MUCH is assumed without proof even in the first page (3), more in the next two consisting of diagrams (4, 5). But time fails for noticing every questionable statement, nor have such discussions a just title to a place in a journal like this. Pass we on to the opening sentence of p. 6— “This 2520 is therefore the seven times of the Gentile period thrice mentioned in Dan. 4:23, 25 and 32; also by our Lord in Luke 21:24, and Paul in Rom. 11:25.” Is this correct or well founded? Let us weigh these scriptures.
Be it noticed that the alleged complete period of Gentile domination occurs in no natural place for it; if intended by God, this one might look for. Neither Dan. 2 nor Dan. 7 intimates anything of the sort. The latter has only the “time, times, and half a time” (1260 days, as all agree), which comprise the audacious doings of that last chief of the fourth or Roman empire. This entails the final catastrophe of divine judgment on the entire system of Gentile power, the transition to the everlasting and universal kingdom of the Son of man. We have seen that the introduction of the Saracens, as displacing the Romans, is unknown to both visions, and involves a greater harshness than the Protestant scheme of the Papacy. Either error is due to not possessing the divine key afforded in the Revelation—that the Roman empire which played its part against the Lord of glory, as its predecessors did not, is to rise up under Satanic agency against His return to take the world-kingdom (Rev. 11:15; 17:8-14; 19:19, 20). Thus Mr. D. stumbles at the threshold of prophecy and sets up a scheme from the start antagonistic to the plain and unmistakable revelation of God.
It is Dan. 4:23, 25, and 32, to which he might have added 26, where the phrase “seven times” is found. The question is, what does it mean? Seven years, none need doubt, though some have reduced it one half, as Theodoret tells us in his Commentary. One can understand the further idea, especially from Dan. 7 compared with chap. 12., of a comprehensive term embracing the whole Gentile lease of power. The late Mr. G. S. Faber in his Sacred Calendar expressed the same thought; and Mr. Elliott cursorily accepts it in his Horse Apocalyptical. But where is the proof? The assumption of it, without scriptural evidence, misled Mr. D. as we have seen, no less than Mr. Faber, as could easily be shown. The fact is, that not a solitary text of scripture applies such a term prophetically. The chapter, which exhibits it four times, uses it solely of Nebuchadnezzar in a literal and therefore quite different sense. Not even in Dan. 11:13 can such a prophetic sense be extracted, “at the end of times” being explained by “years,” and “years” in the ordinary sense. This surely confirms our taking Dan. 12:7-12 in the same sense.
Nowhere does it appear that any solid proof has ever been given for regarding even Dan. 7:25 as anything more than the 32 years of the peculiarly blasphemous and violent monarch in the future crisis of the revived Roman empire before God judges it, and destroys him so signally at Christ's appearing. If so, the dates in the twelfth chapter as well as in chap. 8. (though the latter be somewhat singularly expressed) claim, if we would be consistent, to be understood similarly. That is, they were not meant to express the long providential history of medieval and modern times, of which men make so much. They in fact converge (save “the morning-evenings” of chap. 8.) on the unexampled tribulation in store for the Jews under Gentile persecution before the Lord interferes for their deliverance from heaven and notably in Jerusalem and the land. For it is in the typical part that we read this extraordinary expression of time, not in the verses which look on to the closing antitype. And the time expressed in no way speaks of the long period of Gentile empires, as Mr. D. assumes with others, but solely of the peculiar enormity of one profane oppressor of the Jews and their religion. Natural days therefore are in question, and not so many years.
And note well, what many have overlooked, that in Rev. 12, which (6) speaks of the 1260 days and “a time, times, and half a time” (14), this very period is described in ver. 12 as “but a short time.” Now in a prophecy where times and seasons are spoken of definitely and in their relative proportion, this is evidently of the utmost importance. It is not a possibly long while made short by the power of faith, as Christ's waiting to the Christian, but an absolute statement which could hardly be if 1260 years were meant. In the same book the reign of the saints with Christ is declared to be 1000 years. Why not “days” if this always be the symbol? If “days” mean “days,” all is clear and consistent.
We may add (as a further confirmation that the dates of Dan. 12 refer to the brief and awful crisis yet future, and are therefore not to be allegorized into long periods of the past), that our Lord directs attention in Matt. 24:15-22 to Daniel's last prophecy, and uses these remarkable words, “except those days should be shortened,” &c. How could His words fit in with long ages of divine providence? If they apply to God’s “short work” of judgment at the end of the age, they are plain and appropriate.
It is only in Dan. 9 where we are assured that “week” means seven years. Had this been the earliest chapter of the prophecy, it might, with some show of plausibility, have been taken to rule all that followed. Instead of this the two and only two general prophecies were already revealed; and the first of the special communications (chap. 8.) where is prominent Gentile meddling with the Jews and even the sanctuary. Dan. 9 is yet more filled with Jewish piety and has an answer of the deepest moment vouchsafed to the prophet (humbling himself before Jehovah on the eve of the return from captivity), suited to guard the faithful from unwarranted expectations just then. Even when Messiah came, they must prepare for His rejection, with the horrors that followed, not only in the Roman destruction of the city and temple, but worse still to come in the closing week. Yet shall the salvation of Israel come out of Zion. For God bringeth back the captivity of His people, and Jacob shall rejoice, Israel be glad. So exceptional a prophecy as this chapter contains cannot legitimately furnish the rule for interpreting the ordinary and differently conveyed times in other cases. There ought at any rate to be some attempt at a demonstration; and we may at the least conclude that the sense of 2520 years assigned to “the seven times” in Dan. 4 is without even a show of proof; though to convince others cogent and commanding evidence from scripture is requisite.
Mr. D. indeed refers also to Luke 21:24. But in our Lord's lips it is wholly general, and wears not the smallest semblance of a chronological. expression. Both “times” and “Gentiles,” or nations, are without the article. The prediction is the more interesting because it differs from Matt. 24. and Mark 13 in presenting from ver. 20 to 24 the Roman siege and capture; and in the clause quoted gives us the state of Jerusalem that followed up to the present time. This may serve to show how little it conveys a specific date. Then from ver. 25 to 37 we have the end of the age when the Son of man will be seen coming in a cloud with great power and glory, after striking signs above and below to warn men and encourage the faithful in those circumstances. Instead of the siege under Titus, and the subsequent continuous treading down of Jerusalem by Gentiles till their times are fulfilled, Matthew and Mark were led to dwell on the future and still more awful tribulation.
There remains Rom. 11:25; but how Mr. D. could cite the entrance, of “the fullness of the Gentiles” to help his dates is marvelous; for with these it has not the remotest connection. He is probably misled by tradition, and the habit of men in following each other under a mere shadow or a sound of words; and this applies to writers on prophecy as much as to their neighbors. The true bearing of the apostle is unquestionable. He shows that hardness or obduracy in part (for it was never total) has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the nations shall have come in i.e. the complement of the Gentiles that believe the gospel. What has this to do with chronology? When God has filled up the present purpose of His grace, “all Israel” (in contrast with any actual remnant) “shall be saved.” For He has made known through the prophets His intention of saving His ancient people as a whole. Meanwhile as touching the gospel, they are enemies for our sake (the complement of the Gentiles); but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts and the calling of God are not subject to change of mind. Whatever Israel's demerits, mercy shall glory over judgment. Such is the evident drift of the passage.
( To be continued, D.V.)