Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "undefined".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    PROF. STUART’S NOTE, FROM 2D EDITION OF “HINTS,” PAGE 87

    “A writer in one of the periodicals of the day, who is wont to speak with unusual confidence in regard to the meaning of many prophecies, quotes Daniel 7:21, 22, as sufficient of itself to refute all that is said here, in respect to applying the verses specified above to Antiochus Epiphanes. The sum of these verses, is, that ‘the little horn’ (beyond all doubt, Antiochus) ‘made war upon the saints and prevailed against them,’ and, ‘the Ancient of days came, and rendered judgment to the saints,’ (vindicated the cause of the pious,) ‘and restored to them the kingdom’ which had been taken away by Antiochus. In other words: God appears as the vindicator of the pious and persecuted Jews, and restores to them the rightful dominion of their country. This idea is thrice repeated in chapter 7.; first, in the account of the vision as comprised in verses 2-12, where vs. 9-11 are appropriated to designate the condemnation and punishment of the little horn, ‘whose mouth speaketh great things;’ secondly, in vs.21,22, as already quoted; and thirdly, in vs.24-26, which are part of the explanations given by the angel. Now the writer in question, as many others have done, appears to have mistaken the judgment mentioned in vs. 10, 22, and the dominion given to the saints (v. 22,) for the last judgment and millennial dominion of the church. How palpably erroneous this is, may be seen by consulting Daniel 7:13, 14, where the later coming of the Son of man, and the dominion which is given him, are plainly represented as subsequent to the judgment and punishment of Antiochus, as described in the preceding context. This decisive circumstance, the writer in the periodical to whom I have adverted, in his hast and in his zeal for favorite opinions, seems to have wholly overlooked. One who feels as much confidence as he appears to possess, ought at least to look more carefully on what sort of ground he is treading.MRSH 64.1

    “Whatever there is of obscurity or uncertainty in respect to the fourth beast with his ten horns, as represented in chap 7., it is made quite plain and palpable by chap 8. In Daniel 8:8, seq., the dominion of Alexander the Great, its division among his four chieftains, and the rise of the little horn from one of these, are so plain as to be altogether undeniable. Then the characteristics of this ‘little horn,’ as given in chapter 8:9-12, are plainly the same for substance as those given in chap 7:8, 11, 20, 21, 24, 25. All is rendered still more certain by the repetition of the same characteristics in 8:22-25, which, in connection with 10:21, shows very plainly, that the ‘little horn,’ and ‘king of fierce countenance,’ is of Grecian descent, and rules over one of the four kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander was divided.MRSH 65.1

    “All the real difficulty of the case arises from the fact, that the Messianic dominion, described in 7:13, 14, and again in chap 7:27, is mentioned as if it were an immediate sequent of the destruction of the little horn or Antiochus. So far as the manner of the description is concerned, one might judge this to be the case; for no interval of time is designated, and none is necessarily implied by the use of appropriate particles. But in cases very numerous, both in the Old Testament and in the New, the manner of announcing the Messianic kingdom is the same. No interval between it and earlier events is specifically designated. Yet nothing can be more erroneous than the conclusion that no interval of time, in such cases, is to be supposed. It is impossible not to allow such an interval. So here, no one could err more than to suppose that the Messianic kingdom is to follow immediately after the destruction of the kingdom of Antiochus. The simple truth is, that the writer passes from one kingdom, restored to the ancient Jewish saints, to the description of another and greater one, still future. He makes no account of the interval of time, since he is not at all concerned, for his present purpose, with chronology.MRSH 65.2

    “He who does not understand this common usage of the Hebrew prophets, must have made but little progress, as it respects the study and the knowledge of them. He who does understand it, can find no serious difficulties in the case before us.”MRSH 66.1

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents