Thoughts on the Book of Daniel.
Verse 21. And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom; but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. Tiberius Cæsar next appeared after Augustus Cæsar on the Roman throne. He was raised to the consulate in his twenty-eighth year. It is recorded that as Augustus was about to nominate his successor, his wife Livia besought him to nominate Tiberius (her son by a former husband); but the emperor said, “Your son is too vile to wear the purple of Rome;” and the nomination was given to Agrippa, a very virtuous and much-respected Roman citizen. But the prophecy had foreseen that a vile person should succeed Augustus. Agrippa died; and Augustus was again under the necessity of choosing a successor. Livia renewed her intercessions for Tiberius; and Augustus, weakened by age and sickness, was more easily flattered, and finally consented to nominate as his colleague and successor, that “vile” young man. But the citizens never gave him the love, respect, and “honor of the kingdom,” due to an upright and faithful sovereign. How clear a fulfillment is this of the prediction that they should not give him the honor of the kingdom. But he was to come in peaceably and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. A paragraph from the Encyclopædia Americana, shows how this was fulfilled:— “During the remainder of the life of Augustus, he [Tiberius] behaved with great prudence and ability, concluding a war with the Germans in such a manner as to merit a triumph. After the defeat of Varus and his legions, he was sent to check the progress of the victorious Germans, and acted in that war with equal spirit and prudence. On the death of Augustus, he succeeded, without opposition, to the sovereignty of the empire; which, however, with his characteristic dissimulation, he affected to decline, until repeatedly solicited by the servile senate.” Dissimulation on his part, flattery on the part of the servile senate, and a possession of the kingdom without opposition—such were the circumstances attending his accession to the throne; and such were the circumstances for which the prophecy called. The person brought to view in the text is called “a vile person.” Was such the character sustained by Tiberius? Let another paragraph from the Encyclopædia answer:— “Tacitus records the events of this reign, including the suspicious death of Germanicus, the detestable administration of Sejanus, the poisoning of Drusus, with all the extraordinary mixture of tyranny with occasional wisdom and good sense, which distinguished the conduct of Tiberius, until his infamous and dissolute retirement, A. D. 26, to the isle of Capreæ, in the bay of Naples, never to return to Rome. On the death of Livia, A. D. 29, the only restraint upon his actions, and those of the detestable Sejanus, was removed, and the destruction of the widow and family of Germanicus followed. At length the infamous favorite extending his views to the empire itself, Tiberius, informed of his machinations, prepared to encounter him with his favorite weapon, dissimulation. Although fully resolved upon his destruction, he accumulated honors upon him, declared him his partner in the consulate, and, after long playing with his credulity, and that of the senate, who thought him in greater favor than ever, he artfully prepared for his arrest. Sejanus fell deservedly and unpitied; but many innocent persons shared in his destruction, in consequence of the suspicion and cruelty of Tiberius, which now exceeded all limits. The remainder of the reign of this tyrant is little more than a disgusting narrative of servility on the one hand, and of despotic ferocity on the other. That he himself endured as much misery as he inflicted, is evident from the following commencement of one of his letters to the senate: ‘What I shall write to you, conscript fathers, or what I shall not write, or why I should write at all, may the gods and goddesses plague me more than I feel daily that they are doing, if I can tell.’ ‘What mental torture,’ observes Tacitus, in reference to this passage, ‘which could extort such a confession!’” “Seneca remarks of Tiberius that he was never intoxicated but once in his life; for he continued in a state of perpetual intoxication from the time he gave himself to drinking, to the last moment of his life.” Tyranny, hypocrisy, infamous debauchery, and beastly intemperance;—if these traits and practices show a man to be vile, Tiberius exhibited that character in disgusting perfection. Verse 22. And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. Bishop Newton presents the following reading as agreeing better with the original: “And the arms of the overflower shall be overflown from before him, and shall be broken.” The expressions signify revolution and violence; and in fulfillment we should look for the arms of Tiberius, the overflower, to be overflown, or, in other words, for him to suffer a violent death. To show how this was accomplished, we again have recourse to the Encyclopædia Americana, art., Tiberius:— “Acting the hypocrite to the last, he disguised his increasing debility as much as he was able, even affecting to join in the sports and exercises of the soldiers of his guard. At length, leaving his favorite island, the scene of the most disgusting debaucheries, he stopped at a country house near the promontory of Misenum, where, on the sixteenth of March, 37, he sunk into a lethargy, in which he appeared dead; and Caligula was preparing with a numerous escort to take possession of the empire, when his sudden revival threw them into consternation. At this critical instant, Macro, the prætorian prefect, caused him to be suffocated with pillows. Thus expired the emperor Tiberius, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, and twenty-third of his reign, universally execrated.” “The prince of the covenant” unquestionably refers to Jesus Christ, the “Messiah the Prince,” who was to “confirm the covenant” one week with his people. Dan. 9:25–27. The prophet, having taken us down to the death of Tiberius, now mentions incidentally an event to transpire in his reign so important that it should not be passed over; namely, the cutting off of the prince of the covenant, or in other words the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. Did this event take place in the reign of Tiberius? It did. Luke informs us (3:1–3) that in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, John the Baptist commenced his ministry. The reign of Tiberius is to be reckoned, according to Prideaux, Dr Hales, Lardner, and others, from his elevation to the53throne to reign jointly with Augustus, his father-in-law, in August A. D. 12. His fifteenth year would therefore be from August A. D. 26, to August A. D. 27. Christ was six months younger than John, and is supposed to have commenced his ministry six months later, both, according to the law of the priesthood, entering upon their work when they were thirty years of age. If John commenced in the spring, in the latter portion of Tiberius’ 15th year, it would bring the commencement of Christ’s ministry in the autumn of A. D. 27; and here the best of authorities place the baptism of Christ, it being the exact point where the 483 years from B. C. 457, which were to extend to the Messiah the Prince, terminated; and Christ went forth proclaiming that the time was fulfilled. From this point we go forward three years and a half to find the date of the crucifixion; for Christ attended but four passovers, and was crucified at the last one. Three and a half years from the autumn of A. D. 27, bring us to the spring of A. D. 31. The death of Tiberius is placed but six years later, in A. D. 37. Verse 23. And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully; for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. The “him” with whom the league here spoken of is made, must be the same power which has been the subject of the prophecy from the 14th verse; and that this is the Roman power is shown beyond controversy in the fulfillment of the prophecy in three individuals as already noticed, who successively stood at the head of the Roman empire, Julius, Augustus, and Tiberius Cæsar. The first on returning to the fort of his own land in triumph, stumbled and fell and was not found. Verse 19. The second was a raiser of taxes; and he reigned in the glory of the kingdom, and died neither in anger nor in battle, but peacefully in his own bed. Verse 20. The third was a dissembler, and one of the vilest of characters. He entered upon the kingdom peaceably, but ended both his reign and his life in violence. And in his reign the prince of the covenant, Jesus of Nazareth, was put to death upon the cross. Verses 21, 22. Christ can never be broken or put to death again; hence in no other government, and at no other time, can we find a fulfillment of these events. Some attempt to apply these verses to Antiochus, and make one of the Jewish high priests the prince of the covenant though they are never called such. This is the same kind of reasoning which endeavors to make the reign of Antiochus a fulfillment of the little horn of Dan. 8; and it is offered for the same purpose, namely, to break the great chain of evidence by which it is shown that the Advent doctrine is the doctrine of the Bible, and that Christ is now at the door. But the chain cannot be broken nor the evidence overthrown. Having taken us down through the secular events of the empire, to the end of the seventy weeks, the prophet in verse 23, takes us back to the time when the Romans became directly connected with the people of God, by the Jewish league, B. C. 161; from which point we are then taken down in a direct line of events to the final triumph of the church, and the setting up of God’s everlasting kingdom. The Jews being grievously oppressed by the Syrian kings, sent an embassy to Rome, to solicit the aid of the Romans, and to join themselves in “a league of amity and confederacy with them.” 1 Mac. 8; Prideaux, ii. 166; Josephus’ Antiq. B. xii. chap. x. sec. 6. The Romans listened to the request of the Jews, and granted them a decree couched in these words:— “The decree of the senate concerning a league of assistance and friendship with the nation of the Jews. It shall not be lawful for any that are subject to the Romans, to make war with the nation of the Jews, nor to assist those that do so, either by sending them arms, or ships, or money; and if any attack be made upon the Jews, the Romans shall assist them as far as they are able; and again, if any attack be made upon the Romans, the Jews shall assist them. And if the Jews have a mind to add to, or to take from, this league of assistance, that shall be done with the common consent of the Romans. And whatever addition shall then be made, it shall be of force.” “This decree,” says Josephus, “was written by Eupolemus, the son of John, and by Jason, the son of Eleazer, when Judas was high priest of the nation, and Simon, his brother, was general of the army. And this was the first league that the Romans made with the Jews, and was managed after this manner.” At this time, the Romans were a small people, and began to work deceitfully, or with cunning, as the word signifies. And from this point they rose by a steady and rapid ascent to the height of power which they afterward attained.