By Frédéric Louis Godet
APPENDIX TO ESSAT IV. ON THE FOUR MONARCHIES (Dan. vii.) AND THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF YEARS Dan. ix). I. The interpretation we have given of the vision of the four beasts of Daniel, has led us to look at the fourth as representing the Roman monarchy; which would pre-suppose in the author a knowledge truly prophetic. This application is rejected in modem times not only by authors of the rationalistic school, but also by such men as Delitzsch and Zöckler. The reason alleged by these latter is, that since the "little horn" in the seventh chapter, which appeared upon the fourth beast, must be the same as that in chap, viii., this latter having reference to the Grecian monarchy1, it follows that the fourth monarchy in chap. vii. must be either the empire of Alexander, or the kingdoms which grew out of it. Let us first enquire whether the passage in Daniel can be explained, if confined to the limits which such an interpretation would impose; and, next, whether the alleged identity between the two little horns of chaps. vii. and viii. is real The lion is identical with the head of gold in the vision of the image (chap, ii.), as is shewn by a comparison of the two visions with each other. And it follows from ii. 37, 38, that these two emblems refer to Nebuchadnezzar, and to the Chaldean monarchy personified in him: " Thou, 0 king, art this head of gold." The bear which "raised itself up on one side, and had three ribs in the mouth of it," corresponds to the breast and arms of silver in the statue. It is natural, then, to apply this emblem to the Persian monarchy, which superseded the Babylonian empire. But this application would make it difficult to avoid interpreting the fourth beast of the Roman empire; and an attempt has been made to get over this in two ways. Hitzig proposed to refer the emblem of the bear specially to Belshazzar, the last great Babylonish sovereign. But it is quite clear that this empire is already fully represented in the first beast, the lion. In the interpretation of the breast and arms of silver given in ii. 39, we find it said to Nebuchadnezzar,—not only: "Thou shalt have a successor inferior to thee," but " after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee." Here, then, the subject spoken of is a second monarchy, not a continuation of the first. Delitzsch and others feel this, and accordingly they apply the emblem of the bear to the Median empire, but making it distinct from the Persian. This distinction is rested upon vi. 28: " In the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian." But this distinction between the Median and Persian monarchies is a pure fiction. The former would have lasted only two years, since Darius the Mede, who, according to this, founded it, died two years after the taking of Babylon, and Cyrus the Persian succeeded him! The fact is, that it never for an instant had an independent existence, since from the very first it was Cyrus the Persian who governed in the name of Darius the Mede (or Cyaxarus). This latter reigned only in name. And that is precisely the meaning of the words in vi. 28, which describe one and the same empire, with two sovereigns reigning simultaneously. And, besides, what would be the meaning of the expression, "devour much flesh," as addressed to this supposed Median empire, which would only have lasted two years ? Delitzsch replies: " It is the expression of a simple conatus, of a desire for conquest which was never realised." As if an unfulfilled desire could have been admitted into a prophetic picture in which history is sketched on so large a scale! Lastly, the impossibility of this interpretation is clear from v. 28, and vi. 12, which prove incontestably the identity of the two powers, of which it is desired to make distinct States: " Thy kingdom is given to the Medes and Persians;" and " the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not." The bear then represents unquestionably the Medo-Persian monarchy. He supports himself on one side to signify that of the two nations which together constitute this empire, there is but one—the Persian—on which reposes the aggressive and conquering power of the monarchy. The three pieces of flesh, (or three ribs, E.V.) which the bear holds in his mouth, represent the chief conquests of this second great empire. Some have thought of Lydia, Babylonia, and Egypt; others substitute Phenicia for Egypt. Judging from viii. 3, 4, where the same kingdom is represented under the figure of a ram which had two horns, of which one (the Persian) was higher than the other (the Median), and which pushed with these horns in three directions, westward, northward, and southward, I incline rather to the belief that these conquered countries are Bactriana (in the north), Babylonia and Lydia (in the west), and Egypt (in the south).
The next beast, the leopard,
with four wings of a bird, and
four heads, answers to the
"belly and thighs of brass" in
the image; it can only represent
Alexander the Great and the
Macedonian kingdom, which took
the place of the Medo-Persian
empire. From this point of view
the emblems indicated are easily
explained. The four wings
represent the extraordinary
rapidity of this young king’s
conquests; and the four heads,
the four contemporaneous
kingdoms in which the Grecian
monarchy makes its appearance on
the stage of history. We know
that these four states were,
Macedonia, Thrace, Syria, and
Egypt. The Grecian monarchy
never existed in any other than
this four-fold form after the
premature death of its founder.
Moreover, we find the literal
explanation of these figures in
chap, viii., where it is said of
the he-goat coming from the
west, which overthrew the ram
with two horns (the Medo-Persian
empire, v. 20): "the he-goat is
the king of Greeia, and
the great horn that is between
his eyes is the first king; now
that being broken... four
kingdoms shall stand up out of
the nation." Notwithstanding
these evidences, all those who
are determined not to recognise
in the fourth beast the Roman
monarchy, apply the figure of
the leopard to Cyrus and the
Persian monarchy. But, in the
first place, this interpretation
involves the application of the
figure of the bear either to
Belshazzar, or to a Median
kingdom distinct from the
Persian, two suppositions which
we have found to be
inadmissible; besides, how are
we then to explain the four
wings and four heads? what have
these emblems to do with the
Persian monarchy? Rapidity of
conquest, which is signified by
the four wings, was not the
distinctive feature of the
Medo-Persian empire, whilst it
is the salient characteristic of
Alexander’s power. As to the
four heads, they represent, it
is pretended, the four first
kings of Persia. This
interpretation would be forced
even if Persia had had but four
kings; for the four heads must
represent four contemporaneous
and not four successive powers.
They belong to the form of the
beast from his first appearance.
But, further, Persia had many
more than four sovereigns. What
are we to make of the two
Artaxerxeses, Longimanus and
Mnemon, and of the two last
Dariuses, Oclius and Codoman? If
the author writes as a prophet,
how is it, we would ask
Delitzsch, that he sees so dimly
into the future? If he writes as
a historian, that is to say as a
prophet who composes after the
event, how, we would ask the
rationalists, can he be so
completely ignorant of the
history which he is telling? And
how, from this point of view,
are we to get out of the
difficulty of viii. 21: " the
he-goat (with four horns) is the
king of Grecia?" Lastly,
appears the fourth beast, the
beast without a name; this
corresponds to the "legs of
iron, and the feet, part of iron
and part of clay," of the image.
This parallelism cannot be
questioned. This fourth beast
devours and breaks in pieces
just as the iron feet of the
image break everything in
pieces; the ten horns of the
beast answer to the ten toes of
the image; this fourth beast
immediately precedes the
Messianic kingdom, just as the
image is smitten and overthrown
by the little stone, emblem of
the Messiah.—What is this last
empire? According to
Delitzsch, Hitzig, and many
others, it is that of Alexander,
or the Grecian monarchy,
which—to follow the first of
these authors—is confounded in
the prophetic vision with the
Romans, and with all the
succeeding powers until the
judgment. But we have seen that
Alexander and the Grecian empire
have been already prefigured by
the winged leopard with four
heads. And from this point of
view, what would be the meaning
of the ten horns? We are told
that these are the ten kings of
Syria who succeeded one another,
from the time of Alexander to
that of Antiochus Epiphanes, in
which the author himself lived.
But we know that Syria had only
seven kings before Antiochus Epi
phanes; Seleucus Nicator,
Antiochus Soter, Antiochus
Theos, Seleucus Callinicus,
Seleucus Ceraunus, Antiochus the
Great, and Seleucus Philopator.
That is true, it will be
answered, but there are three
men who
might have reigned, and
whom Antiochus Epiphanes kept
from the throne; Heliodorus, the
prisoner of Epiphanes’
predecessor, who did actually
reign for a moment; Demetrius,
the legitimate successor, who
was kept at Rome as a hostage;
and Ptolemy Philometor, king of
Egypt, who had claims upon the
throne of Syria. But could
sovereigns only by right, or by
desire, be counted among real
kings, and numbered among the
active horns of the fourth
beast? Besides, why should the
Grecian monarchy be thus
confined to the family of the
Seleucidse? Did it not also
comprehend the dynasties of
Macedonia, Thrace, and Egypt? To
avoid these difficulties, it
occurred to Zöckler to
distinguish between Alexander
himself, who, according to this,
would be represented by the
third beast, and the sum total
of the states which succeeded
him and which, taken together,
are represented by the fourth.
The ten horns only signifying
the indefinite multitude of
sovereigns of the four
contemporaneous Grecian States.
But these four Grecian kingdoms
had been before evidently
prefigured in the four heads of
the leopard; how should they
come suddenly to be reckoned as
a separate beast? Besides, is it
according to the analogy of the
prophetic intuition to combine
four distinct kingdoms into one
beast? Lastly, what are we to
think of the number ten, which
is to represent the indefinite
mass of Macedonian and Thracian
sovereigns, the Ptolemies and
Seleucidae? This last attempt is
evidently the resource of
despair. After that, it becomes
so much the more evident that
the fourth beast, the beast
without a name, represents a
monarchy later than that of the
Grecian power; an empire which
shall comprehend the whole known
world; which shall be divided
into a number of states bound
together by a link of solidarity
(the ten horns); and which shall
only give place to the kingdom
of the Messiah. I leave it to
the reader to decide whether
these characteristics apply to
the Roman monarchy or not.
But what are we to think of
the connection between the
little horn of chap, vii., which
comes forth from this fourth
beast, and the little horn of
chap, viii., which belongs to
the ram, the emblem of the
Grecian empire? I see no reason
why they should be identified. A
little horn signifies in Daniel
the concentration and explosion
of the evil forces inherent in
an organism. The third monarchy,
according to chap, viii., was to
produce an excrescence of this
kind; and everything proves that
this figure applies to Antiochus
Epiphanies, the furious enemy of
the Jews, of their religion, and
of their God. The fourth and
last monarchy, according to
chap, vii., is to terminate also
in the appearance of an
analogous and still more
destructive power. That which
distinguishes it clearly from
the other is the fact that it
issues from the midst of the
ten horns of the nameless
beast2,
while the former comes forth
from the four horns of
the he-goat, which typifies the
king of Grecia3.
We should say, then, to use the
language of the New Testament,
that the little horn of chap.
vii. is
Antichrist the man of sin
(St. Paul), the beast of
the Apocalypse (St. John), that
power inimical to God and the
Church, which will arise from
the confederation of the
European States, springing from
the fourth monarchy; while that
of chap. viii. represents
Antiochus Epiphanes springing
from the Grecian monarchy, who
waged a corresponding war
against the kingdom of God under
the form of the Jewish
theocracy.
There are then two declared
adversaries of the kingdom of
God indicated in the book of
Daniel; one issuing from the
third monarchy, attacking the
people of the ancient covenant;
the other from the fourth,
making war against that of the
new. If any one will read from
this point of view chaps, vii.
and viii. of the book of Daniel,
he will find that the
difficulties will vanish which
have led learned men into the
forced interpretations we have
just refuted.
II.
The interpretations of the
vision of the seventy weeks4,
which are opposed to our own,
agree in this point, that they
make the proper object of the
prophetic picture, not Jesus
Christ, His Sacrifice, the
foundation of the Church, and
the destruction of Jerusalem by
the Romans, but certain special
events which took place in
Israel rather less than two
centuries before the Christian
era. There was then a
high-priest called Onias, who
was assassinated about B.C. 170.
He, according to most of the
modern interpreters, is "the
anointed, who shall be cut off,"
spoken of in ver. 26. This
murder was accompanied by that
of 40,000 Jews, and the pillage
of the temple by Antiochus
Epiplianes. Three years
afterwards, (here would be the
half-week of ver. 27,) the
temple was profaned by the
institution of the worship of
Jupiter Olympius, and the
abolition of the daily sacrifice
for three years and a half.
Hollowing upon these events
described in his prophecy, the
author would have expected the
establishment of the Messianic
kingdom. According to this, the
prophet’s horizon would not have
comprehended more than the age
of the Maccabees, whether we
suppose that he lived at that
time and prophesied
ab eventu, as the
rationalists pretend, or that a
more distant future was not
clearly revealed to him, as
Delitzsch and others think.
The question is complicated by
the uncertainty as to the right
interpretation of many
expressions in the original
text. We cannot now enter into
details, but must confine
ourselves to the essential
points, which are, as it seems
to us, the following:— 1. The
expressions of Daniel: " the
decree of desolation, the
destruction of the city
and of the sanctuary by
the people of the prince that
shall come," cannot apply to the
time of the Maccabees, since the
temple was not then destroyed,
but only profaned. 2. The
chronology offers, under this
interpretation, insuperable
difficulties. Seventy weeks make
490 years; now the return from
the Captivity having taken place
in 536, and the murder of Onias
in 170 B.C., there are between
these two events 366, not 490,
years. The historic period would
then be too short, if compared
with the number indicated. We
are told in answer, that we are
not to take as the
starting-point of this period
the return from the Captivity
and the restoration of
Jerusalem, but the year in which
Jeremiah uttered the oracle
which foretold these events,
i.e. the year 605—the date of
that remarkable prophecy, Jer.
xxv. From 605 to 170, there are
in fact 434 years, which make up
the sixty-two weeks of which
Daniel speaks, ix. 26. But in
the first place, when mention is
made in Dan. ix. 25 of "the
commandment given to restore and
to rebuild Jerusalem," is it
natural to understand by that
the oracle of Jeremiah with
regard to this restoration? Do
not these expressions refer more
naturally to the famous edict of
Cyrus5
which gives permission to the
Jews to return to their own
country and to rebuild their
city, or, better still, to the
Divine command which Cyrus
executed? The edict took effect
in the very same year in which
it was issued; it is then
between the restoration in 536
and the second destruction
announced ver. 26, that we must
place the interval indicated. In
this way the prophecy will
include, as it very naturally
would, the whole duration of the
state of things which was
established at the restoration,
the whole time of the existence
of the second Jerusalem and the
second temple. Then next, the
number in Daniel amounts not
only to sixty-two, but to
sixty-nine weeks, if not even to
seventy. Where are we to find
the seven weeks which are left
over, even according to this
interpretation already devised
on purpose to make room for this
theory? For, lastly, between the
oracle of Jeremiah (605) and the
murder of Onias (170) there are
only 434 years (62 weeks), and
not 483 years (69 weeks). Here
begin the tours de forces:
(a.) Hitzig and others
include the awkward period of
the seven weeks in that of the
sixty-two, placing it at the
beginning of the latter. This
would then be the half-century
which elapsed between the ruin
of Jerusalem in 588 (or 586) and
the appearance of Cyrus (in
536). But how is this? When it
is said: "From the going forth
of the commandment to restore
and to build Jerusalem, unto
Messiah the Prince, shall be
seven weeks and threescore and
two weeks... and after
threescore and two weeks the
Anointed shall be cut off," it
is allowable to suppose that the
author intended to include the
seven weeks within the
sixty-two! And if this sleight
of hand (pardon the expression)
should be allowed, still how are
we, even adopting that method of
interpretation, to find the
total number of seventy weeks
mentioned in ver. 24: " Seventy
weeks are determined upon thy
people and upon thy holy city."
The seven weeks cannot find room
in the sixty-two. For it is
evident that the number seventy
comprehends: 1. the group of the
seven; 2. that of the sixty-two;
3. the final week. Consequently
these groups are successive, not
contemporaneous, (b.)
Delitzsch and Hofmann, coming
into direct collision with the
order indicated by Daniel, place
the seven weeks at the end of
the sixty-two!—they are to
represent the interval between
Antiochus Epiphanes and Jesus
Christ. But who will agree to
such an overturning of the text?
Besides, between Antiochus and
Jesus Christ there was an
interval of 164 years—not 49! (c.)
Ewald has devised another
expedient. The number 69 or 70
being evidently too large in all
the interpretations which apply
the prophecy to the time of the
Maccabees, this author has
proposed to deduct from the
entire number all the Sabbatical
years, i. e., one in seven,
giving as his reason that this
whole period is a time of
oppression, while the idea of
the sabbath always carries with
it a feeling of joy. Thus we
should have, 1. the seven weeks
between the destruction of
Jerusalem and the edict of Cyrus
(587—538, according to Ewald’s
chronology); 2. the seventy
weeks between the return from
the Captivity and the year 175,
when an "anointed one" was cut
off (this anointed one being,
according to Ewald, not Onias,
but Seleucus Philopator, who
died in 174, at the time when he
was invading Judaea). These
sixty-two weeks added to the
seven (forty-nine years) would
bring us to the year B.C. 105,
instead of 175. But to help out
this calculation comes in the
deduction of the seventy
sabbatical years, which brings
the ship prosperously to the
desired haven,—175. What are we
to say of such monstrosities of
exegesis! We will not urge all
the other improbabilities to
which this interpretation of the
learned writer is exposed.
And these are the explanations over which one hears, even in the Revue des deux mondes, exclamations of triumph, as if the Messianic application of this wonderful prophecy had been completely and deservedly refuted by modern science! These attempts, so evidently vain, constitute the most complete demonstration possible of the absolute impossibility, according to any impartial exegesis, of applying this prophetic cycle of the seventy weeks to any other period than that which elapsed between the restoration of Jerusalem and the advent of the Christ,—of Him who, as Daniel says, " is 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 anoint the most holy." (ix. 24.)
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
1)
viii. 21, and following.
2)
vii. 8, 24.
3)
viii. 9, 21.
4)
chap. ix.
5) Esdras i, 2, 4.
|