This supposition we are not prepared to admit; for it rests on what we deem to be an erroneous principle of interpretation. That principle we cannot now stop to refute. We must, for the present, content ourselves with referring our readers to what we have said respecting it, in a review of Tholuck's Commentary on the Gospel of John.* Bishop Newton contends, strenuously, that the kingdom indicated by the fourth beast was the Roman. In urging that this interpretation is "the most consonant to the sum of all ancient writers, both Jews and Christians," he adduces a passage from the Targum or Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Prophets. This Paraphrast is supposed by several able writers to have lived as early as a little before the time of our Saviour. He did not write on the Book of Daniel. The passage adduced is from his Targum on Habakkuk 3: 17, 18— (Though the fig-tree shall not blossom, Though the produce of the olive fail, The flock be cut off from the fold, I will joy in the God of my salvation,) and is as follows: "For the kingdom of Babylon shall not continue, nor exercise dominion over Israel; the kings of Media shall be slain, and the strong men of Greece shall not prosper; the Romans shall be blotted out, nor collect tribute from Jerusalem. Therefore, because of the sign and redemption which thou shalt accomplish for thine anointed, and for the remnant of thy people, they who remain shall praise thee," &c. Here, it is obvious, that it was very natural for the Paraphrast to mention the Romans, who had now become most powerful, and had recently subjected the Jews to their domination; but, it is certain, that he was not explaining any passage in the book of Daniel; and it is, we think, most probable, that he was not making any allusion whatever to the prophecy before us. What he says is as consistent with our interpretation, as it is with that of Bishop Newton; although it may have contributed greatly to the introducing of *See Christian Review, for June, 1836, p. 281. the Roman empire in the explanation of this prophecy by subsequent Jewish interpreters. The phrase," the kings of Media," cannot well mean the Medo-Persian empire, represented by the second beast. saying the kings [or princes] of Media shall be slain, there was, probably, an allusion to the prophecy of Jeremiah 25: 25-27, "And all the kings of the Medes.... thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you;"―a prophecy which Cyrus seems to have been in part the instrument of executing, when, in addition to his own hereditary crown of Persia, he secured to himself that of his uncle and father-in-law, Darius the Mede, and, according to Herodotus, established his authority in Media by force. The opposition which he had occasion to crush, would, it is obvious, be most likely to be made by the Median nobles and princes, resisting the pretensions of a foreigner. If our supposition respecting the allusion be correct, there could have been no reference here to the second empire in the prophecy of Daniel. And if there is none to the second, we ought not to conclude, without evidence, that there is to the fourth, as such, nor to this particular prophecy at all. Without any reference of this kind, a pious Hebrew, expatiating on such a passage as Hab. 3:17, 18, and cherishing triumphant faith in a coming Messiah, might say, in effect, that whatever calamities may befal others, however God may punish and destroy those who either disregard him or afflict his people, still he shall be the hope and the joy of all who trust in him. He might say this, and specify three or four classes of the guilty and proud, who either had been or would be abased. Even if it could be proved, that, a little before the time of our Lord, that is, when the Roman power was becoming oppressive and terrific to the Jews, this Jewish Paraphrast understood a part of Daniel's vision as having reference to the Romans, we ought not to adopt his opinion without sufficient evidence of its correctness. When Napoleon was filling Europe and many of the remotest portions of the civilized world with the terror of his movements, there were not wanting respectable authors who thought that they could see him and his movements clearly portrayed in the book of Daniel and in the Apocalypse. Like these authors and others in almost every age, Jonathan Ben Uzziel may have been influenced in his interpretation of prophecy by having his vision filled too exclusively with the events and circumstances of his own day, instead of having it sufficiently enlarged and enlightened by a comprehensive survey of the events and circumstances of other days. But whatever may have been this writer's own opinion, the manner in which he has expressed himself, we mean his mentioning the Romans as about to be destroyed (though he may have intended no reference to Daniel's vision), and the propensity, to which we have just now adverted, of being influenced too much in our interpretations by what is occurring in our own day, were constantly inclining the Jews who came after him to associate in their minds the Roman empire with the vision of Daniel. In this way, a vague opinion that the fourth great and terrible empire was that of the Romans, might easily become current among the Jews, writhing, as they were, under the domination of Rome, and looking anxiously for a Messiah, who, as they supposed, would deliver and avenge their nation, and lead them to universal conquest. A splendid passage from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Greek writer in the reign of Augustus, is adduced by Bishop Newton, as being "very pertinent to our present purpose." It is this: "The Macedonian empire having overturned the force of the Persians, in greatness indeed of dominion exceeded all the kingdoms which were before it. But yet it did not flourish a long time; but, after the death of Alexander, it began to grow worse and worse. For, being immediately distracted into several principalities by his successors, and, after them, having strength to go on to the second and third generation, it was weakened by itself, and at last was destroyed by the Romans. And yet it did not reduce all the earth and sea to its obedience. For neither did it possess Africa, except that part adjoining to Egypt; neither did it subdue all Europe, but only northwards it proceeded as far as Thrace, and westwards it descended to the Adriatic sea. But the city of Rome ruleth over all the earth, as far as it is inhabited ; and commands all the sea, not only that within the pillars of Hercules, but also the ocean, as far as it is navigable, having first and alone of all the most celebrated kingdoms, made the east and west the bounds of its empire; and its dominion hath continued not a short time, but longer than that of any other city or kingdom.' * Doubtless, the Macedonian or Greek dominion, as we have already stated, might, in certain connections, be mentioned in a general way, so as to include both that of Alexander and that of his successors; and nothing hindered Dionysius from mentioning it in this manner. But does this prove that it is exhibited thus in Daniel's vision? Doubtless, Rome had an extensive dominion; but does this prove, as a matter of sober history, that she ruled over all the earth, as far as it was inhabited?—that she commanded every sea,-the whole broad ocean itself, as far as it was navigable?—and that she made the east and the west the only bounds of her empire? Panegyric so extravagant might flatter the self-complacency of the Romans; but it is poorly adapted to aid those who endeavor to view things as they are. Josephus, who lived at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, is supposed, by Bishop Newton and by Hengstenberg and others, to have thought that the empire indicated by the fourth beast was the Roman. He may have thought so; for he may have overlooked the parallelism, the correspondence of the little horn in Dan. 7: 8, with the little horn in Dan. 8: 9; and he may, in some measure, have felt the influences which we have mentioned as being likely to modify the views of his countrymen. More than two centuries had passed away, since the oppressions inflicted by Antiochus Epiphanes; while those inflicted by the Romans were still fresh and constantly before his eyes. It is remarkable, however, that Josephus, in his account of Daniel, does not mention that prophet's vision, narrated in the seventh chapter, concerning the four beasts; although he gives a full statement concerning the other vision recorded in the eighth chapter, and concerning the image which, as narrated in the second chapter, Nebuchadnezzar saw in a dream. In setting forth the prophet's explanation of this dream, as addressed to the king, he proceeds: "The head of gold denotes thee and the kings of Babylon that have been before thee; but the two hands and arms *Antiq. Rom. B. I, c. 2 and 3. VOL. VII.-NO. XXV. 4 signify that your empire shall be dissolved by two kings; but theirs a certain other man that shall come from the west, clothed in brass, shall destroy; and this new empire another, in strength resembling iron, shall cause to cease; and moreover shall domineer over all, as it is the nature of iron to be harder than gold, and silver, and brass. Daniel," he adds, "declared also the meaning of the stone to the king; but I do not think it proper to relate it, since I have only undertaken to describe things past and done, but not things that are future; yet if any one be so very desirous of knowing truth, as not to wave such points of curiosity, and cannot curb his inclination for understanding the uncertainties of futurity, and whether they will happen or not, let him be diligent in reading the book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings."* This is the only passage adduced from Josephus to prove that he considered the fourth kingdom to be the Roman. "The fourth empire," we are told, "is the Roman, in his judgment; because the third kingdom, which he begins in Alexander, was destroyed, not by the Greek generals, but by the Romans."+ We reply, that this is not asserted by Josephus. And we have already shown that the Greek generals did wrest Alexander's kingdom from his family, and cause his dynasty to cease. Upon his death, they artfully made such an arrangement as, in effect, to secure the sovereignty to themselves; and, at length, they secretly murdered his wives and his sons. Again," we are told, "the fourth empire he reckons to be past, i. e. to be set up in the room of the Greek, and there * Antiq., B. x, c. 10, § 4. Η μὲν χρυσῆ κεφαλὴ σε τε ἐδήλου καὶ τοὺς ποὺ σου βασιλεῖς Βαβυλωνίους ὄντας, αι δὲ δύο χεῖρες καὶ δι ώμοι σημάνουσιν ὑπὸ δύο καταλυθήσεσθαι βασιλέων τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ὑμῶν· τὴν δὲ ἐκεινων ἕτερός τις ἀπο δύσεως καθαιρήσει χαλκὸν ἠμφιεσμένος, καὶ ταύτην άλλη πάυσει τὴν ἰσχυν ὅμοια σιδήρῳ, καὶ κρατήσει δὲ ἐις ἅπαν διὰ τὴν τῶν σιδήρου φύσιν, εἶναι γὰρ αυτὴν στερῥοτέραν τῆς τοῦ χρυσου καὶ του ἀργύρου καὶ του χαλκου. Εδήλωσε δὲ καὶ περὶ του λίθου Δανιῆλος τῷ βασιλεῖ, ἀλλ' ἐμοὶ μὲν ουκ ἔδοξε τοῦτο ἱστορεῖν, τὰ παρελθόντα καὶ τὰ γεγενημένα συγράφειν, δυ τὰ μέλλοντα ὀφέιλοντι, &c. Newton on the Prophecies, p. 196, (Dobson's ed. Lond. 1832.) : See Rollin's Ancient History, Vol. II, p. 129 and p. 141, (4to Boston, 1827.) |