 The Medo-Persian empire is here well represented, by the 
 bear, an animal strong, voracious, and savage. It was less 
 noble and lofty than the Chaldean, as the bear is inferior to 
 the lion. On the dissolution of the Assyrian empire in 747 
 B. C, Media, which had been a province of Assyria five hun- 
 dred and twenty years, still remained so until it revolted from 
 the king of Nineveh, 7C9 B. C, and under Dejoces became 
 a distinct kingdom. But little is known of the circumstances 
 under which Persia arose to independence ; but it is supposed 
 that having been a province of Assyria, it revolted as did 
 Media, and became independent, and that Cambyses, the 
 father of Cyrus, was its earliest king. The union of these 
 two kingdoms has already been noticed under 11: 1. It took 
 place after four kings, viz. Dejoces, Phraortes, Cyaxares I, 
 and Cyaxares II, had sat on the throne of Media ; and the 
 
100 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 5. 
 
 Medo-Persian nation, like the Chaldean, rose to its height 
 amidst wars and commotions. The ancient historians speak 
 of the cruelty of the Persians, as excessive and infamous. 
 And the prophet Isaiah, in predicting their invasion of Baby- 
 Ion says, " Behold I will stir up the Medes against them. 
 Their bows shall dash the young men to pieces ; and they 
 shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb ; their eye shall 
 not spare children," 13: 17, 18. Its posture, described in 
 the phrase " lifted up itself on one side," or, as it may be 
 translated, stood up one aide, and its holding three ribs in its 
 mouth, have the following facts in history to correspond with 
 and explain them. Before Babylon was taken, Belshazzar, 
 who felt his danger from Cyrus, went for aid to Croesus king 
 of Lydia — the monarch so famous for his riches as to have 
 occasioned the saying, " rich as Croesus." Having engaged 
 Croesus to lead a large army against Cyrus, Belshazzar re- 
 turned to Babylon. Croesus was defeated by the Medo-Per- 
 sian army, driven back into Sardis, and finally compelled to 
 surrender to Cyrus, 548 B. C, who then became master of 
 Lydia and almost all Asia Minor. From the conquest of 
 Lydii), he marched into Syria and Arabia, and thence to Up- 
 per Asia, and thence to Babylon, which having taken, he 
 placed his uncle Cyaxares on its throne. There, then, the 
 bear stood, in the realm of the Chaldeans, in Babylon as its 
 first seat of power and metropolis, on ground which was on 
 one side of Media and Persia, its original domain ; and the 
 three ribs in its mouth were the tokens of those countries 
 which had fallen a victim to its voracity, viz. Babylon and 
 Lydia on the west, Arabia on the south-west, and upper Asia 
 on the north ; Compare the vision in 8: 4, " I saw the ram 
 pushing westward, and northward, and southward," — the 
 plundered countries lying in those three quarters being deno- 
 ted by the "three ribs." 
 
 Some explain the posture of the bear as denoting that the 
 Medes and Persians dwelt on one side, on the east of the 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 6. 101 
 
 Babylonians ; that the empire arose on the borders of Chal- 
 dea. Retaining somewhat of this idea, the symbol may further 
 express the fact, that Cyrus and his successors made Susa of 
 Persia, and Ecbatana of Media, alternately the seats of gov- 
 ernment ; and the empire thus stood by one side of the an- 
 cient Babylonian, and made its conquests westward into 
 Babylon, Asia Minor and Syria, northward into Armenia, 
 and southward into Egypt — the latter being spoiled by Cam- 
 byses, son of Cyrus, as noticed under 11: 8. Most explain 
 the three ribs as denoting Lydia, Babylon and Egypt. But 
 the Medo-Persian nation did not confine its depredations to 
 those three nations. Another explanation still of the three 
 ribs is given — that they denote the three nations of Media, 
 Persia and Babylonia, which Cyrus and his successors ob- 
 tained. But this last does not adequately express the symbol, 
 because Media and Persia were properly the beast itself, not 
 two of the ribs in the beast's mouth : — The phrase " and they 
 said," is often used simply for it teas said, i. e. such was its 
 commission, such was the work it was to da 
 
 6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had up- 
 on the back of it four wings of a fowl ; the beast had also four heads; 
 and dominion was given to it. 
 
 The leopard, a nobler animal than the bear, inferior to the 
 lion in stature and strength, but beautiful, active, vigorous, 
 fierce, and not afraid to attack the king of beasts, is a re- 
 markably appropriate emblem of the Greek empire under Al- 
 exander. Some have found a correspondence of the spots of 
 the leopard, in the motley nations of which the empire was 
 composed ; others in the diverse dispositions of Alexander, 
 at times merciful and then cruel, temperate and drunken, 
 self-possessed and hurried away by passion. But it would 
 seem as wise to find something to answer to the sleek skin of 
 the leopard, as to the spots. The four wings on the back in- 
 9* 
 
102 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7*. 6. 
 
 dicate remarkable speed of conquest — double of that which 
 characterized the empire of Babylon, 8: 5. 
 
 The four heads seem to correspond with the four wings, 
 and belong, as do the wings, to the empire under Alexander. 
 As the symbol of the leopard corresponds to that of the he- 
 goat with the conspicuous horn, which without question was 
 intended to designate Alexander's kingdom, so must we seek 
 for the four heads in Alexander's kingdom alone, before it 
 was divided. We are not to consider them separate from 
 him any more than the four wings ; and the four wings in- 
 disputably denote Alexander's rapid conquests, not the con- 
 quests of his successors. The heads, then, may denote the 
 four main divisions of his army under the four generals Ptol- 
 emy, Seleucus, Philip and Antigonus ; or more probably 
 the four principal heads of his empire, viz. Greece, Egypt, 
 Syria and Persia, Comp. Rev. 17: 9, " The seven heads are 
 seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth." 
 
 From some resemblance between this symbol, and that of 
 the four horns which arose in the place of the conspicuous 
 horn of the he-goat, most interpreters have pronounced the 
 two symbols one and the same. But the difference is greater 
 than the resemblance. The four horns arose not until after 
 the great horn was broken ; but here is the one beast un- 
 changed in any part. Besides, if the four heads are the same 
 with the four horns ; if they denote those who reigned over 
 his empire after his death, then what in the emblem of the 
 leopard denotes Alexander ? Take away the four heads, 
 which some so confidently affirm represents Alexander's 
 successors, then there is nothing to represent Alexander, but 
 a beast without a head. There can be no consistent inter- 
 pretation of this emblem except one which makes it represent 
 the Greek Empire under Alexander alone, or one which 
 leaving out Alexander entirely, makes it represent the king- 
 dom under Alexander's generals, after his death. But this 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7*. 7 27. 103 
 
 last being most manifestly incorrect, the former must be 
 adopted. 
 
 Macedonia, like the kingdoms symbolized by the lion and 
 the bear, arose, as well as advanced to universal dominion, in 
 the midst of wars and revolutions. It had been tributary for 
 a long time to the Illyrians, Thracians and Persians, and had 
 been obliged to give up all its harbors to the Athenians, un- 
 til Philip, Alexander's father, ascending the throne at the age 
 of twenty-two, B. C. 3G1, freed it from its enemies, partly by 
 concessions, partly by force of arms. He sought to extend 
 his dominion over all Greece, which was then distracted by 
 intestine broils, and finally accomplished his object in the bat- 
 tle of Cheronea, B. C. 338. He assembled at Corinth depu- 
 ties fi-om all the Grecian states, and dictated terms of peace 
 which deprived them of freedom. When he was just about to 
 be chosen commander-in-chief of an army which was to march 
 against Persia, he was assassinated, in the 47th year of his 
 age, by Pausanias, a young Macedonian, who was hired to 
 commit^ the deed by the Persians. He was succeeded by Al- 
 exander, who received the appointment of commander-in-chief 
 in place of his father, and at the head of all the states of Greece, 
 Lacedemon excepted, entered Asia, and by an uninterrupted 
 series of victories for ten successive years, made Macedonia 
 the mistress of half the world.* 
 
 7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, 
 dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly ; and it had great 
 iron teeth : it devoured and break in pieces, and stamped the resi- 
 due with the feet of it ; and it was diverse from all the beasts that 
 
 8 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 man, and a mouth 
 speaking great things. 
 
 9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of 
 days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of 
 
 * American Encyclopedia, Arts. Macedon, and Philip. 
 
104 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 his head like the pure wool : his throne was like the fiery flame, 
 
 10 and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came 
 forth from before him : thousand thousands ministered unto him, 
 and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him : the judg- 
 
 11 ment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because 
 of the voice of the great words which the horn spake : I beheld 
 even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to 
 
 12 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. 
 
 13 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, 
 
 14 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 do- 
 minion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom, that which 
 shall not be destroyed. 
 
 15 I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and 
 
 16 the visions of my head troubled me. 1 came near unto one of them 
 that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, 
 
 17 and made me know the interpretation of the things. These great 
 beasts which are four, are four kings, ichich shall arise out of the 
 
 18 earth. But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, 
 and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. 
 
 19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was di- 
 verse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of 
 iron, and his nails of brass ; which devoured, brake in pieces, and 
 
 20 stamped the residue with his feet; and of the ten horns that were 
 in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom 
 three fell ; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake 
 
 21 very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I 
 beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed 
 
 22 against them : until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was 
 given to the saints of the Most High ; and the time came that the 
 saints possessed the kingdom. 
 
 23 Thus he said, 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. 
 
 24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall 
 arise : and another shall rise after them ; and he shall be diverse 
 
 25 from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall 
 speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 105 
 
 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 the 
 
 26 dividing of time. But the judgment shall &it, and they shall take 
 away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end. 
 
 27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom 
 under the v/hole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints 
 of the Most Pligh, whose kingdom ^5 an everlasting kingdom, and 
 all dominions shall serve and obey him. 
 
 General Remarks on the Fourth Kingdom. 
 
 What is the kingdom denoted by the fourth beast 1 Who 
 is the king, or what the race of kings, denoted by the little 
 horn 1 In two chapters already explained, where the laws 
 of interpretation seem to permit no other conclusion, we have 
 seen that the dominion of Alexander's generals is introduced 
 as directly succeeding that of Alexander ; that the prophet 
 enlarges on that dominion from the point where it is intro- 
 duced to the end of the chapters. It is the dominion of " the 
 kings of the north and of the south," and that of the four 
 horjis with a little horn growing out of one of them. As this 
 monarchy is made to succeed Alexander's in those two c?iap- 
 ters, and no mention even is made of any other except inci- 
 dentally in two places ; (where " a prince for his own behalf," 
 11: 18, viz. a Roman consul, came against Antiochus the 
 Great, and where "the ships of Chittim," 11: 30, viz. the 
 Roman embassadors, came against Antiochus Epiphanes;) 
 as the prophet has given the kingdom of Alexander's gene- 
 rals the place of the fourth kingdom in those two chapters, 
 especially in chap, xi, which all agree to be an expansion of 
 the other prophecies respectipg the kingdoms which were to 
 precede the fifth ; so must it be here. 
 
 (2) It has been already noticed in the introductory remarks 
 to this chapter, that there is a remarkable resemblance be- 
 tween what is said of the little horn in verse 8 of this chapter, 
 and the little horn in chap, viii, and the vile person in chap, 
 xi ; and that modern interpreters with one voice, however 
 
106 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 widely they differ in other respects, pronounce the little horn 
 in both chapters one and the same kingdom, or race of kings. 
 If then the little horn in chap, vii, is the same with the little 
 horn in chap, viii, we must seek for the fourth kingdom 
 in that which was next after Alexander's, and for the little 
 horn among the kings, or in the race of kings, between whom 
 Alexander's empire was divided. If the interpretation al- 
 ready given to chaps, viii. and xi, can be relied on, the single 
 question can only be now asked, Dees the government mei> 
 tioned in those two chapters as belonging to Alexander's 
 generals, answer to the description here 1 It is hoped that it 
 will be seen that it does, and that the correspondence leaves 
 no room to seek for its application elsewhere. 
 
 The ten horns, and the little horn springing up after them. 
 
 The fourth beast had ten horns, among which another lit- 
 tle horn sprang up, and before it three of the first horns were 
 plucked up by the roots. The explanation is given in verse 
 24 — " And the ten horns .... are ten kings," etc. This is 
 explained by some* as follows — The ten kings are to be sought 
 among those who had dominion over Palestine : and from 
 various historical sources as Plutarch, Josephus, Diodorus 
 Siculus and Justin, it is ascertained that ten kings of the gov- 
 ernment which succeeded Alexander's, had dominion over 
 Palestine, viz. (1) Antigonus, (2) Demetrius Poliorcetes, 
 (3) Ptolemy, son of Lagus, (4) Ptolemy Philadelphus, (5) 
 Ptolemy Euergetes I, (6) Ptolemy Philopator, (7) Ptolemy 
 Epiphanes, (8) Ptolemy Philometor, (9) Antiochus the Great, 
 (10) Seleucus Philopator. 
 
 After all these rose up Antiochus Epiphanes, who suc- 
 ceeded Seleucus Philopator. He subdued three kings, viz. 
 (1) Ptolemy Philometor, (2) Ptolemy Euergetes II, and (3) 
 Artaxias king of Armenia. Those who adopt this interpre- 
 
 * Rosenmaller, 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7*. 7 27. 107 
 
 tation do not feel obliged to find the three kings among the 
 ten kings, because in the interpretation by the angel as given 
 in verse 24, " he shall subdue three kings," it seems to be 
 left indefinite. But it is diflicult not to feel that the three 
 kings subdued are symbolized by three of the first ten horns, 
 and that they must be sought among the ten kings, whom the 
 ten horns designate. They are not to be found among the 
 ten above selected, and therefore that interpretation seems in- 
 adequate, and is unsatisfactory. Moreover, Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes did not subdue Ptolemy Euergetes II. We have seen 
 that this monarch was placed on the throne at Alexandria by 
 the Alexandrians, after Ptolemy Philometor came into Antio- 
 chus' hands, and that Antiochus was unable to subdue Al- 
 exandria. 
 
 A somewhat more satisfactory method of reckoning up 
 the ten kings, is adopted by others.* They find the ten in 
 the dynasty established by Seleucus, (11: 5,) viz. 
 
 " 1. Seleucus [. Nicator, founder of the dynasty, 312 B. C. 
 
 2. Antiochus I. Soter, . . . 
 
 3. Antiochus II. Theos, . . 
 
 4. Seleucus II. Callinicus, 
 
 5. Seleucus III. Ceraunus, 
 
 6. Antiochus III. the Great, . 
 
 7. Seleucus IV. Philopator, . 
 C 8. Heliodorus, 
 
 2 9. Ptolemy IV. [VI ?] Philomator, king of Egypt, 
 ^ 10. Demetrius I. Soter, son of Seleucus Philopator." 
 
 We have seen, on chap. 11: 21, that Heliodorus, and Ptol- 
 emy Philometor, were candidates for the crown, and that De- 
 metrius was the lawful heir. These Antiochus Epiphanes 
 displaced, having overcome them partly by fraud, and partly 
 by the aid of others. But there are two objections to this, 
 which certainly have some weight, — (1) that the scriptural 
 usage does not make " king " synonymous with a mere aspi- 
 
 * See a valuable Article in the Christian (Baptist) Review for March 
 1842, " Remarks on the Book of Daniel." 
 
 from 279 B. 
 
 C. to 260. 
 
 " 260 
 
 245. 
 
 « 245 
 
 « 226. 
 
 " 22:5 
 
 223. 
 
 « 223 
 
 187. 
 
 " 186 
 
 175. 
 
108 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 21. 
 
 rant for the kingly office, and such only was Heliodorus ; for 
 he had not succeeded in usurping the throne — he had not 
 gained the object for which he murdered his master.. (2) 
 Demetrius afterward gained the Syrian throne, as will be no- 
 ticed on 12: 1, and such a fact would hardly be consistent 
 with the declaration, " plucked up by the roots." His being 
 displaced temporarily by Antiochus, and that too when he 
 was not in Syria to contend with his rival, but at Rome where 
 he could only look on and see himself supplanted, falls short 
 of the meaning and force of the emblem. 
 
 Others, following Grotius, make out a catalogue of kings, 
 of which the last three are Seleucus Philopator, Demetrius, 
 and Ptolemy Philopator — he must however mean P. Philo- 
 metor ; for P. Philopator died 205 B. C. while Antiochus the 
 Great was on the throne of Syria. To this, besides what has 
 already been urged against including Demetrius in the num- 
 ber, there seems the greater objection still, that all history is 
 silent as to Antiochus Epiphanes having any agency in the 
 death of his uncle. It was Heliodorus alone — who thought it 
 a favorable opportunity to seize the kingdom in the absence 
 both of Demetrius the son on his way to Rome, and of An- 
 tiochus the nephew on his return from Rome to Aniioch. It 
 may here be said too, in respect to Ptolemy Philometor, (and 
 the same objection exists against the selection made by Ro- 
 senmiiller, etc.) that he was subdued only for a season by A. 
 Epiphanes, and that uniting with his brother, supported also 
 by the Romans, he succeeded in driving Antiochus Epipha- 
 nes out of Egypt. 
 
 If no other solution can be presented, it would seem that 
 we must rest content with leaving this among the prophecies 
 too obscure to be satisfactorily explained in its every particu- 
 lar. The alternative in such a case need not be, that we 
 must seek some other kingdom than that which succeeded 
 Alexander's, and some other king beside A. Epiphanes, or 
 the race whence he sprung. For as the obscure must be in- 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 109 
 
 terpreted by the plain, and as the prophecy of the little horn 
 in chap, viii, and of the vile person 11: 21 — 45, must indis- 
 putably mean A. Epiphanes, so may we apply the little horn 
 here in chap. vii. to him, even though it were not in our power 
 to find at this remote period an event in history to correspond 
 with every minute particular. But the following is presented 
 as an adequate solution, after all, of this much vexed pas- 
 sage; and it will appear in the course of remarks on the 
 chapter, that the passage has been no more vexed by those 
 who apply it to A. Epiphanes and the kingdom which imme- 
 diately succeeded Alexander's, than it has been, and is still, 
 by the other class of interpreters who apply it to Rome and 
 the Papal power. 
 
 The government denoted by this fourth beast, is that im- 
 mediately succeeding Alexander's, and usurped by his of- 
 ficers, the principal of whorh were the following: (1) Eu- 
 menes, (2) Perdiccas, (3) Antipater, (4) Leonnatus, (5) Cra- 
 terus, (6) Neoptolemus, (7) Antigonus, (8) Demetrius son of 
 Antigonus, whom his father associated with himself in his 
 government, (9) Ptolemy, (10) Cassander, (11) Seleucus. 
 It is certain that six of these wore the title of kings at least 
 five years before the formal partition of the kingdom, 301 
 
 B. C. Plutarch,* speaking of the battle of Ipsus, B. C. 301, 
 at which Lysimachus, Seleucus, Ptolemy, Cassander, Anti- 
 gonus, and Demetrius were all there in person, uses such 
 language as this : " that great battle of Ipsus where all the 
 kings of the earth were engaged." At this period 301 B. 
 
 C, the successors of Alexander were reduced to six; that 
 same year, the four parted the empire among themselves ; a 
 little later, they were reduced to two. They were kings in 
 reality, they had usurped the regal power, before they took 
 the name ; and it would seem not to admit of question that 
 there were as many as ten of them reigning at some one pe- 
 
 * Vol. II. p. 250, Life of Pyrrhus, Harper's ed. 
 
 10 
 
110 INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 riod after Alexander's death, and earlier than 301 B. C- 
 And there may have been this precise number ten, though 
 history furnishes the names of only six. And even if there 
 were more than ten kings reigning over Alexander's empire 
 at one time, it is what those are compelled to find, as we shall 
 see, who apply it to Rome. Alexander's officers usurping 
 the regal power, they could be called kings by Scripture 
 usage, as the usurper Smerdis was called king, see on 1]: 2, 
 There then the beast stood, with his ten horns existing all at 
 once — shooting out and appearing on the head together. 
 Those ten horns denoted ten kings, or races of kings, which 
 began after Alexander's death, B. C. 324, although many of 
 them were exterminated before 301 B. C, at which time on- 
 ly four horns existed. 
 
 Among those ten kings sprung up Seleucus I, on whom 
 Babylon was conferred by Antipater, on a new distribution 
 of the kingdom after that which took place in council on 
 Alexander's death. History speaks of his "low beginning, 
 from which he grew up at length to be the greatest of all 
 Alexander's successors."* From Babylon he was compelled 
 to flee, 315 B. C, to escape from the superior power of Anti- 
 gonus, governor of Lycia, Pamphylia, etc., who had con- 
 ceived the design of grasping the whole empire, and whose 
 strength was so great that no power in the empire was then 
 capable of resisting it. He took refuge in Egypt, then under 
 Ptolemy I, and succeeded in getting Ptolemy, with Lysima- 
 chus and Cassander, to espouse his cause. They marched 
 against Antigonus and his son Demetrius, and defeated them. 
 After this Seleucus obtained of Ptolemy 1000 foot and 300 
 horse, and marched eastward to recover Babylon. " With so 
 small a force," remarks Prideaux,f " did he undertake so great 
 an enterprize, and succeeded in it." On his approach to 
 the city he found the gates open to him, and he made a tri- 
 
 * Prideaux, Vol. I. p. 402. t Connexions Vol. 1. p. 402. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 ^27. Ill 
 
 umphal entry, in the year B. C. 312 ; the people being re- 
 joiced to have him reinstated in his former command. He 
 thus sprung up after the others. 
 
 He also subdued three kings, three of the ten ; three of 
 Alexander's immediate successors, who are explicitly men- 
 tioned as kings, viz. Antigonus, Lysimachus, and Demetrius. 
 Seleucus, being reinstated in his former command, grew more 
 and more powerful, until in 305 B. C. he became master of 
 Media, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Bactriana, Hyrcania, etc., 
 and wore the name of king. Antigonus was still designing 
 to suppress all the other successors of Alexander, and usurp 
 the whole empire to himself. Seleucus on finishing a war 
 against Sandrocottus an Indian prince, marched into Cappa- 
 docia against Antigonus, in the beginning of 301 B. C. An- 
 tigonus, being joined by his son Demetrius out of Greece, 
 met Seleucus, with whom Lysimachus was then associated, 
 near the city Ipsus in Phrygia, where a battle was fought and 
 Antigonus was slain. He was plucked up out of the empire 
 as the horn was plucked up out of the head of the beast. On 
 the event of this battle the kingdom was divided, by agree- 
 ment, between Seleucus, Lysimachus, Cassander and Ptole- 
 my, and to Seleucus fell the greater part of Antigonus' do- 
 minions, viz. Syria, and many provinces in Asia Minor. 
 
 In the year 288 B. C, Demetrius who had escaped the 
 fate of his father in the battle of Ipsus, and established him- 
 self in Greece, made preparations to recover his father's em- 
 pire in Asia. He invaded Caria and Lycia, took many ci- 
 ties belonging to Lysimachus, entered Tarsus in Celicia, 
 stormed the passes into Syria, which were guarded by Seleu- 
 cus' soldiers, but at last was compelled to surrender himself 
 to Seleucus, who caused him to be carried under strong 
 guard to the Syrian Chersonesus near Laodicea in Phrygia, 
 and there kept him a prisoner until he died, in the third year 
 of his confinement. Demetrius was the second king, (being 
 
112 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 crowned 306 B. C.,) whom Seleucus subdued and rooted 
 out. 
 
 In 2S2 B. C, Seleucus marched into Asia Minor, and took 
 Sardis, with the treasures laid up there by Lysimachus. The 
 next year, Lysimachus, having gathered an army to repel this 
 invasion, passed from Thrace over the"^ Hellespont, came to a 
 battle with Seleucus in Phrygia, where he was vanquished 
 and slain. He was the third king subdued by Seleucus, and 
 the dominions of all these three kings passed into the hands 
 of their conqueror. He plucked them up by the roots and 
 seized upon what was theirs ; and history mentions no more 
 among the successors of Alexander whom he subdued.* Here 
 then is a perfect correspondence between this part of the em- 
 blem and the exploits of Seleucus I., who was the founder of 
 the Syrian kingdom, the head of the race of the Seleucidae, 
 from whom descended Antiochus Epiphanes. In him, and 
 in that race of kings, and in their deeds, may we look for the 
 little horn and all its deeds. 
 
 It has already appeared under 11: 6, and 8: 3, compared 
 with 8: 7, that the word "king" is used either for an indivi- 
 dual king, or for a race of kings; and this none indeed dis- 
 pute. We have the usage of the prophet therefore in regard- 
 ing the little horn in 7: 8, as the symbol of a race of kings, 
 and the "king" in vs. 24 — 26 as synonymous with race of 
 kings. If then we find some of the things asserted fulfilled 
 in the founder of the race or dynasty, and some in one of 
 his descendants, and the occupants of his throne, we meet 
 every reasonable demand respecting the application of the pro- 
 phecy. It should be considered also that this seventh chap- 
 ter is the more enigmatical prophecy, and the vision in chap. 
 
 * He also subdued and killed in battle, Nicanor, governor of Me- 
 dia; but Nicanor is mentioned in history only as " governor of Media 
 for Antigonus ;" (Prideaux, Vol I. p. 402;) he did not rank witJi Se- 
 leucus, Ptolemy, etc., and he was sent against Seleucus by Antigonus. 
 
INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 7: 7 Stl . 113 
 
 viii. was designed to make that part of it more clear and defi- 
 nite, which, in the first announcement of the deeds of the little 
 horn, was obscure. In making the second announcement, 
 therefore, it was so expressed as to make it clear that certain 
 deeds were to be performed by an individual king ; and his 
 own individuality, as well as his origin and race, was explicit- 
 ly given. In the 7th, it was a little horn among many other 
 horns, three of whom it would displace ; in the 8th, it was 
 a little horn off-shooting from one of four. And this very 
 imagery of the four horns in chap, viii, one of them having a 
 branch, further shows that the horns themselves were em- 
 blematical rather of race, or stock, than of individual kings, 
 and that the branch — the off-shoot — was the emblem of an 
 individual king. As in chap, viii, respecting the four horns, 
 and the two horns, so here in chap, vii, respecting the little 
 horn, (little when it first appeared among the others, but in- 
 creasing afterwards,) the race of kings, and not an indivi- 
 dual king, is to be sought as its correspondent. 
 
 It remains only to find what is said here of the deeds of 
 the little horn and the doom of the beast, in the race and king- 
 dom of Seleucus, etc., and it will be put beyond reasonable 
 question, that the fourth kingdom in this prophecy was that 
 which succeeded Alexander's — that into which his was bro- 
 ken, 11: 4 — that which in chap. yiii. is described as eventu- 
 ally four kingdoms standing up out of the nation — that which 
 we shall see in chap. ii. to be denoted by the legs of iron, and 
 feet part of iron and part of clay. The complex and manifold 
 government of Alexander's successors, between whose hands 
 the empire of the world shifted again and again, is well sym- 
 bolized by this unnamed beast. But before proceeding to 
 these particulars, it seems due to examine some of the reasons 
 which have led so many to reject the application of this pro- 
 phecy to the government of Alexander's successors, and to 
 refer it to Rome and the papal power. 
 
 10* 
 
114 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 ^"t 
 
 Reasons which have led many to reject the application of the 
 vision concerning the fourth beast to the government of Al- 
 exander's successors. 
 
 (1) There is the fact that the kingdom of Alexander and 
 that of his successors are often spoken of in history as one and 
 the same. So Dionysius Halicarnassus, a Greek writer in 
 the reign of Augustus, as quoted by Bishop Newton, p. 207, 
 " the Persian was succeeded by the Macedonian, and the 
 Macedonian by the Roman." So says Tacitus, B. v. Sec. 
 8, " While the east was in the power of the Assyrians, 
 and the Medes and Persians, Judea was the most despicable 
 of the provinces subject to them. After the Macedonians 
 gained the ascendency, king Antiochus," etc. (See the re- 
 mainder of the sentence under 11: 44.) So also do they 
 seem to be contemplated as one in chap, viii, where the four 
 horns grow up in the place of the one conspicuous horn, on 
 the head of the goat, i. e. four races of kings succeed to the 
 race of Alexander over the empire of the Macedonians. 
 
 But while they are considered one and the same, they are 
 also presented as distinct kingdoms. In one point of view, 
 they are the same, in another point of view they are separ- 
 ate. Thus in 11: 4, the kingdom of Alexander is represent- 
 ed as broken to pieces like a potter's vessel, and divided to- 
 ward the four winds of heaven ; as plucked up and given to 
 others not of his posterity, nor of the race whence he sprung. 
 Here is entirely another dynasty. Even in chap, viii, in the 
 explanation of the vision concerning the great horn of the he- 
 goat, and the four which arose in its place, language is used 
 which contemplates the two as separate kingdoms. It reads 
 that " four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation" — four 
 stand up out of the one which had fallen and perished. And 
 in the next verse (23) the phrase is used, " their kingdom," 
 in distinction from Alexander's. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 115 
 
 In 1 Mace. 1: 10, the era is introduced of "the kingdom 
 of the Greeks." This era was that which commenced with 
 the triumphal return of Seleucus to Babylon, .312 B. C, [311 
 years and 4 months,] and was called also the era of the Se- 
 leucidae. It was used in Syria for many years, and frequent- 
 ly by the Jews until the 15th century, and is by some Arabians 
 to this day.* Now Alexander the Great began to reign 336 
 B. C. — twenty-four years previous. It is obvious therefore 
 that in this era of the Seleucidae, or of the kingdom of the 
 Greeks, their kingdom is contemplated as distinct from Alex- 
 ander's.! Most certainly, therefore, Alexander's successors 
 may be properly represented as still another beast, in harmo- 
 ny with what we see to have been one mode of contemplating 
 their kingdom. Moreover, they got possession of his king- 
 dom, as he had got possession of that of Cyrus and his suc- 
 cessors, and Cyrus of the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. 
 Theirs succeeded to his, as his to the Persian, and the Per- 
 sian to the Chaldean. The reason why their kingdom was 
 sometimes contemplated as the Macedonian^ as by Tacitus, 
 was doubtless that his successors were principally Macedoni- 
 an. Such was Seleucus I, son of Antiochus, and such was 
 Ptolemy I, son of Lagus. 
 
 * Encyc. AiBericana, Art. Epoch. 
 
 t In Mace. 1: 5, 6, it is said that when Alexander " fell sick, and 
 perceived that he should die, he called his servants, such as were hon- 
 orable, and had been brought up with him from his youth, and parted 
 his kingdom among them, while he was yet alive." Now that this does 
 not mean that he made them his successors in the kingdom, is manifest 
 from verses 8, 9, " And his servants bare rule every one in his place, 
 and after his death they all put crowns on themselves, so did their sons 
 after them many years." That rule was to be governors of the provin- 
 ces, not kings, and it was to this rule he appointed them — the crowns 
 they themselves seized. Comp. 11: 39, where it is said of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes — " He shall cause tliem to rule over many, and shall di- 
 vide the land for gain." 
 
116 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 ^27. 
 
 ) Another reason* for rejecting the application of the 
 vision concerning the fourth beast to the kingdom of Alex- 
 ander's successors, has been the fact, that early writers both 
 Jewish and Christian, and the great body of commentators 
 in the Church, have considered this fourth kingdom to be the 
 Roman. Says Jonathan Ben Uzziel, a Jew, who lived a 
 little before our Savior — " 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." Irenaeus, a Christian father of the second 
 century, says respecting Antichrist, that he "is denoted by 
 the little horn among the ten kings — the kings among whom 
 the empire that now reigneth shall be divided." St. Cyril 
 of Jerusalem, in the fourth century, says respecting Anti- 
 christ's coming in the latter times of the Roman empire — 
 " We teach these things not of our own invention, but hav- 
 ing learned them out of the divine Scriptures, and especially 
 out of the prophecy of Daniel ; even as Gabriel the archangel 
 interpreted — the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom 
 upon earth, which shall exceed all the kingdoms ; but that 
 this is the empire of the Romans, ecclesiastical interpreters 
 have delivered. For the first was the kingdom of the Assy- 
 rians ; and the second was that of the Medes and Persians 
 together ; and after these, the third was that of the Macedo- 
 nians, and the fourth kingdom is now that of the Romans." 
 Next Jerome — ** Therefore let us say what all ecclesiastical 
 
 * A reason on which Bishop Newton lays much stress. He quotes 
 Mr. Mede, whom he pronounces " as able and consummate a judge 
 as any in these matters," p. 192: "The Roman empire to be the 
 fourth kingdom of Daniel, was believed by the church of Israel both 
 before and in our Savior's time ; received by the disciples of the apos- 
 tles, and the whole Christian church for 300 years, without any 
 known contradiction. And I confess, having so good ground in 
 Scripture, it is with me little less than an article of faith." 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 ^27. 117 
 
 writers have delivered, that in the latter days, when the em- 
 pire of the Romans shall be destroyed, there will be ten kings, 
 who shall divide it between them, and an eleventh shall arise, 
 a little king, who shall subdue three of the ten kings, and the 
 other seven shall submit their necks to the conqueror." And 
 to mention no more, Augustine — "These four kingdoms 
 some have expounded to be the Assyrian, Persian, Macedo- 
 nian and Roman. How properly they have done that, those 
 who are desirous of knowing, may read the presbyter Je- 
 rome's book upon Daniel, which is very accurately and learn- 
 edly written." — Newton on the Prophecies, pp. 195, 212 — 
 214. 
 
 Now we have seen that the current of interpretation for 
 centuries from the earliest period, both among Jews and 
 Christians, set towards Antiochus Epiphanes as the monarch 
 primarily intended by the little horn in chap, viii, and the 
 king, whose history is given in 11: 21 — 45. But this does 
 not hinder those who appeal to the authority of the ancients 
 on this chap, vii, from disclaiming that authority in other 
 places where it is equally strong. And it should indeed lead 
 us to be cautious of accepting the opinion of the fathers, ex- 
 cept the reasons for it can be sustained, when we consider 
 how the very best of them leaned on the authority of ecclesi- 
 astical writers that had preceded them ; when we consider 
 also how extravagant were their notions respecting Antichrist, 
 who was designated as they supposed by the little horn. 
 They asserted he would be a Jew, a descendant of the tribe 
 of Dan ; that he would come from Babylon, fix his residence 
 in the temple at Jerusalem, first subdue Egypt and after- 
 wards Libya and Ethiopia, which were the three horns pluck- 
 ed up before the little horn.* Those who speak of the au- 
 
 * Bishop Newton, p. 214. Some of the Jewish writers about the 
 middle of the 12th century, as R. Aben Ezra, also regarded the fourth 
 beast as the Turkish empire, which had taken Jerusalem, subdued 
 Asia Minor, and filled the world with the terror of their arms, See 
 
118 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 thority of ancient interpretation, would be more wise if they 
 followed the fathers where the fathers were right, viz. in ap- 
 plying chaps, viii. and xi. primarily to Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 and departed from them where the fathers were inconsistent 
 with themselves, viz. in finding primarily in chap. vii. what 
 they did not find primarily in chaps, viii. and xi. And yet 
 it is this traditionary interpretation which to this day sways 
 the minds of most, — that what by way of excellence have 
 been called the four great kingdoms of the earth, viz. the 
 Babylonian, the Persian, the Grecian and the Roman, were 
 symbolized by the four beasts in the vision of Daniel.* 
 
 The great objection to considering the fourth kingdom to 
 be the Roman is that which has already been dwelt on, viz. 
 the Roman empire is not contemplated in chaps, viii. and xi, 
 as succeeding the Macedonian. It is to be farther said, — 
 and it seems an insuperable objection, — that the Romans 
 never possessed the empire of Alexander, their sceptre did not 
 sway the countries in Asia once held by the kings of Assyria, 
 Persia, and Greece, but the successors of Alexander, espe- 
 cially Seleucus, did. It is true that in a passage from an an- 
 cient writer already referred to, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 
 it is asserted that the Roman empire " ruleth over all the earth 
 as far as it is inhabited, and commands all the sea and the ocean 
 as far as navigable, being the first and only one of all the most 
 celebrated kingdoms, to make the east and west the bounds 
 of its empire." But as matter of fact, the Euphrates was the 
 extreme eastern boundary of the Roman empire ; and nations 
 
 Christian Review for March 1842, p. 28. The writer justly adds the 
 remark, that it was the circumstances of the times that led to the adop- 
 tion of the application to Rome, as well as to the Turks. 
 
 * Mr. Litch, one of the writers in favor of the theory of the end of 
 the world in 1843, says, " that the four kings, or kingdoms, repre- 
 sented by the beasts were, — 1. The Chaldean, — 2. The Medo-Per- 
 sian, — 3. The Macedonian, — 4. The Roman governments — is so uni- 
 versally acknowledged, that I shall not at all dwell on it," p. 60. 
 
INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 7: 7 27. 119 
 
 lying beyond that river, and constituting the central empire 
 of the Babylonians, of the Medes and Persians, and then of 
 the Greeks under Alexander, it never conquered. The em- 
 pire was confined within limits on the East as recommended 
 by Augustus to his successors, viz. the Euphrates ; where 
 for the whole of the first century they stood, and were bro- 
 ken over by Trajan in the second century only to confirm 
 the wisdom of the advice of Augustus. For the conquests 
 which he made in Armenia, Parthia, (including a part of 
 Persia,) and Mesopotamia, could not be maintained, and the 
 Roman garrisons were shortly withdrawn, on his death, which 
 happened at Selinus in Cilicia, on his return to Italy. This 
 extension of the empire beyond the Euphrates, though reach- 
 ing but a very small portion of the dominions of Alexander 
 and his predecessors in the East, was yet the greatest that 
 ever acknowledged Roman sway.* Now let these facts be 
 compared with the imagery in chap, viii, where the he-goat 
 smites the ram, and the four horns rise up in his dominion, 
 and the little horn waxes exceeding great toward the East, 
 and in the light of that imagery let the language of chap. vii. 
 be interpreted, and it must be felt that the limitation of the 
 Roman empire within the Euphrates, and its small and tem- 
 porary extension beyond, do not come up to the demands of 
 the symbol. It did not succeed to the dominion of the 
 Greeks, it did not subdue that dominion, as the Greeks sub- 
 dued and succeeded to the dominion of the Persians, and 
 these to that of the Chaldeans. The fourth beast, if Rome 
 be meant, did not stand where the others had stood. Only 
 the kingdom of the successors of Alexander, only the mani- 
 fold dynasty that stood up in the place of his, answers to the 
 nature of the symbol, and that kingdom with its kings must ac- 
 cordingly be designated by the fourth beast and its ten horns. 
 
 ^ Gibbon, Vol. f. pp. 1 — 5. Amer. Encyc, Articles Trajan and Par- 
 thia. Trajan indeed sent home glowing accounts, so that the Senate 
 was absolutely astonished; but they were more glowing than the 
 reality. 
 
120 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 It was remarked above, that those who make the Roman 
 empire the fourth beast, have vexed the passage as much as 
 others, and are obliged to find more than ten kingdoms — 
 they regarding the ten horns the emblems not of kings, nor 
 races of kings, but of kingdoms. As reckoned by Sir Isaac 
 Newton, they are " 1. the kingdom of the Vandals and 
 Alans in Spain and Africa; 2. of the Suevians in Spain ; 3. 
 of the Visigoths; 4. of the Alans in Gallia; 5. of the Bur- 
 gundians ; 6. of the Franks ; 7. of the Britons ; 8. of the 
 Huns; 9. of the Lombards; 10. of Ravenna." 
 
 Mr. Mede reckons them up for the year after Rome was 
 sacked by Genseric king of the Vandals, A. D. 456, as fol- 
 lows : " 1. the Britons ; 2. the Saxons in Britain ; 3. the 
 Franks; 4. the Burgundians ; 5. the Wisigoths in the south 
 of France and part of Spain ; 6. the Sueves and Alans in 
 Gallicia and Portugal ; 7. the Vandals in Afric ; 8. the Ale- 
 manes in Germany ; 9. the Ostrogoths whom the Longobards 
 succeeded, in Pannonia, and afterwards in Italy; 10. the 
 Greeks in the residue of the empire." 
 
 Bishop Lloyd, a chronologist, gives the following list : " 1. 
 Huns in Hungary, who rose A. D. 356 ; 2. Ostrogoths in 
 Moesia 377 ; 3. Wisigoths in Pannonia 378 ; 4. Franks in 
 France 407 ; 5. Vandals in Africa 407 ; 6. Sueves and Alans 
 in Gascoyne and Spain 407; 7. Burgundians in Burgundy 
 407 ; 8. Herules and Rugians in Italy 476 ; 9. Saxons in 
 Britain 476 ; 10. Longobards in Germany 483, and in Hun- 
 gary 526." This list was originally given by Machiavelli as 
 ten kingdoms into which the incursions of the northern bar- 
 barians dismembered the empire.* 
 
 Bishop Newton makes out another list for the eighth cen- 
 tury and he is followed by Dr. Scott and others, viz. : " 1. the 
 Senate of Rome; 2. the Greeks in Ravenna; 3. the Lom- 
 bards in Lombardy ; 4. the Huns in Hungary ; 5. the Ale- 
 
 * This is followed by some of the writers on the end of the world 
 in 1843, as Litch, p. 63. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 ^27. 121 
 
 manes in Germany ; 6. the Franks in France ; 7. the Bar- 
 gundians in Burgundy ; 8. the Goths in Spain ; 9. the Bri- 
 tons ; 10. the Saxons in Britain." 
 
 Now here are two, Mr. Mede and Bishop Lloyd, concern- 
 ing the former of whom Bishop Newton quotes with appro- 
 bation the remark of another — that " he was as a man divine- 
 ly inspired for the interpretation of the prophecies" — and he 
 was truly a learned and godly man — here are two who reck- 
 on up ten broken fragments of the Roman empire after its 
 downfall, and each introduces three not reckoned by the other 
 — the former, the Britons, Alemanes and Greeks ; the latter, 
 the Huns, Heruli and Longobards, or Lombards. Sir Isaac 
 Newton has some not in Mr- Mede's list, and some not in 
 Bishop Lloyd's. 
 
 It is manifest from the above comparison, that two learn- 
 ed writers together find more than ten kingdoms, though 
 separately they find only ten, at the period of the dissolu- 
 tion of the Roman empire. Bishop Newton, who takes 
 the kingdoms at a later date, remarks, " not that there were 
 constantly ten kingdoms,they were sometimes more and some- 
 times fewer." And he might have made the admission 
 that there is no proof that at the particular time of the rise 
 of the Papacy, there were exactly ten ; though he quote* 
 Mr. Whiston as saying that " in A. D. 456" the number 
 "was exactly ^ew," and Sir Isaac Newton, that " whatever 
 was their number afterwards, they are still called the ten 
 kings from their first nunber." The fact is, there is no 
 proof that ten was their first number. Scarcely any two in- 
 vestigators of any one period agree together in finding ten 
 alone, except Bishop Lloyd and Machiavelli, the former of 
 whom follows the latter, and whose chief merit is that he 
 adds dates which Machiavelli did not give. 
 
 There is as much difference in their mode of applying the 
 three horns plucked up before the little one — the Pope. Mr. 
 11 
 
122 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 ^27* 
 
 Mede makes them the Greeks at Ravenna, the Lombards, 
 and the Franks. Sir Isaac Newton makes them the exar- 
 chate of Ravenna, the kingdom of Lombardy, and the senate 
 of Rome. Concerning the first of these. Bishop Newton 
 justly remarks, p. 217, that " the Franks or Germans in Italy 
 were not extirpated^ eradicated, nor their dominions annexed 
 to that of the popes." Concerning Sir Isaac Newton's cata- 
 logue of the three, he also justly remarks, that " the senate of 
 Rome is not included in his catalogue of the ten kingdoms." 
 Bishop Newton agrees here with Sir Isaac, but he includes 
 the senate of Rom.e among the ten kingdoms, in which he dif- 
 fers considerably from Sir Isaac — reckoning four not found 
 in Sir Isaac, viz. Senate of Rome, Alemanes in Germany, 
 Goths in Spain, and Saxons ; and omitting four found in Sir 
 Isaac, viz. Vandals in Spain, Suevians in Spain, Visigoths, 
 and Alans in Gallia. The application of the beast with ten 
 horns to the Roman empire is beset then by no fewer diffi- 
 culties and perplexities than is its application to the govern- 
 ment of Alexander's successors ; and if any, from the diffi- 
 culties attending its application to the government of Alex- 
 ander's successors, might be led to look for its application to 
 Rome, they find the way no clearer nor straighter. So far, 
 however, as difficulty has been felt in respect to finding what 
 can be regarded as adequately answering to the ten horns 
 and the little horn in the dynasty that succeeded Alexander, 
 including that of the Seleucidae, it is hoped that such diffi- 
 culty has been obviated by the last of the explanations there 
 given. Having thus reviewed the reasons that have led many 
 to apply this vision of the fourth beast and his ten horns to 
 the kingdom of Rome, and to the ten kingdoms in which it 
 was finally broken, (and who does not here feel also the harsh- 
 ness of considering both the beast a kingdom, and his horns 
 kingdoms ?) we come to consider more closely the particulars 
 of the description of the beast as given in the vision. What- 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7*. 7 21. 123 
 
 ever other difficulties of importance have been felt in respect 
 to its application to the government of Alexander's successors, 
 it is hoped they will be removed as we pass along. 
 
 The more particular description of the Fourth Beast, and 
 the Little Horn. 
 
 It was "dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; 
 and it had great iron teeth : it devoured and break in pieces, 
 and stamped the residue with the feet of it : and it was diverse 
 from all the beasts that were before it." It was " exceeding 
 dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass," 
 and the angel said of it, " he shall devour the whole earth, 
 and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces," vs. 7, 19,23. 
 The world never suffered more than, as we have already seen, 
 under the reign of Alexander's successors, in their mutual 
 contests for the supremacy both before and after the partition 
 of the kingdom 301 B. C, and in their oppressive treatment 
 of their provinces. In the long warfare between the kings 
 of Syria and Egypt, and during the reign of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, Palestine, especially, was made the thoroughfare 
 for armies, and often the scene of the most wanton spolia- 
 tion and destruction. What can be more appropriate in de- 
 scribing the authors of all this ruin, than the image of the 
 beast with teeth of iron, and claws of brass, tearing and de- 
 vouring his prey ? What can more fitly describe the con- 
 duct of Antiochus Epiphanes than a beast which destroyed 
 what remained more than sufficient to satisfy its hunger, and 
 rendered it unfit for others 1 — like the imagery in Ezek. 34: 
 18 — " Seemeth it a small thing unto you to have eaten up 
 the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the 
 residue of your pastures ? and to have drunk of the deep wa- 
 ters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet?" This 
 kingdom was worse than the others, as the tyranny of many 
 is worse than of one ; and it lasted longer than Alexander's, 
 
124 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 longer even than the Persian or the Chaldean. There is con- 
 firmation of the application of all this to the dynasty of Alex- 
 ander's successors, in language used by the author of the 
 first history of the Maccabees — who, when he had mentioned 
 the fact of Alexander's servants putting crowns on themselves, 
 and likewise their sons after them, adds — " and evils were 
 multiplied in the earth.'''' 
 
 The monarchy was " diverse" from those which preceded 
 it, in respect to its being not under one king, but under ma- 
 ny who were often allied together as one over different divi- 
 sions of one great kingdom. It was diverse in respect to its 
 being strong and weak, united and divided, See on chap. ii. 
 The little horn itself was diverse from the others in respect 
 to its greater cruelty. While it was terrible to the whole 
 earth, it was " exceedingly" so to the Jews, driving them in 
 fear out of their land ; compelling them to bow down to abom- 
 inable idols, and to eat abominable meats ; commissioning its 
 armies to take away their memorial out of Jeiusalem, and 
 plant foreigners in their place, (1 Mace. 3: 35.) By no other 
 kings whatever, by none of the other successors of Alexan- 
 der, were they so treated. But to add no more, let the read- 
 er turn again toll: 16, 23, 24, 26, etc., and 8: 23, 24, and 
 re-peruse the facts adduced from authentic history in the in- 
 terpretation of those verses, and he will judge for himself 
 whether this description of the beast has not its fulfilment in 
 the government of Alexander's successors, especially of the 
 Seleucidae, and of Antiochus Epiphanes one of the Seleuci- 
 dae. He will also judge for himself whether the assertion 
 made by Bishop Newton and others, (Prophecies, p. 206,) 
 that " the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and of the Lagidae can 
 in no respect answer to this description of the fourth beast or 
 kingdom," is any more accurate than the same assertion con- 
 cerning 11: 31 — 35, (Interpr. p. 53,) and concerning 8: 9 — 
 12, (Interpr. p. 77.) It is strange that he should say, "in- 
 stead of subduing other kingdoms, they tore to pieces their 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 ^27. 125 
 
 own," that he should interpret the phrase " diverse from all 
 kingdoms" as meaning only a different constitution of gov- 
 ernment, and find a want of correspondence here because 
 Egypt and Syria were equally absolute monarchies with the 
 others that had preceded them ; that he should assert the im- 
 possibility of applying to them the phrase " it shall devour 
 the whole earth," etc. because " so far from enlarging their 
 dominions, they could not preserve what was left them by 
 their ancestors." True, they tore to pieces their own king- 
 doms, but not until they had torn to pieces others. True, 
 some of the race of the Syrian and Egyptian kings could not 
 preserve what was left them by their ancestors. But it is 
 enough to fulfil the prediction, if their ancestors were estab- 
 lished in the empire of the East, even though some who came 
 after them could not keep it. The dominion of the king of 
 Syria is called " a great dominion" by the prophet, 11:5, and 
 precisely the same language and no more is used in describ- 
 ing Alexander's, viz. " he shall rule with greit dominion," 
 11: 3. The qualifying remark is indeed added in 11: 4, that 
 " not according to his dominion," shall they rule. No one 
 of them should have his entire kingdom, no one and not all 
 of them together rule with such glory, none make so rapid 
 and so wide conquests. But still history affirms that Seleu- 
 cus, the head of the Syrian dynasty, had all the Persian em- 
 pire in the east from the Euphrates to the Indus, and much 
 between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean. Even Anti- 
 ochus Epiphanes was at one time master of Assyria, Persia, 
 Armenia, Syria, Palestine, and all Egypt but Alexandria. To 
 him were they tributary. The prophet speaking of him also, 
 says that he " waxed exceeding great," that " his power shall 
 be mighty," and " he shall become strong with a small peo- 
 ple." No more than this does he say of Alexander, the mon- 
 arch of the world. See 8: 8, 9, 24. 11: 3, 23. If the objec- 
 tion were worth anything at all, it would apply as well to 
 Rome, which could not pass the boundary of the Euphrates, 
 11* 
 
126 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 and many of whose kings could not preserve what was left 
 them by their ancestors, nor many of the popes what was left 
 the church by their predecessors. 
 
 The description is further continued, that in the little horn 
 *' were eyes like the eyes of man, a look more stout than his 
 fellows, and a mouth speaking great things." The prophet 
 heard **the voice of the great words which the horn spake." 
 It " made war with the saints, and prevailed against them." 
 And the angel said of him, " he shall speak great words 
 against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the 
 Most High, and think to change times and laws," vs. 8, 11, 
 20, 21, 25. 
 
 This little horn, as has been shown, being the emblem of 
 the dynasty of the Seleucidae — the race of the kings of Sy- 
 ria — and Antiochus Epiphanes being of that race, the gene- 
 ral description is parallel to 8: 23 — 25, and 11: 22, 23, 31, 
 33, 36, 37. The phrase " eyes of man" denotes human sa- 
 gacity and wisdom, for which Antiochus Epiphanes w^as no- 
 ted, (see 11: 21, 24, 25.) The ''stouter look" means the 
 prouder mien, the more boastful bearing, of the king — in col- 
 loquial phrase it is to look big. All this appeared particular- 
 ly in Antiochus Epiphanes, and in the greater pomp of the 
 race of the Syrian kings who became strong above their co- 
 temporaries — above the kings of Egypt, and the other succes- 
 sors of Alexander, with whom they shared the kingdom, 
 Comp. 11: 5. His blasphemy and resolving to change times 
 [set times or observances] and laws, have been illustrated un- 
 der 11: 30, 31, 36—39,* and none can fwl to see that here 
 too, the correspondence is perfect, the application easy and 
 unforced. 
 
 It is added that "the saints of the Most High shall be giv- 
 en into his hand until a time, and times, and the dividing of 
 time," V. 25. What is the period here mentioned ? There 
 are two passages in Daniel where the word " times" means 
 
 * Interpretation, pp. 39 — 42, 55—57. 
 
=^^tac LIB/?/ 
 
 ^ OF TBE ' 
 
 INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 7: Ar*^' 1^ 
 
 years — the first in chap. 4: 16, 23, 25, 32, whel^predictiftg *^ 
 Nebuchadnezzar's insanity, the prophet says, " they shall 
 make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass 
 over thee." Here the phrase seven times, means in each of 
 these verses indisputably seven years ; they can mean no- 
 thing else. It is found again in 11: 13, where the phrase 
 translated " after certain years," is literally at the end of the 
 times years, i. e. times, viz. years, (the phraseology being 
 like that in 8: 13, " the vision the daily sacrifice," or it may 
 be simply, at the end of years time. The word is found also 
 in 12: 7, where the phraseology is the same with this in chap. 
 vii. It occurs again in the Revelation of St. John, 12: 14, 
 with the same phraseology of time, times and a half It is 
 found in many places in the Bible in the sense of opportuni- 
 ty, season, set season. But there is no authority, whether 
 expressed or implied, in the whole Bible, which sanctions the 
 use of the word " times" in any other sense than years, when 
 it is put for a definite portion of duration. There is no other 
 clew to the meaning of the word when thus used, except that 
 which is found in the above two passages in Dan. iv. and xi, 
 and perhaps in the first alone. There is even no tradition of 
 any other use except that which has sprung up since the 
 Christian era, and the application of this prophecy to Rome. 
 The writers who thus apply the prophecy make the time, 
 times, and a half, something which they cd\\ prophetic years ; 
 first turning the years into days with 360 to a year, and then 
 making the days prophetic days, i.e. 1260 years. This dou- 
 ble transformation is only twofold less probable than that 
 which has already been dwelt on respecting the 2300 days in 
 8: 14 ; and it has the less recommendation that the angel seems 
 to give the prophet ^puzzle, rather than an intelligible designa- 
 tion of time like all the other designations of time in the pro- 
 phecies, and such as accords with the intelligible description 
 of events in connexion with those designations of time. We 
 must therefore understand the designation of " time, times, 
 
128 INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 7: 7 ^27. 
 
 and a dividing of time," as three literal years, and a half 
 portion of a year — not an exact half necessarily ; for accord- 
 ing to scriptural usage it may be a little more or a little less, 
 Comp. Exod. 24: 6. 1 Kings 16: 21. Num. 13: 24, Zech. 
 14:2. 
 
 It has appeared under 11: 30 — 35, that from the setting up 
 of the abomination of desolation in the temple during the reign 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes, to the dedication of Judas Maccabe- 
 us and his followers, there were precisely three years. So it is 
 asserted in the histories of the Maccabees, and so Josephus 
 asserts it in his Antiquities, B. X. c. 11, sec. 7, and B. XII. 
 c. 7, sec. 6. But previous to this final act of desecration ; 
 between it and the apostasy under Menelaus, there was ano- 
 ther desecration by Apollonius, the same year with the final 
 one. At that desecration by Apollonius, the daily sacrifice 
 was taken away, and many other acts of oppression and cru- 
 elty were done, 1 Mace. 1: 38 — 40. It took place on the 
 return of Antiochus from his last and unsuccessful expedition 
 into Egypt. He started on that expedition 168 B. C, in the 
 beginning of the spring,* and as he marched with all speed 
 toward Alexandria, and after meeting the Roman ambassa- 
 dors some miles above the city left the country again with 
 despatch, he doubtless reached Palestine by the last of the en- 
 suing May, if not earlier. He himself kept directly on to 
 Antioch, while he detached Apollonius to ravage and lay 
 waste the city and temple. Apollonius reaching Jerusalem 
 about the first of June, between six and seven months earli- 
 er than the final act of desecration, it would make the period 
 three years and about a half. Now though there is given in the 
 histories of the Maccabees only the period of three years, and 
 though Josephus in his Antiquities names the same period, 
 there is adequate reason for the date of the three years and a 
 
 * The Roman historian Livy, mentions this time, as quoted by Pri- 
 deaux, Vol. II. p. 120. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 129 
 
 half as mentioned by Daniel. The others date from the setting 
 up of tlie ahominntion of desolation^ which was the deed on 
 which they looked with most horror. Daniel dates in this 
 place from the saints being given into the hand of the Syrian 
 king, — an event which may well be assigned pre-eminently 
 to the times of Apollonius. The writers of the books of 
 the Maccabees speak of those times in a manner which shows 
 they regarded the desecration by Apollonius as an era in the 
 history of their nation, 1 Mace. 1: 39. 2 Mace. 5: 25 — ^27. 
 comp. with 6: 1.* And to confirm the point in question fully, 
 there is also given by Josephus himself the period of three 
 years and a half, in his History of the Wars of the Jews, B. 
 i. c. 1. sec. 1, and B. v. c. 9. sec. 4. And even in his An- 
 tiquities, as we have seen at the close of the interpretation of 
 chap, viii, he gives the period of 1296 days (a slightly erro- 
 neous quotation of the 1290 in 12; 11,) along with the three 
 years — the first doubtless as the period reckoning from the 
 taking away of the daily sacrifice — which was not three years 
 and seven months, reckoning by the lunar method with the 
 addition of the intercalary month, or by the method of 365 
 days to the year ; just three years and seven months, reckon- 
 ing by 360 days to the year. It deserves also to be borne m 
 mind, that this date is the first given in the order of the pro- 
 phecies. These three years and a half were the period of the 
 greatest sufferings of the Jews, and their darkest hours. In 
 the vision following this, chap, viii, we have seen that another 
 and longer period is given which includes the beginning of 
 the series of desecrations. The prophet does not give the 
 period of the three years mentioned by Josephus, etc., because 
 the desecration was virtually effected when the daily sacrifice 
 
 * It was mentioned under 8: 14, in respect to the reckoning of 1150 
 days, that Apollonius probably did not wait long before he accom- 
 plished the work on which he was sent. In 2 Mace. 5: 25 above quo- 
 ted it reads, " who coming to Jerusalem and pretending peace, did for- 
 bear till the holy day of the Sahhath," etc. 
 
130 INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 7*. 7 27. 
 
 was taken aioai/, and the setting up of the abomination of des- 
 olation was in reality but a circumstance beside — it was but 
 the seal and token of the impious work already done. The 
 correspondence, then, between the period of time mentioned 
 chap, vii, and the duration of the signal desecration and ca- 
 lamities under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, points to 
 him, and in him to the race of the kings of Syria, as the king 
 and dynasty meant by the angel in his explanation of the vi- 
 sion, viz. — " another shall rise after them and he shall 
 
 wear out the saints of the Most High, and they shall 
 
 be given into his hand until a time and times and the divid- 
 ing of time." Not less conclusive does it seem to be, that 
 the forced and unauthorized interpretation of the times for 
 years, and of the days in those years for so many years, is 
 an insuperable objection to the application so many make 
 of this vision to civil and ecclesiastical Rome. 
 
 The doom of the Fourth Beast, and the end of the domin- 
 ion of the Little Horn. 
 
 This is given in vs. 9 — 11, and in 26 comp. with 21,22. 
 The translation " till the thrones were cast down," conveys 
 at first the idea of the overthrow of the empires represented 
 by the four beasts. But both the context requires, and the 
 original gives the sense, till seats were placed, i. e. for the 
 judge, "the ancient of days," on one of which he sat. It is 
 interpreted in v. 26, " the judgment shall sit" — it is also ex- 
 changed, V. 10, for the phrase " the judgment was set," i. e. 
 the tribunal sat, the judge and those associated with him in 
 giving judgment took their seats. The phrase " Ancient of 
 days," though it undoubtedly designates the Eternal, presents 
 the form of an aged person. His robe white as snow, and 
 the hair of his head like the pure wool, denote, like " spotless 
 ermine," the perfect impartiality and integrity of the judge ; 
 his throne which was a fiery flame, and the wheels on which it 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 ^27. 131 
 
 moved, which were burning fire, his swift and searching and 
 fearful judgments (comp. Ezek. 1: 15, etc.); the stream of 
 fire which issued from before him denotes his consuming pow- 
 er exercised against the guilty (comp. Deut. 4: 24, and Heb. 
 12: 29, " Our God is a consuming fire") ; the multitude of his 
 ministering attendants, the splendor of his court and the ma- 
 jesty of his reign ; the opening of the books, his examina- 
 tion of deeds done, and of the law and sentence to be recited. 
 The whole scene has for its ground-work the appearance of 
 the Sanhedrim of the Jews, where the president of the coun- 
 cil sat, with a vice-president on his right and left, and the 
 other senators ranged in order at each side. To this council 
 belonged the power of judging in capital cases, and the general 
 affairs of the nation were brought before it. The prophet con- 
 tinued beholding, until the sentence was executed on the 
 beast, that he should be slain, and his body given to the burn- 
 ing flame and destroyed — Comp. the words of our Savior, 
 Matt. 5: 22, " whosoe^^er shall say. Thou fool, shall be in 
 danger of hellfire ;" where the imagery which he employs to 
 denote the punishment of sin is taken from the valley of Hin- 
 nom, which was the place of public executions, and in which 
 fire was constantly kept burning to consume the dead carcas- 
 ses that were there thrown. This doom of the beast, ex- 
 pressed, like the character of the beast, in so figurative lan- 
 guage, is explained by the angel in v. 26 — ''The tribunal 
 shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, [his domin- 
 ion shall be taken away, — See for the phraseology verse 5,] to 
 consume and to destroy it unto the end." The actual burn- 
 ing of the king and of his dominions by fire is of course no 
 more taught than his being literally a beast with teeth of iron 
 and claws of brass, nor is the spectacle of the judgment here 
 spoken of to take place literally, any more than the literal ap- 
 pearance of a horn with eyes, and its articulation of words. 
 The prophet gives a vision, he does not state facts and oc- 
 
132 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 currences which shall take place in the outward form in which 
 he sees them. 
 
 Now is the language of this vision in vs. 9 — 11, of too high 
 a character to be applied to the destruction of the kingdom 
 of Alexander's successors, including the dominions of the 
 kings of Syria ? Certainly the language of verse 26, which 
 the angel gives as the explanation of the vision, may consis- 
 tently and adequately express no more than that destruction. 
 There is no idea of literal burning conveyed by the word 
 " consume." There is no such peculiarity in the phrase, 
 " the judgment shall sit," as to make it a literal and formal 
 scene; for similar phraseology is found in Joel 3: 12, where 
 no such idea is conveyed — " Let the heathen be awakened, 
 and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat : for there will I sit 
 to judge all the heathen round about." Taking the explana- 
 tion, therefore, given by the angel of the doom of the beast, 
 there is, as we shall see, a perfect correspondence between 
 the prophecy and the facts of history. But that we may go 
 to those facts, without having the mind enveloped in any ob- 
 scurity as to the nature of the figurative language employed 
 in vs. 9 — 11, let us look first at a few parallel passages, in the 
 light of which we shall clearly see that such language may 
 be employed to denote the fall of an earthly kingdom. 
 
 Saith the Psalmist, (or Asaph for him,) on the occasion of 
 his coming to the kingdom after Saul's death, Ps. Ixxv, 
 " When I shall receive the congregation, I will judge up- 
 rightly. The earth [the land] and all the inhabitants thereof 
 are dissolved [the government under Saul's administration 
 had fallen almost into dissolution] : I bear up the pillars of 
 it [I will set up the pillars of the kingdom on their base, and 
 make things firm again]. I said unto the fools .... Lift 
 not up your horn on high .... For promotion cometh neither 
 from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But 
 God is the judge : he putteth down one, and setteth up ano- 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 133 
 
 ther. [The Psalmist expresses this truth with particular ap- 
 plication to Saul's overthrow, and his own elevation to the 
 kingdom.] For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and 
 the wine is red : it is full of mixture, and he poureth out the 
 same ; but the dregs thereof all the wicked of the earth shall 
 wring them out and drink them. [God thus pours out his 
 judgments when he sits in judgment ; and the Psalmist means 
 to assert the fact with particular application to the death of 
 Saul — See 1 Chron. 10: 13, 14 — and to the ruin of the par- 
 ties opposed to his own reign and attached to the house of 
 Saul, See 2 Sam. 2: 8—3: 1.] All the horns of the wicked 
 also will I cut off; but the horns of the righteous shall be ex- 
 alted. [David says he would remove the unworthy from 
 places of trust and authority, and exalt the righteous in their 
 stead.] 
 
 Saith Moses in blessing the children of Israel before his 
 death, " The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir 
 unto them ; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came 
 with ten thousands of saints [holy ones] : from his right hand 
 went a fiery law for them," Deut. 33: 2, comp. with Acts 7: 
 53. Gal. 3: 19. Col. 2: 18. Saith the prophet Habakkuk, 
 chap, iii, in alarm at the approach of the Assyrian king, " O 
 Lord, I have heard thy speech, [the threatening that the Jews 
 should be invaded by the Chaldeans, 1: 6,] and was afraid. 
 O Lord revive thy work in the midst of the years [do now as 
 when thou broughtest thy people out of Egypt, and destroyed 
 their enemies]. God came from Teman, and the Holy One 
 from mount Paran. His glory covered the heavens, and the 
 earth was full of his praise. And his brightness was as the 
 light ; he had horns coming out of his hand [rays were stream- 
 ing forth from his hand] ; and there was the hiding of his 
 power. Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals 
 went forth at his feet [a description which had its correspon- 
 dence in the plagues he sent upon the people]. He stood 
 and measured the earth [the land] ; he beheld and drove 
 12 
 
134 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 asunder the nations [the nations occupying the land] ; and 
 the everlasting mountains were scattered and the perpetual 
 
 hills did bow Thou wentest forth for the salvation of 
 
 thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed," [comp. 
 Ps. 105: 14, 15, He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, 
 he reproved kings for their sakes, saying, Touch not mine 
 anointed, and do my prophets no harm]. There is the 
 language also of Daniel 2: 21. 4: 25, " He removeth kings 
 and setteth up kings. The Most High ruleth in the kingdom 
 of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. And again, 
 5: 26 — 28, in the address of the prophet to Belshazzar in in- 
 terpretation of " Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin," [Upharsin 
 is only another form of the word Peres, (Pheres,) v. 28, with 
 the Hebrew conjunction untranslated,] '' God hath numbered 
 thy kingdom and finished it. Thou art weighed in the bal- 
 ances, and art found wanting. Thy kingdom is divided, and 
 given to the Medes and Persians." We would add to these 
 especially Ps. xviii, but that some regard it as typical, and 
 its bearing on the point in question they might not allow. 
 Concerning the passages already quoted, none can fail to see 
 their primary and sole application to temporal events — to the 
 concerns of earthly kingdoms — to the dominions of the 
 princes of this world. The descriptions are none the less 
 striking and majestic than those in the vision of Daniel ; they 
 therefore give sanction to the use of the imagery in vs. 9 — 11, 
 as a scenic representation of the event, that the judge of all 
 the earth and God of nations would bring to an end and de- 
 stroy the kingdom which should so long and grievously op- 
 press the earth, and persecute the saints of the Most High. 
 
 Now we have seen that the dominion of Antiochus was ta- 
 ken away ; he was broken without hand, he came to his end 
 and there was none to help him. But more than this — the Sy- 
 rian race of kings, of which he was one, and the Syrian king- 
 dom over which he and others of the descendants of Seleucus 
 ruled, perished. Syria was subdued by Pompey in the year 
 
INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 7: 7 ^27. 135 
 
 65 B. C, and made a Roman province. Antiochus Asiati- 
 cus was at that time the reigning monarch. He petitioned 
 the Roman general to be restored to the throne of his fore- 
 fathers, but was refused, and in him ended the kingdom of 
 the Seleucidae, after it had existed 247 years from the return 
 of Seleucus to Babylon, or the epoch of the Greeks ; nor did 
 it ever once recover from the blow. But this was not the 
 whole fulfilment of the prophecy. The entire government of 
 all Alexander's successors — the whole beast — was destroyed. 
 We have seen that Lysimachus, one of the four between 
 whom the empire was finally divided, was subdued, and his 
 kingdom swallowed up by Seleucus. The sons of Cassan- 
 der also, who was another of the four, were all cut oflf as early 
 as 294 B. C, and Demetrius son of Antigonus got the king- 
 dom in their stead ; but he too, as we have seen was cut ofi* 
 by Seleucus in attempting to regain his father's lost dominions 
 in Asia. His sons who survived him on the throne of Mace- 
 don, reigned until 168 B. C, when Perseus the last of the 
 dynasty was conquered by the Romans, led through Rome 
 to adorn the triumph of his conqueror, and died in prison. 
 Macedonia was at that time only put under tribute, it was not 
 made a Roman province ; but on a rise of the people about 
 150 B. C. under two impostors in succession, to free them- 
 selves from the Romans, they were reduced to a province 
 148 B. C, and from that blow never recovered nor attempt- 
 ed to recover. The Macedonian kingdom was thenceforth 
 destroyed, and it now forms a part of Turkey in Europe. 
 None but Egypt remained of the wide dominion of the beast, 
 and none but the descendants of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, 
 survived of the ten horns. That also was destroyed in the 
 year 30 B. C. by Octavius Caesar, after it had existed alm.ost 
 300 years under one race of sovereigns of whom Cleopatra, 
 the daughter of the Ptolemies, was the last, and who, to avoid 
 the disgrace of honoring the triumph of the Roman, put an 
 end to her life by the poisonous bite of an asp. 
 
136 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 The prophet says that " as concerning the rest of the 
 beasts, they had their dominion taken away ; yet their lives 
 were prolonged for a season, v. 12. The Babylonians, after 
 they were made subject to Persia, had sufficient strength to 
 revolt, 517 B. C, thirteen years after the death of Cyrus, and 
 set up a king of their own, and endure a siege against Darius 
 the son of Hystaspes a year and eight months, and then their 
 was taken only by stratagem. Its one hundred gates 
 were taken away, its walls beat down from two hundred and 
 fifty cubits high to fifty, that the people might no more revolt. 
 From that time it decayed rapidly until it ended in " perpet- 
 ual desolations," Jer. 25: 9. Persia too, in seventy years 
 after Seleucus received it out of Alexander's empire, success- 
 fully revolted from the Syrian power, and it afterwards formed 
 a part of the Parthian empire linder Arsaces, which continued 
 down to A. D. 229. At this period another Persian dynasty 
 arose, founded by Ardshir-Babekan, or Artaxerxes, under 
 which Persia again extended its conquests as far as Asia Mi- 
 nor and Egypt. This race of kings continued until A. D. 
 636, when Persia fell into the hands of the Arabs under Ca- 
 liph Omar, and afterwards of the Turks, and continues there 
 to this day.* The kingdom of Alexander also as such had 
 some life, after its dominion was taken away ; for one of his 
 sons was permitted to hold the title of king fourteen years 
 after his father's death, and Macedon was in form the seat of 
 power, until Cassander put the young king to death. Not 
 so the government of Alexander's successors. From the mo- 
 ment they were subjected to others, and made provinces, 
 they had no name to live, they had no vitality left ; no re- 
 prieve was given them, sentence of excision was cast on them 
 and executed more immediately, and it has been more terri- 
 ble, especially in respect to the kingdoms of the Lagidae 
 and the Seleucidae — Egypt and Syria. " No country was 
 more celebrated in antiquity than Syria. But ignorance, 
 
 Encyc. Americ. Art. Persia. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 137 
 
 superstition, and barbarism now cover the land, and no tra- 
 ces of its civilization remain but ruins." " Egypt was once 
 the theatre of enterprise, civilization and science, and pros- 
 pered most under the Ptolemies. It remained in the hands 
 of the Romans 670 years. After the division of the empire 
 in the time of Theodosius, Egypt became a province of the 
 Eastern empire, and sunk deeper and deeper in barbarism 
 and weakness," until with Syria it became a prey to the fol- 
 lowers of Mohammed.* These two kingdoms of the Lagi- 
 dae and the Seleucidae, the most glorious of those which 
 succeeded Alexander's, and virtually uniting the whole of 
 Alexander's empire in Asia, have since been the theatre of 
 the most destructive wars and revolutions, and their fate has 
 been preeminently more dreadful, their doom from the first 
 more irrevocable, than that of any of the kingdoms which 
 preceded them. It is as though they had been cleft down 
 with the sword, and their carcasses given to the burning 
 flame, Comp. Is. 29: 6 — the language of the prophet to Je- 
 rusalem before the Captivity — " Thou shalt be visited with 
 the flame of devouring fire;" and again, 9: 19, "The people 
 shall be as the fuel of the fire." And even when the Romans 
 had seized those kingdoms out of the hands of Alexander's 
 successors, the nations of the East which had been succes- 
 sively swayed by Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander, re- 
 covering themselves from their oppressors, remained for a 
 yet longer season still — the Romans being unable to extend 
 their destructive power beyond the Euphrates — and therefore 
 could be said to have had their lives prolonged for a season, 
 after the kingdom ichich had once made them its prey was ut- 
 terly destroyed. 
 
 The reign of the Son of Man with the Saints. 
 This concludes the vision. It is contained in vs. 13, 14, 
 and is explained by the angel in vs. 18, 22, 27. It is to be 
 
 * Encyc. Amer. Arts. Syria, Egypt. 
 
138 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 
 
 observed, first, that the saints who are to possess the king- 
 dom, are the same people, the same class, with those against 
 whom the little horn made successfiil war, and whom the 
 king that arose after the ten so much harassed. They were 
 the true Israelites — the persecuted for righteousness' sake, and 
 for attachment to the worship of God. The context abso- 
 lutely demands this application, and the scope of the prophecy 
 is not only that they should be delivered out of the hand of 
 their oppressors, but reign when the kingdom of their op- 
 pressors was destroyed, and have for their king one described 
 in the vision as " like the Son of man." Of course the Ro- 
 mans cannot be here meant, as some have supposed ; for they 
 were not " the people the saints," persecuted by the Syrian 
 race of kings. Such an application must be at once seen to be 
 inappropriate. Nor can the Jews as such be meant, for they 
 did not come into the possession of the kingdom. But there 
 was one who appeared in Judea, not long after Egypt, the 
 last of the kingdom of Alexander's successors had fallen, 
 and he so spake of himself as to intimate that he was the very 
 " Son of man" whom the prophet saw in vision. He came 
 in the form of a servant, was crucified, dead, and buried ; 
 but he rose from the dead, he ascended to heaven in the sight 
 of many witnesses, and " a cloud received him out of their 
 sight," Acts, 1: 9. There were true Israelites who received 
 him as their king. In a single day three thousand were ad- 
 ded to his kingdom. Acts 2: 41. They went forth into all 
 nations, preaching the glad news of the kingdom, persuading 
 both Jews and Gentiles, until the kingdom of their Lord had 
 become co-extensive with the whole Roman world, and had 
 penetrated beyond it. It was " the kingdom of our Lord 
 and Savior Jesus Christ." The kingdom so long and so 
 often promised, at last came into the hands of the true people 
 of God. Judgment was rendered in their favor. They re- 
 ceived not indeed a temporal kingdom, not a temporal delive- 
 rance, but a spiritual far more glorious than any temporal — a 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 27. 139 
 
 deliverance shadowed forth by a temporal. And " the ful- 
 ness of time" for it was at the expiration of the government 
 that had so long oppressed them. It has proved not muta- 
 ble and short-lived like the others that preceded them, but 
 firm and enduring. Nor amid all the convulsions and revo- 
 lutions of the nations, amid all the efforts of principalities 
 and powers to destroy it in its infancy, and pluck the wings 
 by which it has advanced to dominion, has its dominion been 
 taken away, but it has already continued longer than any 
 other kingdom in the world. The Church of Jesus Christ, 
 which is the kingdom of the Son of man, was built by its 
 founder on a rock against which no adverse powers have pre- 
 vailed, nor can prevail. His dominion is already wide-spread, 
 its limits were never more extended than at this day. It is 
 not confined to a narrow province like Judea, or to the wid- 
 est limits of any earthly kingdom, but reaching forth its broad 
 arms literally encompasses the globe ; and still wider con- 
 quests are to be made, for " he must reign, till he hath put 
 all enemies under his feet." 
 
 The order of objects as seen in this vision, confirms the 
 interpretation given above to the fourth beast, as that inter- 
 pretation gives force to this prophecy respecting the kingdom 
 of the Messiah. The Son of man is represented as coming 
 to the Ancient of days to receive the kingdom after the 
 fourth beast was destroyed. The kingdom was given to the 
 saints after the four kingdoms had all passed away. When 
 therefore did that vision concerning the Son of man begin to 
 have its accomplishment ? When did Jesus Christ receive 
 his kingdom ? Need the numerous passages be quoted from 
 the New Testament, which show that he was crowned king 
 when he ascended to God's right hand 1 that he then receiv- 
 ed his royal investiture ? that his kingdom was established 
 almost nineteen centuries ago 1 Did not Jesus himself say 
 on the mount of ascension, " all power is given unto me in 
 heaven and in earth ? Matt. 28: 18. Did not the apostles 
 
140 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 7: 7 ^27. 
 
 everywhere proclaim Jesus as reigning at the very time when 
 they lived ? Now by the application of this vision of the 
 fourth beast to Rome, and by looking forward for the king- 
 dom of the Son of man to he established, these nineteen cen- 
 turies of the past reign of Christ are made a blank, the decla- 
 rations of the New Testament inept and void, and Daniel is 
 made not to prophecy here at all of the coming of the Mes- 
 siah when he appeared first in Jerusalem. And Christian 
 unites with Jew in asserting that the Son of man has not yet 
 come. This is the great error of the theory that the world 
 is to be destroyed in 1843. It entirely takes away this pro- 
 phecy of Daniel from its application to the Christ who has 
 already come, who has already received the kingdom from 
 the Father. It confounds ihe progress of the kingdom after 
 it is established, with the establishment itself. It disregards 
 the explanation by our Savior that " the kingdom of heaven 
 is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures 
 of meal till the whole was leavened," Matt. 13: 33. Surely 
 if there had been a prophecy respecting our own nation, 
 previous to its independence, that the kingdom should be giv- 
 en to it, and its people rule from the Atlantic to the Pacific, 
 he who in interpreting the prediction should now say that the 
 kingdom had not yet been given to it, and that the prophecy 
 was yet unfulfilled, would be thought to equivocate, or not to 
 understand it. True the States of this Union do not yet 
 stretch out as far as the Pacific, but the kingdom has been 
 given to us. The prophecy would not now be all fulfilled, 
 but still the dominion has been given to the people of these 
 United States. So has the kingdom been given to the saints 
 — ^they reign with their Lord, though not yet so widely and 
 gloriously as they shall reign. In the establishment of this 
 kincfdom, we see that the other four have already been de- 
 stroyed ; for the dominion was given to the Son of man and 
 to the saints after the destruction of the fourth beast. We 
 see too that men in departing from the analogy of the rise 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL II. 141 
 
 and progress of all other governments, and asserting that all 
 this prophecy remains to be yet fulfilled, have failed to com- 
 prehend its real meaning. 
 
 The vision as above interpreted affords the strongest pos- 
 sible testimony that the Messiah has come, by fixing the pe- 
 riod of his coming at the close of the dynasty of those kings 
 who had so long oppressed the people of God. May Jew and 
 Gentile, as they peruse the prophecy, and behold the eviden- 
 ces of its fulfilment around them, and the signs of a fulfilment 
 still wider and more glorious, bow the knee to Jesus as the 
 Christ, and receive with the saints that kingdom which shall 
 never be moved. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF CHAP. II. 31—45. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar's dream. 
 
 A deeply interesting spectacle is presented in this chapter. 
 The youthful Daniel stands before the greatest monarch of 
 the world, pointing upward to the God of heaven, revealing 
 another man's untold dream, and unfolding the events of fu- 
 ture time. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, 
 (the second of his sole reign, which was the Chaldean mode 
 of computation, but the fourth or fifth from his being asso- 
 ciated with his father, which was the epoch from which the 
 Jews reckoned, (See 1: I, 5 etc. compared with remarks on 
 7: 4,) this monarch " dreamed dreams ;" probably had several 
 unusual dreams in the course of the night, of which that 
 mentioned in this chapter was the most extraordinary, and ef- 
 fectually broke off his slumbers, and left its disturbing influ- 
 ences behind. He calls together his wise men — the Magi and 
 
142 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL II. 
 
 the Chaldean astrologers and soothsayers — to enable him to 
 understand the dream, and he commands that they shall re- 
 veal the dream itself, as well as tell the interpretation. It is 
 the natural impression from the words " the thing is gone 
 from me," vs. 5, 8, that Nebuchadnezzar yb?'^o^ the dream ; 
 but many suppose that this phrase should read, " the decree 
 has gone forth from me that if ye will not make known the 
 dream, etc. ye shall be cut in pieces." But the natural im- 
 pression is confirmed by the original ; for the word '* decree" 
 as used in vs. 9, 13, 15 of this same chapter is a different 
 word from that translated " thing," and the same word found 
 in the phrase " the thing is gone from me," occurs again vs. 
 10, 23, where it is properly translated " the king's matter ^ 
 Josephus also speaks of the king as having forgotten the 
 dream, Antiq. B. x. ch. 10. sec. 3. It might seem strange 
 that so remarkable a dream should be forgotten, but other 
 dreams in the night, and the events of the morning and day, 
 might drive much of it from the mind, and only an indistinct 
 image remain. For a dream that is vivid in the morning, 
 we often find it impossible to recal soon after, and voluntary 
 and distinct trains of thought, unless committed immediately 
 to paper, often pass soon out of one's mind. The king's wise 
 men answered, as well they might, that they were unable to 
 do what the king required ; and on their remonstrating 
 against the unreasonableness of his demands, he was roused 
 to absolute fury, and suspecting doubtless their deceptive 
 character, and impatient of contradiction or any thwarting of 
 his will, he issued the decree that all the wise men in Baby- 
 lon should be slain, and the executioners were going forth. 
 Daniel and his companions were already numbered among 
 the wise men, and had been in office a year or more, 1: 19, 
 20. The decree was sudden, like most things done by des- 
 pots, and Daniel knew nothing of it, until he was sought to 
 be slain. On learning the cause, he requested of the king a 
 delay of the sentence, and gave assurance that he would re- 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL II. 143 
 
 veal the secret. When he had obtained his request, he went 
 to his companions, made known to them the state of things, 
 and besought their supplications concerning the matter to the 
 God of heaven. The night following, the monarch's dream 
 was revealed to him in vision. 
 
 The phenomena of dreaming have baffled the acutest in- 
 quiries. There may be some general laws pertaining to them 
 — that dreams are influenced by the principle of association ; 
 (as where a person ill and with draughts applied to the feet 
 has dreamed of standing on the crater of Aetna ;) that they 
 also depend somewhat on the temper of mind, on character 
 and habits. But there is no way of accounting for the case 
 before us except by supposing that God must have produced 
 the images both on Nebuchadnezzar's mind, and on Daniel's. 
 And yet even this dream, while God was its author, followed 
 in some degree the law of the monarch's disposition. For 
 as Grotius has well remarked, (quoted by Bishop Newton 
 p. 201,) "this image appeared with glorious lustre in the 
 imagination of Nebuchadnezzar, whose mind was wholly 
 taken up with admiration of worldly pomp and splendor ; 
 whereas the same monarchies were afterward represented to 
 Daniel under the shape of fierce and wild beasts, as being the 
 great supporters of idolatry and tyranny in the world." 
 
 Daniel hastens to the captain of the king's body-guard, and 
 by him was brought into the king's presence.* With true 
 
 * Verse 25 reads thus : " Then A rioch brought in Daniel before the 
 king in haste, and said thus unto him, I have found a man of the cap- 
 tives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpreta- 
 tion." Rosenmuller remarks on this, " that the writer seems to have 
 forgotten that he had said in v. 16 that Daniel had entered the pre- 
 sence of the king, to obtain a reprieve of the sentence, and an in- 
 terval of time at the expiration of which he would tell the interpre- 
 tation of the dream." Now the text is very easy to be reconciled. 
 Daniel may not have seen the king personally the first time, but ob- 
 tained his request through Arioch — ^just as the centurion in Matt. 8: 5 
 is said to have come to Jesus, when we know from Luke 7: 3 that he 
 
144 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEJL 2: 31 38. 
 
 modesty and greatness, having disclaimed any ability or merit 
 beyond others, and ascribed all to the God of heaven w^ho re- 
 veals it for others' sakes as well as his own, he proceeds to 
 tell the dream. 
 
 31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great 
 image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee ; and 
 
 32 the form thereof ?oa5 terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, 
 his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, 
 
 33 his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou 
 
 34 sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the 
 image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to 
 
 35 pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the 
 gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the 
 summer threshing-floors ; and the wind carried them away, that no 
 place was found for them : and the stone that smote the image 
 
 36 became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. This is the 
 dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the 
 king. 
 
 The dream will need no remarks except what will be made 
 on Daniel's interpretation of it. 
 
 37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings : for the God of heaven hath 
 
 38 given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And 
 wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and 
 the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath 
 made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar the represenflitive and founder of the 
 Chaldean monarchy, being thus made the head, the prophet 
 leaves us in no doubt where to begin the series of kingdoms 
 in this, and in the other prophecies. For the illustration 
 of these verses, see remarks on 7: 4. Compare also Jer. 27: 
 5 — 7, " I have made the earth, the man and the beast that 
 are upon the ground, by my great power and by my out- 
 stretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet 
 
 sent some Jewish elders. Josephus also explains it in like manner, 
 Antiq. x. c. 10. sec. 3. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 31 38. 145 
 
 unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the 
 hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my vservant ; 
 and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. 
 And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son's 
 son, until the very time of his land come: and then many 
 nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him." Of 
 course the Scriptures do not teach that literally all nations, 
 and the lohole habitable world were given into his hand, but 
 it is figurative language employed to describe a very great do- 
 minion. 
 
 The " head of gold" is an appropriate emblem of the mag- 
 nificence and wealth of the Chaldean empire under Nebu- 
 chadnezzar. He built the prodigious brick walls of Babylon, 
 which according to Herodotus formed a square, and were 
 87 ft. in thickness, 350 feet high, and 60 miles in compass. 
 In each of the four sides were 25 gates, 100 in all, which 
 were of solid brass. Between every two of these gates were 
 generally but not always three towers, and one at each of the 
 four corners of the walls, and three between each corner and 
 the next gate on either side, 250 in all, and every one 10 ft. 
 higher than the walls. Outside surrounding the wall was a 
 vast ditch, from which the clay was taken to make the bricks, 
 and which also made the city inaccessible to an enemy. 
 From the twenly-five gates on each side of the square went 
 25 streets in a direct line over to the opposite gates, thus 
 making 50 streets, each 15 miles long and 150 fl;. wide ; and 
 besides these were four streets running along adjacent to the 
 walls, 200 ft. broad. By these streets the city was divided 
 into 676 squares, each 2J miles in compass, and round these 
 squares on every side stood the houses, facing the street, 
 three or four stories high, and greatly adorned. The space 
 within each of the squares was formed into yards, gardens 
 and pleasure grounds. A branch of the river Euphrates ran 
 through the city, and over it was a bridge a furlong in length, 
 and thirty feet in breadth, built with great art and expense. On 
 13 
 
146 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 31 38. 
 
 each side of the river, within the city, Nebuchadnezzar built 
 from the bed of the river a great wall for its banks, of the 
 same thickness with the walls of the city, and over against 
 every street that crossed the river a brazen gate in the wall, 
 shut by night, and open by day, with stairs leading down to 
 the river ; and this river-wall was 20 miles in extent, reach- 
 ing two and a half miles beyond the city on each side where 
 the river passed. While this wall on either bank was build- 
 ing, the river was turned another way into a prodigious arti- 
 ficial lake from 35 to 75 ft. deep, 40 miles square, and 160 
 miles in compass. Into this lake the surplus of the water 
 flowed in time of freshet, and here too Cyrus caused the river 
 to flow when he took the city, and marched up the bed of the 
 river, and found the gates not shut but left open in the dissi- 
 pation of that night. Compare on 7: 4. 
 
 Another great work was the temple of Belus, all of which, 
 however, was not built by Nebuchadnezzar, but the original 
 tower was undoubtedly the tower of Babel. It was more 
 wonderful than any of the pyramids, smaller indeed by 100 ft. 
 at the base, but higher by more than 100 feet. The ascent 
 was by steps winding up the outside, which formed part of 
 the structure like the steps of the pyramid ; and made the 
 whole look like eight towers one built on another, and each 
 75 ft. high. The upper story was the most sacred place, and 
 over this was the observatory for the astronomers. Nebu- 
 chadnezzar enlarged this tower by vast buildings around it 
 in the form of a square a mile in circumference, and on the 
 outside of the square was a wall enclosing the whole. Here 
 Nebuchadnezzar put the spoils of the sanctuary of Jerusalem, 
 which he plundered, and he made it his great treasury, Dan. 
 1: 2. It stood until the return of Xerxes from his expedition 
 into Greece, who demolished it, having first taken from it to 
 counterbalance the expenses of his invasion, immense trea- 
 sures among which were many statues of massive gold, and 
 one 40 ft. high, whose single value was at least 12 millions of 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 39. 147 
 
 dollars, and which with a pedestal of 50 ft. was probably the 
 golden image set up for worship in the plain of Dura near the 
 city, 3: 1, etc.* 
 
 Equally wonderful were the hanging-gardens at Nebuchad- 
 nezzar's new palace. They contained a square of 400 ft. on 
 each side, and were terraced up till the highest equalled the 
 height of the wall of the city, the ascent being from terrace 
 to terrace by stairs ten feet wide. The whole pile was sus- 
 tained by vast arches built upon arches, and strengthened by 
 a wall 22 ft. thick, surrounding it on every side. The floors 
 on the top of these arches were laid in the following manner : 
 — they were flat stones 16 ft. long, and four broad, and over 
 them was a layer of reed, mixed with a great quantity of bitu- 
 men, and upon the reed two rows of bricks, and over the 
 whole of this thick sheets of lead. Upon the lead was placed 
 the mould, whose moisture it was the design of the previous 
 preparation to preserve. The mould was of sufficient depth 
 for the largest trees, and an engine was placed at the top to 
 draw water from the river for the garden. Nebuchadnezzar 
 did not live long enough to complete all his works, but Nito- 
 cris his daughter-in-law, and wife of Evil-merodach, (see on 
 8: 1,) carried out his designs in a manner that has united her 
 fame in antient history with the splendor of the Chaldean em- 
 pire.t 
 
 39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and 
 another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the 
 earth. 
 
 The prophet in saying *' after thee" uses king as synony- 
 
 * It is not strange that the antient historians should speak of Xer- 
 xes' immense wealth even after the expenses of such a campaign, see 
 on 11: 2. 
 
 t Prideaux, Vol. 1. pp. 120—126. Bib. Repos. Vol. 7. pp. 364 etc. 
 See also Is. x, and xiv, where Babylon is called "the golden city," 
 and the glory of the empire is exhibited in striking contrast with its 
 downfall. 
 
148 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 39. 
 
 mous with kingdom, see on 8: 3. He means, after thy king- 
 dom. Next after the Chaldean monarchy was the Medo-Per- 
 sian, signified in the image or colossus by the breast and arms 
 of silver ; and next after the Medo-Persian was the Grecian 
 under Alexander, represented by the belly and thighs of brass. 
 The Persian empire at its height of glory was inferior to 
 the empire of Nebuchadnezzar, as silver is inferior to gold ; 
 it made not such far conquest, it was neither so powerful nor 
 so rich. The dominion of Greece under Alexander was after 
 all but the acquisition of the degenerated empire of Persia ; 
 and though in the fame of its rapid and far exploits it has 
 shone more brightly, the empire itself was as inferior to the 
 Persian as that to the Babylonian. Alexander, had he lived, 
 would probably have outdone his Eastern predecessors in 
 great public works, and carried the glory of Greece higher 
 than that of Chaldea or Persia, but he was cut off in the 
 midst of his days, and (Alexandria excepted, which he began 
 but which was perfected by the Ptolemies,) before he had 
 done anything except to wrest their possessions from others, 
 See further on chaps, vii. and viii. It would seem rather arbi- 
 trary to find a perfect likeness between every part of the im- 
 age and the corresponding kingdoms denoted. Only a gene- 
 ral outline and correspondence may be intended, and if so, it 
 would be as unwise to seek for an exact likeness as to hunt 
 any metaphor on all fours and pursue it until completely run 
 down. Nevertheless a likeness may be traced out, if one 
 chooses. The two arms may denote the union of the Medes 
 and the Persians as the two arms are united in the chest.* 
 The belly and thighs may signify Alexander or Macedon lean- 
 ing on the two great divisions of Greece which had been op- 
 posed to each other, but became united in the invasion of 
 Asia, viz. Thebes and Athens, the ruling cities of Greece. 
 
 * Josephus finds the two arms and hands in the two kings, (Darius 
 and Cyrus,) who subdued Babylon, Antiq. B.x. c. 10. sec. 4. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 40 43. 149 
 
 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron : forasmuch 
 as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things ; and as iron 
 
 41 tl^at breaketh all these, shall it bretik in pieces and bruise. And 
 whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and 
 
 • part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided ; but there shall be in 
 it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron 
 
 42 mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of 
 iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and 
 
 43 partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry 
 clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men : but they 
 shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with 
 clay. 
 
 To what dominion does the prophet here refer ? What 
 monarchy is symbolized by the legs of iron and feet part of 
 clay and part of iron ? 
 
 With the explanations already given of chaps, xi, viii. and 
 vii, and the considerations there presented, and with the 
 universal admission that this prophecy in chap. ii. is but the 
 germ of which all the others are the fuller development, 
 (Bishop Newton calls it " the groundwork of all the rest," 
 Proph. p. 103,) we must seek for this fourth kingdom of iron 
 in that which immediately succeeded the Grecian under Al- 
 exander, and the imagery itself most naturally designates that. 
 The statue symbolizes four monarchies, the three first of 
 which we have seen to grow into each other as members of 
 one body, viz. the Persian into the Chaldean, and the Gre- 
 cian into the Persian. We have seen also that the kingdom 
 of Alexander's generals grew into the Grecian as that did 
 into the Persian, but that the Roman never grew into the 
 kingdom of Alexander and his successors beyond the Eu- 
 phrates ; and therefore on any supposition that the kingdoms 
 of Alexander and his successors are here set forth as one and 
 the same, there is a failure in the emblematic connexion, be- 
 cause the Roman did not grow into the kingdom of Alexan- 
 der and his successors considered as one, as that grew into 
 the Persian. 
 
 13* 
 
150 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 40 43. 
 
 The two legs of iron, and the two feet and ten toes of iron 
 mixed with clay, fitly represent the two kingdoms of the La- 
 gidae and Seleucidae — Egypt and Syria — into which the em- 
 pire of the eastern world was constituted not many years af- 
 ter Alexander's death. They were cotemporaneous. They 
 were the only ones that had much connexion with the Jewish 
 nation ; and, as Bishop Newton remarks, "it is the purpose 
 of the Holy Scriptures to interweave so much of foreign af- 
 fairs as hath some relation to the Jews." They were of iron 
 strength under Seleucus I. and Ptolemy I, their founders, but 
 grew weak and fragile afterward, and yet possessed iron 
 strength in close connexion with periods of weakness, as 
 shown in different parts of the reign of Antiochus the Great, 
 11: 11, 15, 19 ; in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes as con- 
 trasted with that of Seleucus Philopator, 11: 20, 23; in the 
 reign of Ptolemy Philopater as contrasted with Ptolemy Epi- 
 phanes, 11: 11, 15; in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes I, as 
 contrasted with Antiochus II, 11: 7, 8 — and it needs not more 
 words to show that those speak contrary to facts who say 
 that these kingdoms so far from being stronger were much 
 weaker than any of the former kingdoms. The destructive 
 effects of their iron rule in subduing and dashing the nations 
 to pieces, especially Palestine, have been already shown in 
 the other chapters. The blended iron and clay are seen in 
 the weak and broken condition both of the nations and kings 
 from mutual wars and internal party commotions. They 
 were united often by treaty and by intermarriage — Antiochus 
 Theus married Berenice daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 
 11: 6; Antiochus the Great gave his daughter Cleopatra to 
 Ptolemy Epiphanes, 11: 15 ; Magas, half brother to P. Phila- 
 delphus married Apame daughter of Antiochus Soter ; but 
 still they did not cleave to one another in faithful alliance, 
 even as iron is not mixed with clay.* 
 
 * Dr. Adam Clarke, who does not find the kingdoms of Syria and 
 Egypt in chap, vii, yet sees such a correspondence between them and 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 40 43. 151 
 
 It has been urged by some, that as in v. 41 the feet and 
 toes part of iron and part of clay denote that the " kingdom 
 shall be divided," it implies that the kingdom was at first a 
 whole, and only at a later period was divided — i. e. that the 
 entirely iron legs must symbolize an undivided kingdom, and 
 therefore could not designate the two dynasties of the Lagi- 
 dae and Seleucidae.* But surely the part iron and part clay 
 do not denote such a division as this objection contemplates — 
 a division into kingdoms of which some are symbolized by 
 the clay, and others by the iron. It is that the two respec- 
 tive dynasties shall be divided among themselves ; and so were 
 the Lagidae and Seleucidae. There was the division in the 
 Syrian kingdom after the death of Seleucus Philopater, see 
 on 11: 21. There was the division particularly in Egypt in 
 respect to the two Ptolemies, with yet other dissensions and 
 conspiracies, see on 11: 14, 26, 27; and that the word trans- 
 lated to divide may denote no more than such divisions as 
 these, see Ps. 55: 9, where the same word is found in the 
 phrase ''Destroy, O Lord, and divide their tongues." 
 
 It is objected also by Bishop Newton, p. 190, that " this 
 kingdom was divided into ten toes : but when or where were 
 the kingdoms of the Lagidae and of the Seleucidae divided 
 into so many parts V It ought to be enough to reply that 
 the prophet does not expressly make the ten toes emblemati- 
 cal of so many parts of a kingdom. He does not here use 
 the number ten at all, and the toes are not mentioned in the 
 
 the description in these verses, that he remarks thus on them — "Legs 
 of iron, and feet and toes of iron and clay — I think this means in the 
 first place the kingdom of the Lagidae, in Egypt ; and the kingdom 
 of the Seleucidae, in Syria. And, secondly, the Roman empire which 
 was properly composed of them." His judgment maybe an off-set to 
 those who find no such correspondence, but the Romans certainly can- 
 not form one kingdom with the Syrians and Egyptians, and both to- 
 gether be the fourth. 
 
 * An objection of Hengstenberg as given in the Christian Review, 
 p. 17. 
 
152 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 40 43. 
 
 dream itself. To attempt to find something to answer to the 
 toes, is no better than to attempt to find in the Persian em- 
 pire something to answer to the^ngers. Manifestly, the feet 
 and toes have the same relation to the legs, that the hands 
 and fingers do to the arms ; they belong to the same domin- 
 ion, and the sole reason why the feet and toes are mentioned 
 seem to be that they show the relative strength of one and the 
 same dominion with the legs at different periods of time — 
 the iron at the beginning, and the feet and toes at the end. 
 The correspondence between the number ten toes and ten 
 horns is but accidental. Moreover, the dream is that the 
 image is smitten on the feet, it does not say on the toes. 
 Now if, as those who apply this to Rome say, the toes are 
 separate from the feet, and denote the ten kingdoms into 
 which the Roman empire was subsequently divided, and the 
 feet now exist not, but only the toes, then there is a confusion 
 in the emblem ; for the stone smites the feet, not the toes, 
 but according to those who apply it to Rome, it ought to 
 smite the toes. Nevertheless, if a correspondence is insisted 
 on, what should the toes denote except not the kingdoms but 
 the kings 1 
 
 The antients supposed on this, as on the vision of the 
 beasts, that the fourth kingdom was the Roman. And Jose- 
 phus also seems to have the same opinion. For he thus 
 speaks after having given the signification of the two arms of 
 the statue — " But another king that shall come from the west, 
 armed with brass, [by which he seems to think the brass has 
 some allusion to the brazen armor known to have been worn 
 by the Greeks,] shall destroy that government [viz. the Per- 
 sian] ; and another government, that shall be like unto iron, 
 shall put an end to the power of the former, and shall have 
 dominion over all the earth, on account of the nature of iron, 
 which is stronger than that of gold, of silver and of brass. 
 Daniel did also declare the meaning of the stone to the king ; 
 but I do not think proper to relate it, since I have only un- 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 40—43. 153 
 
 dertaken to describe things past or things present, but not 
 thintrs that are future." Josephus here seems to entertain 
 the opinion and hope of many of his countrymen that the 
 fourth kingdom was the Roman, and that it would be destroy- 
 ed by the Messiah ;* but he does not express it for reasons 
 of worldly policy, and for the same reason he seems to have 
 been silent on the vision of the four beasts. That the rea- 
 sons, however, which induced him with others to entertain 
 such an opinion, lay in the circumstances of his times, and 
 therefore ought not to have any more than the weight of a 
 mere opiniurij has already been remarked on chap. vii. And 
 it can have no more weight than that, especially when we 
 consider that Josephus applied to the Roman emperor Ves- 
 pasian the predictions of the Old Testament on which his 
 countrymen had relied for their faith in the coming of the 
 Messiah to receive dominion over the world, (Wars of the 
 Jews, B. vi. c. 5. sec. 4.) 
 
 To some it also appears a difficulty that an empire so 
 great as Rome, and so intimately connected with the history 
 of the Jews and the instrument of the final overthrow of the 
 city and temple, should not be included in this series of king- 
 doms. But it is a sufficient consideration that it did not en- 
 ter into the object of these prophecies of Daniel to make the 
 Roman kingdom one of the series. We are to rest satisfied 
 with the facts in the case. Besides, the kingdom of Nineveh 
 was not mentioned, which was before the Chaldean, nor is 
 the kingdom of the Turks given who have already trodden 
 the holy city and sanctuary under foot as long and as cruelly 
 
 * Having spoken of two kings, viz. Cyrus and Darius, he says ano- 
 ther shall come and destroy that government. So another still shall 
 come and destroy the government of Alexander — of course he means 
 the government of Alexander's successors, as he also meant the gov- 
 ernment of Cyrus' successors ; and it is certain that he often speaks 
 of the Syrian government as that of the Macedonians, as in Book xii. 
 c. 7. Sec. 6. 
 
154 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 44, 45. 
 
 as the Romans ever did. Says Bishop Newton speaking of 
 those four kingdoms — " Not but that there have been em- 
 pires as great or greater than some of these, as those of the 
 Tartars for instance, and of the Saracens, and of the Turks." 
 Why ask for the admission of Rome into this image, more 
 than the dominion of the Moslem. 
 
 The particular design of closing the series of the king- 
 doms with the kingdom of Alexander's successors is however 
 not difficult to be perceived, and it will be brought out clear- 
 ly in the interpretation of the remaining verses. For the 
 prophet was appointed to give a clew to the time of the first 
 advent of our Lord Jesus Christ upon earth, who was to ap- 
 pear at the close of a series of kingdoms the last of which had 
 been a great oppressor of the people of God. The visions were 
 thus a guide to Christ, so that none need mistake. 
 
 44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a 
 kingdom, which shall never be destroyed ; and the kingdom shall 
 not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume 
 
 45 all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. [:] Forasmuch as 
 [because] thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain 
 without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the 
 clay, the silver, and the gold ; [.] the [The] great God hath made 
 known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter : and the 
 dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. 
 
 There can be no doubt that this kingdom is the same with 
 that which, in chap, vii, is given to the Son of man and to 
 the holy people of the Most High, and in the light of that 
 chapter we see clearly it cannot be the empire of Rome, but 
 the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Does the 
 phrase, then, " in the days of these kings," point out with 
 sufficient definiteness the rise of this new kingdom ? First, 
 what does the phrase mean ? Does it mean, in the midst 
 of their reign ? while those kings were on the throne ? The 
 preposition in the phrase is often used to denote time finished 
 — so Gesenius the Hebrew lexicographer gives it, and so 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 44, 45. 155 
 
 usage demands. For instance, the same preposition with 
 the same construction is found in Num. 28: 26, where it is 
 properly translated in our English Bible as follows — " after 
 your weeks be out.^^ Also in Ecclesiastes 11: 1, "Cast thy 
 bread upon the waters : for thou shalt find it after many 
 days." Also Dan. 11:20," Within few clays [when a few- 
 days shall have expired] he shall be destroyed." In the last 
 two of these instances, however, the meaning may be that the 
 thing spoken of shall take place within certain limits — loithiji 
 certain days ; but in the first the usage is clear and beyond 
 question. 
 
 Now to apply this to the phrase in Daniel 2: 44 — " In the 
 days of these kings." After their successive reigns were out, 
 after they had fully expired, there arose next in succession 
 the kingdom of Jesus Christ, the Son of man. The king- 
 doms of Babylon, of Persia, of Macedon, had passed away ; 
 the kingdoms of the Seleucidae and the Lagidae — Syria and 
 Egypt — had come to an end, the last of them only thirty-five 
 years B. C. Next in order of succession, and with but little 
 longer lapse of time than existed between the fall of Alexan- 
 der, and the partition of his empire between Ptolemy, Seleu- 
 cus, Cassander and Lysimachus, there was established the 
 spiritual reign of the Son of God. The prophet looking down 
 a remote tract of time, and beholding a succession of four 
 kingdoms, and of still another and a greater and more glori- 
 ous to arise next after the fourth, properly uses the phrase, 
 " After the days of these kings." Even with the shade of 
 meaning, Within the days of these kings, the prophet's lan- 
 guage has its accomplishment in the facts above stated. 
 Within the days of what kings ? If we must be guided by 
 the language employed in describing the statue and its over- 
 throw, where the stone breaks in pieces not only the iron and 
 clay but also the brass and the silver and the gold, then are 
 we to conceive of the brass and silver and gold as still exist-^ 
 ing, in some sort, when the stone smites the image on the 
 
156 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 44, 45. 
 
 feet — in other words the kings, or kingdoms, exist which 
 correspond to the brass, silver and gold. Now when the 
 fourth kingdom was destroyed, the lives of the others were 
 prolonged, though their dominion was taken away. When 
 Syria and Egypt were destroyed, the nations beyond the Eu- 
 phrates were spared. Hence the fourth kingdom could be ap- 
 propriately described as set up within the days of those kings, 
 or kingdoms, i. e. before they were all utterly destroyed ; and 
 the era of the rise of the fifth kingdom would be determined 
 by the destruction of the fourth. 
 
 This fifth kingdom set up by the God of heaven is desig- 
 nated by a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. 
 The position of the colossal statue is to be conceived as in a 
 valley near the foot of a precipice, from whose summit a 
 piece suddenly breaks off by no human instrumentality, and 
 falls and smites the statue on the feet, crushing them by its 
 weight, causing the whole statue to fall, and then rolling over 
 it and grinding it to the finest dust which the wind blows 
 entirely away ; and afterwards the stone which smites the 
 image becomes a great mountain and fills the whole earth. 
 
 Now as matter of fact we know that it was the Roman 
 armies which destroyed the fourth kingdom ; how is this to 
 be reconciled with the prediction that the fifth kingdom 
 should do it, and that fifth kingdom be the kingdom of Christ ? 
 There is all the explanation that we need in language used 
 by our Savior in a parable recorded in Matt. 22: 2 — 7, " The 
 kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a 
 marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them 
 that were bidden to the wedding ; and they would not come. 
 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which 
 
 are bidden, .... all things are ready But they made 
 
 light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to 
 his merchandize. And the remnant took his servants, and 
 entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king 
 heard thereof, he was wroth : and he sent forth his armies, 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 44, 45. 157 
 
 and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." 
 Now though this was applied to the Jews, the principle ap- 
 plies to the destruction of the fourth kingdom by the Roman 
 armies — the same armies of the king which afterwards were 
 commissioned to destroy Jerusalem. And though as matter 
 of fact Christ's kingdom was not fully established until the 
 Romans had already done the work of destroying the fourth 
 kingdom, yet in proximity of time to that work, and in the 
 preparation for the fifth kingdom then shortly to appear, the 
 facts might truly be shadowed forth under such imagery as 
 Daniel employs. For it was the God of heaven who com- 
 missioned those armies to do the work of destroying that per- 
 secuting kingdom, and the same God of heaven was even then 
 about laying the foundations of the new spiritual kingdom 
 which was never to be destroyed — never to be left to other 
 people, never overthrown by other people as the Babylonian 
 was by the Medes and Persians, and the Medo-Persian by 
 the Greeks under Alexander, and the kingdom of Alexander 
 by his usurping successors and the murderers of his offspring. 
 Under such imagery derived from temporal kingdoms was 
 shadowed forth the spiritual kingdom in which the saints^ 
 should reign with the Son of man. 
 
 By the imagery of the stone cut out of the mountain with- 
 out hands and smiting the statue, is also symbolically taught 
 that the kingdom of heaven arising by no human might and 
 power but by the Spirit of the Lord of Hosts, should enter 
 the very seats of those four great nations, and destroy the do- 
 minion of Satan where it had so long existed. As matter of 
 fact, Christianity made its beginning in the kingdom of the 
 Seleucidae, " the disciples were called Christians ^rst in An- 
 tioch," Acts 11: 26. It smote the colossal kingdom op 
 EVIL on the feet. And it extended into Egypt, and into 
 the remotest nations of the East farther than the sceptre of 
 Alexander ever reached. Said even one in the primitive 
 age, " The gospel was preached to every creature which is 
 14 
 
158 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 44, 45, 
 
 under heaven" — and again, " Verily their sound went into all 
 the earth, and their words unto the end of the world," Coloss. 
 1: 23. Rom. 10: 18. That new power so efficacious, was 
 Christianity. That new kingdom was the Christian Church 
 of which Jesus Christ was made the head when " the God of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory raised him from 
 the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly 
 places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and 
 dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this 
 world, but also in that which is to come, and hath put all 
 things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all 
 things to the Church, which is his body, the fulness of him 
 that filleth all in all," Eph. 1: 17—23. This kingdom did not 
 come as the Jews, from too literal an interpretation of the 
 prophecies, supposed it would come, in the form of the earthly 
 throne of David given to the son of David. It did not come 
 even as the disciples supposed after the resurrection of their 
 Lord, when they asked the question. Acts 1:6, "Lord, wilt 
 thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" The 
 kingdom was not restored to Israel in the sense in which the 
 Israelites hoped — when, being erected in the holy land, it 
 should immediately destroy all other nations, and grow into a 
 universal earthly monarchy of surpassing glory. Said our 
 Savior himself" My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, 
 then would my servants fight for it," John 18: 36. And said 
 he again, " The kingdom of God cometh not with observa- 
 tion; behold, the kingdom of God is within you," Luke 17: 
 20. It came not with worldly pomp and splendor, but was 
 to be set up in the hearts of men. By its power and efficacy 
 it would in the end overthrow all idolatry, and all institutions 
 hurtful and oppressive to the world. 
 
 "There is one aspect in which the prediction must be re- 
 garded as still more literal. Christ said of himself as the cor- 
 ner stone, " Whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be bro- 
 ken : but on whomsoever it shall fall it will grind him to pow- 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 44, 45. 159 
 
 der," Matt. 21: 44. EviJ would struggle hard to maintain its 
 ascendancy in the world, wicked men and wicked nations 
 would oppose the progress of his religion, but they should be 
 miserably destroyed. 
 
 How far does the history of the world since Christ came 
 verify the predictions respecting the power and progress of 
 his kingdom ? He who looks down through the ages to the 
 Christian era, will see that the fulfilment has been most re- 
 markable. In less than four hundred years the public rites 
 of heathenism were all abolished throughout the wide Roman 
 world.* Despotic institutions have in many countries been 
 overthrown, and in their place others have been substituted 
 sacredly regarding the life and liberty and happiness of the 
 people. Cities and nations opposed to Christ's kingdom and 
 persecuting the saints, have been broken to pieces and scat- 
 tered ; and among them are numbered Antioch and Alexan- 
 dria, the seals of power in the ancient dynasties of Alexan- 
 der's successors — Antioch, once greater and richer than 
 Rome itself, and the dueen of the East, which now exhibits 
 hardly any relics of her former splendor, and whose very 
 ruins are constantly thrown down by earthquakes — Alexan- 
 dria, the ancient seat of commerce and learning and the arts, 
 the abode of luxury and taste, of which nothing remains ex- 
 cept a portico in the vicinity of the gate leading to Rosetta, 
 the southwestern amphitheatre, Cleopatra's obelisk or needle, 
 and Pompey's pillar ; its population once 300,000 now but 
 12,600.t There is Jerusalem too, and Chorazin, and Beth- 
 saida, and Capernaum. There is the Roman empire which in 
 its turn persecuted the saints of the Most High, and has been 
 destroyed. The words of a prophet have been literally fulfil- 
 led — " I will overturn, overturn, overturn it ; and it shall be 
 no more until he come whose right it is ; and I will give it 
 to him," Ezek. 21: 27. But the higher and more character- 
 
 * See Gibbon's testimony, Interpr. p. 44. 
 
 t Encyc. Americana, Art8. Antioch and Alexandria. 
 
160 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 44, 45. 
 
 istic reign of the Son of Man has been the holiness to which 
 it has given birth in the hearts of multitudes ; in the redemp- 
 tion of men from the bondage of sin to the liberty of sons of 
 God, and in their consequent meetness to be partakers of the 
 inheritance of the saints in light. Over all opposition Chris- 
 tianity has triumphed, her dominion down to this very day 
 has been growing wider and wider, gathering strength in her 
 onward course, and in her past triumphs giving pledge that 
 
 " Jesus shall reign where'er the sixn 
 Does his successive journeys run; 
 His kingdom stretch from shore to shore 
 Till moons shall wax and wane no more." 
 
 In concluding this chapter it may be asked, can that inter- 
 pretation be the true one which asserts that the kingdom of 
 heaven has not yet been set up in the world 1 And yet this 
 is the universal interpretation of those who teach the second 
 advent of Christ in A. D. 1843 ; and not of theirs only, but 
 it is the necessary deduction made by such men as Bishop 
 Newton, who applying the fourth kingdom to political and 
 ecclesiastical Rome look for the accomplishment of what is 
 here said of the fifth kingdom not until ecclesiastical Rome 
 or the Papacy is destroyed. The reasons they assign are, (1) 
 " that the destruction of all the former kingdoms [the Roman 
 included as the fourth] was to precede its establishment; (2) 
 that the kingdom is to fill the whole earth, which it now does 
 not." But it is clear that the fourth kingdom was the king- 
 dom which succeeded Alexander's, and the facts in regard to 
 Christianity also oblige us to fix on that kingdom as the fourth. 
 Surely the prophecy itself, so far from asserting that the 
 kingdom of heaven shall, when established, at once fill the 
 whole earth, teaches the contrary, and what we have seen 
 under chap. viii. to be corroborated by the teachings of Christ, 
 viz. that its progress was to be like a stone growing into a moun- 
 tain. It is growing still, it is lifting up its head higher and 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 44, 45. 161 
 
 more serenely to heaven, and stretching out its ample sides 
 toward the ends of the earth. What ! is not that kingdom 
 of heaven established, not though the wise men from the east 
 where Daniel delivered this very prophecy among them, came 
 to Jerusalem at the birth of Jesus, and asked, Where is he 
 that is born king of the Jews, and finding him at Bethlehem 
 fell down and paid him homage 1 Not though the same an- 
 gel Gabriel who revealed the visions to Daniel, came also to 
 Mary and having promised that she should have a son whose 
 name should be called Jesus, added, '* He shall be great, and 
 shall be called the Son of the highest ; and the Lord God 
 shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he 
 shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his king- 
 dom there shall be no end ?"* Not though Zecharias filled 
 with the Holy Ghost spake — " Blessed be the Lord God of 
 Israel ; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath 
 raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant 
 David, as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which 
 have been since the world began ?"! Not though our Lord 
 himself said, "From the days of John the Baptist until now 
 the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent 
 take it by force ?"| Has not Christ yet established his king- 
 dom, not though he himself said, "I saw Satan fall like 
 lightning from heaven ?"§ Not though he was '' declared 
 the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the 
 dead V^\\ Not though apostles in the primitive age gave 
 thanks in the name of believers that the Father had delivered 
 them from the power of darkness, and translated them into 
 the kingdom of his dear Son ?^ A theory which asserts that 
 this kingdom of heaven is not yet established, that it is not 
 yet in the earth, does violence to the whole scope of prophe- 
 cy and gospel. Wherever there is one heart filled with right- 
 
 * Luke 1: 32, 33. t lb. vs. 68—70. t Matt. H: 12. § Luke 
 10: 18. II Rom. 1: 4. IT Col. 1: 13. 
 
 14* 
 
162 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 2: 44, 45. 
 
 eousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, there is the king- 
 dom of God. So long as there shall be one on earth obedi- 
 ent to the laws of Christ, the kingdom is not left to others. 
 Bu-t amidst whatever decline of Christianity in the earth, 
 amidst whatever corruptions in the Church, the true king- 
 dom of God has had its throne in many hearts, it has been 
 within many pure souls, and a band could at any time have 
 been found, larger than that small remnant who in the cor- 
 ruptest period of the antient church numbered seven thousand, 
 or that smaller remnant under the heroic and faithful sons of 
 Mattathias. How much more than that number now exist, 
 and with all the abatements that may be made for the ** many 
 who cleave to the host with flatteries," what multitudes are 
 enrolled as the true saints of the Most High ! Surely this 
 kingdom is in the world ! It has not yet the strength it is 
 destined to have, it has not yet made all its conquests, but in 
 the very spirit of this prophecy " a crown has been given to 
 one who has gone forth conquering and to conquer," Rev. 6: 
 2. Its final issues are with God. 
 
 The rise of this kingdom after four great kingdoms and at 
 a period concerning which there could be no mistake, its es- 
 tablishment, its perpetuity, its destined progress, its universal 
 triumph, the prophet has here predicted. But the term of 
 that progress, the time which should elapse before it should 
 become a universal kingdom, its duration in this world, the 
 prophet does not give, and the angel was not sent to explain. 
 It was predicted that the kingdom should stand forever, even 
 forever and ever, (Dan. 7: 18). The kingdom of God con- 
 templated as a kingdom of righteousness, peace and joy, shall 
 endure literally forever and ever. No changes in time or 
 space can affect it, not the final dissolution of the present 
 globe, not the coming of the end when Christ shall have de- 
 livered up the kingdom to God even the Father, 1 Cor. 15: 
 24. For the saints shall still reign more gloriously under 
 God as all in all, (1 Cor. 15: 28,) and the splendor of heaven 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL ^: 44, 45. 163 
 
 shall be only the farther and brighter shining of those rays of 
 light that first scattered the darkness of this sinful world. 
 The kingdom established by the God of heaven seems, how- 
 ever, to be rather the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, which 
 had its commencement with the ascension of Christ, which 
 has been progressing since, and which is to be one day con- 
 summated with the destruction of the last enemy death, and 
 with the resurrection of the dead, and with the personal ap- 
 pearing of Christ in like manner as the disciples saw him go 
 into heaven, (Acts 1: 11,) and with the retributions of eter- 
 nity. That mediatorial kingdom is to last forever and ever, 
 in the sense that it is not to be subject to entire revolutions 
 and overtures and ruin like the kingdoms of the world. But 
 when all the purposes for which God established it shall have 
 their accomplishment, " then cometh the end," 1 Cor. 15: 24. 
 The phraseology by which its perpetuity is denoted is the 
 same with that in Ps. 148: 5, where the Psalmist having spo- 
 ken of the heavens and the waters above the heavens which 
 the Lord created, adds, " He hath also established them for- 
 ever and ever," Comp. also Is. 30: 8, and Jer. 7: 7. Now 
 an apostle says that "these same heavens, and the earth 
 which are now," and which the Psalmist declares are estab- 
 lished forever and ever, " by the same word are reserved unto 
 fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly 
 men," 2 Peter 3: 7. The personal appearing of Christ " who 
 shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and king- 
 dom," (2 Tim. 4: 1,) when all things shall be subdued unto 
 him, is not to be confounded with the establishment and pro- 
 gress of his kingdom, it is its consummation. For this con- 
 summation primitive Christians 1800 years ago waited and 
 believed it would come. For it Christians in every age should 
 wait, and " show the Lord's death until he come," (1 Cor. 11: 
 26,) for "unto them that look for him shall he appear the se- 
 cond time without sin [without becoming again a sacrifice 
 for sin] unto salvation," Heb. 9: 28. But the presumption of 
 
164 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 24 27. 
 
 him who fixes on the time of that appearing, is not less than 
 the indifference of him who saith in his heart, My Lord delay- 
 eth his coming. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 JNTERPRETATION OF CHAP. IX: 24—27. 
 
 THE VISION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 
 
 This is an exceedhigly difficuh passage of Scripture, and he 
 who does not feel it to be so, has never studied it thoroughly. 
 It needs, for understanding it, whatever discipline may have 
 been gained by a study of the other visions. The results ar- 
 rived at in the following interpretation, are, that this vision is 
 properly a supplement to the vision in chapter viii; 
 that the period of the 70 weeks reach down to the death of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ and the establishment of the gospel 
 dispensation on his resurrection and ascension ; that " the 
 Messiah the Prince" is Jesus made both Lord and Christ, the 
 same with the person seen in the vision in chap vii. as "one 
 like the Son of man" to whom was given an everlasting do- 
 minion that all nations should serve him. 
 
 24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy 
 holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, 
 and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting 
 righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to 
 
 25 anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from 
 the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jeru- 
 salem unto the Messiah the Prince shall he seven weeks, and three- 
 score and two weeks : the street shall be built again, and the wall, 
 
 26 even in troublous times. And afler threescore and two weeks 
 shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the 
 
^* OF TBE 
 
 UNIVERS 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 24 ^Sil^Cs - 1^5^^ 
 
 prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanet»a*y ; 
 and the end thereof 5/ifl?Z be with a flood, and unto the end of the 
 27 war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the cove- 
 nant with many for one week : and in the midst of the week he 
 shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the over- 
 spreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until 
 the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the 
 desolate. 
 
 The occasion on which this prophecy was given is narra- 
 ted in the preceding part of the chapter. In the first year of 
 the same Darius mentioned 11: 1, (called in 9: 1, the son of 
 Ahasueras, i. e. Astyages I, and not the Ahasuerus o^ Ezra 
 and Esther,) and when Babylon had fallen before the victori- 
 ous army of the Medes and Persians, it was known to Daniel 
 that the 70 years' captivity, as specified by Jeremiah the pro- 
 phet, was drawing to an end. One great event predicted by 
 Jeremiah, that at the close of the seventy years Babylon in 
 its turn should be made desolate, and its kings no longer 
 reign, was already accomplished, Jer. 25: 12 — 14 and Dan. 
 5: 31. The other great event that the Jews should then be 
 restored to Jerusalem, now remained, Jer. 29: 10 — 14. In 
 connexion with the promise of their return it was also added, 
 " Ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for 
 me with all your heart." With this spirit of earnest suppli- 
 cation, Daniel now sought the Lord for the fulfilment of the 
 promise. He prayed in behalf of Israel, he identified himself 
 with them, felt their lot his, their transgressions and iniquity 
 his, their punishment his ; he confessed not only the sins of 
 his countrymen, but his own sins, righteous man though he 
 was ; and God was truly found of him, while he thus sought 
 him and implored his mercies and forgivenesses with the whole 
 heart. While he was praying, an angel sent from heaven 
 came near and touched him. It was the same angel whom 
 the prophet " had seen in the vision at the beginning" — i. e. 
 not only in the vision recorded in chap, viii, but also that in 
 chap. vii. He was sent at the beginning of the prophet's vi- 
 
166 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 24 27. 
 
 sions (and they commenced with chap, vii,) to interpret them. 
 He came for the first time, chap, vii, seventeen years previous 
 to this vision in chap. ix. He came a second time, chap, viii, 
 two years after the first, and he comes now a third time, fif- 
 teen years after the second, and the next year after the death 
 of Belshazzar. The prophet refers thus to him to identify 
 him as the messenger sent again and again to reveal to him 
 future events. 
 
 The angel introduces his prophetic message with the fol- 
 lowing words, vs. 22, 23, — "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." It is affirm- 
 ed with singular assurance by those who teach the personal 
 appearing of Christ A. D. 1843, that the words "the vision," 
 in connection with the prophet's allusion to the angel as one 
 whom he had " seen in the vision at the beginning," refer 
 back to the vision in chap, viii ; that the prophet not under- 
 standing it, the angel was sent to make clear to him what he 
 did not understand, and that the only parts not before under- 
 stood were the length of a day and when to commence the 
 2300 days. Accordingly they say that this prophecy of the 
 70 weeks was given to teach Daniel to commence the 2300 
 days of the previous vision in chap. viii. with ''the going forth 
 of the commandment" mentioned 9: 25. Now so far as the 
 phrase " in the vision at the beginning" is concerned, it re- 
 fers to chap. vii. rather than to chap, viii; for undoubtedly 
 Gabriel was the angel who revealed to Daniel the events men- 
 tioned in chap, vii, and the phrase " at the beginning," like 
 the words in 8: 1, " that which appeared unto me at the first," 
 goes back to the first vision which is recorded in chap. vii. 
 But not to dwell on this, let any plain man put these two vi- 
 sions side by side, and ask whether, on supposition that such 
 were the points not understood by the prophet in the vision 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 24 27. 167 
 
 in chap, viii, the angel's communication looks anything like 
 a direct solution of them ? Would any person in heaven 
 above or in the earth beneath, that knew how to use language, 
 so meet the points on which the mind of the prophet was sup- 
 posed to be laboring 1 
 
 There is a mode of speech in the first verse of chap, x, 
 which is precisely like the one in question, and it will decide 
 the point — " In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing 
 was revealed unto Daniel . . . and he understood the thing, 
 and had understanding of the vision." Now it is manifest 
 that the vision mentioned 10: 1, refers to what the angel is 
 yet to say, what the angel reveals in the verses following. So 
 here in chap. ix. he says, "At the beginning of thy supplica- 
 tions the commandment came forth, [it literally reads a thing 
 was promulgated, i. e. the matter of the following prophecy 
 in vs. 24 — ^27; for the word is the same with that translated 
 ** thing" in 10: 1,] and I am come to show thee ; [the force 
 of the original is that the angel came to show the thing to 
 Daniel which had been promulgated in heaven;] therefore 
 understand the matter [it is the same word translated 
 " thing"], and consider the vision." Now as the phrase '* the 
 vision" in chap. x. refers to the "thing" mentioned in the 
 first clause, and embraces the events which are related af- 
 terwards, so here in chap. ix. the same phrase " the vision" 
 refers to the "thing" mentioned in the first clause of v. 23, 
 and embraces not the events which have been related before, 
 but the events which are related aftenoards in vs. 24 — ^27. 
 So utterly without support is the argument which is made 
 the very key-stone of the doctrine of the second advent of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, A. D. 1843. But see further on last 
 clause but one of verse 24. 
 
 That all was clear to Daniel, no man in his senses would 
 assert ; but that the obscurity was in regard to when to com- 
 mence the 2300 days, and that the angel came to clear up 
 this, has not a shadow of support. The prophet doubtless 
 
168 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 24. 
 
 found it difficult to reconcile the events asserted both in chaps, 
 vii. and viii, with the promise of deliverance from captivity. 
 He supposed and hoped there would be no more such severe 
 trials to go through. No wonder that after the lapse of fif- 
 teen or seventeen years from those two visions, and about 
 the time of the end of the 70 weeks predicted as the period 
 of the captivity, he became deeply solicitous for the result. 
 The same angel who had communicated the knowledge of 
 sad events yet to take place, and who had also promised that 
 the kingdom should finally be given to the saints, appears 
 again to him, to tell him how much longer time should elapse 
 before the Great Deliverer, the Messiah should come, and he 
 makes 70 weeks this appointed period, beginning with a spe- 
 cified event. 
 
 Verse 24. 
 
 Seventy weeks. 
 
 This verse contains the summary of the events of the vi- 
 sion. It is the germ of which vs. 25 — 27 are the develop- 
 ment. The first inquiry is, Are these weeks of days ? Is 
 this a period of time extending only a little beyond a year ? 
 Would Daniel and the Jews of his time so understand it ? 
 Can we who live in the light of history so understand it 1 
 There is in the original a peculiarity of phraseology, there is 
 a figure of speech used which is called paronomasia^ in which 
 the words resemble each other in sense or sound, (they are 
 here shaw-voo-eem, shiv-eem,) and when this figure is used 
 it is indicative of peculiar emphasis or significancy. Now as 
 the prophet Jeremiah had predicted that the Jews should be 
 restored at the expiration of 70 years, and as Daniel made 
 that promise the basis of his supplications, and the angel 
 came while he was praying, such an announcement of 70 
 weeks or 70 sevens, with the peculiar significancy of the ^«- 
 ronomasia, would naturally make the impression that 70 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9; 24. 169 
 
 sevens of years were meant. Added to this, the announce- 
 ment of sucli a chain of events, which could not haste to 
 their accomplishment within the brief period of little more 
 than a year, would secure Daniel and those for whom the 
 pr(>phecy was given, and every reader of it, against the limi- 
 tation of the weeks to weeks of days. Some interpreters 
 have found an argument for the weeks of years in a phrase 
 in chap. 10: 2 translated "three full weeks;" which is lite- 
 rally three weeks days, and which they suppose implies that 
 " weeks" had been used in the previous vision in the sense 
 of years. But the grammatical construction is not " three 
 weeks o/days," and usage confirms the interpretation of the 
 word days, in the original, as it is in our translation — ** three 
 full weeks" — or three weeks long, See Gen. 41: 1. Jer. 28: 
 3, 11, where it is literally two years days, i. e. two years 
 long, or two years time — precisely the same sort of expres- 
 sion found in 10: 2. 
 
 But is there any authority in the Scriptures for reckoning 
 these 70 weeks as weeks of years ? Was there such a mode 
 of reckoning time among the Jews. There was such a mode, 
 and Daniel may well be supposed to be familiar with it. 
 Among their directions in respect to the sabbatical year and 
 year of jubilee, was the following ; Lev. 25: 8, " And thou 
 shalt number seven sabbaths of years, seven times seven 
 years ; and the space of the seven sahhaths of years shall he un- 
 to thee forty and nine years.^^ The only difference between 
 the two instances in Daniel and Leviticus is, that in the for- 
 mer it is weeks and in the latter it is sabbaths. But there is 
 clear evidence that these two words sabbaths and weeks were 
 used as synonymous, and interchanged with each other ; for 
 in Lev. 23: 15 it thus reads : *' Ye shall count unto you from 
 
 the morrow after the sabbath, seven sabbaths shall 
 
 be complete," and in Deut. 16: 9, where the same subject is 
 spoken of, it reads, " Seven weeks shalt thou number unto 
 thee." The reckoning therefore by sabbaths or weeks of 
 15 
 
170 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 24. 
 
 years was put down in the Jewish code of laws as one mode 
 of computing time. It is not emblematical, as where Ezekiel 
 is told to put days for years, nor what some have called pro- 
 phetical, but it is an established mode of computing time. 
 Nor was this usage confined to the Jews. Marcus Varro, a 
 Roman writer born 116 years B. C, wrote some books which 
 he called Hehdomades, (or Weeks,) in the first of which, 
 having developed the significancy of the number 7, he says, 
 that "he had now entered on the 11th hebdomad [or week] 
 of years, and up to that day had written seventy htbdomades 
 of books,"* — i. e. he was 11 times 7 years old, and was the 
 author of 70 times 7 treatises. Another ancient author, Ma- 
 crobius, who lived in the times of the Roman emperor Theo- 
 dosius, and enjoyed much of the imperial patronage, says in 
 commenting on Cicero's Dream of Scipio, " From the sixth to 
 the seventh week there is a diminution of strength; but it is 
 hidden, and does not manifest itself by any outward defect. 
 Hence it was the custom in some republics not to oblige a 
 man to go to the wars after the sixth week," i. e. after 42 
 years of age.f Here is the same phraseology that is used in 
 the prophet Daniel, and though '* years" in the first quotation 
 is explicitly given, it is only in contrast with " books" in the 
 other clause of the sentence, and is not added for the sake 
 of explaining the meaning of the word " weeks." 
 
 One more inqury is. Are we to understand the 70 weeks 
 of years as a period of 490 years — nor more nor less ? J How 
 
 * Quoted in RosenmQller's Commentary on Daniel, p. 297. 
 
 t Quoted in Dr. Adam Clarke's Commentary on Daniel, chap. xi. 
 
 X RosenmOller says, that " those labor in vain who try to make the 
 70 weeks, together with the deeds done during that space of time, 
 conform to an exact and definite number of years," and he orives it as 
 his opinion that "the number seventy was chosen by the author of the 
 book merely on account of the paronomasia above mentioned ; that 
 the author did not wish tliem to be numbered so exactly as that there 
 should be nothing redundant or deficient, and that they do not extend 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9*. 24. 171 
 
 can we understand it differently, if this is indeed a veritable, 
 genuine prophecy, which most certainly it is ? How can it 
 be otherwise, if even a heathen writer uses similar phraseolo- 
 gy in an exact, definite sense ? How otherwise, since the 70 
 years were to be understood literally, and since all other pe- 
 riods of time thus far found in Daniel are to be understood 
 literally 1 Would not Daniel so understand it ? Is it not 
 due to the prophecy to search carefully first of all for events 
 in history to correspond with the events in the order and time 
 of their occurrence here predicted ? If there are such events 
 to be found, corresponding with the period of their, predic- 
 tion, then we are to fix on them, and on no others ; and their 
 very peculiarity, and the peculiarity of the time specified, will 
 place this prophecy among the very highest examples of pro- 
 phetic inspiration. 
 
 Are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city. 
 
 Are determined is literally are cut off, viz. from any indefi- 
 nite space of time, thence are measured off, are determined. 
 The word is one of those found only once in the Bible. — Up- 
 on thy people, etc. i. e. over or for Daniel's countrymen and 
 native city, Compare 11:14, " Robbers of thy people," and 12: 
 1, "Children of thy people," also v. 20 of this same chap- 
 ter, " While I was confessing the sin of my people Israel." 
 
 To finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make 
 reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. 
 
 To finish the transgression is literally to shut up the trans- 
 gression, (the definite article being in the original,) i. e. to 
 restrain it and prevent its ravages. — " To make an end of 
 sins," is literally to seal up the sins. The translation in the 
 
 beyond the times of Antiochus Epiphanes," Comm. on Daniel, pp. 
 320, 321—324. He however, as indeed all interpreters, makes the 
 weeks sevens vf years, though he discards precision in the use of the 
 numbers 70, 7 and 62. 
 
172 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 24. 
 
 text seems to be the proper though secondary meaning in 
 this place. The word denotes the finishing of sins and re- 
 moving them out of sight, as by a seal a letter is closed and 
 its contents shut up from view. — In the clause to make recon- 
 (iiliationfor iniquity, the verb literally means to cover , and 
 alludes to the mercy-seat — the ilasterion — the same ** propi- 
 tiation "mentioned in Romans 3: 25 — which is derived from 
 the verb " to cover.'''* Christ crucified is the true propitiation. 
 In him, as on the mercy-seat, God declares his mercy to the 
 believing and penitent. " God was in Christ reconciling the 
 world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them," 
 1 Cor. 5: 19. The words transgression, and sins, and ini- 
 quity, refer to those acts of transgression w hich the prophet 
 had been confessing in his prayer, vs. 5, 7, 11, etc., and not 
 to the transgression mentioned in 8: 12, 13, 23. The gene- 
 ral idea seems to be not that of filling up the measure of their 
 iniquities, as in chap, viii, but that of the forgiveness and re- 
 moval of sins. — ** To bring in everlasting righteousness," 
 means to introduce for God's people a permanent state of de- 
 liverance from sin, Comp. Dan. 11: 44, and 7: 27, "ever- 
 lasting kingdom ;" also Luke 1: 74, 75, "That he would 
 grant unto us that we being delivered out of the hand of our 
 enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and right- 
 eousness all the days of pur life." Some translate the phrase, 
 the righteousness of ancient times; but the context does not 
 favor it. 
 
 And to seal up the vision and prophecy. 
 
 Literally, to seal up vision and prop Ik t. To seal, is to 
 close up and make fast with a seal — whence to make sure, to 
 attest, confirm, fulfil ; also to bring to a ch se or hide from 
 view, as we have seen on the phrase "to make an end of 
 sins." It must here dencite to make sure by fulJiUing, viz. 
 what Daniel had seen in vision and what pn phets had pre- 
 dicted. It may further teach that at the end of the seventy 
 
INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 2: 24. 173 
 
 weeks the Old Testament dispensation was to be brought to 
 a close, was as it were to be sealed up and laid aside, even 
 as it is said in Heb. 8: 13, " In that he saith, A new cove- 
 nant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth 
 and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away." Nothing would 
 seem plainer than that if the seventy weeks are the key to 
 the 2300 days, and the angel was sent to tell the prophet 
 when to begin them, then the seventy weeks finish the 2300 
 days, for the seventy weeks seal up the vision.* 
 
 And to anoint the Most Holy. 
 
 The designation " Most Holy," is the same with that ren- 
 dered in the Scriptures the holiest, the most holy place, the 
 most holy things. It is never applied in the Old Testament 
 to persons, but only to places and things. In regard to the 
 phrase " most holy place," i. e. the part of the temple within 
 the vail, it varies somewhat from " Most Holy " in this verse, 
 which last is the exact phrase translated elsewhere *' most 
 holy things," such as the altar of burnt-offering, the altar of 
 incense, the ark, the table of shew-bread, the candlestick, 
 the laver, etc. The signification " most holy " in this verse 
 seems to be general, and borrowed from the whole tabernacle 
 including its vessels which were anointed with the holy 
 anointing oil, Exod. 30: 22 — 30. There is however a phrase 
 used by the angel Gabriel in announcing the birth of Jesus 
 
 * Mr. Wm. Miller, Lectures, p. 62, renders the word " to seal up/' 
 to make sure, certain, unalterable. He gives only this one definition 
 of the word. Of course it has not this meaning in the clause "to 
 seal up the sins," which he takes rightly in the sense oH putting aicay, 
 but which he does not seem to know is the same word with that in 
 the phrase " to seal up the vision and prophecy." Nor can this word 
 have this meaning of '' making sure," in Rev. 20: 30, " Seal not the 
 sayings of the prophecy of this book." The seventy weeks however 
 "make sure " the vision hy fulfilling it, and if the vision of the 2300 
 days were meant, the seventy weeks would of course close them up 
 and end them. 
 
 15* 
 
174 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 25. 
 
 to Mary, which might justify the application of the phrase 
 "Most Holy" to our Savior, — '* Therefore that most holy thing 
 which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of Gcd," 
 Luke 1: 35. Nevertheless, as this use of " most holy," is 
 not found in the Old Testament Scriptures, it may be more 
 legitimately applied to describe the establishment of the purer 
 worship of the Father taught by our Savior the Messiah — the 
 building up of the Christian Church on the foundation of 
 apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief 
 corner stone, Eph. 2: 20 — the consecration of the sanctuary 
 and true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man, 
 Heb. 8: 2 — the endowment of those who constitute the true 
 Church of Christ with the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. 
 Can such declarations as these mean anything short of the 
 gospel dispensation 1 Who dees not at once feel the inade- 
 c^uacy of the interpretation given by Rosenmiiller and others, 
 that the prediction is bounded by the times of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes as the most remote limits, and that it denotes ** the 
 end of the exile with which God would punish the contumacy 
 of the Jews ; the fulfilment of Jeremiah's prophecy ccncern- 
 ing the Captivity, and the dedication of the temple and res- 
 toration of sacred worship ?" If this verse 24 applies to Christ, 
 and to the gospel dispensation set up subsequently to his 
 death; if the 24th verse is, as before remarked, the summary 
 of the vision, and the other verses its unfolding and explana- 
 tion, then must vs. 25 — 27 refer likewise to the same. 
 
 Verse 25. 
 
 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the 
 commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. 
 
 Here without question commence the 70 weeks. What 
 and when was this commandment. There was a promise 
 made to Jeremiah, 29: 10, (Comp. also 25: J 1, 12,) about 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 25. 175 
 
 598 B. C, " Thus saith the Lord, That after seventy years 
 be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my 
 good word to you, in causing you to return to this place." 
 This, as Rosenmiiller and others suppose, was *' the com- 
 mandment." 
 
 Again, there was a commandment issued by Cyrus, in his 
 first year, 536 B. C. It was predicted by Isaiah 44: 28, 
 " That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform 
 all my pleasure ; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be 
 built, and to the temple. Thy foundation shall be laid." — This 
 commandment is recorded as matter of history in Ezra i, and 
 consequent upon it was the return of 50,000 Jews out of Bab- 
 ylon to their native land. 
 
 There are yet other points of time. The work of rebuild- 
 ing Jerusalem, which was commenced in the first year of Cy^ 
 rus, was obstructed and interrupted through the malice of the 
 surrounding people, until Darius the son of Hystaspes, 520 
 B. C, issued a decree in favor of the Jews, when the work of 
 the temple was resumed, and dedicated 515 B. C, Ezra 6: 
 7—12. 
 
 Subsequent to this was a decree by Artaxerxes Longimanus, 
 in the 7th year of his reign, which many chronologists fix at 
 457 B. C. This decree was carried to Jerusalem by Ezra, 
 who was also accompanied by a large number of the Jews 
 that had not before returned ; and when the decree was hand- 
 ed to the king's officers in the land, " they furthered the peo- 
 ple and the house of God." 
 
 There was still another decree given in the 20th year of 
 Artaxerxes to Nehemiah. The walls had until that time re- 
 mained in the state in which they were left by Nebuchadnez- 
 zar — " broken down, and the gates thereof burned with fire," 
 and the people were " in great affliction and reproach," Neh. 
 1: 3. When Nehemiah who was at that time cup-bearer to 
 the king heard this, he set himself to fasting and prayer, as 
 Daniel also had done ; and having first prayed that God would 
 
176 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9*. 25. 
 
 give him mercy in the sight of Artaxerxes, he asked and ob- 
 tained letters patent that he might be sent to the city of his 
 fathers' sepulchres to build it, and be furnished with timber 
 for the gates of the temple, and the wall of the city, Neh. ii. 
 From that period the walls of the city went forward until they 
 were completed. Under the auspices of Nehemiah both 
 church and state were greatly reformed, Jerusalem was better 
 inhabited, " the people being few therein" up to that time, 
 " and the houses not builded," Neh. 7: 4. There would 
 seem to be an adequate reason in these circumstances for dat- 
 ing "the commandment to restore Jerusalem" at this point 
 of time. Did the commandment however issue from God, or 
 from an earthly source ? Doubtless the former, though not 
 excluding human instrumentality — even as God said of Cyrus, 
 Is. 44: 28, as above quoted, He shall perform all my pleasure, 
 even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built ; and to the 
 temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. According to the 
 usual chronology, Artaxerxes began his reign 464 or 465 B. 
 C; and the twentieth year of his reign according to this 
 would be 445 or 446 B. C. But by other chronologists, and 
 by Calmet among the number, the twentieth year of Artaxer- 
 xes was in the year of the world 3550 ; 454 years before 
 Christ's actual birth allowing for Calmet's computation that 
 Christ was not born until 4004 years from the creation of the 
 world. 
 
 With these several points of time in view, (which are the 
 only ones given in history, and the only ones assumed in all 
 and any of the various interpretations given to this vision,) 
 we come now to definite periods within the seventy weeks. 
 
 Unto the Messiali the Prince. 
 
 These two words are each without the definite article, and 
 by some, as by RosenmiJller, they are translated an anointed 
 Prince, the word Messiah being taken as an adjective — which 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 25. 177 
 
 it often is ; and though the Hebrew usage has generally in a 
 phrase thus translated the adjective placed after the noun, 
 and not as it is here before it in construction, yet there are 
 exceptions to this general rule, as Is. 53: 11, 7ny righteous 
 servant, Gen. 17: 14, uneircumcised man child, and therefore 
 such a translation would have its sanction in the Scriptures, 
 and may be the true one. Admit it to be the true one, 
 [an anointed one, a prince, — would be more correct,) yet 
 the individual may have been as distinctly presented by the 
 angel before the prophet's mind, as if he had used the article. 
 We have only to suppose that the prophet has here the previ- 
 ous vision of the fifth kingdom in his mind as recorded in 
 chap, vii, " Behold one like the Son of man came .... and 
 there was given him a kingdom," — and the appellation an 
 anointed prince would be perfectly definite to him. He would 
 at once identify him with the one he saw in that vision ; and 
 it is not unworthy of notice that the very phrase " one like 
 the Son of man" is in the original as indefinite as an anointed 
 prince here. But the translation as it stands in our version 
 has the suflTrage and approbation of one of the most distin- 
 guished Hebrew scholars now living,* who thus remarks, — 
 " The translation is correct and in accordance with the prin- 
 ciple that the prophet or poet frequently omits the article even 
 where the noun must be regarded as definite. In Daniel's 
 vivid descriptitm of the vision he likewise omits the article 
 before other nouns where the prose writer would be required 
 to use it, as they are undoubtedly definite — for instance in the 
 expression ** the going forth of the commandment," the word 
 " commandment" is without the article. Hence the words 
 unto the Messiah are left without the article not because the 
 prophet wishes to make his statement indefinite, but because 
 its definiteness is so clear and obvious before his excited 
 mind, that he considers it unnecessary to point it out by 
 means of the article." 
 
 * Piof. Nordheimer in his letter to Prof. Stuart, Bib. Repos. Oct. 1841. 
 
178 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 25. 
 
 Some have also found difficulty in the use of the word 
 translated " prince" to denote the Messiah, because it is of 
 various and secondary signification, when if the angel had 
 meant the Messiah he would have used the appellation "the 
 king," as the appropriate word.* But the word " prince" is 
 every way expressive. It is found 11: 22, applied to the 
 high-priest " prince of the covenant" and in 1 Sam. 13: 14, 
 applied to David as the king of Israel, "The Lord hath 
 sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath 
 commanded him to be captain over his people." Its prima- 
 ry idea is that of being first, excellent, in which last signifi- 
 cation it is used in Prov. 8: 6, " Hear, for I will speak of ex- 
 cellent things." It is more expressive and larger in signifi- 
 cation than the word king, for that is employed only in the 
 sense of ruling. And to decide the point beyond question, 
 the appellation " prince of peace" is given to the Messiah, Is. 
 9: 6, where though a dififerent word is used, it is as seconda- 
 ry as this in Dan. 9: 25. 
 
 Who then is designated by " the Messiah the Prince?" 
 The consideration already alluded to, that the prophet had 
 the vision of the fifth kingdom in his mind, will be more par- 
 ticularly remarked on in the sequel of this section. The pe- 
 riods of time annexed will now do much toward determining 
 the question. 
 
 Shall be seven weeks, and threescore and tveo weeks : the street 
 shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times. 
 
 Between the clauses " seven weeks" and " threescore and 
 two weeks" there is in the original a pause-accent of the 
 largest kind, and this has been made the ground of separa- 
 ting the two clauses, and assigning the first seven weeks as 
 the period at whose close the anointed prince above men- 
 tioned should come, and the next threescore and two weeks 
 
 * Prof, Stuart in Letter to Prof Nordheimer, Bib. Repos. Oct. 1841. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 25. 179 
 
 as the period during which the street and wall should be 
 built again, and Jerusalem restored to its pristine condition. 
 But (1) the same pause-accent sometimes occurs in the midst 
 of a sentence where to separate the parts of the sentence is 
 grammatically impossible. For instance in Gen. 1: 1, "In 
 the beginninor God created the heaven and the earth," this 
 same pause-accent is between the words created and the hea- 
 ven. While this accent may generally mark the divisions of 
 sense, it with the others may only direct the chanting, or 
 recitativo reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in public wor- 
 ship. 
 
 (2) It is contrary to fact and absurd to suppose that " the 
 street and wall" were 62 weeks or 434 years in being rebuilt ; 
 nor even on the interpretation of those who synchronize the 
 expiration of the 62 weeks with the death of Alexander, can 
 it be supposed that the city was not restored as here mention- 
 ed until B. C 324 — one hundred and nineteen years subse- 
 quent to the last decree, bringing down that decree as late as 
 possible. 
 
 (3) The expiration of the seven weeks from either of the 
 above mentioned dates assigned to the several decrees or com- 
 mandments for restoring Jerusalem, brings us to no " prince" 
 then " anointed." It does not bring us to Cyrus, whom Ro- 
 senmijller and others suppose to be designated ; though indeed 
 this consideration touches not them, because they arbitrarily 
 disregard all precision of time in accounting for the seven 
 weeks. From the taking of Babylon 538 B. C, or from Cy- 
 rus' sole reign 536 B. C, 49 years carry us back only to 587 
 or 585 B. C, which was twelve or thirteen years after the 
 word of promise mentioned Jer. 29: 10, the date which Ro- 
 senmiiller fixes on ; so that his first term of time falls short by 
 13 years, and he makes the seven weeks equivalent to sixty- 
 two years instead of forty-nine. Cyrus is indeed called the 
 " anointed" of God, Is. 45: 1 ; but this title being given him 
 by one prophet, is no proof that another prophet means the 
 
180 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 25. 
 
 same person when he uses the word " anointed ;" and it is 
 certain that there was no other " commandment" between 
 him and the promise given to Jeremiah. 
 
 (4) The same anointed prince seems manifestly spoken of 
 soon after as coming at the close not of the seven weeks, but 
 af the 62 weeks following the seven, viz. v. 26 — " and after 
 threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off." The 
 application of " Messiah" mentioned v. 26, to Alexander the 
 Great, or to Onias, etc., will be noticed in the proper place. 
 But if the two are identical, then the seven weeks and three- 
 score and two weeks together designate one period and are 
 not to be separated in the construction in which they stand, 
 but are to be joined together in order to mark the point of 
 time when the anointed prince was to come. From the date 
 of the decree to his coming were to be 69 weeks or 483 years. 
 The expression is indeed peculiar, and there ma)* not be found 
 in the Bible a phrase exactly in the form of this to denote a 
 definite number, but no usage opposes it. The Hebrew has 
 many anomalies greater than this, it has its peculiar phrases 
 and these found only in one instance, and the context is of- 
 ten the sole guide to their meaning. Let the reader however 
 weigh this phrase, and ask whether in itself it seems harsh 
 and contrary to the analogy of language ? Let him decide 
 between this unusual employment of numbers, (if it seems 
 unusual,) and the more unusual and harsh disregard of the 
 numbers 70, and 7, and 62, which those show who neverthe- 
 less insist upon ascertained and definite usage in regard to 
 the clause in question. 
 
 But the designation of 7 weeks, or 49 years, along with 
 the 62 weeks, was to mark the time employed in the re- 
 building of the wall and city, and this furnishes a sufficient 
 solution of the peculiarity of the phrase as a mode of desig- 
 nating time. When Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem, as 
 above mentioned, the city was thinly inhabited, and its walls 
 were yet in ruins. They raised the walls that same year by 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 25. 181 
 
 unparalleled exertions, (though it appears from Josephus 
 that two years more were occupied in completing them,) 
 their enemies conspiring for their defeat and showing open 
 hostility, so that a part were obliged to stand in armor for 
 the protection of those who labored on the walls, and the la- 
 borers themselves, while they wrought with one hand, held a 
 weapon in the other.* This speedy erection of the walls 
 was because "the people had a mind to work," Neh. 4: 6; 
 and when the walls were once raised as a shield of defence, 
 they could proceed more regularly. The word wall is how- 
 ever in the original moat or ditch., and such is the marginal 
 reading. The moat implies the wall. The street was the 
 open place prepared for the people to assemble in a sort of 
 forum, as was the custom in oriental cities, Comp. Neh. 8: 1, 
 " And all the people gathered themselves together as one 
 man in the street before the water-gate," probably the gate 
 through which the people of the city went to the brook Ke- 
 dron. But as yet " the houses were not builded," Neh. vii, 
 nor were things restored to their former regular condition^ 
 Nehemiah remained twelve years, (Neh. 13: 6,) but it ap- 
 pears that he had not been able fully to restore matters. After 
 some space of time, it is not said how long, he went up again 
 and reformed abuses still existing. There is no further record 
 of him, or of the work of restoration, in the Bible ; but Jose- 
 phus relates that he died at a very advanced age, and it is al- 
 together probable that the work begun by him and carried on 
 for many years, required as long a space as the seven weeks or 
 49 years for its completion. The clause '* the street shall be 
 built again, etc." is of the same import with *' to restore and 
 to build Jerusalem," and the preparation of the street or fo- 
 
 * Michaelis objecting to the applieation of the seven weeks ofyearsto 
 the rebuilding of Jerusalem, says that the Jews enjoyed peace, and 
 were in a tolerable state of things for the first 49 years, under Artax- 
 erxes (who lived 30 years after his decree) and under Darius Nothus 
 (who reigned 19 years) ; but this is in the very face of facts. 
 
 16 
 
182 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 26. 
 
 rum for judicial transactions and purposes of buying and sell- 
 ing, seems a summary declaration of the full restoration of 
 their former flourishing municipal state. 
 
 Verse 26. 
 
 And after threescore and two weeks shall Mesciah lio cut off. 
 
 We come now to the sixty-two weeks following the seven, 
 or 483 years in all from issuing the commandment. At the 
 expiration of this period the Messiah should be cut off", i. e. 
 come to a \iolent death. The first and most natural impres- 
 sion certainly is, that Messiah v. 26, must be the same with 
 Messiah v. 25 ;* for '\Hioo dijf'crmt persons were meant, there 
 would be something like the phrase " one other" in 11: 5 to 
 show it, but there is no such mark of distinction. The two 
 are one and the same unless there is something in the con- 
 text to make it impossible ; and we shall see there is nothing, 
 and that both must refer solely to our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 RosenmiJller having applied the designation ** Messiah," 
 V. 25 to Cyrus, applies this in v. 26 to Alexander the Great, 
 Comm. p. 323. But as Alexander was cut off" 324 B. C, 
 this makes the date of the commandment 808 B. C, 2] 8 
 years before the commandment or promise, (Jer. xxix, 598 
 B. C.,) and reduces the 69 weeks or 483 years to only 274 
 years at most (598 — 324=274) ; and the reasons he assigns 
 are that Alexander's death makes a conspicuous epoch be- 
 tween Cyrus and Antiochus Epiphanes, and that as Alexan- 
 der is mentioned chaps, ii, vii, viii, and xi, it is incredible he 
 should be passed over in chap. ix. 
 
 Others suppose Onias to be meant who was cut off" in the 
 reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, or the abolition of the high- 
 priesthood at the time of the taking away of the daily sacri- 
 fice ; but this is equally without regard to precision of time 
 
 * So Prof Nordheimer considers them, See his letter to Prof Stu- 
 art, p. 417. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 26. 183 
 
 in the periods mentioned ; for from 171 B. C, the time when 
 Onias was cut off, 483 years would extend back to 654 
 B. C, 56 years before the earliest date fixed on by any for 
 the going forth of the commandment. Neither of these ap- 
 plications is admissible, on any consideration of the weeks as 
 portions of time reckoned by fixed laws, and in a regular 
 manner ; and to Rosen miiller's interpretation there exists the 
 objection that he makes the prophecy destitute of all propor- 
 tion in the divisions of tame — stretching the first seven weeks 
 to twelve or thirteen years more than the forty-nine years, and 
 from the sixty-nine weeks cutting off full two hundred and 
 seventy-four years. Rosenmiiller objects to an interpretation 
 by Eichhorn, (which to be sure is arbitrary enough; for from 
 the decree of Cyrus granted to the Jews, he reckons hachoard 
 to Nebuchadnezzar as the anointed prince, and then forward 
 to Onias the high-priest as the anointed one cut off,) Rosen- 
 muller objects to this that Eichhorn takes many things at will, 
 and disregards all established usage in computing the years 
 of any definite epoch, Commentary, p. 322. But certainly 
 the same objection lies as strong against his own method, and 
 against every method which makes the computation of the 69 
 weeks fall so far short of that number of sevens of years.* 
 
 If not to Cyrus, nor to Alexander, nor to Onias, the appella- 
 tions "the Messiah the Prince" and " Messiah" can be applied, 
 then who is the individual thus definitely announced by the 
 angel, and presented to the prophet's mind ? Where can we 
 look but to Jesus? If the 483 years can with any high de- 
 gree of probability, much more with comparative certainty, 
 
 * Another interpretation is found in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory, B. i. c. 6 ; viz. that it denotes the abolition of the sacred unction 
 among the Jews, i. e. of the succession of the high priests, and that 
 the prophecy was fulfilled about the time of our Lord's birth, in the 
 arbitrary appointment of priests by Herod no longer from ancient 
 lineage, but from obscure individuals. But usage is entirely against 
 making "anointed" the designation of an office. 
 
184 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 26. 
 
 be shown to extend from the issuing of one of the edicts 
 above mentioned to a period in the life of Christ analogous 
 to the anointing of a prince, then is the prophecy intended 
 of him alone. 
 
 At the age of about 30, he was anointed with the Holy 
 Ghost at his baptism, and thenceforth was he the publicly com- 
 missioned Son of God. Though he was not made both Lord 
 and Christ, until he had been crucified and had risen from the 
 dead, (Acts 2: 36,) yet was he the anointed Prince as David 
 was the king anointed over Israel by Samuel even before he 
 ascended the throne, 1 Sam. xvi ; and it was fit the Son of 
 David should in this respect be like his prototype and ances- 
 tor according to the flesh. Now with the decree in the 20th 
 year of Artaxerxes as the date of the going forth of the com- 
 mandment, according to Calmet's chronology 454 years be- 
 fore the actual birth of Christ, 483 years give us twenty-nine 
 years as the age of our Lord at his anointing or baptism — 
 which corresponds exactly with the fact mentioned in con- 
 nexion with his baptism, Luke 3: 23, *' And Jesus himself 
 began to be about thirty years of age." 
 
 There is a mode of reckoning by Hengstenberg* on this 
 point, worthy of particular notice. He shows with a good 
 degree of probability that Artaxerxes began to reign not in 
 the year 465 B. C, as most chronologists suppose, but in 
 474 B. C. Deduct 19 from this as coinciding with the 20th 
 year of his reign when Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem, and 
 it gives 455 B. C. This last date coincides with the year 
 from the foundation of Rome 299. Add 483 to this, and it 
 
 * See his Christology, Dr. Keith's Translation, Vol. II. pp. 394, 
 etc. The reader will find a most elaborate dissertation occupying 
 130 octavo pages, on this vision of the Seventy Weeks — a dissertation 
 which though some of its positions are untenable, and its arguments 
 wire-drawn to an extreme, will richly repay perusal, and in its general 
 results agrees with the interpretation here given of chap, ix, though 
 differing in particulars and mode of discussion. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 26. 185 
 
 gives the year 782 of Rome, which was the fifteenth year of 
 Tiberius. On this very year, according to Luke 3: 1 , John 
 began to baptize. Jesus appeared about six months after- 
 ward, being thus much younger than his herald. To him as 
 " the Messiah the Prince," and to the very event of his re- 
 ceiving the divine unction, the period of 483 years " from 
 the going forth of the commandment," just extends. 
 
 According to the Chronology of Dr. Hales, the decree must 
 be that given to Ezra in the 7th year of Artaxerxes Longima- 
 nus. He fixes that period as 457 B. C, and as he assigns 
 the actual birth of Christ to the fifth year, or four entire years, 
 before the common era of "Anno Domini," it would reduce 
 the 457 to 452 or 453 B. C. Deducting this from 483, (the 
 years in the 69 weeks at the close of which the Messiah the 
 Prince was to appear,) and it gives 30 years as the age when 
 Jesus was anointed with the Holy Ghost at his baptism. 
 This whole subject of chronology is much perplexed by the 
 discrepancies in the results of learned men who have devoted 
 much time and pains to it. Whether Dr. Hales', or Dr. 
 Hengstenberg's, is the true reckoning may be matter of ques- 
 tion. The former has the difficulty in it, that no satisfactory 
 reason seems to present itself why the commandment to Ez- 
 ra should be made the point from which to reckon, and that 
 others seem before it in importance. Some considerations on 
 these discrepancies are reserved for the sequel.* 
 
 The above considerations which identify the Anointed 
 Prince with our Lord Jesus Christ are further confirmed by 
 the declaration, shall Messiah be cut off, i. e. shortly after his 
 being anointed he should come to a violent end. And thus 
 it was with Jesus. Not more than three years elapsed after 
 he received the sacred unction when he was " taken and by 
 wicked hands was crucified and slain." Or the idea may be 
 
 * See also the learned investigation of Prideaux on the Seventy 
 Weeks, Vol. 1. pp. 227—254. 
 16* 
 
186 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 26. 
 
 that shortly after he should be anointed, he should be cut of 
 from the throne^ Comp. 1 Sam. 2: 33. 1 Kings 2: 4. 9: 5. 
 2 Chron. 7: 18, Jer. 33: 17, 18, where the same word trans- 
 lated " cut off," (Dan. ix,) is found in such connexions as the 
 following: " the man whom 1 shall not cut off from mine al- 
 tar" — "there shall not fail thee [the same word translated 
 cut off] a man on the throne of Israel." Jesus after being 
 anointed, and introduced to the city with shouts of " Hosan- 
 na to the Son of David," and benedictions of "Blessed is the 
 king of Israel," was cut off suddenly from the earthly throne 
 of David, and with him perished the expectations the people 
 had been cherishing. Comp. Is. 53: 8, "He was cut off out 
 of the land of the living." 
 
 But not for himself. 
 
 If this translation is retained, it reads in full, But [he 
 shaU] not [be cut off] for himself and it expresses the senti- 
 ment that the Messiah should not die for his own sins, but for 
 man's — not so much for his own advantage, as for those who 
 believing should have life through his name. This sentiment 
 is indeed a great truth explicitly taught in the Scriptures, 
 but it is an objection to such a translation here, that the ori- 
 ginal phraseology as found elsewhere cannot be so translated 
 and is not — for instance, Lev. 11: 10, "All that have not" 
 is a similar phrase, and guided by analogy the phrase in ques- 
 tion must be translated. And shall have nothing.* That is, 
 
 * This is the translation given in the margin by our English trans- 
 lators. The negative particle in the text as it stands, translated " not," 
 is the one more generally translated no and nothing ; it is an adjective^ 
 or a noun, not the adverb corresponding to our adverb not. Gesenius 
 however gives the word as simply equivalent in many instances to 
 not, but in one of those he specifies it is translated in our version no, — 
 " no straw given," Ex. 5: 16, and in all the others it may better so be 
 translated, or by the other word nothing — as in Gen. 37: 29, *■>■ Joseph 
 was not in the pit," it had better read, There was no Joseph in the 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 26. 187 
 
 the angel conveys the idea to the prophet's mind, that the 
 Messiah should not literally restore the kingdom to Israel, 
 should not be literally a king occupying the throne which his 
 father David occupied. The angel announced to Daniel the 
 fact of Christ's spiritual kingdom, and vi'ould have him divest 
 his mind of those ideas which the literal interpretation of the 
 language respectnig the fifth kingdom would give, and which 
 even Christ's disciples after his death so fondly cherished, of 
 the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, Acts 1: 6. Though 
 the Messiah should come, Jerusalem should be destroyed, not 
 revived; the material temple razed to the ground, not built 
 up in more glory ; the earthly kingdom utterly abolished, not 
 established. And this the angel goes on to assert in the 
 words following. 
 
 And [but] the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the 
 city and the sanctuary ; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and 
 unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 
 
 Can this desolation be, as Rosenmiiller and others affirm, 
 the desolation by Antiochus Epiphanes predicted in II: 31 — 
 35. 8: 10—13, and 7: 21, 25 ? Can " the war " be the war 
 between Antiochus Epiphanes and the Jews ? Certainly 
 
 pit ; and in Esther 7: 4, " The enemy could not countervail the king's 
 damage," it is better thus : The enemy could in nothing countervail 
 the king's damage. The strongest instance in favor of Gesenius' po- 
 sition is Dan. 8: 5, " And he touched not the ground," but even here 
 it accords with usage to say, And in nothing touched he the ground. 
 The difference of meaning is not great, but it goes to show that in 
 Hebrew usage the word translated " not," in the clause in question, is 
 never used as an adverb to qualify a verb or some other word, and 
 therefore cannot be translated. And he shall not be cut off for himself, 
 Rosenmaller gives it as the sense — He shall no more be found among 
 the living. Others make it elliptical, and translate it, He shall have 
 no helper, or, There shall be no deliverance to him. Hengstenberg 
 translates it, "And is not to him," in the sense that his dominion 
 shall be destroyed. 
 
188 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 26. 
 
 not, if the period of time is to be interpreted with any regard 
 to precision; for as that desolation took place 168 B. C, 
 even the sixty-nine weeks (or sixty-nine and a half, See next 
 verse) would carry us back to 655 B. C, fifty-six years earlier 
 than the date which RosenmiJller assumes as the going forth 
 of the commandment, Jer. xxix. The sixty-nine and a half 
 weeks dating from that commandment about 598 B. C, would 
 reach to 111 B. C, fifty-three years after Antiochus' death. 
 If not the desolation by Antiochus Epiphanes, then it must 
 be that by Titus Vespasian, whose people, the Roman armies, 
 destroyed the city A. D. 70, and burned the temple with fire 
 though Vespasian had issued his prohibition of the deed, and 
 afterwards made most strenuous efforts to quench the flames. 
 The time when this deed should be done is not limited to 
 the sixty-nine or seventy weeks ; the scope of the prophecy 
 is only that it shall take place after their expiration — after 
 the Messiah should be cut off; and it did thus take place in 
 less than forty years after he was cut off. The account which 
 Josephus gives of the calamities of that period is a most won- 
 derful fulfilment of the prophecy, See his history of the Wars 
 of the Jews, Bks. v. — vii. Disease, famine, and slaughter 
 followed in fearful succession among the multitudes who had 
 collected together in the city from all quarters and were cele- 
 brating the passover at the time the siege commenced. Eleven 
 hundred thousand perished, and ninety-seven thousand* were 
 made captives, of whom hundreds were put to the tortures of 
 the ci'oss. And so complete and terrible was the devastation, 
 that one passing by would have supposed the place had never 
 been inhabited. Thus was the end of the sanctuary and city as 
 with a flood, (though the suffix pronoun translated "thereof," 
 i. e. of it, is in the singular number, it may by usage refer to 
 two antecedents which are each in the singular number,) and 
 wave after wave of desolation rolled over that devoted land 
 and people unto the end of the war. Confirmatory of this 
 
 * Probably these numbers are somewhat exaggerated. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 27. 189 
 
 application to the Roman prince Titus Vespasian, is the 
 manner in which he is here introduced. It is just similar to 
 11: 18, " A prince for his own behalf," etc., and again 11: 
 30, *' The ships of Chittim shall come against him." The 
 word " prince," is the same in v. 26 as in v. 25; but what is 
 said of each sufficiently distinguishes them. 
 
 Verse 27. 
 
 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. 
 
 The Messiah is the principal antecedent, to w^hich the word 
 " he " must refer, as indeed almost all acknowledge, and its 
 remoteness from the personal pronoun is in accordance with 
 usage in manifold places. Rosenmiiller, (Comm. pp. 3C9, 
 323,) who applies the prophecy to Antiochus, considers it as 
 fulfilled in his having been indirectly the means of attaching 
 the Jews more firmly to their religion, Cornp. 11: 32 — 35". 
 Others (quoted by Rosenmiiller p. 324,) apply it to the un- 
 derstanding Antiochus had with apostate Jews, Comp. 11: 
 30, 32. To the latter, Rosenmiiller well objects that usage 
 is wholly against it ; for the word translated " covenant," 
 throughout Daniel means the covenant of God with his peo- 
 ple.* To Rosenmuller's application the objection is equally 
 valid that it is against usage ; for such a sentence can only 
 mean that the prince alluded to directly established the cove- 
 nant of God with his people, and compared with what is said 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes that he should " have indignation 
 against the holy covenant," affords the most conclusive argu- 
 ment that the prophecy cannot apply to Antiochus and his 
 times. It applies to our Lord Jesus Christ alone, the Media- 
 tor of the new covenant — " the new covenant," mentioned by 
 Jer. 31: 31 — 34 and illustrated in Heb. viii. — the new cove- 
 nant as affirmed by our Lord himself — " This cup is the new 
 testament in my blood." He confirmed the covenant with 
 
 * See Interpretation, p. 33. 
 
190 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 27. 
 
 many [Heb. the many], by granting to those who believed on 
 him the privilege and povi^er to be called the sorjs of God ; 
 by fulfilling the rich promises of God ; by establishing a more 
 spiritual religion in* the heart; by working wonderful mira- 
 cles and shedding the influences of the Holy Spirit ; a work, 
 which commencing with his public ministry at the close of 
 the sixty-nine weeks, continued after his resurrection during 
 the forty days lie showed himself alive to his disciples, and 
 reached beyond the Pentecost as far as the time when the be- 
 lievers were dispersed from Jerusalem to found churches in 
 other cities, " and a great number believed and turned unto 
 the Lord." This period does not more than carry us through 
 the last week of the seventy ; and it contains events adequately 
 fulfilling the declaration in the first clause of this verse. It 
 brings us up to the time when the covenant having been con- 
 firmed among God's people the Jews, was afterwards extend- 
 ed also to the Gentiles. 
 
 And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the 
 oblation to cease. 
 
 The words midst and week having the article in the origi- 
 nal, by connection manifestly refer to the same " one week " 
 previously mentioned. The word the midst, is in the origi- 
 nal the half — a word which in the Hebrew, as we have seen, 
 and indeed in every language, often denotes not an ciart half. 
 See Interpretation, p. 128. The sense may simply be that on 
 the first half portion of the week the event herein predicted 
 should take place. The Epistle to the Hebrews contains the 
 true explanation, chap. 10: 8 — 10, " When he said, sacrifice 
 and offering and burnt-oflferings and oflfering for sin thou 
 wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein, which are offer- 
 ed by the law ; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O 
 God: — he taketh away the first, that he may establish the 
 second. By the which wilt we are sanctified through the of- 
 fering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." This too 
 
INTERPRETATION OV DANIEL 9: 27. 191 
 
 was signified at the death of Jesus on the cross, by the rend- 
 ing asunder of the vail of the temple. And well has Calvin 
 said, "the rending of the vail, was not only an abrogation of 
 the Jewish rites and ceremonies, but an opening of the hea- 
 vens as thouo-h God now invited the members of his Son to 
 
 o 
 
 himself In the meantime the Jews were admonished that 
 an end had now come to external sacrifices ; that there would 
 now be no more occasion for the service of the priests, and 
 that the very image of the shadows having been now com- 
 pleted, the legal types were converted into spiritual substance," 
 Quoted in Hengstenberg, p. 359, 
 
 And for the overspreading ol abominations he shall make it deso- 
 late [^marginal readings And upon the battlements shall be the idols 
 of the desolator.] 
 
 If the reading-of the text is retained, it means either that 
 the overspreading of abominations hy tlie wicked Jcivs was 
 the cause why the city and sanctuary were made desolate, or 
 that the city and sanctuary were desolated, in order to be 
 overspread with abominations by the Gentiles. The transla- 
 tion in the text, however, has no sanction whatever from He- 
 brew usage in any other part of the Bible, and it is not to be 
 retained unless the context absolutely demands it — which it 
 does not. Better the translation in the margin, and it is 
 substantially that which will now be given. The clause may 
 literally read, Upon the wing [of the temple] shall be the 
 abominations that make desolate. The word wi?ig is the word 
 above translated " overspreading " and " battlements." The 
 phrase translated in the text, " abominations he shall make 
 it desolate," is like 11: 31, "the abomination that maketh 
 desolate," only abomination in the latter is in the singidar 
 number, and in the former it is in the plural. The word 
 translated " that maketh desolate" and "he shall make it 
 desolate," is the same in both cases, and is in form a partici- 
 ple or participial. 
 
192 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 27. 
 
 As to the word loing, its construction in the sentence is 
 peculiar and makes all the difficulty. It seems to govern the 
 following word abominations in the genitive Case ; hence the 
 translation in the text, "overspreading of abominations." 
 But though the construction is peculiar, it is like that of many 
 Hebrew words which have a noun after them implied, not ex- 
 pressed, and is here to be taken as the wing of the temple, as 
 in Ps. 74: 19, where our translators have supplied the words 
 of the wicked, after "multitude," which has precisely the 
 same grammatical form with wing. Compare the expression 
 "pinnacle [literally wing] of the temple," Matt. 4: 5. 
 
 As to the participle singular united to a plural noun, the 
 word " abominations" seems to be what is called the plural 
 of excellence, which commonly takes a participle or adjective 
 in the singular. As for instance in Is. 19: 4, " a cruel lord" 
 is exactly the same sort of phrase with abominations that make 
 desolate, only the latter has a participle or participial instead 
 of an adjective — which makes no difference in principle. Or 
 if it be not a plural of excellence, the construction which unites 
 a common plural with a participle or participial in the singu- 
 lar is found also in other places as in Gen. 27: 29, " Cursed 
 be every one thatcurseth thee," literally. Cursed be the cursers 
 of thee.* 
 
 * There is no objection to the translation abominations of the deso- 
 lator, except that the corresponding phrase in Matt. 24: 15, reads 
 abomination of desolation, i. e. thatmaketh desolate; and the Hebrew 
 Dan. 9: 27 may so read in harmony with usage and the laws of gram- 
 mar. Gesenius in his lexicon gives the translation desolator both in 
 9: 27 and 11: 31 ; but supports it by no other authority, and in the 
 very paragraph with the signification destroyer, he classes it with ano- 
 ther which allows the word in Dan. 9: 27 to be joined with abomina- 
 tions in the sense of making desolate, i. e. desolating abominations, 
 Hengstenberg gives the interpretation, " And over the summit of 
 abomination comes the destroyer," taking the word " abomination" 
 in the sense of the temple desecrated by the abominations of the Jews, 
 and the whole phrase as asserting that the enemy mastered the high- 
 est battlements of the temple, and when this was done virtually pos- 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9*. 27. 193 
 
 The question arises, Was there anything in the history of 
 the destruction of Jerusalem which corresponded to this pro- 
 phecy, "On the wing of the temple shall be the abominations 
 that make desolate ?" It is related by Josephus that the 
 Roman soldiers having brought their battering-rams to the 
 embankments they had raised over against the western edi- 
 fice of the inner temple, some of them by means of ladders as- 
 cended the cloisters round the temple with the Roman stan- 
 dards in their hands, though they were met and driven back 
 with great havoc by the Jews. They then set fire to the 
 gates. Early the next day, Titus with his whole army en- 
 camped round about the holy house. The fire was now con- 
 suming the inner court of the temple, from which a soldier 
 communicated it with his own hands to a golden window 
 leading to the rooms round about the holy house, and the fire 
 raged now still more widely. Another soldier shortly set fire 
 to the gate, and the fire then burst out from within the holy 
 house, and raged until nothing but the walls were left stand- 
 
 sessed the whole. But his interpretation better shows his ingenuity 
 than illustrates the text, and has more foundation in his own fancy 
 than in usage, and he tries in vain satisfactorily to harmonize it with 
 the words of Christ. He makes it an objection that Christ is made to 
 designate a moment for flight precisely when it is too late. But it is 
 to be observed that Christ does not give the signal for escape from Je- 
 rusalew. only, but from Judea. So difficult was it for the Jews to be- 
 lieve the temple would be destroyed, that even those would linger 
 around the city who were not shut up in it, and our Savior according- 
 ly warned his disciples not to linger but to flee out of Judea entirely ; 
 for if they remained in the neighborhood of the city they would perish. 
 The sign for them that the desolation of the city vas near, was when 
 the Roman armies should compass it, and history records the fact that 
 the disciples remained in the city until that time, and then had an op- 
 portunity to escape on a transient retiring of the Roman forces. The 
 sign for them to flee entirely out of Judea, was when they should see 
 the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place. This they could 
 behold from the Mount of Olives, even after they had escaped from the 
 city ; and doubtless they lingered until they saw it. 
 
 17 
 
194 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 27. 
 
 ing. When the holy house was burnt, and all the buildings 
 round about it, the Romans brought their standards to the 
 temple, and set them over its eastern gate ; and there offered 
 sacrifices to them. Here were the desolating abominations, 
 those idol-standards of eagles by which the Romans effected 
 their desolations — here they stood on or near the wing of the 
 temple — here were idolatrous sacrifices offered up, as Anti- 
 ochus formerly offered up the sacrifice of swine's flesh, (Heng- 
 stenberg says the story about his setting up the statue of Jupi- 
 ter is a fiction, Christology, p. 371,) which were the sign and 
 seal that thenceforth the temple and city should be desolate. 
 
 Even until the consummation, and tliat determined shall be poured 
 upon the desolate. 
 
 For desolate some read desolator, and thus it is in the mar- 
 gin of the English version. But the same grammatical form 
 (which is a participle of another form of the same verb in the 
 phrase abominations that make desolate) is found in vs. 18, 
 26 of this same chapter where it must be taken in the passive 
 sense of being desolated, and this sense is agreeable to usage. 
 The meaning is that Jerusalem should lie desolate and her 
 sanctuary remain polluted until what was determined in the 
 counsels of God should be poured upon her — a prophecy how 
 wonderfully fulfilled, and its truth attested more and more 
 strongly as the eighteen hundred years since its desolation 
 have successively passed away ! 
 
 Having thus gone through with the particulars of this pro- 
 phecy, a few additional considerations will close its interpre- 
 tation and confirm the views already presented. To this 
 prophecy, if to any in the book of Daniel, does our Savior 
 refer. Matt. 24: 15. Mark 13: 14. Luke 21: 20,— "When ye 
 therefore shall seethe abomination of desolation spoken of by 
 Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth 
 let him understand :) then let them which be in Judea flee 
 into the mountains." In Mark it reads—" standing where 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 27. 195 
 
 it ought not," the phrase " holy place " given by Matthew 
 having been probably uttered by our Savior in connection 
 with "standing where it ought not." In Luke it reads, 
 *' And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, 
 then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let 
 them which be in Judea flee to the mountains ; and let them 
 which are in the midst of it depart out ; and let not them that 
 are in the countries enter thereinto." The words given by 
 Luke do not seem so much explanatory of the phrase " abomi- 
 nation of desolation " as an accession to the meaning, and 
 were probably uttered by our Lord before that phrase, the 
 entire observation being as follows — " When ye shall see Je- 
 rusalem compassed with armies, and the abomination of des- 
 olation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy 
 place, where it ought not, then know that the desolation 
 thereof is nigh ; then let them which be in Judea flee to the 
 mountains." As we have seen, there the idol-standards of 
 eagles stood in the holy place, where they ought not, and it 
 was not one but many abominations, literally answering to 
 the plural form of the word as found in v. 27. When these 
 things should be seen, then let none look for safety anywhere 
 in Judea, anywhere in the vicinity of Jerusalem, but flee to 
 the distant mountains. And history records the fact that the 
 disciples fled beyond Jordan out of Judea to Pella, when Je- 
 rusalem was besieged and destroyed. Now do these words 
 of our Savior admit of any explanation on the principle of ac- 
 commodation 1 Is it not a direct reference to a veritable pro- 
 phecy of the final destruction of Jerusalem ? How can it 
 consistently be construed otherwise ? And then just after 
 his reference to the prophecy there is his language Luke 21: 
 22 — 24, " For these be the days of vengeance, that all things 
 which are written may be fulfilled .... and Jerusalem shall 
 be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gen- 
 tiles be fulfilled" — until what was appointed to be poured up- 
 on her by the hands of the Gentiles should be all fulfilled in 
 
196 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 27. 
 
 the set time allotted for their destructive work. Now if the 
 context in Daniel absolutely forbade the application to Jeru- 
 salem ; if such an application could be made only by violating 
 the usage of the Scriptures, we should indeed be compelled 
 to regard our Savior as arguing on some erroneous interpre- 
 tation of the Jews, or as using the words of the prophecy with 
 such an application as he himself chose to make at the time; 
 but such an alternative would seem to be at the expense of 
 our being entirely set adrift as to any firm persuasion of the 
 reality of such a thing as prophecy. No such alternative 
 however are we compelled to adopt. Usage sanctions and 
 the prophecy demands the general interpretation we have 
 given, and the application which is made of it by our Lord 
 himself. 
 
 The same application which our Savior made of it, is also 
 made by Josephus after the destruction of Jerusalem, and 
 confirmed as it is by our Savior, may well be relied on — " In 
 the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Ro- 
 man government, and that our country should be made deso- 
 late by them," Antiq. B. x. ch. 11. sec. 7; and (as Rosen- 
 mijller justly remarks, p. 314) to that desolation no other 
 prediction in the book of Daniel refers except in these two 
 last verses of chap. ix. There is also another passage in his 
 History of the Wars of the Jews, B. iv. ch. 6. sec. 3, (which, 
 as Rosenm tiller acknowledges, shows that this application was 
 made by the Jews of Josephus' time, and he also says the 
 Jews of the present day retain it as the true one,) — " They 
 [the Zealots] occasioned the fulfilling of those very prophe- 
 cies belonging to their own country ; for there was a certain 
 ancient oracle of those men [the prophets] that the city 
 should then be taken and the sanctuary burnt, by right of 
 war, when a sedition should invade the Jews, and their own 
 hand pollute the temple of God. Now while these Zealots 
 did not disbelieve these predictions, they made themselves 
 the instruments of their accomplishment." 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9: 27. 197 
 
 The main argument insisted on by Rosenmiiller against 
 the application of this prophecy to Christ and to the final de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, is certainly as valid against himself. 
 It has already been alluded to in the remark quoted from him 
 that "it is altogether incredible that Alexander, who is men- 
 tioned in the other prophecies, (2: 40. 7: 6. 8: 5, 6, and 11: 
 3,) should be omitted here in chapter ninth." So may it be 
 urged that it is incredible the kingdom of the Messiah which 
 is mentioned in all the other prophecies, chap. viii. excepted, 
 (for we shall see that it is mentioned, and Rosenmiiller ad- 
 mits it, in chap, xii,) should be omitted here in chap. ix. 
 Rosenmiiller's argument at length (Commentary, p. 318) is, 
 " that the prophetic part of Daniel embracing the six last 
 chapters contains /bwr visions, three of which, the first, se- 
 cond and fourth [in chaps, vii, viii, and xi,] denote the same 
 things but in different ways ; that in those visions the revolu- 
 tions of the reigns of Eastern Asia are predicted from the 
 Chaldean reign down to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 regard being had particularly to the aff*airs of the Jews ; that 
 the argument of those three visions is the same, and they 
 shed mutual light on each other ; that what things are briefly 
 explained in the first, are next explained more clearly and 
 explicitly, and the fourth is as it were the epexegcsis [the in- 
 terpretation added by the writer] of the preceding ; that there- 
 fore we must conclude that this vision in chap, ix, the third 
 of the four, pertains to the same events with the remaining 
 three." But surely the argument is as valid, that since the 
 kingdom of the Messiah is mentioned in two of these four 
 visions, viz. in chaps, vii. and xii, and is also mentioned chap, 
 ii ; and since especially in the 7th chap, one is seen in the 
 vision " like the Son of Man," to whom the kingdom is given, 
 then most naturally does chap, ix, which speaks of the " anoint- 
 ed prince," refer to^ him ; and there is no other one in all 
 the prophecies of Daniel that answers adequately to this ap- 
 pellation but he who in that first vision receives the kingdom 
 17* 
 
198 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 9*. 27. 
 
 from the Most High. Moreover, we have seen that on a com- 
 parison of chap. viii. with chap, xi, both those chapters, in 
 the description of the desecration of the temple, refer to the 
 act of one and the same individual. But the description in 
 chap. ix. is not parallel to those two, for one destroys, the 
 other confirms the covenant ; in chaps, viii. and xi, the peo- 
 ple of God are the chief object of indignation ; in chap. ix. it 
 is the city; in chap. viii. and xi, the abomination of desola- 
 tion (singular) is put where the daily sacrifice had been of- 
 fered ; in chap, ix, the abominations of desolation (plural) 
 are put on or against the wing of the temple. And our Savior, 
 as if to teach his disciples to discriminate between them, as 
 well as make them feel the necessity of the closest attention 
 in order rightly to understand the prophecy, says, " Whoso 
 readeth let him understand !" But even were these predic- 
 tions of desolation given in exactly the same language, it is 
 the context which must decide to what events they apply, and 
 the context may demand two diverse applications. There is 
 no such law as makes the same words and sentences always 
 mean the same thing wherever they are found. Here in chap. 
 ix. the context does not allow the application to the times of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes without assuming again and again 
 things for which there is no support in the Scriptures, and 
 without introducing such confusion and disproportion in 
 reckoning the 70 weeks as must destroy all respect for the 
 good sense, not to insist on the inspiration of the writer. 
 
 The true view would seem to be not that chap. ix. is given 
 to run parallel with the other three visions as far as Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, while two of those three visions look beyond that 
 period, but that it is a supplement to chap. viii. Chap, 
 vii. predicts the reign of the Messiah ; chap. ii. (which is as 
 truly a vision of Daniel as the other four in the mode in which 
 the dream of the king of Babylon was communicated to him) 
 predicts the same reign; chap, xii, which is a continuation 
 of chap, xi, predicts the same reign, but chap. viii. omits it. 
 
INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 9: 27. 199 
 
 Why may not this then most naturally be the supplement to 
 chap, viii, and thus be parallel with the others, only more 
 explicit to a wonderful degree 1 
 
 It is possible that some may not feel entire certainty in re- 
 spect to the interpretation that has been given of the 70, 
 weeks, or the 69 weeks as extending precisely down to the 
 baptism of Jesus, and his first setting forth on his great work 
 — an event which answers to the prediction in Daniel, and 
 which is moreover described so remarkably by an apostle — 
 " How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost 
 and with power," Acts 10: 38. That there were 490 years, 
 as exactly as duration is generally spoken of in the Scrip- 
 tures, though not necessarily to the precise day, or hour, 
 there has been presented, it is hoped, sufficient ground for 
 believing. But even if at this remote day, and in the confu- 
 sion and discrepancy of all data given by chronologists, we 
 cannot come with absolute certainty to the exact year of the 
 completion of the 69 or 70 weeks of years, there is as much 
 certainty, nevertheless, for that date, as for any date up to 
 the death of Christ. And we need not the assurance of ab- 
 solute demonstration, but only grounds for believing that at 
 or near the expiration of the 69 weeks of years, the Prince of 
 Peace was anointed for his great work ; that at or near the 
 expiration of 490 years, calculated as men reckon time, the 
 gospel was established, and the most holy reign of the king- 
 dom of heaven through Christ Jesus set up and spread far 
 and wide, and shortly after was Jerusalem made desolate. 
 
 For such events about the time of our Lord, were multi- 
 tudes looking. Where but from these prophecies of Daniel, 
 the prophecy of the 70 weeks and the prophecy of the regular 
 succession of four great kingdoms, known to have taken place 
 in the order predicted ; where but from these could the idea 
 have been derived which took so deep hold of the Je.ws, and 
 as we learn from even heathen historians prevailed through- 
 out the East about the time of the birth of Jesus of the virgin 
 
•200 INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 9: 27. 
 
 Mary, that a king should then arise out of Judea and attain 
 to universal empire 1 Where but from these prophecies of 
 Daniel could the impression have been obtained among the 
 true Israelites respecting one for whom they waited as their 
 Messiah ? Does any one but Daniel give the direct clew to 
 the time ? And although the prophecy in chap. ix. is not 
 found in the New Testament applied to events taking place 
 about the time of Christ except by our Lord himself, and is 
 not applied by the apostles themselves to Christ in the writings 
 they have left, yet who can doubt that they so applied it in 
 their teachings ? In no direct and formal manner is even the 
 prophecy of the kingdom of heaven in chap, ii, and that in 
 chap, vii, appealed to in the New Testament ; but who doubts 
 that the New Testament writers alluded to those very pro- 
 phecies in the use of the phrases " kingdom of heaven" and 
 " kingdom of God ?" And who can doubt that this prophe- 
 cy of Daniel is also equally implied, though not formally 
 mentioned, in those places of the New Testament where 
 " the Messiah," " the Christ," and "the kingdom of Christ," 
 are spoken of? Jesus was therefore the Christ of Daniel. 
 Only to him as the Messiah did this prophecy point, and with 
 it concurred the voice of the true "people the saints." It 
 was he concerning whom the woman of Samaria had learned, 
 using the very same indefinite form of the word employed in 
 Dan. 9: 25, 26, " I know that Messias cometh, (which is 
 called Christ,) when he is come he will tell us all things." 
 It was he of whom Andrew spake to Nathaniel, " We have 
 found the Messias." It was he to whom Martha confessed, 
 " Yea, Lord : I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of 
 God, which should come into the world." It was he on 
 whose Cross was written in three languages which were a 
 fit symbol of the many to be " redeemed by his blood out of 
 every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation," " Jesus 
 OF Nazareth, the king of the Jews." It was he of whom 
 his apostles preached, after his death and resurrection, " Him 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 1. 
 
 201 
 
 hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a 
 Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of 
 sins," and " the propitiation not for" the Jews' " sins only, but 
 also for the sins of tlie whole world." It was he, in fine, 
 who " though he bear record of himself, yet was his record 
 true," and to the humble Samaritan woman's remark, " I 
 know that Messias cometh," answered, " I that speak unto 
 
 THEE AM HE."* 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 UiTIVEUSITY, 
 
 INTERPRETATIOIN OF CHAPTER XII. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 This chapter continues the vision in chaps, x, xi, and closes 
 the series of the visions of the prophet. It has been reserved 
 for this place because it was judged to need the collected light 
 of the others, at least for the full understanding of some parts 
 of it, (See Interpr. p. 63.) For while the vision, as all ac- 
 knowledge, is the expansion of those which precede it, it 
 yet has this peculiarity — that it only touches briefly what has 
 before been enlarged upon, and enlarges to a great extent on 
 what the others had touched but briefly. The reader, with 
 an eye that has looked over the wide field of the prophet's 
 visions, will now place himself at the point of view, (11: 40 — 
 45, Interpr. pp. 57 — 62,) where the interpretation of the vision 
 recorded in chaps, x, xi, xii, was suspended. 
 
 1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which 
 standeth for the children of thy people : and there shall be a time 
 of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that 
 same time : and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every 
 one that shall be found written in the book. 
 
 * John 4: 25, 26. 1: 41. 11: 27. 19: 19. Acts 5: 31. 1 John 2: 2. 
 
202 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 1. 
 
 Michael the great prince, is the same person mentioned in 
 the introduction of the vision, as " Michael one of the chief 
 princes," and " Michael your prince," 10: 13, 21. It was 
 Michael the tutelar angel to the Jewish nation, (Interpr. p. 
 14, Comp. Jude v. 9.) His standing up, denotes the aid 
 which was to be extended to the prophet's countrymen from 
 on high. And the Bible affords ground for believing, that 
 the aid of angels as ministering spirits is actually extended to 
 men, Comp. Ps. 103: 20. Heb. 1: 14. Luke 1: 19. 22: 43. 
 
 The time of trouble was the period of persecution and 
 struggle, which commenced in the reign of Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes, particularly at the time of his last expedition into 
 Egypt, 11: 40—45, comp. with 11: 30—34. 
 
 Up to the commencement of that period, from the time of 
 the complete restoration of Jerusalem after the Captivity, the 
 Jews, though tributary to foreign monarchs, were permitted 
 to live under the immediate government of individuals chosen 
 from among themselves, and they enjoyed a tranquillity but 
 seldom interrupted. Wars raged around them, but the flames 
 did not kindle on them ; their land was entirely exempt down 
 to the times of Antiochus the Great, 198 B. C. In transfer- 
 r ing their allegiance to him from the king of Egypt, they took 
 a heavy burden, and involved themselves in serious conse- 
 quences, See on 11: 14, 16, 20. And in the desecration of 
 their temple by his son Antiochus Epiphanes, and in the per- 
 secutions immediately ensuing, arose their saddest calamities. 
 N ot even by their Assyrian conqueror, who carried the na- 
 t ion into captivity for seventy years, were they treated with 
 such barbarity ; nor was their temple so polluted, and such 
 compulsory measures employed to make them abandon the 
 religion of their country, and adopt paganism. It was a time 
 of trouble, which, so long as it lasted, had not a parallel in 
 the history of nations. 
 
 On the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus Eupator 
 his son, a youth of only nine years of age, succeeded to the 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 1. 203 
 
 Syrian throne ; and shortly afterward, another and successful 
 claimant appeared, Demetrius, whom his father Seleucus 
 Philopator, the predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes, placed 
 at Rome as hostage instead of Antiochus recalled. See on 
 11: 21. Two armies were sent by the young king, and 
 two by Demetrius, against Judas, in quick succession, until 
 his band, then numbering but 3000, exhausted and discour- 
 aged, began to fall off to their homes, and only 800 remained 
 with him against the advancing army of 20,000, the strongest 
 and best disciplined of the forces of Syria. Judas was ear- 
 nestly advised to retreat, and return with recruited and more 
 numerous forces. But he replied, " God forbid that I should 
 do this thing, and flee away from them ; if our time be come, 
 let us die manfully for our brethren, and let us not stain our 
 honor." The enemy came on. Judas and his few men fell 
 impetuously on the right wing, where the strength of the ar- 
 my was, and routed it. But he was enclosed by the left wing, 
 and finally fell, overpowered by numbers, after long resist- 
 ance and terrible slaughter on both sides, 161 B. C. " The 
 remnant" of his band "fled." He deserved the eulogy ut- 
 tered on the occasion of his death, " How is the valiant man 
 fallen, that delivered Israel!" 1 Mace, chap ix. "He left 
 behind him a glorious memorial by gaining freedom for his 
 nation," (Josephus Antiq. XH. chap, xi.) 
 
 On the death of Judas, their enemies came forward more 
 boldly, and distressed the Jews on every side. The friends 
 and associates of Judas were sought out by apostate Jews, 
 and delivered up to a miserable death. And it is remarked 
 both by Josephus and the historian of the Maccabees, that 
 the calamities of the times, with famine added, were great- 
 er than they had experienced since their return out of Baby- 
 lon, and the nation seemed again on the verge of ruin, An- 
 tiq. xiii. c. 1, 1 Mace. 9: 27. 
 
 The place of Judas was however supplied by Jonathan, 
 who, though compelled to flee to the thickets on the banks of 
 
204 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 1. 
 
 the Jordan, yet so followed up the victories of his brother, 
 and so harrassed the Syrian army, that Demetrius was glad, 
 in about a year from the death of Judas, to grant a truce to the 
 Jews. It continued about two years, when it was interrup- 
 ted for a season, but again renewed. Meantime there ap- 
 peared, 153 B. C another claimant for the Syrian throne, 
 Alexander Balas, supported by the Romans, and after four 
 years he obtained it. Both Demetrius and Alexander court- 
 ed Jonathan's favor. From the former he received the ap- 
 pointment of king's general in Judea, with authority to raise 
 forces, to repair Jerusalem, to receive back hostages that 
 had been required, and rebuild the wall around the mountain 
 of the temple, which Antiochus Eupator, in violation of his 
 treaty at the raising of the siege of Jerusalem, had comman- 
 ded to be pulled down. From Alexander he received the 
 commission of high priest, with a purple robe and crown of 
 gold, worn only by princes. He immediately entered on the 
 duties of his several commissions ; and his growing power 
 was fast rallying his nation, and disbanding all the Syrian 
 garrisons, and expelling the wicked, when he was treacher- 
 ously murdered between the contending Syrian factions, B. 
 C. 144. To him succeeded his brother Simon, with the dig- 
 nity of prince and high priest, under whom the Jews, deliv- 
 ered from the Syrian yoke, and no more compelled to pay tri- 
 bute, became once more an independent nation, 143 B. C. 
 
 Here then would seem to be a fulfilment, at least in part, 
 of the promise of deliverance given in 12: 1. The prophet's 
 people were delivered from a subjection to foreign power, 
 which, commencing with the conquest of Jerusalem by Ne- 
 buchadnezzar in the year 606 B. C, and interrupted by only 
 two short intervals of unsuccessful revolt from him, had contin- 
 ued through a period of 463 years. It was a deliverance ef- 
 fected for every one found written in the book, i. e. every faith- 
 ful one for whom it was surely purposed ; (Comp. " scripture 
 of truth," Interpr. p. 15;) every one who should not perish 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 1. 205 
 
 in those struggles ; every faithful one who, having fallen into 
 divers trials, and been spared through them, should be made 
 white by them, 11: 35. Compare also the language in Is. 4: 
 3, *' And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and 
 he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even 
 every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem." 
 Also Exod. 32: 32, 33 — " Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their 
 sin : and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which 
 thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whoso- 
 ever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book." 
 But notwithstanding all this, did such a deliverance then 
 take place, that the true Israelite would not look for some- 
 thing further still, as its higher and not remote consumma- 
 tion? would not even the language "little help," 11: 34, ap- 
 plied to the deliverance begun by Mattathias and his sons, 
 lead to the expectation of something more 1 Only 40 years 
 passed away, and civil commotions began to arise, which in 
 the reign of Alexander Janneus cost the lives of more than 
 50,000 of the Jews. On the death of Alexander, and afterwards 
 of his queen, the succession was disputed between her sons 
 Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, until finally the Roman general 
 Pompey then in the neighborhood, was introduced as umpire. 
 His decision, which was in favor of the weaker Hyrcanus 
 against Aristobulus, not being complied with by the latter, 
 Pompey proceeded to enforce it, attacked Aristobulus who 
 had possession of the city, and at last subdued it, with great 
 slaughter of the Jews. Judea once more became a province, 
 B. C. 63, and lost its new freedom ; nor from that day to the 
 present has she regained it. Was the deliverance, then, 
 which was effected under Judas Maccabeus and his breth- 
 ren, the adequate and entire fulfilment of this prophecy 1 
 Was it to this alone that the " long warfare" led the way ? 
 Having gone through this long series of prophetic events, was 
 the end a temporal prosperity of only 40 years, and an inde- 
 pendence of only 80 years 1 It certainly admits an applicor 
 18 
 
206 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 1'2: I- 
 
 tion to the higher deliverance by our Lord Jesus Christ, go- 
 ing forth under the protection of "an angel strengthening 
 him," (Luke 2*2: 43) in the new reign, the new kingdom of 
 heaven, of which he is the head. 
 
 The phrase ** at that time," in the first clause fixes the 
 commencement of the period of struggle for freedom toward 
 the close of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, (11: 40 — 45, 
 Interpr. pp. 57 — 62). Michael should then take his stand for 
 the Jews, should then arise and gird himself for their aid. 
 But how long the struggle should continue, is not told. 
 
 The phrase " at that time," in the last clause looks back 
 to " the time of trouble" in the middle clause. At that 'peri- 
 od of trouble, continue as long as it might, (and we have seen 
 that it continued beyond the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 and that it was at least 25 years from the standing up of Mi- 
 chael before the prophecy could have had its accomplishment - 
 in its application even to the complete temporal deliverance 
 of the Jews,) at that period of trouble, continue as long as 
 it might, the kingdom of David, so Jong and so often prom- 
 ised, should be set up, the Son of David come, of whom it 
 could be so truly said, " If the Son shall make you free, ye 
 shall be free indeed," John 8: 36. And so it was. This was 
 the great closing scene of trouble before Christianity, the reign 
 of the Son of God, was established. The prophet, looking 
 from a point of time so far back as 534 B. C, down to within 
 160 years of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, — a period 
 which should be a time of trouble with only a few intervals of 
 quiet, — could with propriety contemplate the salvation effected 
 by Christ, as coming " at that time." It did come during that 
 period — a period ending with such tribulation to the Jews 
 as a greater than Daniel not only affirmed " was not since 
 the beginning of the world to this time," but added," no, nor 
 ever shall be." 
 
 In the application of 12: 1, both to the deliverance under 
 the sons of Mattathias and to the higher spiritual redemption 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 1. 207 
 
 accomplished by Christ, the prediction has been regarded 
 not as predicting primarily an event, which event is typical 
 of another, (See Interpr. p. 86,) but as a general prediction 
 which, as genus includes several species^ may include more 
 than one event, but in its application must however be deter- 
 mined by the context and circumstances of the case. Should 
 such an interpretation be deemed inadmissible here by any, 
 then that would seem to be preferred which passes entirely 
 over this period of temporal struggle and deliverance, and 
 fixes solely on the reign of the Messiah. The phrase " at 
 that time," may signify when that time shall he ended, (for 
 the authority so to render it, see on the phrase *' in the days 
 of these kings," Interpr. 154, 155,) and denote that the 
 kingdom of the Messiah should come at no remote period 
 after the times of this persecuting king ; that it should follow 
 as the next great event after the overthrow of the Syrian 
 power, See on chaps, ii, vii. The transition from Antiochus 
 to Christ here at the close, has its parallel in the transition at 
 the opening of the vision, 11: 3, 4, from Xerxes to Alexan- 
 der — a period of 134 years. It has its parallel in the transi- 
 tion in other prophets from predictions of the captivity to that 
 of the reign of Christ, Is. chaps, vii. — ix. It has its parallel 
 in the other visions of Daniel in the transition from the end 
 of the Syrian kingdom to the establishment of the fifth king- 
 dom ; for from Antiochus Epiphanes the dominion of Syria 
 over Palestine virtually ceased. The deliverance effected by 
 our Lord Jesus Christ was not indeed from earthly trials. 
 But Daniel, in accordance with the general mode of the pro- 
 phets, and, as we have seen in the other visions, with his own, 
 describes the spiritual deliverance under the symbols of an 
 earthly and temporal. 
 
 It confirms the application of this verse to Christ, that, as 
 once and again remarked, these visions of Daniel relate to 
 one and the same great train of events ; and that this last, in 
 chapters xi, xii, the larger and fuller development of them, 
 
208 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 2. 
 
 must substantially contain them all. We look back to the 
 chapters preceding, and see that mention is made of a king- 
 dom which the God of heaven should set up, and which should 
 last forever. Certainly that kingdom would not be omitted 
 in this closing and more expanded vision. And accordingly 
 we find, here at the close of the vision in the place where it 
 should be found, a general prediction which may be applied 
 and is properly applied to that same kingdom ; a prediction 
 of deliverance harmonizing perfectly with that in chap, vii, 
 where judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, 
 and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom ; a 
 prediction which is fully realized only in Jesus as indeed " he 
 who should have redeemed Israel," Luke 24: 21. The re- 
 marks of Rosenmiiller on this verse, who yet finds not the 
 kingdom of Christ in chap, ix, are that "on the death of An- 
 tiochus Epiphanes not a few of the Jews seem to have enter- 
 tained the hope of the speedy arrival of the happy era con- 
 cerning which the ancient prophets prophecied, viz. that un- 
 der a great king of the race of David, there would spring up 
 an altogether new and most flourishing state of things espe- 
 cially for the Jews. Nevertheless Gabriel teaches that it 
 would not immediately follow, but only after great afflictions." 
 Some have referred this deliverance to the Christians who es- 
 caped death on the siege of Jerusalem, and fled to Pella, but 
 this is altogether too confined an application, and does not 
 harmonize with the predictions in chaps, ii, vii, and ix. The 
 deliverance, as applied to the times of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 must be the great salvation through faith in his name — " re- 
 demption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins," Eph. 
 1: 7. 
 
 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, 
 some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting con- 
 tempt. 
 
 The fact of a resurrection, both for the just and the unjust, 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 2. 209 
 
 and an eternal retribution, was, as we have already seen, (In- 
 terpr. pp. 49 — 51,) most distinctly recognized in that *' time 
 of trouble" which began in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 It was the great motive which enabled many to suffer the 
 most dreadful tortures rather than disobey God, and depart 
 from his law. Must not this passage teach the doctrine they 
 believed ? Was it not one source of their belief, and one 
 great means of its confirmation ? Must not the prophet him- 
 self have so understood the passage, especially in connection 
 with what the angel said to him in the last verse of this chap- 
 ter, viz. Thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of 
 the days. Even if the idea in the first verse should be only 
 that of temporal independence, achieved by the Maccabees, 
 the context, and the exigency of the case, demand here the 
 interpretation which makes the passage affirm the doctrine 
 that though man dies and sleeps in the dust, yet shall he live 
 again. 
 
 There is indeed very highly figurative language employed 
 in the Scriptures, to denote the renovation of the mere civil 
 and religious state of the Jews. As in the prophet Ezekiel 
 37: 12—14, " Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, O my peo- 
 ple, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out 
 of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And 
 ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your 
 graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 
 and shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall 
 place you in your own land." But here the context, and the 
 mention of their being brought to their own land, leave us in 
 no doubt how to understand it, though the very imagery em- 
 ployed is doubtless taken from the doctrine of man's resur- 
 rection from death to a future state. But the passage in Dan- 
 iel is of a different and higher character. The context and 
 phraseology and known circumstances of the case in Ezekiel, 
 demand a temporal resurrection ; in Daniel, they as impera- , 
 tively demand a spiritual. In chapter xi, the prophet had 
 18* 
 
210 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 3. 
 
 spoken of some who should forsake the holy covenant, and 
 of some who should be faithful to it. The faithful should fall 
 both by flame and by sword, and die before any renovation in 
 the condition of their nation, or the coming of their Messiah. 
 The wicked, the apostates from the covenant, they too should 
 die ; many of them should be cut off by a violent death in 
 those very times. But this should not be the end. Those 
 who should perish in their struggle to rescue the sanctuary 
 from its desecration, and die manfully for their brethren ; 
 those who should choose death by flame or by sword, rather 
 than abandon the true religion and embrace idolatry ; those 
 who waited for the promised redemption of Israel, and pre- 
 ferred it above their chief joy, but died without the sight, 
 should not lose their reward, nor fail to share in the blessings 
 of the new reign. They should live again, they should see 
 the Messiah, they should inherit everlasting life. On the 
 other hand, the faithless and reprobate, those who should for- 
 sake the holy covenant and sell themselves to wickedness, 
 and sleep in the dust as well as the godly, — they too should 
 live again, they should wake up to shame and everlasting 
 contempt, they " should not escape the hand of the Almighty, 
 neither alive nor dead," 2 Mace. 6: 26. The context there- 
 fore, and phraseology, and circumstances of the case, all con- 
 cur to establish the interpretation not of a temporal but spirit- 
 ual resurrection ; and the doctrine is here mentioned particu- 
 larly in its application to the many involved in those troublous 
 times. 
 
 3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firma- 
 ment ; and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for- 
 ever and ever. 
 
 This is a further expansion of the thought in v. 2. It is a 
 Hebrew parallelism, and may thus read: They that be wise 
 and turn many to righteousness, shall shine as the brightness 
 of the firmament, even as the stars, forever and ever. They 
 
INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 12: 3. 211 
 
 were the godly, such as have already been alluded to; they 
 were those who, like the good Eleazer and others, " left a 
 notable example to such as be young, to die willingly and 
 courageously for the holy laws" — " a memorial of virtue not 
 only unto young men but unto all his nation." The glory 
 mentioned cannot be only the glory of their reputation — the 
 glory in which their names should live. True, the names of 
 a very h\w have shone down, and will still shine, through the 
 ages, as stars; and the firmament, once so dark with clouds 
 over their heads, is bright with the light of their glorious 
 deeds. But the glory mentioned seems something better 
 than earthly reputation; it was the glory they should be 
 awake to enjoy. They should not lie forever trodden down 
 in the dust, but ascend on high to enjoy a glorious condition 
 evermore. So they believed, and believing, teach us how to 
 understand this passage aright. 
 
 The doctrine of immortality and future retribution was a 
 a doctrine which our Savior found established among the 
 Jews when he appeared. It was uttered by Martha when 
 she said of her brother Lazarus, " I know that he shall 
 rise again at the resurrection in the last day," (John 11: 
 24). Our Lord explained and confirmed it more fully than 
 it had ever been taught or believed before — " The hour 
 is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall 
 hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done 
 good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done 
 evil unto the resurrection of damnation," (John 5: 28, 29). 
 It was re-affirmed again and again by the apostles, and by 
 one of them in imagery like the prophet's, " One star diflfer- 
 etli from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection 
 of the dead," 1 Cor. 15: 41, 42. Does not the declaration in 
 12: 2, 3 harmonize with these, and teach the same great 
 truth 1 
 
 In respect to the prophet's association of the resurrection 
 with the deliverance of his people, it is not so associated as to 
 
212 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 3. 
 
 bind them both together in simultaneous occurrence, as not 
 a few now suppose. Verses 2, 3, contain a truth asserted in 
 general terms. The phrase " at that time," in v. 1, regards 
 the time of the deliverance, not of the resurrection. When 
 the deliverance should come, it should h^ followed by the res- 
 urrection ; but at how remote a period, the prophecy does not 
 say. The apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, who are the 
 prophets of the New Testament, have fixed the event of the 
 resurrection at the close of the gospel dispensation. 
 
 The interpretation of Rosenmiiller on verses 2, 3, is the 
 following — "After the deliverance predicted 12: 1, Gabriel 
 teaches that on an appointed day of judgment unto which the 
 dead shall be called back to life, the good should be separated 
 from the wicked : the dead in the dust of the earth shall 
 awake from the sleep of death : some of the dead shall rise 
 to everlasting blessedness, others to everlasting ignominy." 
 " Nor can there be a doubt," adds he, " that the passage re- 
 lates to tbe resurrection of the dead to universal judgment, 
 which the Jews were expecting at the advent of their Mes- 
 siah." 
 
 Verses 1 — 3 of this chapter are made a main pillar by 
 Messrs. Miller, etc., for supporting their doctrine of the se- 
 cond advent of Christ, A. D. 1843. They bind the two 
 events of the deliverance and the resurrection together in one 
 simultaneous crisis, asserting that the deliverance has not 
 yet come. But certainly nothing is more common than for 
 the sacred writers to unite two events together which yet are 
 wide apart. We have seen it in this very vision, on 11: 2, 
 3, where Xerxes and Alexander are placed in juxta-position, 
 when yet they were 120 years apart. We have seen it in 9: 
 26, where the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem is 
 given in immediate connexion with that of the cutting off of 
 the Messiah, when yet the one took place 40 years earlier 
 than the other. The same occurs, as already noticed, in 
 Isaiah chaps. 7 — ^9: 7, where the events are more than 600 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 3. 213 
 
 years asunder. The deliverance, however, here recorded by 
 the prophet, has already come, it is the great salvation al- 
 ready in the world, which canae " to the Jew first," Rom. 
 1: 16. If the resurrection is to take place only with the 
 events predicted v. I, then there is no resurrection for such 
 as have fiillen asleep in Jesus since he came into the world ; 
 and those who bind the two events together in close proxim- 
 ity virtually take sides with the Sadducean members of the 
 church at Corinth, and involve the prophets, as those mem- 
 bers did the apostles, in the implication of being false wit- 
 nesses of God, 1 Cor. 15: 15. 
 
 The arguments by which their doctrine is derived from vs. 
 1 — 3, are, as we have seen in part on 11: 20, 21, 30, 31, 36, 
 (Interpr. pp. 29, 30, 42 — 44, 54,) utterly without a basis in 
 the meaning of the prophecy. From 11: 40 they proceed as 
 follows : The king pushed at is Bonaparte ; the king of the 
 south designates the three kings of Sardinia, Italy and Spain, 
 allied against Bonaparte ; the king of the north coming 
 against him like a whirlwind, is the king of Great Britain ; 
 the glorious land is Italy ; the tidings out of the east and 
 north which troubled him was the "holy alliance" of kings 
 on the north and east of France ; his going forth with great 
 fury to destroy, was the famous Russian campaign; his 
 planting his tabernacle in the glorious holy mountain was his 
 being crowned at Milan in Italy ; Michael's standing up 
 means the revivals in this country in 1815 — 1818 ; the time 
 of trouble is yet in futurity, which was first assigned to A. 
 D. 1839, then changed to A. D. 1840.* Can such exposi- 
 
 * Miller's Lectures, pp. 105—109, 300. Mr. Litch, another preach- 
 er of the doctrine, differs from Mr. Miller somewhat in his interpre- 
 tation of the verses above mentioned. The king pushed at is still 
 Bonaparte ; the king of the south is the Turkish power in Egypt ; 
 the king of the north is the same Turkish power in Syria ; the glori- 
 ous land is Palestine ; tidings out of the east and north were the to- 
 tal failure of Bonaparte's East India expedition, and a file of newspa- 
 
214 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 3. 
 
 tions as these need a formal refutation ? It is needed for 
 some, but a brief notice will suffice. Let the reader see that 
 in respect to the place from which north and south are calcu- 
 lated, such writers have arbitrarily shifted the ground from 
 Palestine to France; that they make verse 40 mean three 
 kings together, when it speaks of one, viz. the king of the 
 south, and they introduce another person against whom the 
 king of the south pushes, when it is the same king of the 
 north ; that they give to the city Milan in Italy, the appella- 
 tion of glorious holy mountain — an appellation given in the 
 Bible to Mount Zion alone ; that they are compelled to find 
 some such designation, because Bonaparte was never in Jeru- 
 salem ; that the application of the period of trouble first to 
 A. D. 1839 and then changed to A. D. 1840, has fallen to 
 the ground, thereby furnishing premonition that their other 
 applications of the prophecy will prove equally vain and false. 
 Let it be considered too that these writers apply the phrase 
 " children of thy people" to denote Christians and all true 
 saints alive at this present day, while they apply the phrase 
 "thy people" 9: 24 also 11: 14, to the Jews only, as indeed 
 they must ; that having applied it in chap. ix. to the Jews 
 only, yet in the very next vision in chaps, x, xi, xii, where the 
 
 pers sent from Sir Sidney Smith giving him an account of the dis- 
 astrous state of Frencli affairs on the continent of Europe ; his plant- 
 ing the tabernacles of his palaces between the seas in the glorious 
 holy mountain, means his sojourning transiently in every kingdom 
 between the seas with which Europe is surrounded ; as to the events 
 predicted in 12: 1 — 3, none of them have yet taken place — Jiddress to 
 the Clergy, pp. 98—104. Between Mr. Miller's and Mr. Litch's in- 
 terpretation there is but little choice. One feels no disposition to rid- 
 icule on such a subject as this. And yet the words of an ancient wri- 
 ter very readily occur as in point — " If a painter should have a mind 
 to join the neck of a horse to a human head, and taking the limbs from 
 all sorts of animals stick on them all varieties of feathers, and then 
 make it upward a beautiful woman but downward a loathsome fish, 
 could you help laughing at such a sight.''" 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 4. 215 
 
 angel comes to tell Daniel what should befall his people — his 
 countrymen — in the latter days, they turn aside the prophecy 
 from those for whom it was intended and talk about the Pope, 
 and Bonaparte, and holy alliance, and what not, with no sort 
 of reference to the fortunes of the Jewish nation, or rather 
 with putting them entirely out of the question. But what 
 extravagant and absurd interpretation may not be expected 
 from such as confound the sanctuary of God with the city 
 Rome, or with Paganism's sanctuary, (when Paganism had 
 none, for the Pagan temples had been abolished,) and the 
 continual burnt-offering with the abolition of Pagan sacri- 
 fices, and protract the date of this last event more than 100 
 years from the period assigned in all history ? These persons 
 come down '* to the end" in by-paths of their own which 
 have led them utterly out of the way. They have turned 
 aside from " the Scripture of truth" to fables. They have 
 followed not the pure light of prophecy, but an ignis-fatuus 
 kindled out of the vapors of their own minds. 
 
 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even 
 to the time of the end : many shall run to and fro, and knowledge 
 shall be increased. 
 
 To " seal the book" is the continuation of the act expressed 
 in the phrase to " shut up the words," and both mean not so 
 much to bring the record of the vision to a close, as a sym- 
 bolic action to denote that the vision would not be understood 
 for the present, and was to be reserved for future use at " the 
 time of the end," 11: 40 — 45; the period of trial beginning 
 under Antiochus Epiphanes, and issuing in deliverance ; the 
 end of the former things of the Mosaic dispensation, and the 
 establishment of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 " Many shall run to and fro," is literally many shall run 
 through [it, viz. the vision] i. e. many shall eagerly peruse 
 the vision, diligently investigate its meaning, and thus the 
 knowledge of its aim and purport should be increased, until 
 
216 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 5, 6. 
 
 it should be fully understood at the needed time.* This last 
 clause confirms the interpretation above given to the phrase 
 " seal the book." Doubtless the wise and the godly read this 
 prophecy in those times that tried their souls, and they were 
 instructed, comforted, and strengthened by it. Doubtless also 
 with all the visions that Daniel saw and recorded, at different 
 times, it helped create that " waiting for the consolation of 
 Israel," which was manifested by the ''just and devout Sim- 
 eon," to whom it " was revealed by the Holy Ghost that he 
 should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 
 And he came by the Spirit into the temple, and he took the 
 child Jesus in his arms, and said, Lord, now lettest thy ser- 
 vant depart in peace, according to thy word ; for mine eyes 
 have seen thy salvation." There was also " Anna a pro- 
 phetess, and she coming in, that instant, gave thanks likewise 
 unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for 
 redemption in Jerusalem," Luke 2: 25 — 38. 
 
 5 Then I Daniel looked, and behold, there stood other two, the one 
 on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of 
 the bank of the river. 
 
 The river was the Hiddekel, or Tigris, where Daniel was, 
 when he saw the vision, 10: 4. The " other two" persons 
 whom he beheld, were two angels besides the one that had 
 been talking with him. 
 
 6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the 
 waters of the river, How long shall it he to the end of these won- 
 ders ? 
 
 " The man clothed in linen," was the angel who first ap- 
 peared in the vision, and made the revelations to Daniel, 
 Comp. 7: 16 and 8: 13. The question is literally. Unto how 
 
 * Mr. Wm. Miller explains this as denoting that " the means of 
 travel icill he greatly increased^'' by railroads, steamboats, etc. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 7. 217 
 
 long an end of the wonders ? The demonstrative adjective 
 pronoun " these " is the definite article in the original. To 
 what " wonders" then, does the question relate ? In 11: 27, 
 36, 40, 45, the angel had used the language, " yet the end 
 shall be at the time appointed ;" ** he shall prosper till the 
 indignation be accomplished ;" " at the tin)e of the end 
 shall the king of the south push at him ;" " he shall come to 
 his end, and none shall help him" — language spoken in con- 
 nexion with king Antiochus Epiphanes. The word transla- 
 ted " wonders" is substantially the same with that translated 
 " marvellous things" in verse 36, — the only difference being, 
 that the latter is a participial, and the former a noun, while 
 both are derived directly from the same verb ; and those 
 *' marvellous things" are not only spoken of the acts of Anti- 
 ochus Epiphanes against the religious institutions of the Jews,, 
 but are also found in connexion with he " shall prosper till 
 the indignation be accomplished." All this shows the ques- 
 tion to aim beyond a reasonable doubt, to the end of the atro- 
 cious deeds of the Syrian king against the prophet's country- 
 men. Of this we shall have more confirmation in the verses 
 following. 
 
 7 And 1 heard the man clothed in linen, which teas upon the wa- 
 ters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand 
 unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth forever, that it shall he 
 for a time, times, and a half; and when he shall have accomplished 
 to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be fin- 
 ished. 
 
 The position of the angel while making the revelations to 
 Daniel, seems from this verse to have been on the waters of 
 the river, probably mid-way between the banks, on one of 
 which the prophet stood. 
 
 The word translated *' power," is haiid in the original- 
 This signification of power the word often has. But it also 
 means, and is sometimes translated, portion, or part, as in 
 19 
 
218 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 7. 
 
 2 Kings 2: 7. It is also found in the plural form, in Dan. I: 
 21, where it is translated " times," " ten times better," or ten 
 par^5 better. It may therefore signify ^or^fow in 12: 7. For 
 the appellation " holy people," compare the expression " up- 
 right ones" 11: 17, also 12: 1. 9: 24, etc. 
 
 The clause " and when he shall have accomplished to scat- 
 ter the power of the holy people," is literally, and at the ac- 
 complishment of the dispersion of a portion^ [or ** the power"] 
 of the holy people. In this clause, the angel uses the phrase, 
 " accomplishment of the dispersion of a portion of the holy 
 people," as synonymous with the phrase " end of the won- 
 ders." 
 
 The question being, How long to the end of the wonders ? 
 How long to the end of the dispersion of a portion of the ho- 
 ly people, or the end of the season during which they were 
 wholly without civil or ecclesiastical power ? the answer is 
 given of a time, times and a half — the same period found in 
 7: 25, and there shown to be equivalent to three years and a 
 half It would be unnecessary to say more in illustration of 
 this phrase, were it not that one authority was unintentionally 
 passed over, on which much stress has been laid. It is found 
 in Leviticus, chap. 26, where God threatens to punish his 
 children seven times for their sins — which in a prophetic sense 
 it is said makes 2520 years, and commencing with the cap- 
 tivity of Israel under Esarhaddon 677 years B. C. runs out in 
 A. D. 1843.* Now those declarations in Leviticus read thus — 
 " If ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will pun- 
 ish you seven times more for your sins." And still after, " If 
 ye walk contrary to me, I will bring seven times more plagues 
 upon you." And still after, " If ye will not be reformed by 
 me by these things, I will punish you yet seven times for your 
 sins." And yet once more, " If ye will not for all this hear- 
 ken unto me, I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your 
 
 * Millers Lectures, pp. 261, 2. Cox's Letters, p. 66. 
 
tNTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 7. 219 
 
 Sins," vs. 18, 21, 24, 28. Now how can one fail to see, that 
 just so many probations are here given ; that if at the close 
 of one period of probation they were impenitent and unsub- 
 dued, they should be punished yet more, and so on ? If the 
 seven times mean 2520 years, then they must be multiplied 
 four times, which will make ten thousand and eighty years 
 — rather too many for those who make the world end A. D. 
 1843. This passage therefore affords not the least counte- 
 nance to the method of the double transmutation of the times 
 into days, and then days into years ; and when one looks at 
 the scope of the chapter, it seems strange that it should ever 
 have been quoted for such a purpose, and that such an inter- 
 pretation of it should be widely adopted. It only seems not 
 quite so strange as the manner in which, after the " times" 
 are brought down to the present day, the prediction of the 
 scattering of the power of the holy people* is applied to the 
 divisions of modern Christians into sects or parties, (Miller's 
 Lectures, p. 113) — an evil that good men may mourn over, 
 but not exactly the thing revealed to Daniel. 
 
 In Dan. 12: 7, the context, and known circumstances and 
 facts in the case clearly guide to the desecration by Apolloni- 
 us, as the event from which the '* time, times and a half" are 
 reckoned. From that period was the city '* strange to those 
 that were born in her ; and her own children left her," 1 
 Mace. 1: 38. And it was not until Judas said, ' Let us go 
 up to cleanse and dedicate the sanctuary,' and thereupon 
 *^ all the host assembled themselves together and went up into 
 mount Sion," (1 Mace. 4: 36, 37,) that the dispersion began 
 to be ended. 
 
 " And when he shall have accomplished to scatter the 
 power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." 
 As the word " things" is not in the original, to what does the 
 
 * Mr, Litch, not much less out of the way, considers this fulfilled 
 in the " sjneading'^ of Christians to preach the gospel^ i. e. in modern 
 missions at home and abroad ! p. 108. 
 
220 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 8. 
 
 demonstrative pronoun " these" relate 1 Is the word " won- 
 ders" to be supplied from verse 6? If so, then the idea is, 
 that when the prophet's people should be able to come once 
 more into the city after their dispersion, then should com- 
 mence the epoch of their deliverance from the power of the 
 persecutor, to end with the higher redemption through Jesus 
 Christ. And we have seen it was so. The holy people were ex- 
 iles from their city from the desolation by Apollonius till they 
 went again, 3J years after that desolation, to purify and hal- 
 low their sanctuary. The purification of the sanctuary marks 
 an epoch of signal deliverance. Their daily sacrifice was 
 not again taken away, their religious services not again sus- 
 pended, until indeed, after continuing more than 200 years, 
 the temple worship was again taken away in the final des- 
 olation of their city by the Romans. The holy people went 
 on from conquering to conquer, until their independence was 
 once more achieved, and the still greater Deliverer at last 
 came. 
 
 But the phrase is not like *' they all," or " all of them ;" 
 which would most naturally have been employed, had the angel 
 meant to say, all of the wonders. The course of the prophe- 
 cy seems here to be this — How long shall it be to the end of 
 the infamous deeds of the persecuting king ? The answer is 
 given. Three years and a half. When that season of per- 
 plexity, and of treading down God's people, shall have passed 
 away, then what remains of the vision shall haste to its accom- 
 plishment ; then may the holy people lift up their eyes, and 
 expect " the kingdom of heaven" — a kingdom which shall be 
 soon set up after these persecutions, and which, continuing 
 until all things shall be subdued unto the Father in his own 
 appointed time, shall close with the resurrection of all that 
 are in the graves. 
 
 8 And I heard, but 1 understood not : then said I, O my Lord, what 
 shall be the end of these things. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 8. 221 
 
 This question is not like that asked by one of the angels. 
 It pertains not to duration, but to quality and particulars. It 
 is not, How long to the end of the wonders? but, What the 
 issue of these [things], What the after-part of these things 1 
 The word wonders is not expressed, and the word translated 
 " end," is not the same with that in verse 6, but the same 
 with that translated " posterity " in II: 4. Whether the word 
 wonders be supplied, or not, it aflfects not the general senti- 
 ment here contained. The question Daniel asks, has mani- 
 fest reference to the last clause of verse 7. In respect to the 
 events which should be the accomplishment of the whole se- 
 ries, the revelation by the angel had been given in the most 
 general and summary manner. Daniel understood neither 
 their nature fully, nor the particulars ; he understood not the 
 relation of their final issue to the " time, times and a half," 
 during which his countrymen should be dispersed. And a 
 glance at the previous visions will sufficiently show that in 
 respect to those events which should be ushered in by the 
 coming of the Messiah, he had only that measure of know- 
 ledge granted to him, which would naturally lead him to de- 
 sire more. And we have, in this state of Daniel's mind, an 
 illustration of the words of our Lord, — " Many prophets and 
 righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, 
 and have not seen them ; and to hear those things which ye 
 hear, and have not heard them," Matt. 13: 17. Compare al- 
 so the words of the apostle Peter 1: 10 — 12, "Of which sal- 
 vation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, 
 who prophecied of the grace that should come unto you : 
 searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ 
 which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand 
 the sufferings of Christ, [Dan. 9: 26,] and the glory that 
 should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto 
 themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which 
 are now reported unto you by them that have preached the 
 gospel unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from hea^ 
 19* 
 
222 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 9, 10. 
 
 ven ; which things the angels desire to look into," [Dan. 12: 
 5, 6, also 8: 13.] 
 
 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel : for the words are closed up 
 and sealed till the time of the end. 
 
 No more disclosures were to be made, no further particu- 
 lars given. " The time of the end," would bring further 
 light, would fully reveal the nature of the events, and disclose 
 them in their particulars, and their final issue. The needed 
 light and grace would be bestowed at the time, and the pro- 
 phecy though not fully understood now, would yet serve to 
 due preparation of the heart beforehand. 
 
 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried ; but the 
 wicked shall do wickedly : and none of the wicked shall under- 
 stand : but the wise shall understand. 
 
 In those days of trial, when the king should have such in- 
 dignation against the holy covenant, and against those who 
 would not forsake it, then the godly should both study these 
 prophecies, and understand them, and find in them the strong- 
 est motives to be faithful to the end. They should not de- 
 spair of deliverance, should not distrust God's word, and 
 though they should fall by fire, and by sword, and by captivity, 
 and by spoil, their calamities should work together for their 
 good. On the other hand, the apostates from the covenant 
 would still do wickedly ; they would neglect God's word, as 
 we know from history they did, in their desire to escape the 
 penalty of death to all with whom might be '* found the book 
 of the testament;" (1 Mace. 1: 57;) and they would there- 
 fore not understand, nor have before them the great motives 
 to endure unto the end. Moreover, by the light of this series 
 of events, the wise and godly should be able to trace out the 
 issue in the promised redemption of Israel. And so, as we 
 have seen, there were those among the prophet's people, who, 
 in their waiting for the consolation of Israel, were doubtless giv- 
 
INTERPRETATION OP DANIEL 12: 11. 223 
 
 ing heed to the light of these prophecies of Daniel, shining as in 
 a dark place. There were then also the wicked, who, though 
 the Redeemer came to them, comprehended him not. They 
 believed not that Jesus was the Christ, they rejected him, and 
 died in their sins. 
 
 11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, 
 and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall he a 
 thousand two hundred and ninety days. 
 
 The mode of reckoning time among the Jews was different 
 at different periods. At first, they seem to have followed the 
 Egyptian, (See Gen. chaps, vii, viii,) which gave 365 days to 
 the year, and divided the year into twelve months of thirty 
 days each, except the last, which had thirty-five days. In the 
 times of the Maccabees, and of Josephus, they followed the 
 Grecian mode — twelve months to the year, each month alter- 
 nately of thirty days and twenty-nine days, which made a 
 year contain 354 days. At the expiration of every three years, 
 they added, after the month Adar, (the last month of t*heir 
 year,) an intercalary month, to make their general time cor- 
 respond with the Roman. Regarding the days as literal days, 
 (See Interpr. p. 81 — 86,) and computing them by this latter 
 method as most appropriate because they concerned the Jews 
 when they reckoned time in this manner, we have three years, 
 six months, and about fifteen or twenty days, which are the 
 equivalent to time, times and a half — only the angel here gives 
 the exact number of the days, the precise duration of the de- 
 secration.* Even on the supposition, that only 360 days to 
 the yeart are meant, it would make but three years and seven 
 
 * We have seen that Josephus gives this same number, with the 
 slight variation of 1296 for 1290, Interpr. pp. 93, 129. 
 
 t This mode of reckoning seems to be pursued in the book of Reve- 
 lation. By comparing Rev. 12: 6 and 12: 14 we find that twelve hun- 
 dred and sixty days mean the same with time^ times and a half. In 
 Rev. 11:2 and 13: 5, the expression forty-two months is found, and 
 
224 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12*. 11. 
 
 months with which the time, times and a lialf would corres- 
 pond according to the usage of Scripture, See Interpr. p. 126 
 — 130. This duration, as we have seen, embraces the period 
 of desecration from the act of Apollonius early in June of the 
 year 168 B. C. to the purification by Judas Maccabeus in the 
 month of Dec. 165 B. C. There is an apparent objection to 
 this, that though the daily sacrifice was taken away in June 
 of 168 B. C, " the abomination that maketh desolate " was 
 not " set up " until the December following ; and from the 
 setting up of that till the dedication of the sanctuary was but 
 three years. The objection admits of two solutions. 
 
 The association of these two acts in verse 11, may no more 
 denote that the same term of time is predicated of both, 
 than the association, by one evangelist, of the thieves in 
 the act of reviling our Savior on the Cross, teaches that both 
 reviled him, when, as we are informed in another place, it 
 was the act of only one. The leading event was the abolition 
 of t]j,e daily sacrifice ; and this, though it happened earlier, 
 draws along with it the mention of the other. 
 
 (2) We learn from 1 Mace. 4: 57 — 60, that after the ded- 
 ication, Judas caused the gates and chambers to be renewed. 
 He also caused the mountain of the sanctuary to be fortified 
 with strong walls and high towers. This last was a necessa- 
 ry work to secure those who went up to worship in the sanctua- 
 ry from being annoyed, and even slain, by the Syrian garrison 
 stationed in the city over against the temple. Now if we as- 
 sociate the two acts of taking away the daily sacrifice and 
 setting up the abomination of desolation, and consider them 
 
 in 11: 3 the duration of 1260 days again. The events to which these 
 periods of time relate in the prophet Daniel and in the apostle John, 
 the context plainly shows to be different. But the passages in Reve- 
 lation afford sufficient biblical authority for those who choose to reckon 
 360 days to the year, though the mode of reckoning time by one sa- 
 cred writer in one age is not necessarily the same with that adopted 
 by another sacred writer in a different age. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 12. 225 
 
 to last just three years, the remaining six or seven months are 
 not more than sufficient time for the entire renewal and de- 
 fence of the sanctuary, after the event of its dedication. 
 
 These terms of time may possibly be different from each 
 other — the first exactly three years and six months, and the se- 
 cond 1290 days; the former extending from the dispersion to 
 the dedication, the latter from the setting up of the abomination 
 of desolation to the building of the wall, and chambers and 
 gates. It will be observed that in the last date of 1290 days, 
 the events, which are their limit, are not expressed, but are left 
 to be implied. 
 
 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three 
 hundred and five and thirty days. 
 
 These days are 45 more than the 1290. Reckoning the 
 1290 days to close with the dedication of the sanctuary in the 
 I48th year of the epoch of the Greeks and the 25th day of 
 the month Casleu, (the ninth month of the sacred year, but 
 the third of the civil year,) the 45 days would reach into the 
 11th month Sebat of the same year 148, corresponding with 
 our Februrary 164 B. C. Reckoning the 1290 days to close 
 with the complete renewal of the sanctuary, and to extend 
 between six and seven months beyond the dedication, they 
 reach from the 9th month of the year 148 to the Jifth month 
 of the 149th year, which corresponds with our August 164 B. 
 C. What event, then, corresponds with the 1335 days ? The 
 author of the first book of Maccabees (and so does Josephus) 
 relates that Antiochus died in the 149th year of the epoch of 
 the Greeks ; and as they specify the ni?ith month of the year 
 one hundred forty-eight as the time when the sanctuary was 
 dedicated, there must have been of course more than 45 days 
 from that period to the death of Antiochus — for they fix An- 
 tiochus's death in the year one hundred and forty-nine, and 
 from the dedication to 149 were ninety-four or jive days. If 
 
226 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 12. 
 
 the 1290 days close with the dedication, then the occasion of 
 blessedness could not be the death of Antiochus, i. e. on the 
 admission that the date assigned for his death by Josephus 
 and the first of Maccabees is correct. His death could nei- 
 ther be the epoch of blessedness, nor the point of transition to 
 any yet higher occasion of blessedness. But reckoning the 
 1290 days to close with the complete renewal of the sanctuary, 
 then as we have seen above, the 1335 days reach to a point 
 in the year 149, which harmonizes perfectly with the date as- 
 signed for the death of this persecutor of the holy people. 
 
 The article in the Christian Review that has been referred 
 to, fixes these several dates as follows : the 1150, (equivalent to 
 time, times and a half,) to the dedication ; the 1290, to An- 
 tiochus's death, making 140 more than 1150 and reaching 
 of course into the year 149 ; 1335, the time when the news 
 of Antiochus's death reached Jerusalem. The chief objec- 
 tion to this seems the difficulty of harmonizing the 1150 
 days with time, times and a half; for according to the mode 
 in which it is known that the Jews computed time, three 
 years would be at least 1092 days, which would leave less than 
 two months for the half a time, and not more than two months 
 and ten days, reckoning 360 days to the year. The author 
 of the Review, along with many, makes the month Casleu 
 coincide with our month November — reckoning the begin- 
 ning of Nisan, the first month of the sacred year, from the 
 new moon of March ; but Robinson in Calmet says that the 
 month Nisan may be reckoned with great(^propriety from 
 the new moon of April, which makes Imsau coincide with 
 our December. 
 
 Antiochus's death was a fit season for congratulation, espe- 
 cially as he was cut off before he could execute his last and 
 bitterest threats. It has its parallel, as a season of congratu- 
 lation, in the destruction of the Assyrian king, which the pro- 
 phet Isaiah made an occasion of a song of rejoicing, 14: 7, 8, 
 " The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet, they break forth 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 12. 227 
 
 into singing. Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the ce- 
 dars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller 
 is come up against us." 
 
 But the angel may have had in view, and the context seems 
 to show that he did actually have in view, a higher occasion 
 of blessedness than this. If in verse 1, standing at a point 
 534 B. C, he looked down the ages and saw the kingdom of 
 the Messiah apparently soon approaching after the great cri- 
 sis of which he had just spoken; if in verse 7, he meant to 
 be understood to assert that the establishment of the kingdom 
 of heaven should be hastened after the "time, times and a 
 half" persecution under the king of the north, then may he 
 here in verse 12, congratulate those godly ones who should 
 be permitted to come to this expiration and final issue of 
 the 1335 days — this " time of the end" corresponding with the 
 prediction " In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven 
 set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed." It was 
 a meet object for him thus to speak, to induce the true sons 
 of Israel to live in constant expectancy of the event, until the 
 Messiah should indeed come. The benediction thus pro- 
 nounced was re-affirmed by our Lord himself, in the spirit in 
 which it was first uttered by the angel ; for when he said to 
 his disciples, '* Many prophets and righteous men have desired 
 to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them," 
 he also said, " Blessed are the eyes which see the things that 
 ye see," Luke 10: 23. Matt. 13: 17. 
 
 The manner in which the dates of this chapter are inter- 
 preted by those who compute the days as years, is quite di- 
 verse. Dr. Adam Clarke applies the 1290 days to the con- 
 tinuance of Mohammedanism, and as that arose A. D. 612, 
 it will as he thinks come to an end about A. D. 1900. The 
 1335 days he reckons from the same date, A. D. 612, which 
 reaches down to A. D. 1950, at which time, as he thinks, the 
 fulness of the Gentiles will be brought in, and the Great Sab- 
 bath soon after be ushered in with the year 6000 of the crea- 
 
228 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 12. 
 
 tion of the world, and 2000 from the birth of our Savior. 
 Scott and others place the destruction both of Mohamme- 
 danism and Papacy at the end of the 1260 days, occupy the 
 next 30 (J 290) with the extermination of every antichristian 
 power, and introduce the Millennium at the close of the 1335. 
 By fixing the rise of the Papacy in A. D. 606, they coincide 
 in general results with those already given from Dr. Adam 
 Clarke. 
 
 Mr. Miller and his coadjutors apply the time, times and a 
 half— equivalent to 1260 days — to the continuance of the 
 papal power from the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom A. D. 
 533, which they consider one of the three horns subdued by 
 the little horn, thus making A. D. 1798 the epoch of the 
 overthrow of the papal power ; and they find what they con- 
 sider this overthrow in the act of the French General Ber- 
 thier who entered Rome that year, deposed the Pope, car- 
 ried him captive to France, and substituted a republican for 
 the papal government. The 1290 days they add to A. D. 
 508 (the date which they assign to the abolition of the pagan 
 sacrifices, Interpr. pp. 43, 44), and thus make them tally 
 with 1798 again. The 1335 days they put on to the same 
 508, and make them reach down to A. D. 1843, when the 
 end of all things they say will literally have come. 
 
 All these calculations are utterly without the sanction of 
 scriptural usage. The last is only more arbitrary and extra- 
 vagant. We have seen that this open-sesame number 508 
 cannot be found anywhere in history, but owes its existence 
 to the mere cabalistic authority of those who make so much 
 of it. The next date A. D. 538 makes even less for them ; 
 for the Ostrogothic kingdom they admit was conquered by 
 Justinian's army, (the Roman soldiers,) when with their in- 
 terpretation of the little horn as the Pope, they ought to make 
 the Pope the destroyer of the Ostrogothic kingdom. They 
 avoid this inconsistency only by saying that the expression 
 7: 8, ** before whom there were three of the first horns 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 12. 229 
 
 plucked up by the roots," means that they were plucked up 6c- 
 fore in point of time ^ or to prepare the way for the establish- 
 ment of the little horn ;* but the declaration *' he shall subdue 
 three kings," 7: 24, decides the point that it was the little 
 horn which plucked up the three others. The number 1798 
 has less plausibility than either 5C8 or 538. The papal do- 
 minion is wider and stronger now than it was then. Says a 
 celebrated English writer, than whom none is a better judge 
 on this subject. " During the eighteenth century the influ- 
 ence of the Church of Rome was constantly on the decline. 
 During the nineteenth century this fallen church has been 
 gradually rising from her depressed state, and re-conquering 
 her old dominion."! She had been weaker before 1798 than at 
 that time, and from that very prostration rose up forthwith in 
 more might. So utterly does Mr. Miller and his associates 
 stumble at noon-day over the plainest facts in the world. 
 
 Mr. Miller's mode of solving some of the difficulties which 
 trouble him on the days here specified, is in harmony with 
 what has already been presented. The 2300 days, which 
 Daniel did not at first understand, (chap, viii,) the angel had 
 been sent again to explain to him in chap. ix. But Daniel 
 here says, 1 heard^ hut understood not ; i. e. " he could not 
 tell," Mr. Miller thniks, ''whereabouts in his grand number of 
 2300 days, the end of Papal Rome carried him, he under- 
 stood not how this time was divided."^ In other words, he 
 had the whole cloth, but did not know how to cut it. ** But in 
 verses 10, 11," Mr. Miller adds, " Daniel had all he could ask 
 for, and now could understand the time and length and part 
 of every division which the angel had given him in his in- 
 struction so far as to fill up his vision of 2300 days."§ Let one 
 of Mr. Miller's disciples instruct him ; who says, " It was not 
 for Daniel to know the full meanings that was reserved for 
 others:'\\ 
 
 * Litch, p. 64. t Macauly's Miscellanies, Vol. 111. p. 357. 
 
 X Lectures, p. 102. § lb. p. 103. || Litch, p. 107. 
 
 20 
 
230 INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 13. 
 
 13 But go thou thy way till the end he : for thou shalt rest, and 
 stand in thy lot at the end of the days. 
 
 Some, as Rosenmijller, suppose the word end to refer to 
 the end of the prophet's life, as when the Psalmist, 39: 4, says, 
 ** Lord make me to know mine end." But as it has the 
 article, it refers to the end above mentioned, and the senti- 
 ment is. Be not anxious to know the times, and seasons, and 
 particulars. Go thou thy way, and wait patiently, and let 
 the end come at the time and manner it may. Thou shalt 
 rest from thy trials, and labors, and arise again from thy sleep 
 in the grave, to have thy portion in the Messiah's reign. 
 When those days shall have ended, then shall shortly come 
 the kingdom of heaven. And though thou shalt die before 
 it arrive, yet because thou hast endured, and by thine own 
 example hast instructed many how to be faithful to God in 
 the midst of temptations and persecutions, thou shalt not fail 
 to be a partaker of the fullest blessings of that future happy 
 reign.* 
 
 More than 2000 years have passed since Daniel went to 
 his rest in the grave. The issue respecting which he inquired, 
 has come in part — not in one simultaneous cluster of events, 
 but in such order of occurrence as hath pleased him who seeth 
 the end from the beginning, and with whom a thousand years 
 are as a day. The kingdom of heaven, which the prophet 
 foresaw, is still working deliverance in the world, and the full 
 end is not yet ; the resurrection of which Daniel wrote, and 
 which our Savior taught, and Paul preached, has not yet 
 come. It is still before us, it will be still before multitudes 
 when 1843 shall have expired. The question of the time of 
 
 * This sentiment is given to this last verse both by Gesenius and 
 Rosenmaller. Neither the words nor the context will bear the sense 
 given by some — that of Daniel's standing in his lotas a prophet. Nor 
 are we at liberty to conjecture, in its illustration, that Daniel might 
 have been one of the saints who arose from their graves at the death 
 and resurrection of our Lord, Matt. 27: 52, 53, 
 
INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL 12: 13. 231 
 
 its occurrence has nothing to do with our duty to be prepared 
 for it. Let the truly wise and godly go his way, until the end 
 be, not concerning himself with the calculation of the times 
 and seasons, but holding himself in the posture of expectance, 
 as Daniel, and as primitive Christians did, though the objects 
 to which they looked were in reality centuries off. The final 
 issues are unrevealed. To attempt to find them out is to de- 
 cypher an unwritten record, and against the express admoni- 
 tion of the Great Master, '* It is not for you to know the 
 times or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own 
 power," Acts 1: 7. To pretend to know them is to set one's 
 self above not only prophets but apostles. If faithful to God 
 and duty, if one endures temptation, if his love does not grow 
 cold when iniquity aboundeth, if he neglects not God's word, 
 but searches it, and finds in it truth to nourish and confirm 
 his faith and hope, then shall he rest, and his death shall be 
 precious in the sight of the Lord ; he shall stand in his lot at 
 the end of the days, and shine as the brightness of the firma- 
 ment, even as the stars forever and ever. Then too shall he 
 meet all the wise and godly, " who through faith stopped the 
 mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the 
 edge of the sword, turned to flight the armies of the aliens, 
 were tortured not accepting deliverance, that they might 
 OBTAIN A BETTER RESURRECTION. They Wandered in deserts 
 and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. These 
 all received not the promise, God having provided some bet- 
 ter thing for us, that they without us should not be 
 MADE perfect," Heb. 11: 32 — 40. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
YB 27770 
 
 <ssui 
 
 3S/bS-d, 
 
 n 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY