DIFFICULTIES RESPECTING THE TOE-DIVISIONS OF THE IRON KINGDOM.
Charlottesville, May 30, 1851.
Brother Thomas:
My Dear Sir—I have some difficulty in reconciling your interpretation of Daniel 2: 31 to the end (Elpis Israel pp. 292-293,) with the facts stated in the narrative itself, which I beg leave to submit for your consideration. You say—“The description of the dream says that the feet were smitten and “then was the iron, the clay, &c., broken to pieces together thereby intimating that the breaking of the power of the ten kingdoms would precede that of the conjoint destruction of all the other parts. That when they are conquered, the dominion of the conqueror will be overturned by the revelation of power from above.” This conqueror, you take to be Russia, who must subdue the ten kingdoms or toes, before the Stone shall strike the Image. But, here is the difficulty—chapter 2: 34, says expressly, it is the Stone, not the Autocrat who smites the ten toes of the Image—
“Thou sawest till that a Stone was cut out without hands, which smote the Image upon his feet that were of iron and clay and brake them to pieces—then was the iron, clay, brass, silver and gold broken to pieces together.”
If then the Stone is to smite and break in pieces the Toe-kingdoms, there is no room for the Autocrat in the premises.
Again—Does the phrase “then was the iron, clay, &c.,” necessarily require as a distinct event, the previous destruction of the ten kingdoms? Does not the adverb of time, “then” demand the instantaneous sequence of the events which follow? In other words, may not the then import simply, “at that very time?” Such an interpretation dispenses with the interposition of Russia, or any extraneous power, before the consummation—and is not this construction further strengthened by the saying—“in the days of these kings”—(in the plural)—shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom.” Quaere, how can it be in the days of these kings—of the Toe-kingdoms—when they no longer exist—when they are all merged in the Russian autocracy?
In conclusion, may it not be asked, what is the necessity for the reconstruction of Nebuchadnezzar’s Image? Does the harmony and completeness of the figure require it? It seems to me this conclusion is based chiefly, if not alone, upon the words—“then was the iron, the clay, &c., broken to pieces together”—from which it is argued they must all exist contemporaneously. But will they not all be broken to pieces together when “all the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ.” Besides, how can they be said to exist together, when they have all been destroyed and merged in the Russian power? Again, the colossal Image, entire, it seems, never did represent one dominion—it was a succession of empires. Why then make it imperative that the antitypal dominions should appear under a single or autocratic rule?
There is a practical question of deep interest to us, in this investigation. It is the question of time. If Russia is to play so conspicuous a part in the world’s history anterior to the glorious coming of our Lord, of course much time must elapse before the end come. If, however, this is a mistake, it may be and would seem, from other premises, already to be—“even at the doors.”
I suggest these thoughts for your consideration, anxious to know the whole truth, and desirous so to construe the scriptures as to harmonise all fair objections. I know the uncertainty of trusting to partial, one-sided views of any subject and presume not therefore to say that you are not entirely correct in the interpretation you have given in Elpis Israel.
You may make your reply to me privately, or through the Herald, as you may think best.
Faithfully and fraternally yours in the Hope of the Promise made to Abraham through the Christ, his Seed, in whom all nations are to be blessed,
Charlottesville, Virginia, December 20, 1851.
Dear Bro. Thomas:
I wish you would publish the article, in the shape of a letter, I wrote to you some twelve months ago, as to the question of time, and proposing some difficulties in the way of your interpretation of Daniel’s Image—particularly as to the necessity of a reconstruction of the Image by the Autocrat. I have been led to think more and more—especially from recent movements—by Kossuth, Mazzini, and others—as well as from what the Bible declares—that this reconstruction is unnecessary to the development of the kingdom, for it is not the Autocrat that is to strike the Toe-kingdoms, but the Stone, in the dream. But I have no time to write more. Adieu. Let me hear from you.
Faithfully and affectionately,
