THOSE who are acquainted with what I have written, will, in the following pages, readily recognize a few papers of mine published at different times; as well as the notes, or explanatory parts, of some of those prophetical charts which I have brought out within the last thirty-eight years.
To some who agree with me in my prophetical views, it will, I trust, be acceptable, while others, who regard them as mere speculations, not borne out by the word, will, I fear, deem it scarcely worth reading. What I refer to are my thoughts upon Daniel—more especially THE PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. These, approved of by some, are rejected by others, and by others again are regarded, at best, with suspicion. To such I appeal, and convinced of their truth as I am, I entreat them to give the subject that due attention, that patient consideration, which it surely deserves. If the Seventy Weeks, as I believe it to be, is the key to all prophecy, and if the Lord has opened the eyes of one individual to understand and interpret it, those who shut their eyes to this fact, will not gain by so doing, nay, they are suffering loss. I trust in thus speaking, I may not be suspected of undue confidence in myself; nor considered presumptuous in saying what I now wish to say: which is this. That I often have wondered, that among those who so approve of my PROPHETICAL STREAM OF TIME, there should be those who object to other works of mine of a similar character, the SEVENTY WEEKS more especially. Is it likely, I ask, that I, having got hold of the right clue, having caught a true view of the great outline of Truth, should at once turn off from the line, and make the mistakes which I have reason to know are imputed to me? It is scarcely fair, I must plead, to accuse me of such strange inconsistency. Anyone, comparing my late charts with the first one, will find that they are all based upon that, ramifications of the truth taught me by God at the outset, and which I have brought out in that chart. This I say of them all: of the Seventy Weeks more especially. This shows the moral coincidence, and at the same time, the contrast, between what we learn in connection with the first and second coming of Christ: the "Stream of Time" does the same, so that I wonder, I confess, that those who approve of the one, should disapprove of the other. Again, therefore, I appeal to my opposers, asking them to reconsider the subject, and reminding them that there may possibly be some little point overlooked by them, which, if seen, might settle the question at once, and overcome their objections. That which I have in view in thus speaking is the theory of "the unnoticed canceled week of Messiah's rejection," which came before me more than thirty-five years ago, and which, notwithstanding the opposition of some whose judgment I have every reason to value, I still hold to be true.
And now, I take this opportunity of replying to an objection which hitherto I have neglected to answer; it is said that in none of the Gospels have we any proof that the period of the testimony of John the Baptist and of Christ was a week, so as to justify my speaking of it as such, or as a period canceled by God. To this I reply that this is not a valid objection, inasmuch as the Gospels deal in no wise with the duration of time-no dates being given in connection either with John or with Christ. In the Revelation the one week of Daniel is clearly defined, the twelve hundred and sixty days, and the forty and two months (each three years and a half) taken together fill up the period. While in the Gospels there is nothing of this kind, the canceled week is there by inference found, but only by inference, no dates being given, no reckoning of time, to prove its existence; and this, I aver, is consistent, this makes the Gospels agree with the prophecy. Yes, because if in Daniel the Lord had to deal with the week in the way I have said, that is, to pass it over in silence, foreseeing that Israel through their sin in cutting off their Messiah, would force Him to cancel it, He surely would adhere to His purpose and principle, after the evil had come to its height, after His people, through the whole course of the week, had more or less been treating the Son with indignity, and, at the end of it, had put Him to death. He never would so depart from His original plan, as, by the pen of an evangelist, to take account of those years, which in the prophecy of Daniel He had so expressively left as a blank, altogether unnamed and unnoticed.
Then there is another point. In opposing these views, reference is made to the opinions of ancient and modern chronologists, certain difficulties are thrown in the way in connection with dates and events, not easy to answer, but which, I own, appear to me unimportant and inopportune in considering a great moral question of this kind. To this I reply that it is surely a mistake to seek to ground our interpretation of a passage like this in the inspired word of God (one which so claims the exercise of our spiritual judgment, to grasp it) on human opinion, on the theories of men with regard to chronology, instead of keeping man's thoughts in abeyance, and letting God's word speak for itself; without the sanction or aid of fallible man and his imaginary wisdom.
And now to return to the question of the week. While it is true, what I have said, that scripture supplies us with no actual dates in connection with it, it does nevertheless enable us to come inferentially to a conclusion about it. Christ's word with which He opened His mission, "The Time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand," Mark 1:1515And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. (Mark 1:15), is to me the clue to it all. When I compare this with the prophecy, namely, the angel's message to Daniel, I from thence infer that "the Time" which has yet to be fulfilled at the second coming of Christ, has been already fulfilled in a sense, that is, when He came, as the Son of David, claiming the kingdom as His: by which I mean, that that period which began with Nehemiah's return from Babylon, is found to have a double termination, one at the first coming and cutting off of the Messiah—the other, when He comes again in His kingdom, a space of about two thousand years intervening between them—namely the present time of Israel's rejection. This evidently necessitates the introduction of a week immediately after the sixty-ninth week, so as to perfect the period of seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, which week is the brief period of John's and Christ's testimony to Israel of their proffered deliverance from thralldom, and which, because of their rejection thereof; as well as of the Deliverer Himself; has been canceled.
Before leaving this point, let me say, that, strictly speaking, it could not be said, "THE TIME IS FULFILLED," till the time was actually completed. The way therefore to account for it is, that the week having been entered upon, the whole period, as in other instances in scripture, is regarded as finished, though three years and a half had to elapse before this would literally be true.
What I have just said is connected with what most of us, I think, are agreed upon, namely THE TWOFOLD Fulfillment OF PROPHECY, that is, an initial, a partial fulfillment, when Christ first came upon earth, and then a complete, a perfect fulfillment, at His coming again in His kingdom; here the principle is made to bear upon TIME, which if it be true as to events, why, I ask, should it not be true as to this—what objection is there to "the age," or prophetical period being viewed as having a twofold conclusion, in the way I have endeavored to show?
But enough as to this, I having, I trust, explained what I mean in the following papers; six of which relate more or less to this subject, being entitled as follows—"The Cycle of Seventy Weeks" (page 231)—"The Seventy Weeks of Daniel" (page 259)—"The fourfold period of Seventy Weeks" (page 305)—"The age of the World at the first Advent of Christ" (page 319)—"The five prophetical periods of Daniel" (page 324)—"An after—thought as to the canceled week" (page 546).—As to which, let anyone only read them with an unprejudiced mind, and I venture to say that he will freely admit that what is so singularly consistent, so exquisitely harmonious, what hangs, I must say, so fitly together, is in reality no invention of mine, no fanciful theory, but the Lord's own blessed truth, the key moreover to much beside in the word, as I trust will be seen, on reading the above in connection with the papers entitled as follows, "The great Epistle of John to the Seven Churches in Asia," and, "Babylon the Great, and the seven-headed ten-horned beast of Rev. 17, 18”
And now let me say, before leaving this subject, that I trust these remarks will lead no one to think that I am jealously occupied with my own reputation, or chagrined at finding my views of scripture disputed. Too keenly alive am I to the emptiness of human applause, thus to feel. But for the truth's sake I regret, that what I know to be according to God, should be treated by many as something peculiar to me, as my views on the subject, and that in this way what might be so helpful to Christians, in the development of prophetical truth, is rendered abortive. If the seventy weeks be the great key to all prophecy, if the time of the first coming of Christ be determined thereby—and also His second, why not, in true earnest, give oneself to the subject? And why, if the interpretation thereof be received by some as both consistent and true, turn away from it as chimerical, because it requires only a little patient consideration to grasp it?
In conclusion, I have to state that five of the following papers were not actually written by myself. True, they originated with me, the thoughts being mine, and communicated by me to a friend, who kindly, at my request, gave them, so to speak, "a local habitation and a name." In the following list of contents, these five papers are indicated by asterisks.
EDWARD DENNY.
January, 1874