Page images
PDF
EPUB

This very rapid and general sketch accords with what we learn abundantly from other sources, namely, that the regal authority of Alexander's chieftains was not bestowed on them by him, but was usurped by themselves, in opposition to the claims of his posterity; that, in connection with this, the earth suffered multiplied evils; it was trodden down, and laid waste; and that, in adverting to the era introduced by Seleucus, the Jews were accustomed to view the dominion of the Greeks as, in some peculiar sense, beginning with that era, and, of course, as being distinct from the dominion of Alexander.

In certain connections, the sway of the Greeks, it is most obvious, might be mentioned in a general manner, so as to include that of Alexander, since he was a Greek, and he is expressly mentioned as "the king of Grecia," in Dan. 8: 21, and "the prince of Grecia," in Dan. 10: 20. But this is not at all the point under discussion. We wish to ascertain simply whether here, in this passage from the book of the Maccabees, and in the other connections which are actually presented, the dominion of Alexander and that of his successors, are exhibited as being one and the same, or as being distinct.

Hengstenberg's second objection is, that "the manner in which the fourth kingdom is described makes the assumption impossible that it is the kingdom of Alexander's successors."

1. "From Dan. 2: 33, 40-," he says, "it is evident that a kingdom is described which at first formed a whole, and only at a later period was divided. This is specially clear in v. 41. That the feet and toes of the colossus are partly of iron and partly of clay is here thus explained; the fourth kingdom shall be divided. But if the division is symbolized by this mixture, then the entirely iron legs must symbolize an undivided kingdom."

We suppose, that in the colossal figure which appeared to Nebuchadnezzar, as well as in all the other imagery of this book, we are to look for a very general outline, and not for a minute specification. But it was natural to have the attention particularly directed to the multiplied divisions in the later times of the kingdom of the Greeks, that is, of the two branches, the Seleucida and the Lagida, which, even in the age of Alexander's successors, came to comprise almost entirely the mighty empire. And if, in this connection, it was natural to advert not only to the feet and to the toes, the divisions of the extremities, but even to an incongruity in the constituent 3

VOL. VII.-NO. XXV.

substances of each of these, is it necessary to limit the idea of division to this incongruity? May not the same idea, to some extent, at least, be indicated also by the natural divisions of the extremities? And, without wishing to urge the consideration unduly, we would ask, Is it not a remarkable fact, that the fourth kingdom, as symbolized in the great image, by his legs of iron, does, from the latter part of its earliest age, appear in two great divisions, corresponding, to speak in general terms, to the two great and long-continued divisions into which Seleucus and Ptolemy brought the Greek empire, and with which the Jews were connected the most closely, and, often, the most unhappily?

2. It is suggested that the kingdom of Alexander's successors was not sufficiently mighty, and terrible, and diverse from others, to correspond with the representation of the fourth kingdom. *

But this suggestion has, we trust, been obviated by the statements made in a preceding part of this discussion. Only let it be borne in mind, that "their kingdom" must be viewed sometimes as a whole, and sometimes as divided; that it was as extensive as that of Alexander; that it contained all the elements of might and terror that his did; that these were fearfully developed by being brought, as they often were, into collision with each other; and that, from its frequently hostile and terrible aspect toward the Jews, it might well be exhibited to the eye of a Jewish prophet as exceedingly fierce and dreadful; while, in some other respects, and especially, at its latest periods, it might be "partly strong and partly broken."

Hengstenberg's third and last objection is, that, "If we consider the fourth kingdom to be that of the Greeks, we cannot point out the ten kings or kingdoms, which, according to the seventh chapter [verses 7, 8, and 24], were to arise from the fourth kingdom, nor the king who was to annihilate three of these."

Our reply is, that we have pointed out ten individuals; seven of whom sat on the throne, and three that had pretensions to it were prevented by the arts of Antiochus Epiphanes. Not that he "annihilated" them, or put them all to death; but, so far as it respected his possession of the

* In chap. 2: 40, and chap. 7: 7.

throne established by Seleucus, he uprooted and subdued them. And this, we have shown, he did by artful negotiation, rather than by force and slaughter, according to the prediction in Dan. 11: 21, “He shall come in peaceably and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.”

Bishop Newton, in his well-known work on the Prophecies, after mentioning, in terms of approbation, Sir Isaac Newton's opinion, that "the little horn could not be drawn for Antiochus Epiphanes, but must be designed for some other subject," proceeds to say, "There are then two ways of expounding this prophecy of the little horn, either by understanding it of Antiochus Epiphanes, and considering Antiochus a type of Antichrist; or by leaving him wholly out of the question, and seeking another application." He prefers to leave him wholly out of the question, and thinks that what is said of the little horn is not so well adapted to him, as to the Romans. Another reason for his preference he states as follows: "The first great horn was the kingdom of Alexander and his family. The four horns were four kingdoms, not of his family, but only of the nation. Four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation. And doth not this imply," he asks, "doth not this imply, that the remaining kingdom, the kingdom of the little horn, should be not of the nation?" By no means, we reply; for Daniel himself says expressly, "And out of one of them" (that is, out of one of the four notable horns thaindicated directly the four peculiarly distinguished chieftains, and hence, indirectly, the four kingdoms which, through them, were to arise from the nation), "came forth a little horn."*

The venerable Bishop lays it down, as an established principle, that "a horn, in the style of Daniel, doth not signify any particular king, but is an emblem of a kingdom."

The imagery of prophecy and of parables, we reply, need not always be applied with the utmost precision. It is often sufficient, if it suggest the general idea intended to be conveyed, and leave it to every one's good sense, in view of all the circumstances, to perceive the precise meaning. Thus, in our Lord's explanation of the parable of the sower, we are in no danger of any misapprehension. Sometimes in ex

* Dan. 8: 9.

plaining one and the same emblem, we may say indifferently, a king, or a kingdom is indicated; for we naturally associate the idea of a kingdom with that of a king. Sometimes one and the same emblem may be spoken of as indicating either famine, or wasting hunger. But in other cases, more precision is intended, and the connection is such as to limit the application of the image to its appropriate meaning.

In the case before us, we cannot admit the principle which Bishop Newton has laid down, and from which he and others have deduced so important consequences. We cannot admit that "a horn, in the style of Daniel, doth not signify any particular king, but is [directly and exclusively] an emblem of a kingdom." It will, we hope, be sufficient to oppose to this principle the explanations which the prophet himself has given:-Dan. 7: 24 (compared with verses 7 and 8),-"The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise; and another shall rise after them; and he shall subdue three kings; and he shall speak great words against the Most High.' And Dan. 8: 21, "The great horn that is between his eyes, is the first king." In view of passages like these, need we remark, that if, in the style of Daniel, the great horn indicates one particular king, Alexander, the little horn may, in the same style, indicate another particular king, Antiochus Epiphanes ?

[ocr errors]

The prophecy was understood in this manner by Josephus, the Jewish historian. In paraphrasing that explanation of the vision which is given in the latter part of the eighth chapter of Daniel, he says, "That by the great horn, which sprang out of the forehead of the he-goat, was meant the first king; and that the springing up of four horns upon its falling off, and the conversion of every one of them to the four quarters of the earth, signified the successors that should arise after the death of the first king, and the partition of the kingdom among them, and that they should be neither his children, nor of his kindred, that should reign over the habitable earth for many years; and that from among them there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation, and their laws, 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, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass.'

[ocr errors]

If now, as we have seen, the little horn in Dan. 8: 9, arises from one of the branches of the Greek empire, and indicates Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn in the parallel passage, Dan. 7: 8, must arise from the same source, and indicate the same individual; that is, it must arise from the Greek empire. In the latter passage, including the seventh verse, it is further manifest, that the little horn arises from the empire indicated by the fourth beast. Hence the empire indicated by the fourth beast must be the Greek and not the Roman.

Jerome explains one of these two parallel passages, Dan. 8: 9, as indicating Antiochus Epiphanes, and says, "He fought against Ptolemy Philometor and the Egyptians, that is, against the south; and against the east, and those who attempted a change of government in Persia; and, lastly, he fought against the Jews, took Judea, entered into Jerusalem, and in the temple of God set up the image of Jupiter Olympius."+

Hengstenberg, and his worthy coadjutor, Havernick, are, like Jerome, constrained to admit, that Antiochus Epiphanes is here pointed out; but, like Jerome, too, and most of the ancient fathers, they suppose that Antiochus Epiphanes was a type of Antichrist, and that what is predicted of him here (in Dan. 8: 9, and in the eleventh chapter, from the twenty-first verse onward) was fulfilled, partly, in him, and will be fulfilled, entirely, in Antichrist.‡

Antiquities of the Jews, B. X, ch 11, § 7. † S. Hieronymi Opera, Tom. III, col. 1105.

i The words of Jerome (Tom. III, col. 1127) are: Hucusque ordo historiae sequitur; et inter Porphyrium ac nostros, nulla contentio est. Caetera quae sequuntur usque ad finem voluminis, ille interpretatur super persona Antiochi qui cognominatus est Epiphanes, frater Seleuci, filius Antiochi Magni ; qui post Seleucum undecim annis regnavit in Syria; obtinuitque Judaeam, sub que legis Dei persecutio, et Machabaeorum bella nar. rantur. Nostri autem haec omnia de Antichristo prophetari arbitrantur, qui ultimo tem. pore futurus est. Quumque multa quae postea lecturi et exposituri sumus, super Antiochi persona conveniant, typum eum volunt Antichristi habere; et quae in illo ex parte praecesserint, in Antichristo ex toto esse complenda.-Thus far [to the end of Dan. 11:20] the order of history continues; and between Porphyry and our Christian expositors there is no controversy. The other things which follow, to the end of the book, he interprets as relating to Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, brother of Seleucus, and son of Antiochus the Great. After Seleucus, that king reigned in Syria eleven years. He took possession of Judea; and in his reign occurred the persecution of the Jewish religion, and the wars of the Maccabees. But our Christian expositors think that all these things are predicted concerning Antichrist, who is to come in the last time. And since much that we are yet to read and explain corresponds to what took place in connection with Antiochus, they wish to have him a type of Antichrist; and they suppose that those things which may have preceded in him partly, will be completed entirely in Antichrist.

« PreviousContinue »