The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 4

the midet of the ten, and dieposseesed three of these. Then the Anoient of Days sat for judgment, and one like a son of man appeared, and a new Divine kingdom waa established. Not only is the vision narrated, but the interpretation ia given also. The next vieion is dated the third year of the reign of Delshazzar. D&niel ls In fact or in vision in SuM, the capital of Cyrus, whose conquests were perhaps not yet causing anxiety in Babylon. He sees a ram having two horns, standing beforo the gate of the city, and pushing in all directions, and prevailing over all the beasts that were round about it. From the region of the sunset came against it a goat, having one noticeable horn. It seemed to skim along the ground rather than to tread upon it. Before the onslaught of the goat the ram is powerless. After a little, Daniel sees the single horn in the forehead of the he-goat broken, and in its place four horns spring up. From the side of one of these four horns sprouts out a little horn, whioh mounts up to the stars of heaven. This vision is inteipreted of the fell of the empire of Persia before the Greek power which Cyrus may even then have been comiug in contact with in his struggle with Crcesus. In the ninth chapter Daniel has been fasting and praying, as the seventieth year since he was carried away a hostage had come, and yet Israel was not saved. In answer to bis prayer, Gabriel comes to him, and reveals to him the future of his people. Jeremiah had spoken of seventy years, but he is shown that seventy weeks of years are determined upon his people. A history of mingled disaster nnd glory, sun and shadow, is shown, but clearly revealed is the anointed Prince who is yet to be cut olf. Strangely, the end of this vision of comfort is desolation. The last three chapters contain the account mainly of one vision; but H appears to ua that it hss so suffered, alike from excisions and from interpolations, that the real vision is hlll'dly to be recognized. In the tenth chapter we are told of the coming of Gabriel again to Daniel, and_ the curtain is faintly lifted, that we may discern a conflict among the powers in heavenly places-the angels of the different nations. It is probable that the vision, in its original condition, had much more of this, but there ha11 been interpolated by some later hand an account of the confilcts between Syria and Egypt. At the end of the eleventh chapter theni is a passage which seems to be a version of the history of Antiochus, earlier and more succinct than that in the preceding verses. The last chapter concludes the vision, and, though not of the nature of an epilogue, yet forms a fitting close to the whole book. "Go thy way till the end: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." 2. The literary form of the Book of Daniel. The Book of Daniel represented a new departure in the sacred literature of the Hebrews. It is the earliest example, and the only one in the Old Testament canon, of apocalypse. It had a long line of imitators in the inter-Biblical period, and the series was continued, and in a manner termi- nattd, in the Christian Apocalypse of St. John. It is closely related at once to history and to prophecy. Apocalypse may be regarded as in a sense the philosophy of history. Students of Plato know that when a philo- sophic thought was shaping itself in the brain of the great sage, the first form the thought assumed was a myth. Apocalypse is the philosophy of history in the mythic stage. The history it takes to do with is not that of one nation-although one nation, tbe people of God, is central-but that of the whole world. It is no limited terminus ad quern to which its purpose tends, but to the end of all things. And this is regarded as an orderly termination to a succession of events fixed beforehand. But while it is philosophy, it is philosophy in picture-in symbols of the imagination, not in proposi- tions of the understanding. The symbols used show it is Eastern philosophy that is  THE BOOK 01<' DANlEL. V -------------------------· - - - - - - 80 BdumbrBted-B philosophy which drew its syrn bola from the grotesque combin 6 tions, humon and bestial, which so liberally adorned the walls of the Aeeyrian and Babylonian polnces. Like prophecy, BpocBlypee ha.d to do with the future. The notion Bt present pre- dominant, thot whatever the prophet did, he did not prophesy, ie one that certainly was not held among the Jews, among whom prophecy was an actually present phenomenon. Thus in Deut. xviii. 22 it is mBde the evidence that "a prophet bath spoken presumptuously," and not "the thing which the Lord bath spoken," wh"-n "the thing follow not nor come to pass." The Deuteronomist evidently believed that the principal function of the prophet was to foretell. Micaiah the son of Imlah applied the sBme test to the words of Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah (2 Kings u:ii. 28). When Hananiah broke the yoke on Jeremiah's shoulders, and prophesied the overthrow of Babylon, the falsity of his prophecy was shown by its non-fulfilment; and Jeremiah appeals to that test, "The prophet that prophesieth of peace, when the word of that prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him." Of course, modem critics think they know better, but as they have not had under their observation the phenomenon of prophecy, reticence would more become them. It is part of a tendency to get rid of the supernatural altogether. Some men, whose real soundness we should be the last to impugn, failing, as we think, to grasp its reBl import, have yielded to it, and we think are doing great damage. It ls difficult to see how they can avoid accusing our Lord and his apostles of being impostors, since they ground the claims of Christ so largely on the evidence of prophecy. We do not mean that the supporters of these views intend to maintain any such position, but this is its logical content. Certainly there was a time when the prophet was supposed to have to do only with the future, when every moral exhort.a- tion, every denunciation of wrong, was supposed to have a Messianic reference. From this the present critical view may be regarded as to a certain extent the reaction. We must, however, beware lest the reaction be allowed to go too far. Like prophecy, apocalypse, we have said, had to do with the future. Yet there were marked distinctions between prophecy and apocalypse. The attitudes of the prophet and the apocalyptist to the future were different. The prophet regarded the future, whether of weal or woe, as the consequence of the moral condition of the time when he spoke. Because men had worshipped idols and abandoned the service of Jehovah, because they bad wronged and oppressed their poorer brethren, therefore were the judgments of the Lord ready to be poured out on the land. It was because they repented-if they did so-that these judgments were arrested, and blessing came from the presence of the Lord instead of curse. The apocalyptist regarded the future simply as future, as the result of the general purpose of God totally apart from the actions of men. Certainly there would be evil in the time to come, and evil would be punished; but the apocalyptist spoke no words of exhortation or warning. The eye of the apocalyptist is a colourless medium, in which that which was coming on the earth was seen with all clearness. The eye of the prophet was now dimmed with tears, and now glowing with the refracted colours of a bliss which he rejoiced in, even while he saw it only afar off. Closely connected with this is the fact that the prophet's message was largely iyric, while that of the apocnlyptist was delivered in prose. In the case alike of the prophet and apocalyptist, vision was the means used to convey to him the truth to be declared. The prophet, however, never describes the vision he sees in distinct words; he gives a lyric accompaniment to it, and from this the reader may gather what the rrophet sees. On the other hand, the apocalyptist is unmoved by what he sets. Certain of the vl INTRODUCTION TO