BEFORE passing onward, I would direct attention to the manipulation of the periods Mr. D. assigns to the Four Empires, already cited in full from his page 3. There can be no doubt as to the end of Babylon's imperial power by the Medo-Persians under Cyrus in B.C. 538. But what is the groundwork for giving “90 years” to the empire of Babylon? Mr. D. furnishes neither authority nor proof. It is his assumption of the starting-point, or terminus a quo. But why at that point? Scripture, I am bold to affirm, does not say so. Profane history, extremely indistinct and precarious for that era, is (as far as I am aware) wholly silent as to any epoch adequate. The Astronomical Canon of Ptolemy is indeed a human document of unusual importance, of high interest in its way, and in my judgment far more reliable than the monuments set up by vainglorious monarchs, as anxious to omit and disguise disasters as to exaggerate successes. But the Canon is too general for the conveyance of short or concurrent reigns and other important details; and the names of the Babylonian rulers are modified naturally by the famous Egyptian scientist of the second century A.D.
One could conceive a person reasoning from Nabonassar's accession as a new era in the history of Babylon; but this was in 747 B.C. which is out of the question. So is that of Mardocempadus in 721 B.C., the Merodach-Baladan of Scripture in Hezekiah's day, of course far too early. But “90 years” would suppose a beginning of the Empire under the reign of a singularly obscure prince, of whom nothing is known but the name Chyniladan or Chinaladinus, his accession in 647 B.C., and his regnant term of years 22. What can any reasonable mind infer but that Mr. D. attributed the “90 years” to Babylon from this imaginary epoch, simply and solely in order to make up the desired theory of 1260 years? What mighty and far reaching event occurred “90 years” before the fall of Babylon, or before the first year of Cyrus, to justify the notion of Babylon's rise to be the imperial world-power at that particular point?
Turning to scripture, we do find another period well and repeatedly defined in O.T. prophecy, which necessitated the momentous dealing of Jehovah when He gave over His people in their last and weightiest representatives (Judah and David's house, Jerusalem and the land and the sanctuary) to the Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar. The captivity in Babylon resulted, only ending with the MedoPersian Empire of Cyrus who proclaimed liberty to the captive Jew. Here began a change of incalculable gravity. God's center for the earth and the nations was His people Israel (Deut. 32:8, 98When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. 9For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. (Deuteronomy 32:8‑9)). In them as His portion and inheritance He took His place as Lord of all the earth (Josh. 3:1313And it shall come to pass, as soon as the soles of the feet of the priests that bear the ark of the Lord, the Lord of all the earth, shall rest in the waters of Jordan, that the waters of Jordan shall be cut off from the waters that come down from above; and they shall stand upon an heap. (Joshua 3:13)). But Israel, yea Judah, (people, priests, kings) became apostate after wondrous patience; and the wrath of Jehovah rose against His people, “and there was no remedy.” Jehovah thereon, till a brighter day dawn, withdrew, the sign of His presence, revoked their title as His people, and retired as it were meanwhile into His indefeasible name of “the God of the heavens,” as He is called in Daniel, &c., when the times of the Gentiles proceed. His ancient people are Lo-ammi (not-My people) till in the end of the age they welcome the rejected Messiah, Who will then say, My people thou, as they will say, My God. Meanwhile the “Beasts” reign and ravage; and since redemption God has not a family only in relationship with Himself as Father, but His church, Christ's body, baptized in virtue of one Spirit into that blessed unity. God no longer associates Himself as He once did with the earth.
It is this, the most solemn fact in the O.T. that should or could befall His earthly people, which powerful kingdom (which it had been growingly for a hundred years or more), but the first of the four imperial powers of the Gentiles. These in God's sovereignty fill up the vacuum for the world created by His present disowning of His people Israel, till they are restored in His mercy by-and-by to everlasting and more than pristine blessing, and to glory here below, a blessing to all the nations and a joy to all the earth. During the “Beasts,” government (which we see in Dan. 2 formally given of God to the captor of Jerusalem and the Jews, and of course inherited by all that succeeded) was severed from God's calling. Both were united in Israel, as they will be forever under Messiah and the new covenant ere long. Meanwhile the Gentile powers have the government; as the calling enjoyed by the godly remnant expanded in due time (after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ) into Christianity and the church. This the N.T. proves.
What more certain and evident than that this fact so notable and involving principles of the greatest weight in God's ways for man on the earth, is the true initiating epoch of the imperial system, or “times of the Gentiles?” “Thou, O King (says the prophet Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar), art king of kings unto whom the God of the heavens hath given the kingdom and the strength and the glory; and wheresoever dwell the children of men, the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, He hath given them into thy hands, and hath made thee to rule over them all; thou art the head of gold” (2:37, 38). Hence none had such a gift and place from God before Nebuchadnezzar, not even Nabopolassar his father who appears to have brought in a new dynasty distinct from his predecessors, and helped to destroy Nineveh, the seat of the Assyrian power, within the “90 years.”
But this leads to the assured conclusion that the true period of Babylonish imperialism according to scripture is not 90 but 70 years, including the two years when Nebuchadnezzar (being associate king), in the third year of Jehoiakim first ravaged Jerusalem and its temple, and the two years of Darius before Cyrus in his first year gave liberty to the Jews. In fact the preliminary and the sequel tell how much, even at that depression because of their sins, God's heart yearned over His poor guilty people; and this is worthy of Himself. But the conclusion accompanied the rise of Babylon to be, not a from scripture is serious for Mr. D.'s system of dates, which is overthrown, not only by the error of the end, already pointed out—tacking on to the Four Empires the “Mohammedan of 1260 years,” without proof and against the testimony of the prophet, but also by comprising 20 years too much within the Babylonish empire if we believe Daniel. For I give Mr. D. so much credit for figures that I readily assume a more candid mind than his striving to raise a cloud of dust on it. It is an error due to his confidence in a plausible theory helped out by a faith in arithmetic, astronomy, and history, due only to God's word. His scheme even at the start breaks down indubitably and hopelessly at both ends. It is against all the evidence of Dan. 2 and 7. to bring in Mohammedanism as having part in the four Gentile Empires, before the kingdom of God come in Christ's power to set aside the entire system by divine judgment, and to fill the whole earth, as not Daniel only but the prophets in general fully predict.
There is another and twofold assumption as to “seven times,” yet earlier in this opening page of the tract, which ought to be proved if it can be, had been so greatly used to their blessing. Their ways and words had forced the apostle to speak of himself and his ministry—this to a larger extent than he would have wished to have done. Consequently ministry in this epistle has largely an experimental character. The deep feelings and emotions of the wounded servant are to be observed throughout. To simplify the matter, I would just observe that the subject is presented thus—in chap. 3. we have the ministry, in chap. 4. the minister, in chap. 5. his motives, and in chap. 6. his moral traits.
The ministry is of an exceedingly blessed character. The gospel—called here the gospel of the glory of Christ—is put in contrast with the law. Paul had been made an able minister of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. The law was a ministration of death and of condemnation. It set forth, not what God is, as some have said, but what man ought to be. This was fatal to the creature. So helpless is the ruin of nature that none can render the righteous requirement. Law knows nothing of mercy. It instead of being taken for granted. But this may proposes blessing—life and righteousness—to those be reserved for a later moment when it will be more convenient to bring it to the test. What we have discussed in this paper is of gravity quite sufficient to stand alone for such as weigh the word of God in the balance of the sanctuary.
(To be continued, D.V.).