« PreviousContinue »
compound empire was, at the time of the vision, actually rising under Cyrus; but the race and name of the Medes, as a separate people, has long been extinct. The vision cannot then be all still future; it must commence with the times of the prophet.
The symbol is also the more aptly descriptive of the ancient empire of Persia, as it was employed by the Persians themselves. 66 Travellers have observed that rams' heads with horns, the one higher and the other lower, are still to be seen sculptured on the pillars of Persepolis.” (Sacr. Cal. ii., p. 114; Chandler's Vind., ch. i. 4).
4. The two horns of the ram, of which the higher came up last, answer exactly to the history of the Medes and Persians in the time of Cyrus. This may be proved largely from profane history, but the testimony of Scripture will suffice. We there learn that Babylon was taken by Cyrus the Persian, and yet that Darius the Mede (or Cyaxares) took the kingdom, as having, during his lifetime, the superior power. But after his death, with the accession of Cyrus, we have a series of Persian, not of Median, kings. The whole of the “Cyropædia” is based upon the same notorious fact. So also, as before, Æschylus in the Persæ : "For the Mede was the first commander of the people ; and another, his son, accomplished the work; for his-understanding guided his zeal: and the third from him, Cyrus, reigned, that prosperous hero, and established peace for all his friends, and conquered to himself the people of the Lydians and Phrygians; and drove out by force all Ionia." In other words, “the two horns were high, but the higher came up last.”
5. The three directions of Persian conquest are another proof of the historical sense. The ram was seen pushing “westward, and northward, and southward." So, too,
the main conquests of Cyrus lay westward. Within seven years from the date of the vision, “Olympiade octava et quinquagesimâ victor Cyrus intravit Sardes.” (Solin. i. 112). From this celebrated warfare and victory of Cyrus, Herodotus begins his history, and four chapters of the “Cyropædia” are occupied with the same subject.
But the ram was seen also pushing northward. So, in the “Cyropædia," we have mention of the conquest of Armenia, and of the Chaldæi, or Chalybes, in the mountain country bordering on Armenia; besides the Hyrcanians, the Sacæ and Cadusii, whom Xenophon represents as submitting freely. And whether we receive or reject the account, in Herodotus, of the death of Cyrus in an expedition against the Massagetæ, the conquest of Hyrcania, Bactriana, and Sogdiana, towards the north, must be viewed as clearly implied; else Cambyses would scarcely have immediately turned his thoughts to the more distant conquest of Egypt.
Thirdly, the ram was seen last of all pushing southward. And immediately after the death of Cyrus, his son Cambyses added Egypt to the empire, as described in the third book of Herodotus. The history, then, in these three respects, exactly accords with the prophecy.
6. The greatness resulting from these conquests is next described. “ No beast could stand before him, nor any deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great." The title, “Cyrus the Great,” is a record of the fact unto this day; and the current name among the Greeks for the Persian king, “operyas Baollèvs," is a still fuller proof. Xenophon also describes the kingdom of Cyrus in these remarkable terms: “Over these nations then he ruled, which were of various tongues; and yet he was able to range over so vast, a territory by the fear of his name, so as to astonish all, and so that no one assailed him; and ruled so many tribes, that it is difficult to traverse them, in whatever direction we set out from the royal palaces, whether east, or west, or north, or south.” And so Herodotus : “ In whatever direction Cyrus determined to march, it was impossible for that nation to escape." (i. 204).
7. The he-goat from the west is a further correspondence with the history. “The rough goat is the king of Grecia, and the great horn is the first king." The name of the Macedonians, Ægeadæ, or the goat people, the name of their city, Ægæ, and of Alexander's son, Alexander Ægus, have been, with much reason, alleged, to show the aptness of the symbol. It seems needless to pursue the correspondence through the two following verses, in the details of the history, as it will come before us in a review of Dr. Todd's objections; and that writer himself, who appears to be the only sceptic on this point, admits that there is “a striking coincidence."
What, then, are the difficulties which are to outweigk these clear and manifold proofs of fulfilment, and to snap asunder this unbroken chain of authorities ? They are as follows:
II. OBJECTIONS TO THE HISTORICAL APPLICATION.
1. “ The angel declares, at the time of the end shall be the vision ; and I see no reason why this should be restricted to a part of the vision only. I have already expressed my opinion, that by the time of the end the prophets denote the future period, which is to succeed the restoration of the Jewish people. It will follow that the powers represented by the ram and he-goat are all future.”
This argument has two premises that the wholevision takes place at or in the time of the end; and that the time of the end is still future. I believe that even the
latter statement is incorrect, and that the phrase has, in Daniel, no such exclusive meaning. The first premise, however, is plainly untrue, for the following reasons:
(1). The Hebrew preposition is more frequently to be rendered for, or unto ; in Greek, els; and in Latin, usque ad, ob, or de ; as the Septuagint renders twice in this very passage : els Kaipov nepas. So, for instance, in Proverbs : “ The Lord hath made all things for himself, even the wicked for the day of evil.” Hence the most natural sense of the words is, either the vision reaches unto the time of the end, or else is designed for the time of the end-that is, for the special instruction of the Church in those days.
(2). The same preposition in this chapter never occurs in the sense at, or in, but often as unto. Thus, at the close: “ The vision shall be unto many days.” The sense at would here be evidently absurd. So again: “ Toward, or unto, the four winds of heaven"-" Unto that certain saint which spake"-“ Make known to this man the vision."
(3). The same sense is commonly given to the preposition in this book : “ The tree reached unto heaven.”
“ Thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven." And elsewhere, in direct connexion with the words of time (as Deut. xvi. 4), “ Shall not remain all night, until the morning."
(4). This is further proved to be the meaning by the nineteenthverse : “I will make thee know what shall be in the aftertime, of the indignation, because it (the vision) will be unto the time of the end." The indignation is clearly that on the Jewish people, and begins, at latest, with the fall of the second temple. Now, if the time of the end succeeds the restoration of the Jews, and the whole vision is at, or in, that time, the angel would not fulfil his promise. But if we expound the words in this
sense, that the main purpose of the vision is to describe what occurs during the future anger of God on the Jews, and that for this purpose it reaches unto a time remotely future, the whole verse is consistent and harmonious.
(5). Where events are to be described as included within a specified season, a different preposition () is always used. So, in connexion with this very phrase (xi. 40): “At the time of the end the king of the south will push at him.” And again in Dan ii. 28. This effectually refutes Dr. Todd's interpretation of the clause.
(6). Lastly, even where the preposition is one that denotes proper inclusion, the reference is only to the main part of the vision. So, in Dan. ii. 48, the vision, we are told, is what shall be in the latter days. But the beginning of the vision was of events not merely close at hand, but already present. Waiving, then, both the evidence of history and the true meaning of the prepo. sition, we have still a strong reason why the whole vision should not be placed at the time of the end.
The sandy nature of the argument is now clear. First, if the proper version were in, or at, the time of the end, scriptural analogy would require us to expound it of the main purpose of the vision. Next, the preposition most properly and usually denotes unto, or until, as appears even from the context alone. Thirdly, the exclusive sense which Dr. Todd assigns to the time of the end is incapable of proof (Dan. ix. 26; Matt. xxiv. 14; 1 Cor. x. 1l). And, lastly, the facts of history prove that this vision begins, like the two former ones, from the time of the prophet.
2. “ The common interpretation seems to fail in explaining the two horns of the rain.
These horns, we are expressly told, are the kings, not the kingdoms, of Media and Persia ; and, although there are some striking coincidences between the career of Alexander and the