III. Pre-Nicene Exposition Of Outline Prophecies
Bishop Eusebius, justly famed as a church historian, is not usually known for contributions on prophetic interpretation. He did, however, before the revolutionary change in the attitude of the Roman Empire toward Christianity, write with remarkable clarity on the second advent, the great outline prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7, and on the 70 prophetic weeks of Daniel 9 as 490 literal years from Persia to Christ. This is revealed in his Demonstratio Evangelica (English version, The Proof of the Gospel), originally comprising twenty “books,” or chapters. Of these, only the first ten and a fragment of the fifteenth are extant, but these are invaluable. This apologetic, designed as an answer to Jewish and Greek inquirers, is thought to have been written between A.D. 314 and 318. earlier than his History, which is generally dated about the time of the famous Nicene Council.PFF1 362.1
1. TWO ADVENTS OF CHRIST CLEARLY DEPICTED
We find that after discussing certain Old Testament prophecies relating to the first advent—the circumstances, place, and time—Eusebius sharply contrasts the two advents, and exposes the confusion of the Jews, showing clearly how Christ could not in one advent only, come in humility, riding upon a colt, and at the same time in glory in the clouds of heaven. The same contention is repeated in another place, when he again argues against Christ’s coming at one and the same time in humility and in power and glory. He asserts that the prophecies regarding Christ must be divided into two groups, pertaining to the two contrasting advents.PFF1 362.2
“Since it is impossible to regard Him as at one and the same time glorious and without glory, honoured and kingly, and then without form or beauty, but dishonoured more than the sons of men; and again, as the Saviour and Redeemer of Israel, while plotted against by them, and led as a sheep to the slaughter, delivered to death by their sins. The prophecies about the Christ should be divided, as our investigation of the facts shews, into two classes: the first which are the more human and gloomy will be agreed to have been fulfilled at His first Coming, the second the more glorious and divine even now await His second Coming for their fulfilment.” PFF1 363.1
2. CLEAR OUTLINE OF DANIEL’S FOUR EMPIRES
In the field of outline prophecies culminating in the second advent, remarkable indeed is the remaining fragment of Book 15 of the Demonstratio, paralleling and interpreting the outline prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7. A clearer enunciation of the rugged outline of the familiar four world powers—Assyria, Persia, Macedonia, and Rome—and the parallelism of the two prophecies, could scarcely be found.PFF1 363.2
“I believe this [king’s dream of Daniel 2] in no way differs from the vision of the prophet [in Daniel 7]; for the prophet saw a great sea, just as the King saw a vast image: the prophet again saw four beasts, which he interpreted to mean four kingdoms, just as the King from the gold, silver, brass, and iron, figuratively described four kingdoms: and, once more, as the prophet saw a division of the ten horns of the last beast, and three horns destroyed by one, so the King saw part of the extremities of the image to be iron and part clay. And, moreover, as the prophet, after the vision of the four kings, saw the Son of Man receive universal rule, power and empire, so the King seemed to see a stone destroy the whole of the image, and become a great mountain that filled the sea. And explanation is easy... For after the first, or the Assyrian Empire, signified by the gold, was to come the Persian, shewn forth by the silver; and thirdly, the Macedonian, portrayed by the brass; and after that, the fourth, that of the Romans, would follow, more powerful than its predecessors, and therefore likened to iron. For it is said of it, ‘And the fourth kingdom shall be stronger than iron: just as iron crushes and subdues everything, so did Rome crush and subdue. And after these four, the Kingdom of God was presented as a stone that destroyed the whole image. And the prophet agrees with this in not seeing the final triumph of the Kingdom of the God of the Universe before he has described the course of the four world-powers under the similitude of the four beasts. I consider, therefore, the visions both of the King and the prophets, that there should be four empires only, and no more, to be proved by the subjection of the Jewish nation to them from the time when the prophet wrote.” PFF1 363.3
Eusebius recognized that the kingdom of God not only would succeed Rome but would be introduced by divine interposition at the second coming of Christ. Such was his opinion before the Constantinian conversion, and the consequent imperial support of the Christian church changed his mind, as will be noted in the following chapter.PFF1 364.1
3. SEVENTY WEEKS SIGNIFY 490 YEARS FROM PERSIA
Another clear perception and enunciation pertained to the 70 prophetic weeks of Daniel 9, definitely interpreted to be 490 literal years.PFF1 364.2
“It is quite clear that seven times seventy weeks reckoned in years amounts to 490. That was therefore the period determined for Daniel’s people.” PFF1 364.3
This prophetic period he likewise mentioned in his later church history.PFF1 364.4
“For the Scripture, in the book of Daniel, having expressly mentioned a certain number of weeks until the coming of Christ, of which we have treated in other books, most clearly prophesies, that after the completion of those weeks the unction among the Jews should totally perish. And this, it has been clearly shown, was fulfilled at the time of the birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” PFF1 364.5
In his Proof of the Gospel, Eusebius discusses and applies the various expressions in the prophecy, suggesting more than one way in which the chronological period could be calculated. “To seal up the vision” is curiously interpreted as bringing genuine visions to an end among the Jews, “to anoint the most Holy” (referring to Christ) as ending the anointing of the Jewish high priests, thus marking “the cessation of the prophets and priests.” PFF1 364.6
4. INTRODUCES GAPS BETWEEN COMPONENT PERIODS
Citing and discussing adversely Julius Africanus’ Chronography, as dating the seventy weeks from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes “according to Jewish reckoning,” Eusebius then gives two interpretations of his own. He separates the component weeks of years-the seven, the sixty-two, and the one-and begins the first group of years (the first year of the 55th Olympiad) with Cyrus. From Cyrus to the Roman Empire, when Pompey laid Jerusalem under tax to Rome, would be 483 years. He places the “seven weeks of years” from Cyrus to the completion of the temple-forty-six years to the sixth year of Darius, plus three more for completing the outside buildings—and the remaining sixty-two weeks from the reign of Darius to the death of the high priest Alexander, basing his calculations on the Olympiads. In another reckoning he runs the 483 years from the second year of Darius Hystaspes to the reign of Caesar Augustus and Herod, in whose time Christ was born (from the 66th to the 186th Olympiad), leaving a gap, before the closing “one week.” PFF1 365.1
Eusebius gives an unusual interpretation to the expression “Christ the governor” (A.V., “Messiah the prince”). Taking the Greek word Christos in its ordinary usage, he makes it “the anointed governor.” Thus he ends the sixty-two weeks with the end of the anointed priest—rulers of the Jews, and so applies the cutting off of the “unction,” or the “anointed,” after that period. PFF1 365.2
5. PLACES CRUCIFIXION IN MIDST OF SEVENTIETH WEEK
Making a break between the sixty-two weeks and the final, or seventieth, “week of years,” he places the crucifixion in the midst of the seventieth week, but thinks Christ was probably with the disciples an equal period after His resurrection.PFF1 365.3
“So when all the intermediate matter between the seven and the sixty-two weeks is finished, there is added, ‘And he will confirm a Covenant with many one week,’ and in half the week the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and on the Holy Place shall come the abomination of desolation, and until the fullness of time fullness shall be given to the desolation. Let us consider how this was fulfilled.PFF1 366.1
“Now the whole period of our Saviour’s Teaching and working of Miracles is said to have been three-and-a-half years, which is half a week. John the Evangelist, in his Gospel, makes this clear to the attentive. One week of years therefore would be represented by the whole period of His association with the Apostles, both the time before His Passion, and the time after His Resurrection. For it is written that before His Passion He shewed Himself for the space of three-and-a-half years to His disciples and also to those who were not His disciples: while by teaching and miracles He revealed the powers of His Godhead to all equally whether Greeks or Jews. But after His Resurrection He was most likely with His disciples a period equal to the years, being seen of them forty days, and eating with them, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, as the Acts of the Apostles tells us. So that this would be the prophet’s week of years, during which He ‘confirmed a covenant with many,’ confirming that is to say the new Covenant of the Gospel Preaching.” PFF1 366.2
Eusebius connects the “abomination of desolation” with the continued but now useless sacrifices of the Jews. Further comment on the “abomination” also appears in his later history. PFF1 366.3
Here we shall leave Eusebius for the present. We have found him holding views of the prophecies which are in line, on the whole, with the earlier interpretations. But these are found in his works written, as generally accepted, before the Council of Nicaea. The impact of the Constantinian revolution upon the thinking of the church is illustrated to some degree by the change in the attitude of Eusebius. The favor of the emperor, and close personal association with him, made Eusebius Constantine’s extravagant admirer; and in his eulogizing biography of the emperor he has left us the record of his new outlook on some of the prophecies. Eusebius, like the church at large, was blinded by the unaccustomed glitter of imperial favor and patronage, the more so because it came so unexpectedly almost on the heels of the most severe persecution. The statements of the Council of Nicaea belong in this chapter because of their conservative character, but the next chapter will take up the change in the time of Constantine, and complete the study of Eusebius’ interpretation.PFF1 366.4