The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 3

II. Birks-Makes Overwhelming Answer to Futurism

THOMAS R. BIRKS (1810-1883), theologian, controversialist, and champion of the year-day principle, was born in Derbyshire. At first a nonconformist, he was educated at the dissenting college of Mill Hill, and then at Trinity College, Cambridge. He joined the Church of England and settled at Watton, as curate to Edward Bickersteth. During this profitable stay he devoted much time to the study of prophecy, taking a strong affirmative in the growing conflict over the premillennial advent. In 1843-44 he engaged in numerous religious controversies, op posing Futurists, Universalists, and annihilationists alike. In 1844 he married Bickersteth’s daughter. By 1866 he had charge of Trinity Church, Cambridge, and in 1871 he was canon of Ely Cathedral. In 1872 he became professor of moral philosophy at Cambridge. PFF3 706.3

Birks wrote much and widely, his most important literary contribution being First Elements of Sacred Prophecy (1843). Designed to sustain the year-day theory, it was “a powerful blow against the reveries of the Futurists.” As he dealt with Maitland, Todd, and Burgh, his was an overwhelming answer to the Futurist theory. Then followed The Four Prophetic Empires (1844) and The Two Later Visions of Daniel (1846). Near the close of his life he wrote Thoughts on the Times and Seasons of Sacred Prophecy (1880). Birks was a painstaking investigator, fair in statement and sound in judgment. His grasp of the larger issue of prophetic interpretation was unsurpassed in his day. Indeed, for clarity of statement and cogency of argument in the discussion of prophecy, few men equaled him. He profoundly believed that the era of the impending destruction of the fourth empire had been reached, that the seven vials had begun with the French Revolution, and that human history was rapidly approaching the time of the second advent. (Title page of First Elements reproduced on page 540.) PFF3 707.1

It is generally conceded that Birks produced the most exhaustive and masterly treatise on the year-day principle of the entire nineteenth-century Advent Awakening. He held that the prophecies began with the time of their respective writing, and along with their gradual fulfillment there developed a prophetic understanding during the Christian Era, that was to reach its zenith at the end of the age. PFF3 707.2

1. THE “RECEIVED MAXIMS” OF THE HISTORICAL SCHOOL

In his initial treatise, First Elements of Sacred Prophecy (1843), issued when the early nineteenth-century world study of prophecy was at its height, Birks divides the Bible into three parts-the law, the Gospels, and the prophecies-the latter being chiefly those of Daniel, John, and Paul, and Christ.” ⁶ He writes as an avowed defender of the Historical view, as against the recently espoused Futurist concept. At the very outset he lays down a series of “received maxims of prophecy ⁷,” held by Protestants since Reformation times. The visions of Daniel begin with the time of Daniel, and those of the Apocalypse with John. The fourth beast is Rome, as also is Babylon. The little horn is the Papacy, and so is the Man of Sin. ⁸ To these maxims he adds that the two woe trumpets are the Saracens 13 and Turks, and the two beasts of Revelation 13 denote the civil and ecclesiastical principles of Rome. Many of these maxims were held by the early church as well as by various Romanist commentators. ⁹ PFF3 707.3

The post-Reformation breakdown of the prophetic concept, along with the resultant resurgence of Romanism, is discussed, and the specious arguments and false maxims of Maitland, Burgh, and Todd are painstakingly analyzed and answered. The Futurist argument of the conflicting views of the Historical interpreters is fully met by the fact that similar disparities obtain among the Futurists, ¹⁰ with glaring examples cited. Their disharmony is exploited with devastating effectiveness.” ¹¹ PFF3 708.1

2. STANDARD LISTING OF FOUR EMPIRES

Birks stoutly maintains the historic four empires of prophecy-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome ¹² as against the conflicting and self-destructive views projected by the Futurists. ¹³ He is similarly explicit on the Persian ram and the Grecian he-goat, ¹⁴ as well as the literal prophecy of Daniel 11, extending from apostolic days on to the end of time. ¹⁵ PFF3 708.2

3. SEVENTY WEEKS CUT OFF FROM 2300 DAYS

The parallelism of the Apocalypse to the Book of Daniel, and the common 1260-year time period are stressed. ¹⁶ But the main burden of the treatise is to deal with the year-day principle for all prophetic time periods.” ¹⁷ Birk’s proposition specifies the prophetic day asever standing for a literal year, a prophetic month for thirty year-days, and a prophetic time, or year, as of 360 year-days. ¹⁸ This he applies to the 1260-, 1290-, 1335-, and 2300-day periods and the 70 weeks, as well as the 150 and 391 years. ¹⁹ That the 2300 evening-mornings are years and not literal days, Birks explicitly declares with this argument: PFF3 708.3

“It is plain at once that this is not the usual and literal expression tor a space of between six and seven years. There are only three instances in all Scripture history where a period of above forty days is expressed in days only (Genesis 7:3; Nehemiah 6:15; Esther 1:4). And it is without any precedent in Scripture, or in common usage, that periods of more than one year should be thus described.” ²⁰ While the “seven times” are noted as from 606 to 1843, ²¹ the 2300 years are stressed with the seventy weeks as cut off there from, ²² and the lesser period is “only a part of the numeral period,” 2300 with the ending of the latter placed either at 1843 or 1880. ²³ PFF3 709.1

4. SACRED TIME PERIODS ARE CELESTIAL CYCLES

The cyclical character of the prophetic periods, as suggested by De Cheseaux, is similarly noted. ²⁴ Birks believed the 1260 and 2300 years were such celestial cycles. His comments are worth scrutinizing: PFF3 709.2

“We are raised out of the contracted range of human reckonings to a lofty elevation of thought, and catch some glimpses of that mysterious wisdom by which the Almighty blends all the works of nature and of providence into subservience to the deep counsels of His redeeming love.” ²⁵ PFF3 709.3

“When we reflect, also, that the celestial periods by which these cycles are determined, are themselves fixed by that law of attraction which gives the minutest atom an influence on the planetary motions, what a combination appears in these sacred times of the most contrasted elements of Omniscient wisdom! Human science sinks exhausted at the very threshold of this temple of divine truth. It has strained its utmost efforts in calculating the actual motions of the Moon and the Earth; but the determining causes which fixed at first the proportion of their monthly and yearly revolutions have altogether eluded its research. Yet these elements of the natural universe are linked in, by these sacred times and celestial cycles, with the deepest wonders of Providence, and the whole range of Divine prophecy.” ²⁶ PFF3 709.4

The ten days of Smyrna are applied to the ten years of Diocletian’s persecution. ²⁷ And the various attempts to locate the chronological position of the 1260 years are noted, from Brute in the fourteenth century, ²⁸ on to Cressener in the seventeenth, who looked for the terminus of the period about 1800, ²⁹ as well as Fleming’s expectation for 1794. ³⁰ PFF3 709.5

5. YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY SEVENTY WEEKS

On the application of the year-day principle to the seventy weeks Birks makes this illuminating statement: PFF3 710.1

“THE PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS has always held the foremost place in the direct arguments for the year-day system. The reasoning is very simple in its nature. The word week, or shabua, is used elsewhere in Scripture to denote seven days; but in this prophecy it denotes seven years. Hence the words of time are enlarged beyond their literal or usual sense, in the proportion of a year to a day. And since all these predictions of time bear one common character, occur in the same prophets, and have the same general object, they ought to be explained by one common rule. In the one instance, which is decisively fulfilled, the proportion holds of a year to a day; and therefore it must be applied, in consistency, to all the rest.” ³¹ PFF3 710.2

Firm and solid” evidence is shown for the Historical view of the year-day principle. ³² And the relationship of these prophetic times to symbolic prophecy is stated in these impressive words: PFF3 710.3

“The prophetic times, indeed, when separated from the context, and viewed in themselves only, are a dry and worthless skeleton: but when taken in connexion with the related events, clothed with historical facts, and joined with those spiritual affections which should attend the study of God’s Providence; like the bones in the human frame, they give strength to what was feeble, and union to what was disjointed, and form, and beauty, and order, to the whole outline and substance of these sacred and divine prophecies.” ³³ PFF3 710.4

6. FOUR PROPHETIC EMPIRES AFFIRMED

Birks’ second volume, The Four Prophetic Empires, likewise gives the classic Protestant historical interpretation to Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 9. ³⁴ Strong, convincing chapters are devoted to each of the kingdoms, the division of the fourth, the ten kingdoms, the Little Horn, and the grand finale. Much historical detail of a very dependable character is given. The parallelism of the several kingdoms appearing in the different chapters, and under various symbols, is developed-such as the bear and leopard being the same as the ram and he-goat. ³⁵ PFF3 710.5

7. MACHIAVELLI’S LIST OF KINGDOMS FAVORED

In tracing he division, ³⁶ and then the later countries of divided Western Europe, Birks follows the kingdom list of Machiavelli-the “Herulo-Thuringi, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, Sueves and Alans, Vandals, Huns, and Saxons.” ³⁷ The persistence of the divisions is illustrated by lists of the existent European powers in each succeeding century. ³⁸ PFF3 711.1

The “ten horns” admit of change, some falling or being replaced by others. But the “tenfold character” is dominant throughout the whole, and appears distinctly both at the beginning and at the close of their history. The kings are more ruling powers than local divisions. Thus in Daniel 2 they mingle themselves with the seed of men but do not cleave. And, despite the uprooting of the three, the number still is ten-so the up rooted three are replaced. ³⁹ PFF3 711.2

8. PAPACY ONLY Is LITTLE HORN

Then follows the clear identification of the papal Little Horn: PFF3 711.3

“This unknown and mysterious Power was to arise amid the ten kingdoms of the west, soon after they appeared. It was to have a distinct seat and place in the body of the fourth empire. At the same time it was to claim a prophetic character, and to exert a direct or indirect sovereignty over all the surrounding kings. These features can be found in no power, whether past or future, but the Papacy of Rome.” ⁴⁰ PFF3 711.4

The statement is then amplified and placed as an inescapable identification. The presumptuous character of the Little Horn and his persecutions follow, with considerable documentation. The indictment ends with the impressive words: PFF3 711.5

“Thus every feature of the prophecy finds its full counterpart in the constitution, decrees, and history of the Roman popedom. And hence we may gather, with a firm and assured conviction, that this is the true meaning of the vision, designed from the very first by the all-seeing Spirit of God.” ⁴¹ PFF3 711.6

9. MILLENNIUM BOUNDED BY Two RESURRECTIONS

CHAPTER 15 deals with the millennium-the early true position, then the Augustinian Catholic perversion, and finally the Whitbyan Protestant distortion. ⁴² Birks held that there will be two literal resurrections of the dead-the first at the beginning and the second at the close of the thousand years. ⁴³ The premillennial character of the second advent and the events surrounding the advent are clearly portrayed and urged. ⁴⁴ PFF3 712.1

10. HORN OF Daniel 8 Is ROMAN

Birks’ third volume. The Two Later Visions of Daniel, is a continuation of his historical exposition of Daniel, this time in chapters 8 and 11. In the preface Birks states that he no longer holds the horn of Daniel 8 to be Mohammedanism. ⁴⁵ Of its identity he says, “The Little Horn [of chapter 8] was to cast down the sanctuary, and takeaway the daily sacrifice. Both of these characters met in the Romans.” Again, “The Little Horn must denote the Roman, not the Mahometan empire.” ⁴⁶ PFF3 712.2

11. DANIEL’S “WILFUL KING” Is MAN or SIN

Another important division is the “Wilful King” of Daniel 11:36, which he holds is the same as the predicted “Man of Sin.” ⁴⁷ In finally dis cussing the events of the latter part of Daniel 11, Birks says. “Popery in the West, and the Turkish power in the East, have been the two grand adversaries of the truth, and oppressors of Israel, in the latter days.” ⁴⁸ PFF3 712.3