IT is hard to gather or even guess what Mr. D. means by the next paragraph (p. 6) after the brief one already reviewed. “In connection with the first 1260 years, let me point out what must be regarded as a remarkable prophecy in the Book of Daniel. There is in the British Museum a copy of the scriptures which I often look at, and which all antiquarians know was written in the fourth century of the Christian era, say about 350 A.D. According to this copy, which is the same as our English Bible, the fourth beast had to begin to dominate over the saints in the year 3970 1/2 , and cease in 4636 ½ . Now what are the facts of history? Jerusalem became tributary to Rome in 3970 ½ and in 4636 ½ the Saracens, who were Mohammedans, took possession of the city, it having been rebuilt. The Roman supremacy was therefore 666 years, as prophesied in Rev. 13:18, and ended about 286 years after this copy of the scriptures in the Museum was written! The following is another point of importance. In Rev. 13 the Mohammedan power is called a beast, and ranks with Pagan Rome. One beast continues 42 months, which are 1260 years, and another 666 years. The two together make 1926, which added to the fore-mentioned 3970 ½ the beginning of the universal empire of Rome, we again have 5896 ½ (our 1898 ½ ) as the fulfillment of the triple prophecy! Let him scoff who dares.” This paragraph affords as much matter for reflection as one can find room for just now.
We have already seen that 1260 “years” cannot be affirmed without a proof, which is wholly wanting. Scripture speaks in Rev. 11:3; 12:6 of 1260 days; in Rev. 11:2; 13:5, of 42 months; and in Dan. 7:25; 12:7, Rev. 12:14, of 34 years (time, times, and half a time) which are substantially equivalent terms. Again, it is too much to say “the first 1260 years,” inasmuch as scripture only speaks of 1260 days, or its equivalent, just before the end of the age. It was pointed out last month that there is no proof of any “first” 1260 days in these scriptures, still less of so many years.
Unfeignedly and thankfully is it acknowledged that all the prophecies given by Daniel are “remarkable,” though this may seem a rather cold expression for such divine communications. But who can imagine to which of these Mr. D. refers, unless it be Dan. 7:25? Yet this date self-evidently brings us up to the end by the divine judgment which terminates the age; and therefore it cannot be “the first 1260 years.” The language seems utterly obscure if not unintelligible.
Next, the allusion to the Alexandrine MS. in the British Museum is not less dark. For I presume Mr. D. refers to the open N. T. vol. of this Codex which is publicly shown there under glass. But “all antiquarians” of weight in such a question now know that it is about a century or more younger than Mr. D. says, its real date being not earlier than 450 A.D. And it may be added that “this copy” is far from being the same as our English Bible. It has the Apocryphal books, and even of Clem. Rom. the first or genuine Epistle, with a fragment of a second suspected one, to say nothing of such an omission as the beginning of John 8. If Mr. D. only means that it gives Dan. 7 no less than the A.V., he is not entitled to say that “according to this copy,” more than any other copy in the world, “the fourth beast, pagan Rome, had to begin to dominate over the. saints in the year 3970 ½ and cease in 4636 ½.” Nor is it a question of history, but of “what saith the scriptures?” What does the Alex. MS. say more than any other? Where does any copy whatsoever, or in any tongue, teach the beginning and the ceasing at these dates? Indeed so curiously mistaken is Mr. D. that the Alexandrian copy of Dan. 7:25 differs in this particular respect both from our A.V. and from every other copy known to me. For it adds by evident error Kai Kapoii, which would add another year, that is, as he interprets it, 360 years.
The only semblance of evidence that Mr. D. seems to allege (for the language is singularly incoherent and illogical) is that “the Roman supremacy was therefore (?) 666 years, as prophesied in Rev. 13:18, and ended about 286 years after this copy in the Museum was written!” The connection of ideas here is bewildering. For every one can see that in the verse referred to, the only occasion in scripture when it occurs at all, it is no question of date, but of the mystical number of a man, which wisdom will understand when God pleases, but assuredly without relation to a chronological period.
Yet Mr. D. is not quite alone in this strange application of 666 to duration for so many years. Pope Innocent III. appears to have lit on the idea, but with the notable difference of applying it, not to the Roman power, but to the Mohammedan, the close of which period and evil was at hand; and on this ground of alleged historical fact, and of his construction of Rev. 13:18, he sought to arouse Christendom to a crusade against the Turks, from whom God was about to free the Holy Land. Of learned men Bengel is one who adopted the idea but applied it to the length of the beast's power, looking for the end in 1836. But why dwell on these unfounded guesses?
The chief importance of what follows is the proof that Mr. D. has not a ray of divine light on Rev. 13, the first beast of which he fancies to be pagan Rome, the second to be the Mohammedan power. Neither the one nor the other approaches the truth. Pagan Rome had not seven heads any more than ten horns. Pagan Rome was in full power when John saw a beast thus characterized rise up out of the sea, his deadly wound healed, so that all the earth wondered after him. Such is the last phase of the Roman Empire, as made plain in Rev. 17, when it is resuscitated for Satan's grand effort against the Lamb, the King of kings and Lord of lords, in the closing catastrophe of this age.
Quite as plain, if not more so, is the misconception of the other beast that comes up out of the earth. The Mohammedan power! Why, it is the ally and religious power in active collusion with the future revived empire; and so he is said to exercise all the authority of the first or Roman beast before him or in his presence. Mr. D. fancies it to be by the Saracen power displacing the Roman! Did the Mohammedan power cause the earth and its inhabitants to worship the first beast? Not even their prophet Mohammed pretended to do great signs or miracles, still less did his successors when Jerusalem was taken by the Saracens. Whereas the other beast of Rev. 13 is even to make fire come down out of heaven before men; and this to deceive the dwellers on earth by reason of the signs done before the first beast, and to promote an image worshipped in his honor. This too the Mohammedan power, Mr. D.!
Apply it to the future crisis; and all becomes simple. The Antichrist in Palestine is to work with the last ruler of the Roman empire revived: the one the civil head, the other the religious one, each helping the other in his own sphere, but both devoted to blasphemy, both antagonistic in the highest degree to the Lord and His Anointed. These accordingly are the two whose awful judgment is announced in Rev. 19:20, both cast alive without the need of future or formal judgment into the lake of fire. Far be it from one's heart to “scoff” at Mr. D.'s words; but it is permissible and a duty to deplore mistakes as to God's holy word, so palpable in themselves, and so perilous to those that lend a credulous ear.
Not a shade of unkindness mingles with the caution against so haphazard a way of understanding scriptural dates and of manipulating them historically. In this case, for example, as most of us read history, Jerusalem was captured by the Roman Pompey in B.C. 63; and it was not till about A.D. 638 that it capitulated to the Khalif Omar (as given in the Benedictine “Art de verifier les dates"), after some vicissitudes before and much more since. There is not the smallest connection between the 666 of scripture and that event. The western Roman Empire too had ceased to be pagan long before the rising Mohammedan power came into collision with Jerusalem; and the eastern empire, from which it was really taken, had always been nominally Christian, never pagan. What then can one think of such an interpretation, but that it is lame on both feet?