Daniel 8:26-27 (text provided in Newton’s commentary with his interpolations in brackets)
[After which] the judgment is to sit, and they shall take away his dominion, [not at once, but by degrees,] to consume, and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall, [by degrees], be given unto the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Newton’s handling of Daniel 8:26-27 clearly suggests a holy war, which will be discussed at length in our next installment. But as elucidated in The Cambrian Pesher, “The Feast of the Seven Trumpets” in the Book of Revelation, the Feast is the “marriage supper of the Lamb” which comes at the conclusion of a “holy war” conducted by the heavenly host. In the Apocalyptic visions, the plagues are comparable to those used by God in the destruction of Egypt. “The saints” are like the escaping Israelite slaves which in Revelation 19 are represented by the “fowl of the air” and the vultures called upon to “feast” on the bodies and booty of the slain. “The saints” inherit an age or epoch of scavenging on the remains of Babylon’s wealth and technology. Just as the Israelites “plundered” Egypt on the eve of their departure.
Like most people, Isaac Newton was skeptical of date-setting:
The folly of Interpreters has been, to foretel [sic] times and things by this Prophecy, as if God designed to make them Prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought Prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the Prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men’s curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own Providence, not the Interpreters, be then manifested thereby to the world. . . the time has not yet come for understanding them perfectly, because the main revolution predicted in them is not yet come to pass.
Newton’s Observations, op cit p. 78-79 emphasis added
Whiston publicly embarrassed himself with the expectation of the millennium in 1714 which, although based upon his interpretation of political events, was reinforced by his interpretation of the predicted total eclipse of 1715. This unfortunate experience is probably what solicited Newton’s implied rebuke cited above. Although it must be remembered, that it would be another 20 years before Newton’s “Observations” would be posthumously published. But it is worth noting that Newton distanced himself from Whiston ever after.
People who are gun-shy about “date-setting,” and might snicker at the notion of a 2046AD, drop-dead date, are hypocritical (“hypo” – “critical”). People set dates all the time. Mechanics will tell you when your car will be fixed, meteorologists will tell you when a hurricane is expected to make landfall, politicians will tell you when to expect their laws or policies to take effect. Sit down and think about the industry you are in and consider how it is that you can have a business plan without “projections.”
The same can be said about Bible prophecy. If we are not to take the task of date-setting seriously, why did God bother to record these calculations in the first place? Why should Daniel be consulted to determine what is meant by “time, times, and a half time” if some kind of time frame is not meant to be conveyed which would guide human action?
Obviously, the idea of “special” revelation from a heavenly guide presupposes that such beings provide information which is more advanced and otherwise inaccessible to humans. An “angel” who is sent with a message from God ought to be seriously assessed. The information might be useful as a warning or a reassurance.
Error in prediction, of course, is a possible grounds for the label of “the false prophet.” But there is a difference between the attempt to interpret prophecy and to make prophecy outright.
Whiston was quick to offer a critical review of Newton’s Observations in the very year it was published. He probably was stung by Newton’s unflattering allusions. The review was fair but sometimes abrasive.
Both Newton and Whiston were great scholars. Men of great intellect are sometimes mistaken as egotistical. Conflicts between them are greatly exaggerated by onlookers.
Great thinkers don’t usually care what others think about them, whether they are hated or admired. Rather, they are so personally committed to their research and conclusions that they defend them as if their thoughts are their own children. Newton and Whiston neither disagreed on science nor theology. Their disagreements consisted in a minutiae which today is hard to grasp, but at the time, dictated what they thought of each other.
One example might be their work on reconstructing a chronology of the ancient world. Newton felt that errors in a prophetic timeline occur because interpreters “ground their interpretations on erroneous Chronology” (p.43).
Whiston agreed. But both disagreed on certain points of the ancient records. As the translator of Josephus, the Clementine literature, and even of the New Testament, Whiston probably had the edge over Newton.
In comparison to Whiston’s voluminous works, Newton’s Observations seems tiny. Whiston’s review itself is almost as long as the entire book. Newton’s “aim low, shoot high” approach did not match Whiston’s analysis, but probably got close enough. The challenge, then, is to understand what Newton might have meant by “the main revolution,” as cited above, which when it occurs provides clarity to understanding the rest of Daniel’s prophecy.
It may be found in the fact that we have three time periods which produce results which then call for human action appropriate to the event: 1,260 days, 1,290 days, and 1,335 days. When the 1,260 days are fulfilled, it will become evident to the wise, then, to understand what is about to occur at the end of the 1,290 days. When the 1,290 days are fulfilled, then we will see clearly what will happen at the 1,335 days.
We have identified the 1,260 days having been fulfilled in 2016 AD, because we believe the Anglo-American Empire is beginning to experience the loss of internal cohesion. As the only modern manifestation of “Mystery Babylon” the political events of that year with the election of “the Great Disrupter” as President of the United States, the Brexit vote, and now an escalation of worldwide rebellion of the former colonial states in the BRICS+11 strongly suggest that this period is accelerating and should convince us that the 1,290 days – ending in 2046AD – should result in the completion of this process in a sudden cataclysmic event.
Whether that “cataclysmic” event is a worldwide catastrophe caused by our expected solar nova, a Carrington-level solar storm, or a nuclear war – it remains to be seen. But in its final results, does it matter much?
The result of that event should leave us in a world bereft of modern conveniences in which those who survive may not wish to survive. It will be a scavenger age, as suggested above, and how you and human society react to that new situation will dictate whether the world can attain to the 1,335 days, and experience it as a “blessed” period.
If Newton is correct, that the “difference” between the 1,290 days and the 1,335 days – which is 45 years – is a part of the “Seven Weeks,” he is then suggesting that it will end 45 years after 2046 AD or in 2091 AD. We might wonder what is supposed to happen during that period? Certainly the scavenging, but what is the “happy” result of this period? Obviously, in Newton’s mind, it would be, as he says, the end of the process,
[F]or effecting a recovery and re-establishment of the long-lost truth, and setting up a kingdom wherein dwells righteousness.
(to be continued)
(Author’s Note: Ten parts are planned for this series. After which, a dedicated section in the Navigation Bar for “All things Newton” will be added. For now, use this website’s Search function to find the previous parts to this series, or click on the Archives at the bottom of the page.
To See A Facsimile Copy of Newton’s handwritten notes under review in this discussion, click here:
James Wesley Stivers 9/4/23
