|
CLICK
HERE FOR PDF FILE OF ENTIRE BOOK
"The
far more serious ground of alarm is that, if the horizon of
Daniel's Messianic kingdom was merely Maccabaic or temporal,
it suggests a similar construction for kindred passages in
the Gospels, and raises the question how far the horizon of
these latter was eternal- Considering the vast number of
features in the Gospels and the Apocalypse, which seem to
identify Christ's second coming with the fall of Jerusalem,
and to shut up the completion of the promises within the
range of a renovation of society, or the establishment of
better sentiments and reformed institutions in the world,
have we any longer a Gospel to preach, not merely of "the
coming age," but of life eternal ? Does the whole story
resolve itself into the Idea bursting its mould, and
developing a new one; the thought of God fulfilling itself
in many ways ? I can neither think such questions trivial,
nor follow those who resolve them in a merely temporal
sense." (Rowland Williams, p. lix)
"To the first of these
theories it has been objected that
the second advent of Christ was not so much the destruction
of Jerusalem, as an event connected with that
destruction ; and that the sublime description of his
coming with all the holy angels with him in power and
great glory scarcely finds an adequate fulfilment in the
scenes, terrible as they were, which accompanied the
overthrow of the Jewish state and polity.
It must be
conceded that the objection is not without weight; and
that after making due allowance for Oriental phraseology
and rhetorical figure, something more was intended by
the coming itself and the unearthly scenes with which it
is said to be accompanied, than the destruction of Jerusalem
and the subsequent establishment of Christianity. However momentous the ruin of their city might have
been to the Jews, it could not have materially affected
the Gentile converts to whom the warnings relating to the
advent were principally addressed ; and it is evident that
S. Barnabas, in the epistle ascribed to him, and such of the
apostolical fathers as wrote after the event, did not see in
the destruction of Jerusalem the coming of Christ in his
kingdom."
An argument for the accomplishment of the eschatological prophecies recorded
in the gospels at the period of the destruction of
Jerusalem, may be seen in the
author's " Apocalypse fulfilled in the Consummation of the
Mosaic Economy and
the Coming of the Son of Man." On the supposition that our
Lord's predictions,
as delivered to us, can be adequately explained of the
phenomena with which that
event was accompanied, a harmony may be maintained between
them and the facts
themselves. On the contrary hypothesis, that the historical
events of that time do
not answer to the scope and magnificence of the terms
employed, the expectations of
our Lord and his disciples must be considered to have been
tinged by the Messianic ideas of their contemporaries."
The foundation of all the mistakes of these learned men (Wetstein,
Grotius,
Hammond, Le Clerc, and Whitby) is their interpreting the
coming of Christ of the
destruction of Jerusalem : whereas the context, as it hath
been shown, plainly
evinces, and they themselves at other times acknowledge,
that it is to be understood
of his coming to judge the world."—NEWTON, on the
Prophecies.
"No reasonable ground appears to us for
doubt, in the face of such testimonies, that there was an
original Daniel, whose remarkable life and superlative
wisdom laid the foundation of the present narrative. But an
acceptance of the reality of Daniel's personal existence
does not involve any conclusion as to the authorship and age
of the book in which, for the most part, his history is
recorded. Evidence of a powerful, and as we think,
unanswerable kind, points to a later period than that of the
Babylonian Captivity as the time of authorship, and brings
down the date of the book in its present state to an age
subsequent to the events therein described. This, while it
does not invalidate the general history, is likely to have
some influence upon the way in which its particulars may be
interpreted. It transforms the book from a declaration by
anticipation of things yet future into an historical
relation of past occurrences.1 It excludes the predictive
element altogether. It assigns limits for its interpretation
beyond which criticism dares not pass, and demands that its
meaning shall be sought in the past, and not in the future.
As a preliminary, then, of the utmost importance towards a
correct interpretation, it will be necessary to state the
arguments on which we build the theory of a late authorship
for the book of Daniel. If these shall be found trustworthy
we may reject schemes of interpretation which have
repeatedly been found fallacious, for those pointed out by
criticism and the necessities of the case. And in so doing
we shall be guilty neither of rashness nor of a want of due
regard to the Sacred Record. " To suppose that we can serve
God's cause by shutting our eyes to the light; much more to
suppose that we can serve it by asserting that we see what
we do not see, because we wish to see it, is simply
intellectual atheism." (pp. 3,4)
"A satisfactory proof,
that a Judaic kingdom, as of the Asmonean princes, however
magnified in presentiment, was more intended by the writer
than such a spiritual and eternal kingdom as God set up by
Christ in the hearts of faithful men, may be found in chap.
ii. 44, " the kingdom shall not be left to another people."
This is the stumbling-block of national Messianism, which
Christ destroyed by inverting it, and by disappointing the
expectation of which He in part, if not principally, shocked
the feelings of his nation (Luke iv. 28 ; Luke iii. 8; Acts
xxii. 22)."
"We are not ashamed to confess
our inability to reconcile the proximity under which these
phenomena are announced with the actual course of events. We
seem to be painfully conscious of the existence of a serious
discrepancy between the latter-day anticipations of the New
Testament and what might be considered their due and
legitimate fulfillment: a conviction arising not from a
superficial or deceitful handling of the sacred text, but
from a reverent and careful examination, extended over many
years, of this particular question ; and we think it the
part of exegetical consistency to endeavour to grapple with
it, before we stereotype with too great confidence
traditional opinions which appear unable to stand the test
of searching and out-spoken criticism. " (p. 288)
"The
non-fulfillment, however, of these Messianic expectations
within the time appointed for their accomplishment need not
detract from the perfection of that inimitable teaching
whose "remedial, and reconciling, and sanctifying, and
self-sacrificing, and sorrow-assuaging, and heaven-aspiring
words were addressed to the universal human heart;" neither
should it be suffered to weaken the obligation, or impair
the authority, of a single moral precept which commends
itself by its intrinsic worth as the perfect law of love and
liberty to mankind." (p. 295)
WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID
C.H. Spurgeon
"This work is of the Essays and Reviews school. The
author cannot see the Messiah in Daniel. It is worse than
useless." (Commenting on Commentaries, Daniel)
The Theological Review (1866)
"Mr. Desprez's learned and judicious work on Daniel is
preceded by a long and most interesting introduction by Dr.
Rowland Williams, which, partly anticipating the arguments
of the book itself, partly expatiating over a wide range of
kindred subjects, is everywhere distinguished both by
lucidity of thought and vigour of style. We have lately
devoted so large a portion of our space to the controversies
which gather round the book of Daniel, as to make it
inexpedient to follow Mr. Desprez through the details of his
clear and convincing argument.
His conclusions, which substantially agree with those
arrived at in the articles referred to, may be briefly
stated in his own words (p. 29):
"To recapitulate—1. The diversity of languages in which the
book is written ; 2. The place it occupies in the Hebrew
Canon ; 3. The use of Greek words ; 4. The style of the book
differing from the writings of the captivity; 5. The
historical character of the book extending to, but not
beyond, the age of Antiochus Epiphanes; 6. The seemingly
marvellous narrations and historical inaccuracies which have
aroused suspicion from the earliest times;—are so many
distinct and strong reasons for affixing a date later than
that usually assigned to the book of Daniel . .... It may
not perhaps be unreasonable to infer that it is partly a
compilation and re-arrangement of more ancient annals, and
partly the original composition of some learned and pious
Jew, who lived at a period subsequent to the scenes it
describes—probably whilst his countrymen were still engaged
in their patriotic struggle against Demetrius, and following
up the advantages they had won from Antiochus Epiphanes. At
this juncture, when the issue of the contest hung doubtful
in the balance, the writer of this remarkable book throws
the weight of prophetic influence into the scale, and by
recounting the heroic endurance of the sainted martyrs of
their race, oracularly animates the holy people to
perseverance in the strife. With this view he avails himself
of the prestige of a character celebrated in Jewish story,
and enunciates his historico-prophetic visions under the
name and authority of Daniel."
Mr. Desprez's book, both in the moderation of its tone and
the scientific character of its procedure, contrasts most
favourably with Dr. Pusey's unhappy work on the same
subject, which nevertheless is being rapidly bought by
students of orthodox theology—an evil omen for the prospects
of sound Biblical criticism in England ! We observe with
pleasure that Mr. Desprez is about to publish a similar work
on " John, or the Apocalypse of the New Testament," and
shall await its issue with interest." (The
Theological Review, Vol. III, Numbers 12-15, p. 309-310)
|
