Bibelkommentare

The six former chapters of this book were historical; we now enter with fear and trembling upon the six latter, which are prophetical, wherein are many things dark and hard to be understood, which we dare not positively determine the sense of, and yet many things plain and profitable, which I trust God will enable us to make a good use of. In this chapter we have, I. Daniel's vision of the four beasts, Da 7:1-8. II. His vision of God's throne of government and judgment, Da 7:9-14. III. The interpretation of these visions, given him by an angel that stood by, Da 7:15-28. Whether those visions look as far forward as the end of time, or whether they were to have a speedy accomplishment, is hard to say, nor are the most judicious interpreters agreed concerning it.

Section I.-- Analysis of the Chapter

This chapter contains an account of a remarkable prophetic dream which Daniel had in the first year of the reign of Belshazzar, and of the interpretation of the dream. After a brief statement of the contents of the chapter, it will be proper, in order to its more clear exposition, to state the different methods which have been proposed for interpreting it, or the different views of its application which have been adopted. The chapter comprises the following main points: the vision, Daniel 7:1-14; and the explanation, Daniel 7:15-28.

I. The vision, Daniel 7:1-14. The dream occurred in the first year of the reign of Belshazzar, and was immediately written out. Daniel is represented as standing near the sea, and a violent wind rages upon the sea, tossing the waves in wild commotion. Suddenly he sees four monsters emerge from the agitated waves, each one apparently remaining for a little time, and then disappearing. The first, in its general form, resembled a lion, but had wings like an eagle. On this he attentively gazed, until the wings were plucked away, and the beast was made to stand upright as a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.

Nothing is said as to what became of the beast after this. Then there appeared a second beast, resembling a bear, raising itself up on one side, and having three ribs in its mouth, and a command was given to it to arise and devour much flesh. Nothing is said further of what became of this beast. Then there arose another beast like a leopard, with four wings, and four heads, and to this beast was given wide dominion. Nothing is said as to what became of this animal. Then there arose a fourth beast more remarkable still. Its form is not mentioned, but it was fierce and strong. It had great iron teeth. It trampled down everything before it, and devoured and brake in pieces. This beast had at first ten horns, but soon there sprang up in the midst of them another - a smaller horn at first, but as this increased three of the ten horns were plucked up by the roots - apparently either by this, or in order to give place to it. What was more remarkable still, in this smaller horn there appeared the eyes of a man - emblematic of intelligence and vigilance; and a mouth speaking great things - indicative of pride and arrogance. Daniel looked on this singular vision until a throne was set up or established, and then the Ancient of days did sit - until the old forms of dominations ceased, and the reign of God was introduced and established. He contemplated it until, on account of the great words which the "horn spake," the beast was slain, and his body was destroyed, and given to the burning flame. In the meantime the dominion was taken away from the other beasts; though their existence was prolonged for a little time. Then appeared in vision one in the form of man, who came to the Ancient of days, and there was given to him universal dominion over all people a kingdom that should never be destroyed.

II. The interpretation of the vision Daniel 7:15-28. Daniel was greatly troubled at the vision which he had seen, and he approached one who stood near, and asked him the meaning of it, Daniel 7:15-16. The explanation with which he was favored was, in general, the following: That those four beasts which he had seen represented four kings or kingdoms which would exist on the earth, and that the great design of the vision was to state the fact that the saints of tho Most High would ultimately possess the kingdom, and would reign forever, Daniel 7:17-18. The grand purpose of the vision was to represent the succession of dynasties, and the particular character of each one, until the government over the world should pass into the hands of the people of God, or until the actual rule on the earth should be in the hands of the righteous. The ultimate object, the thing to which all revolutions tended, and which was designed to be indicated in the vision, was the final reign of the saints on the earth. There was to be a time when the kingdom under the whole heaven was to be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; or, in other words, there would be a state of things on the earth, when "all dominions," or all "rulers" (margin, Daniel 7:27), would obey him. This general announcement in reference to the ultimate thing contemplated, and to the three first kingdoms, represented by the three first beasts, was satisfactory to Daniel, but he was still perplexed in regard to the particular thing designed to be represented by the fourth beast, so remarkable in its structure, so unlike all the others, and undergoing so surprising a transformation, Daniel 7:19-22. The sum of what was stated to him, in regard to the events represented by the fourth beast, is as follows:

(1) That this was designed to represent a fourth kingdom or dynasty which would arise upon the earth, in many respects, different from the three which would precede it. It was to be a kingdom which would be distinguished for oppressive conquests. It would subdue the whole earth, and it would crush, and prostrate, and trample down those whom it invaded. The description would characterize a dominion that would be stern, and mighty, and cruel, and successful; that would keep the nations which it subdued under its control by the terror of arms rather than by the administration of just laws; Daniel 7:23.

(2) The ten horns that Daniel saw spring out of its head denoted ten kings that would arise, or a succession of rulers that would sway the authority of the kingdom, Daniel 7:24.

(3) The other horn that sprang up among the ten, and after them, denoted another dynasty that would arise, and this would have peculiar characteristics. It would so far have connection with the former that it would spring out of them. But in most important respects it would differ from them. Its characteristics may be summed up as follows:

(a) It would spring from their midst, or be somehow attached, or connected with them - as the horn sprang from the head of the beast - and this would properly denote that the new power somehow sprang from the dynasty denoted by the fourth beast - as the horn sprang from the head of that beast;

(b) though springing from that, it would be "diverse" from it, having a character to be determined, not from the mere fact of its origin, but from something else.

(c) It would "subdue three of these kings;" that is, it would evercome and prostrate a certain portion of the power and authority denoted by the ten horns perhaps meaning that it would usurp something like one-third of the power of the kingdom denoted by the fourth beast.

(d) It would be characterized by arrogance and haughtiness - so much so that the fair construction of its claims would be that of "speaking against the Most High."

(e) It would "wear out the saints of the Most High" - evidently referring to persecution.

(f) It would claim legislative authority so as to "change times and laws" - clearly referring to some claim set up over established laws, or to unusual authority, Daniel 7:24-25.

(4) Into the hand of this new power, all these things would be given for "a time, and times, and half a time:" implying that it would not be permanent, but would come to an end, Daniel 7:25.

(5) After that there would be a judgment - a judicial determination in regard to this new power, and the dominion would be taken away, to be utterly destroyed, Daniel 7:26.

(6) There would come a period when the whole dominion of the earth would pass into the hands of the saints; or, in other words, there would be a universal reign of the principles of truth and righteousness, Daniel 7:27.

In the conclusion of the chapter Daniel 7:28, Daniel says that these communications deeply affected his heart. He had been permitted to look far into futurity, and to contemplate vast changes in the progress of human affairs, and even to look forward to a period when all the nations would be brought under the dominion of the law of God, and the friends of the Most High would be put in possession of all power. Such events were fitted to fill the mind with solemn thought, and it is not wonderful that he contemplated them with deep emotion.

Section II.-- Various Methods of Interpreting This Chapter

It is hardly necessary to say that there have been very different methods of interpreting this chapter, and that the views of its proper interpretation are by no means agreed on by expositors. It may be useful to refer to some of those methods before we advance to its exposition, that they may be before the mind in its consideration. We shall be the better able to ascertain what is the true interpretation by inquiring which of them, if any, accords with the fair exposition of the language employed by the sacred writer. The opinions entertained may be reduced to the following classes:

I. Hardt supposes that the four beasts here denote four particular kings - Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Belshazzar, and Cyrus.

II. Ephraem, who is followed by Eichhorn, supposes that the first beast referred to the Babylonian-Chaldean kingdom; the second, the Medish empire under Cyaxares II, the three "ribs" of which denote the Medish, Persian, and Chaldean portions of that empire; the third, the Persian empire, the four heads and wings of which denote the spread of the Persian empire toward the four regions under heaven, or to all parts of the world; the fourth, to the Grecian empire under Alexander and his successors, the ten horns of which denote ten eminent kings among the successors of Alexander, and the "little horn," that sprang up among them, Antiochus Epiphanes. The succeeding state of things, according to Ephraem and Eichhorn, refers to the kingdom of the Messiah.

III. Grotius, representing another class of interpreters, whom Hetzel follows, supposes that the succession of the kingdoms here referred to is the Babylonian-Chaldean; the Persian; the kingdom of Alexander, and his successors. The fifth is the Roman empire.

IV. The most common interpretation which has prevailed in the church is what supposes that the first beast denotes the Chaldean kingdom; the second, the Medo-Persian; the third, the Greek empire under Alexander and his successors; the fourth, the Roman empire. The dominion of the saints is the reign of the Messiah and his laws. But this opinion, particularly as far as pertains to the fourth and fifth of these kingdoms, has had a great variety of modifications, especially in reference to the signification of the ten horns, and the little horn that sprang up among them. Some who, under the fifth kingdom, suppose that the reign of Christ is referred to, regard the fourth kingdom as relating to Rome under the Caesars, and that the ten horns refer to a succession of ten regents, and the little horn to Julius Caesar. Others, who refer the last empire to the personal reign of Christ on the earth, and the kingdom which he would set up, suppose that the ten horns refer to ten kings or dynasties that sprang out of the Roman power - either a succession of the emperors, or those who came in after the invasion of the northern hordes, or certain kingdoms of Europe which succeeded the Roman power after it fell; and by the little horn, they suppose that either the Turkish power with its various branches is designated, or Mahomet, or the Papacy, or Anti-christ.

V. The Jews, in general, suppose that the fifth kingdom refers to the reign of the Messiah; but still there has been great diversity of views among them in regard to the application of particular parts of the prophecy. Many of the older interpreters among them supposed that the ten horns denoted ten Roman Caesars, and that the last horn referred to Titus Vespasian. Most of the later Jewish interpreters refer this to their fabulous Gog and Magog.

VI. Another interpretation which has had its advocates is what supposes that the first kingdom was the Chaldean; the second, the Persian; the third, that of Alexander; the fourth, that of his successors; and the fifth, that of the Asmonean princes who rose up to deliver the Jewish nation from the despotism of the Syrian kings.

VII. As a specimen of one mode of interpretation which has prevailed to some extent in the church, the opinion of Cocceius may be referred to. He supposes that the first beast, with the eagle's wings, denoted the reign of the Christian emperors in Rome, and the spread of Christianity under them into remote regions of the East and West; the second, with the three ribs in his mouth, the Arian Goths, Vandals, and Lombards; the third, with the four heads and four wings, the Mahometan kingdom with the four Caliphates; the fourth, the kingdom of Charlemagne, and the ten horns in this kingdom, the Carlovingians, Saxons, Salle, Swedish, Hollandish, English, etc., princes and dynasties or people; and the little horn, the Papacy as the actual Anti-christ.

The statement of these various opinions, and methods of interpretation, I have translated from Bertholdt, Daniel, pp. 419-426. To these should be added the opinion which Bertholdt himself maintains, and which has been held by many others, and which Bertholdt has explained and defended at length, pp. 426-446. That opinion is, substantially, that the first kingdom is the Babylonian kingdom under Nebuchadnezzar, and that the wings of the first beast denote the extended spread of that empire. The second beast, with the three "ribs," or fangs, denotes the Median, Lydian, and Babylonian kingdoms, which were erected under one scepter, the Persian. The third beast, with the four wings and four heads, denotes the Grecian dynasty under Alexander, and the spread of that kingdom throughout the four parts of the world. The fourth beast denotes the kingdom of the Lagidae and Seleucidae, under which the Hebrews suffered so much. The statement respecting this kingdom Daniel 7:7, that "it was diverse from all that went before it," refers to the "plurality of the fourth kingdom." or the fact that it was an aggregate made up of many others - a kingdom in a collective sense. The "ten horns" denote ten successive princes or kings in that kingdom, and Bertholdt enumerates them in the following order:

1. Seleucus Nicator;

2. Antiochus Soter;

3. Antiochus Theos;

4. Seleucus Kallinicus;

5. Seleucus Keraunus;

6. Antiochus the Great;

7. Seleucus Philopater;

8. Heliodorus;

9. Ptolemy Philometer;

10. Demetrius.

The eleventh - denoted by the little horn - was Antiochus Epiphanes, who brought so many calamitities upon the Hebrew people. His reign lasted, according to Bertholdt, "a time, and times, and half a time" - or three years and a half; and then the kingdom was restored to the people of God to be a permanent reign, and, ultimately, under the Messiah, to fill the world and endure to the end of time.

The interpretation thus stated, supposing that the "little horn" refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, is also maintained by Prof. Stuart. - Hints on Prophecy, 2nd ed., pp. 85-98. Compare also Commentary on Daniel, pp. 173-194, and 205-211.

Amidst such a variety of views, the only hope of arriving at any satisfactory conclusion respecting the meaning of this chapter is by a careful examination of the text, and the fair meaning of the symbols employed by Daniel.

The prophet having, in the preceding chapters of this book, related some remarkable events concerning himself and his brethren in the captivity, and given proof of his being enabled, by Divine assistance, to interpret the dreams of others, enters now into a detail of his own visions, returning to a period prior to the transactions recorded in the last chapter. The first in order of the prophet's visions is that of the four beasts, which arose out of a very tempestuous ocean, Daniel 7:1-9; and of one like the Son of man who annihilated the dominion of the fourth beast, because of the proud and blasphemous words of one of its horns, Daniel 7:9-14. An angel deciphers the hieroglyphics contained in this chapter, declaring that the Four beasts, diverse one from another, represent the Four Paramount empires of the habitable globe, which should succeed each other; and are evidently the same which were shadowed forth to Nebuchadnezzar by another set of hieroglyphics, (see the second chapter), Daniel 7:15-26. But for the consolation of the people of God, it is added that, at the time appointed in the counsel of Jehovah, "the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the saints of the Most High;" and that this kingdom shall never be destroyed or transferred to another people, as all the preceding dominations have been, but shall itself stand for ever, Daniel 7:27, Daniel 7:28. It will be proper to remark that the period of a time, times, and a half, mentioned in the twenty-fifth verse as the duration of the dominion of the little horn that made war with the saints, (generally supposed to be a symbolical representation of the papal power), had most probably its commencement in a.d. 755 or 756, when Pepin, king of France, invested the pope with temporal power. This hypothesis will bring the conclusion of the period to about the year of Christ 2000, a time fixed by Jews and Christians for some remarkable revolution; when the world, as they suppose, will be renewed, the wicked cease from troubling the Church, and the saints of the Most High have dominion over the whole habitable globe. But this is all hypothesis.

INTRODUCTION TO Daniel 7

This chapter contains Daniel's vision of the four beasts, The time, place, manner, writing, and declaration of the vision, Daniel 7:1, the rise of the beasts, and the description of them, Daniel 7:2, the judgment of God upon them, especially the last, and the delivery of universal monarchy to his Son, Daniel 7:9, the interpretation of the vision at the request of Daniel, being greatly affected with it, Daniel 7:15, a particular inquiry of his about the fourth beast, concerning which a full account is given, Daniel 7:19, all which caused in him many thoughts of heart, and reflections of mind, Daniel 7:28.

EXCURSUS E: THE FOUR KINGDOMS (Daniel 2, 7).

In the notes upon the parallel, though supplementary, vision contained in Daniel 2, 7 attention has been directed to each of the four empires which has hitherto governed the world. It has been explained in the notes that these four empires are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Græco-Macedonian, and the Roman. The fourth empire in each case is succeeded by the kingdom of the Messiah, which in Daniel 2 is symbolised by a stone, but in Daniel 7:27 is described more clearly as the “kingdom of the people of the saints of the Most High.” This view of the four kingdoms is found in the early part of the second century A.D. maintained by the author of the epistle of Barnabas, who speaks of the ten kingdoms (Barn., Ep. iv. 4, 5) foretold by Daniel as then existing, and of the fourth beast as then reigning. The fragments of St. Hippolytus show that the same opinion prevailed in the Church a century later. The longer ecclesiastical commentaries of St. Jerome and Theodoret maintain the same opinion, which has been followed in modern times, with some modifications, by a large number of commentators.

A second view, of great antiquity, is mentioned by Porphyry, who flourished in the third century. His opinion coincided with the interpretation just mentioned up to a certain point. He made the panther, or third beast, represent Alexander the Great; but the fourth beast, according to him, meant the four successors of Alexander. He then enumerated up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes those kings whom he conceived to have been most remarkable for persecuting God’s people in the times of the Ptolemies and Seleucidæ, and ultimately identified the little horn with Antiochus Epiphanes, in whose time he believed the Book of Daniel to have been written. This view has not been without support in recent times.

A third view, which has antiquity to support it, is due in the first instance to St. Ephraim Syrus, according to whose teaching the four kingdoms are the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, and the Greek. He is careful, however, to point out that the fulfilment which the prophecy received in the times of the Maccabees is only typical of a further fulfilment to be expected in the last days. It exceeds the limit of a note to trace the origin of this opinion in the Syrian Church, and the development of it in modern times. It is sufficient to observe that, like Porphyry’s interpretation, it limits the horizon of the prophet chiefly to the Greek period.

This view, which, more or less modified, finds many adherents in the present day, rests upon the identification of the little horn in Daniel 7:8, with the little horn in Daniel 8:9. If Antiochus is the horn of Daniel 8, why should he not be hinted at in Daniel 7? and if so, why should not the goat (Daniel 8:5), which is known (Daniel 8:21) to be the kingdom of Greece, be identical with the fourth beast of Daniel 7? It is then argued that the period of persecution hinted at in Daniel 7:25 coincides with that which is mentioned in Daniel 9:27, being half a week, or three days and a half, and that the same measure of time occurs in Daniel 12:7. Is it possible, it is asked, that these similar measures of time represent different events? Again, it is observed that there is no interval mentioned as occurring between the last times and the times of the persecutions mentioned in Daniel 7, 8, 10-12, and also that the words in which Antiochus is predicted (Daniel 8:19) are spoken of as the “last end of indignation” and “the end.” This is stated to support the view that the predictions of Daniel are limited by the times of Antiochus.

On these grounds the persecution mentioned in Daniel 7:25 is supposed to be that of Antiochus. The Greek Empire is represented by the fourth beast, while the second and third beasts represent the Median and the Persian Empires respectively. But here the question arises, Are there any grounds for believing that Daniel intended to speak of a distinct Median Empire? The passages alleged in support are Daniel 5:28; Daniel 5:31; Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15. Daniel states of Darius expressly that he was a Mede and of Median descent (Daniel 5:31; Daniel 9:1; Daniel 11:1), and, on the contrary, that Cyrus was a Persian (Daniel 6:28; Daniel 10:1). Also in Daniel 6:28 the writer appears to be contrasting Darius the Mede with Cyrus the Persian, as if each belonged to a different empire. And though the kings of Media and Persia are distinctly mentioned in Daniel 8:20, it is maintained that the unity of the Medo-Persian Empire is not established thereby, because the two horns, and not the body, of the goat are assumed to be the key of the vision. If the brief duration and slight importance of the so-called Median Empire is objected, it is replied that the importance of it to Israel was very great, for in the first year of it the exile terminated, and at that very time Darius was under the special protection of the Angel of the Lord (Daniel 11:1).

Upon this hypothesis the visions in Daniel 2, 7 are explained in the following manner:—The materials of which the feet of the image were formed corresponds to the two divisions of the Greek Empire noticed in Daniel 11, the iron representing the Ptolemies, the clay the Seleucidæ. The mixture of the iron and clay points to such attempts as are mentioned in Daniel 11:8; Daniel 11:17 to unite certain heterogeneous elements in the political world. The silver breasts and arms are the Median Empire, which was inferior to the Babylonian (Daniel 2:39). which, it is asserted, does not hold true of the Persian Empire. Then comes the Persian Empire, which, as Daniel interpreted the vision (Daniel 2:39), “bare rule over all.” Similarly, in Daniel 7, those who maintain the interpretation find no difficulty about the first beast; but the second beast is Darius the Mede; the three ribs are the three satrapies mentioned in Daniel 6:2 (St. Ephraim explains them of the Medes, the Babylonians, and the Persians). The command, “Arise, and devour much flesh,” means that the empire of Darius had a great future prospect, which he would not realise. Then the panther is Cyrus; the four wings are the Persians, Medes, Babylonians, and Egyptians; the four heads are four Persian kings, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius Hystaspes, and the last, who is either Xerxes or Darius Codemannus. It remains that the fourth beast is the Greek Empire, the first which was of a totally distinct character from the Asiatic empires which had preceded it. The little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes, and the other ten horns are ten kings, who are not supposed to be reigning simultaneously; three of them, however, were contemporaneous with the little horn. The ten kings are assumed to be—(1) Seleucus Nicator, (2) Antiochus Soter, (3) Antiochus Theos, (4) Seleucus Callinicus, (5) Seleucus Ceraunus, (6) Antiochus the Great, (7) Seleucus Philopator, (8) Heliodorus, (9) Demetrius, (10) Ptolemy Philometor. The last three were deposed by Antiochus Epiphanes, the allusion being to Demetrius (Daniel 11:21) and to Ptolemy Philometor (Daniel 11:22-28). It is then alleged that all the events which are explicitly mentioned in Daniel 11 are figuratively expressed by the ten toes of the image and by the ten horns of the fourth beast.

In this interpretation there is much that appears plausible at first sight. It seems to make the whole plan of the book more distinct, and to introduce a symmetry and coherence among the several parts which is wanting to the interpretation given above. But though the truth is simple, everything simple is not true. Grave difficulties will be found, upon closer inspection, to underlie this hypothesis respecting the four kingdoms.

(1) What reason is there for identifying the little horn in Daniel 7:8 with the little horn in Daniel 8:9? In one case it grows up amongst ten, in the other out of four. In one case it destroys three of the other horns, in the other none. Or, to take Daniel’s own interpretation, the “kink of a fierce countenance” (Daniel 8:23) arises while the four horns are still in existence, though “in the latter time of their kingdom.” Bearing in mind that the ten toes of the image correspond to the ten horns of the fourth beast, there appears to be strong primâ facie evidence for supposing that the horizon of Daniel 8 is different from that of Daniel 2, 7, 11.

(2) Further consideration shows that Antiochus Epiphanes does not correspond with the little horn (Daniel 7), or with the king mentioned (Daniel 11:21, &c.). Antiochus is foretold (Daniel 8:9-12; Daniel 8:23-25) as “becoming great toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land, and waxing great even to the host of heaven,” &c.; but the person foretold in Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:20; Daniel 7:25, “has a mouth speaking proud things,” &c. In no point do these two awful personages agree, except in blaspheming God and in making war against His people. They differ in many important respects.

(3) The measures of time, again, are different in each vision. Antiochus Epiphanes carries on his destructive work for 2,300 (or 1,150) days, but the Antichrist mentioned in Daniel 7:25 has the saints in his power for a “time, times, and the dividing of time.” By no possible calculation can these two measures of time be made identical. Nor can the same measure of time which occurs in Daniel 12:7 be identified either with the 1,290 days, or with the 1,335 days mentioned in Daniel 12:11-12.

(4) Further, in Daniel 8:9 “the last end of indignation” does not mean the end of all things, any more than it means the end of the captivity. It points to the persecution of Antiochus, when, for the last time in Jewish history, the innocent suffered for the guilt of the apostates. This was a persecution of which the adherence of the Jews to their religion was the cause. Politics provoked later persecutions, but in this they were involved in only a secondary manner. The plain question was, would the Jews suffer their religion to be Hellenised, or would they not? This, again, is alien to the thoughts contained in Daniel 7:21; Daniel 7:25.

(5) Nor is it clear that Daniel knew of a Median as distinct from a Persian Empire. If Darius “received the kingdom,” some superior power must have given it to him. If he was “made king,” some higher authority must have invested him with the sovereignty. Nor does history give us any reasons for supposing that there was at this time any broad national distinction between the Medes and Persians.

(6) Lastly, the empire of Alexander the Great does not correspond to the fourth empire, which is described in Daniel 2, 7. None of the elements of iron appear in it. The leading characteristic of it was not “breaking in pieces and bruising” other empires, but rather assimilation. The policy of it was to Hellenise them, to clothe their ideas in Greek forms, to unite widely separated nations which it had subdued, by treating them courteously, adopting their national customs, and by polishing the whole external with Greek culture.

Great and undoubted though the difficulties are which are contained in the interpretation given above in the Notes, they are not so great as those which are involved by the so-called “modern” interpretation just mentioned.

CHAPTERS 7–12

The second part of the book, describing the four visions seen by Daniel in the reigns of Belshazzar (ch. 7, 8), Darius the Mede (ch. 9), and Cyrus (ch. 10–12).

CHAP. 7. THE VISION OF THE FOUR BEASTS

A vision, seen by Daniel in a dream, in the first year of Belshazzar. The vision was of four beasts emerging from the agitated sea, a lion with eagle’s wings, a bear, a leopard with four wings and four heads, and a fourth beast, with powerful iron teeth, destroying all things, and with ten horns, among which another ‘little horn’ sprang up, ‘speaking proud things,’ before which three of the other horns were rooted up (Daniel 7:1-8). Hereupon a celestial assize is held: the Almighty appears, seated on a throne of flame, and surrounded by myriads of attendants; the beast whose horn spake proud things is slain; and a figure in human form comes with the clouds of heaven into the presence of the Divine Judge, and receives from Him a universal and never-ending dominion (Daniel 7:9-14). After this, the vision is interpreted to Daniel: the four beasts are explained to signify four kingdoms; and after the destruction of the fourth, the ‘people of the saints of the Most High’ will receive the dominion of the entire earth (Daniel 7:15-28).

The vision is parallel to the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in ch. 2; and the kingdoms symbolized by the four beasts are generally allowed to be the same as those symbolized by the four parts of the image which Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream. The animal symbolism of the vision is an extension of that found in some of the later prophets, as Ezekiel 17:3; Ezekiel 19:1-9; Ezekiel 29:3-5; Ezekiel 32:2-6; Isaiah 27:1.

Additional Note on the Four Empires of Daniel 2, 7

It is generally agreed that the four empires represented by the composite image in ch. 2 are the same as those represented by the four beasts in ch. 7: there is also no doubt that the first empire in ch. 7 is the same as the first empire in ch. 2, which is expressly stated in Daniel 2:38 to be that of Nebuchadnezzar, and that the kingdom which is to succeed the fourth is in both chapters the kingdom of God: but the identification of the second, third, and fourth empires in the two chapters has been the subject of much controversy. It is also further a question, to which different answers have been given, whether the same three kingdoms in these two chapters are or are not identical with those denoted by the two horns of the ram, and by the he-goat in Daniel 8:3-5, i.e. (as is expressly explained in Daniel 8:20-21), with the kingdoms of Media, Persia, and Greece. The following tabular synopsis (based upon that of Zündel) of the two principal interpretations that have been adopted, will probably assist the reader in judging between them.

A

Ch. 2.

  Ch. 7.

  Ch. 8.

Golden head

  =

  Lion with eagle’s wings

  =

  =

  Babyl. empire

Silver breast and arms

  =

  Bear with three ribs in mouth

  =

  Ram with two unequal horns

  =

  Medo-Persian

Bronze belly and thighs

  =

  Leopard with four wings

  =

  Goat with one horn, followed by four horns, out of one of which came a little horn

  =

  Grecian (Alexander and his successors)

Iron legs, feet and toes partly iron partly clay

  =

  Beast with iron teeth, and ten horns, among which came up one little horn

  =

  Roman

B

Golden head

  =

  Lion with eagle’s wings

  =

  Babyl. empire

Silver breast and arms

  =

  Bear with three ribs in mouth

  =

  First and shorter horn of ram

  =

  Median

Bronze belly and thighs

  =

  Leopard with four wings

  =

  Second and longer horn of ram

  =

  Persian

Iron legs, feet and toes partly iron partly clay

  =

  Beast with iron teeth, and ten horns, among which came up one little horn

  =

  Goat with one horn, followed by four horns out of one of which came a little horn

  =

  Grecian (Alexander and his successors)

The difference between the two interpretations comes out most markedly in the explanation given of the fourth empire: A, for convenience, may, therefore, be termed the Roman theory, and B the Grecian theory.

A. This interpretation is first found[273] in the apocryphal book of 2 Esdras (written probably under Domitian, a. d. 81–96), Daniel 12:11 f., where the eagle, which Ezra is supposed to see in his vision and which unquestionably represents the imperial power of Rome, is expressly identified with the fourth kingdom which appeared to Daniel: though (it is added) the meaning of that kingdom was not expounded to Daniel as it is expounded to Ezra now. The same view of the fourth kingdom is implied in Ep. Barnab. iv. 4–5 (c. 100–120 a.d.), where the writer, in proof that the time of trial, preceding the advent of the Son of God, is at hand, quotes the words from Daniel 7:7-8; Daniel 7:24, respecting the little horn abasing three of the ten horns[274]. Hippolytus (c. 220 a.d.) expounds Daniel 2, 7 at length in the same sense (ed. Lagarde, 1858, pp. 151 ff., 171 ff., 177 ff.). The same interpretation was also general among the Fathers; and it is met with likewise among Jewish authorities. Among modern writers, it has been advocated by Auberlen, Hengstenberg, Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfüllung, 1841, p. 276 ff.), Keil, Dr Pusey, and others.

[273] It is implied also (apparently) in Joseph. Ant. x. xi. 7.

[274] The writer seems to have understood by the ‘horns’ the Roman emperors: but there is great difficulty in determining precisely which are meant; see in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition (1878), p. lxix f.

Upon this view, the fourth empire being the Roman, the ten toes, partly of iron and partly of clay, of the image in ch. 2, and the ten horns of the fourth beast in ch. 7, represent ten kingdoms, into which the Roman empire is supposed to have broken up, each retaining to a certain extent the strength of the Roman, but with-its stability greatly impaired by internal weakness and disunion[275]: the ‘mouth speaking great things,’ which is to arise after the ten kingdoms and to destroy three of them, being Antichrist, who is identified by some with the Papacy, and by others is supposed to be a figure still future.

[275] Cf. Hippolytus, p. 172, ‘The legs of iron are the Romans, being as strong as iron; then come the toes, partly of iron, partly of clay, in order to represent the democracies which are to arise afterwards’ (similarly, p. 152); p. 153, ‘the little horn growing up among the others is Antichrist.’

Thus Dr Rule[276] writes: ‘This little horn is too like the Papacy to be mistaken for anything else; and taking this for granted, as I believe we may venture to do, ten kingdoms must be found that came into existence previously to the establishment of the Pope’s temporal power in Italy.’ Accordingly the ten kingdoms enumerated by him are—

[276] An Historical Exposition of Daniel the Prophet, 1869, p. 195 ff.

1. The kingdom of the Vandals in Africa, established a.d. 439.

2. Venice, which became an independent state in a.d. 452, and long maintained an extremely important position in the affairs of Christendom.

3. England, which, properly so called, was founded in a.d. 455, and in spite of the Norman Conquest still retains her independence.

4. Spain, first Gothic, a.d. 476, then Saracenic, and still Spain.

5. France. Gaul, conquered by the Romans, lost to Rome under the Visigoths, and transferred to the Franks under Clovis, a.d. 483.

6. Lombardy, conquered by the Lombards, a.d. 568.

7. The exarchate of Ravenna, which became independent of Constantinople in 584, and flourished for long as an independent state.

8. Naples, subdued by the Normans about 1060.

9. Sicily, taken by the Normans under Count Roger about 1080.

10. Rome, which assumed independence under a Senate of its own in 1143, and maintained itself so till 1198. ‘The tumultuary revolution headed in Rome by Arnold of Brescia, tore away the ancient city from its imperial relations and brought the prophetic period of the ten kingdoms to its close.’

The ‘little horn diverse from the ten, having eyes and a mouth speaking very great things,’ is Pope Innocent III. (a.d. 1198–1216), who immediately after his consecration restored, as it was called, the patrimony of the Church, by assuming absolute sovereignty over the city and territory of Rome, and exacting of the Prefect of the city, in lieu of the oath of allegiance which he had hitherto sworn to the Emperor of Germany, an oath of fealty to himself, by which he bound himself to exercise in future the civil and military powers entrusted to him, solely in the interests of the Pope. ‘Here is the haughty speech, and here are the watchful eyes to survey the newly usurped dominion, and to spy out far beyond.’ Of the three ‘horns’ which fell before Innocent III. and his successors, the first was thus the Roman Senate and people, with the so-called patrimony of St Peter, in the year 1198; the other two were the two kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, which having in 1060 and 1080 fallen under the rule of the Dukes of Normandy, were afterwards offered by Urban IV. to the Duke of Anjou, to be held by him in subjection to the Church, with the result that ultimately, in 1266, ‘the two Sicilies,’ as they were afterwards called, fell under the subordinate rule of a branch of the house of Bourbon, and so remained until recent times. The war on the saints is referred to the Inquisition, organized by Innocent III. and carried on by his successors, and abetted ‘by every device of oppressive legislation, and artful diplomacy.’ ‘Concerning the change of times and laws, a few words will suffice. “He shall think to change times” by the substitution of an ecclesiastical calendar for the civil. He shall ordain festivals, appoint jubilees, and so enforce observance of such times and years as to set aside civil obligations, and even supersede the sanctification of the Lord’s days by the multiplication of saints’ days. With regard to laws he will enforce Canon Law in contempt of Statute Law, and sometimes in contradiction to the Law of God.’

Auberlen, on the other hand[277], points more generally to the many different ways in which the influence of Rome has perpetuated itself even in modern Europe. The various barbarian nations out of which have developed gradually the states of modern Europe, have, he observes, fallen largely under the spell of Roman civilization. ‘Roman culture, the Roman church, the Roman language, and Roman law have been the essential civilizing principles of the Germanic world. The Romance nations are a monument of the extent to which the influence of Rome has penetrated even into the blood of the new humanity: they are the products of the admixture “by the seed of men.” But they do not cohere together: the Roman element is ever re-acting against the Germanic. The struggles between Romans and Germans have been the determining factor of modern history: we need mention only the contests between the Emperor and the Pope, which stirred the Middle Ages, and the Reformation, with the consequences following from it, which have continued until the present day. The fourth empire has thus a genuine Roman tenacity and force; at the same time, since the Germans have appeared on the scene of history, and the iron has been mixed with the clay, it has been much divided and broken up, and its different constituent parts have shewn themselves to be unstable and fragile (Daniel 2:41-42). The Roman element strives ever after universal empire, the German element represents the principles of individualism and division.’ Hence the ever fresh attempts, whether on the part of the Pope, or of a secular prince, as Charlemagne, Charles V., Napoleon, and even the Czar, to realize anew the ideal of Roman unity. Against these attempts, however, the independent nationalities never cease to assert as persistently their individual rights. Politically and religiously, the Roman, the German, and the Slavonic nationalities stand opposed to one another: in the end, however, after many conflicts, they will resolve themselves into ten distinct kingdoms, out of one of which Antichrist—a kind of exaggerated, almost superhuman, Napoleon—will arise, and realise, on an unprecedented scale, until Providence strikes him down, the ‘dæmonic unity’ of an empire of the world.

[277] Der Prophet Daniel (1857), pp. 252–4.

So far as the mere symbolism of the vision goes, there is no objection to this interpretation. The kingdom which is to ‘tread down and break in pieces,’ with the strength of iron, ‘the whole earth’ (Daniel 7:23; cf. Daniel 7:7, Daniel 2:40) might well be the empire of the Romans, who by their military conquests subdued, one after another, practically all the nations of the then known world; and it has been contended, not without some show of plausibility, that the imagery of the second kingdom agrees better with the Medo-Persian than with the Persian empire: the bear, it is urged, with its slow and heavy gait would be the most suitable symbol of the Medo-Persian empire, of which ‘heaviness,’ as exemplified by the vast and unwieldy armies which its kings brought into the field[278], was the leading national characteristic, while the three ribs in its mouth are more naturally explained of three provinces absorbed by the empire of the Persians[279], than of any conquests made by the Medes. These explanations of the imagery, however, though they fall in with the interpretation in question, cannot be said to be so certain, upon independent grounds, as to require it: Alexander’s military successes were also such that he might be spoken of as subduing the whole earth; and we do not know that the suggested interpretation of the symbolism of the bear is really that which was in the mind of the writer of the chapter.

[278] Darius Hystaspis was said to have led 700,000 men into Scythia: Xerxes’ expedition against Greece numbered 2,500,000 fighting men; Darius Codomannus, at the fatal battle of Issus, commanded 600,000 men (Pusey, p. 71).

[279] Media, Assyria, and Babylonia (Hippolytus); Persia, Media, and Babylonia (Jerome, Ephr. Syr.); Lydia, Babylonia, and Egypt (Hofmann, Keil. Pusey, p. 70).

The great, and indeed fatal, objection to this interpretation is, however, that it does not agree with the history. The Roman empire, the empire which conquered and ruled so many nations of the ancient world[280],—whether it be regarded as coming to its close when in a.d. 476 Romulus Augustulus, at the bidding of Odoacer, resigned his power to the Emperor of the East, or whether that act be regarded merely as a transference of power from the West to the East, and its real close be placed, with Gibbon, at the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, or whether, lastly, it be held, with Bryce, to have prolonged a legal existence till in 1806 the Emperor Francis II resigned the imperial crown,—has passed from the stage of history; nor, whichever date be assigned for its close,—and, in the natural sense of the word, the ‘Roman empire’ ceased to exist at the first of these dates,—can any ‘ten’ kingdoms be pointed to, as in any sense arising out of it? The non-natural character of the ‘praeterist’ explanation of Dr Rule must be patent to the reader. ‘Futurist’ expositors suppose that the kingdoms represented by the ten horns are yet to appear[281]. But these kingdoms are to ‘arise out of’ the fourth empire (Daniel 2:24): clearly therefore the fourth empire must still exist when they appear; but the Roman empire is beyond controversy an empire of the past. Auberlen’s explanation, ingenious as it is, cannot be deemed satisfactory[282].

[280] ‘Empire’ is of course used here generally in the sense of ‘power’: at the time when many of these conquests were made, the Romans, as is well known, were under the rule of neither ‘emperors’ nor ‘kings.’

[281] Auberlen, as cited above; Keil, p. 224; Dr Pusey, p. 78 f.

[282] It is remarkable, if Daniel’s vision really extends so far as to embrace the history of Europe, that the first coming of Christ, and the influences wrought by Christianity, should he ignored in it. The explanation that Daniel, “being a statesman and an Israelite, saw nothing of the Church” (Auberlen, p. 252) is surely artificial and improbable.

The interpretation under discussion is in fact one which, in view of the circumstances of the age, might readily have suggested itself to. Christian expositors of Daniel, while the Roman empire was still the dominant power in the world; but it is one which the progress of history has shewn to be untenable. The early Christians believed that they were living in an age in which the end of the world was imminent; and it was in this belief, as Mr (now Bishop) Westcott has pointed out, that the interpretation in question originated. ‘It originated at a time when the triumphant advent of Messiah was the object of immediate expectation, and the Roman empire appeared to be the last in the series of earthly kingdoms. The long interval of conflict which has followed the first Advent formed no place in the anticipation of the first Christendom; and in succeeding ages the Roman period has been unnaturally prolonged to meet the requirements of a theory which took its rise in a state of thought which experience has proved false[283].’

[283] Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Daniel.

B. This interpretation appears first[284] in Ephrem Syrus (c. 300–350 a.d.)[285]; it was adopted afterwards by several later and mediæval scholars; more recently it has been advocated in England by Mr (now Bishop) Westcott, and Prof. Bevan; and on the Continent by Ewald, Bleek, Delitzsch[286], Kuenen, Meinhold, and others[287]. The strongest arguments in its favour are derived (1) from the positive objections stated above, to the ‘Roman’ interpretation,—for an intermediate view, which has been suggested, viz. that the four empires are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian, and the Syrian, has little to recommend it: and (2) from the description of the ‘little horn’ in Daniel 7, viewed in connexion with what is said in other parts of the book. In ch. 8 there is a ‘little horn,’ which is admitted on all hands to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, and whose impious character and doings (Daniel 8:10-12; Daniel 8:25) are in all essentials identical with those attributed to the ‘little horn’ in ch. 7 (Daniel 7:8 end, 20, 21, 25): as Delitzsch remarks, it is extremely difficult to think that where the description is so similar, two entirely different persons, living in widely different periods of the world’s history, should be intended. It is true, there are details in which the two descriptions differ,—ch. 8 dwells for instance a good deal more fully on the particulars of Antiochus’ assaults upon the faith: but entire identity would be tautology; the differences affect no material feature in the representation; and there is consequently no better reason for supposing that they point here to two different personalities than for supposing that similar differences in the representations of ch. 2 and ch. 7 point there to two different series of empires. Again, the period during which the persecution in ch. 7 is to continue is ‘a time, times, and half-a-time’ (i.e. 3½ years)—exactly the period during which (Daniel 12:7 : cf. Daniel 7:11; and on Daniel 9:27) the persecution of Antiochus is to continue: is it likely that entirely different events should be measured by precisely the same interval of time? And thirdly, if the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes is in Daniel 12:1-3 (see the notes) followed immediately by the Messianic age, is it probable that in chs. 2 and 7 this should be represented as beginning at an indefinite date in the distant future? The age of Antiochus Epiphanes is in fact the limiting horizon of the book. Not only does the revelation of chs. 10–12 culminate in the description of that age, which is followed, without any interval, by the period of final bliss, but the age of Antiochus himself is in Daniel 8:19 (as the sequel shews) described as the ‘time of the end’: can there then, asks Delitzsch, have been for Daniel a ‘time of the end’ after that which he himself expressly describes as the ‘end’? ‘There might have been, if the visions which ex hyp. represent the Roman age as following that of Alexander and his successors, were later in date than those which do not look beyond the period of the Seleucidae. In point of fact, however, the dream of ch. 2, and the vision of ch. 7, are both of earlier date than the visions of ch. 8 and ch. 9[288].’

[284] Or, at least, for the first time distinctly; for a passage in the so-called ‘Sibylline Oracles’ (see the Introduction, p. lxxxiii) makes it probable that the ‘ten horns’ were understood of the Seleucidae as early as c. 140 b.c. After describing (iii. 381–7) how Macedonia will bring great woe upon Asia, and overcome Babylon (alluding manifestly to Alexander the Great), the ‘Sibyl’ continues (388 ff.):—

[285] See the Commentary on Daniel in vol. ii. of his Syriac works (ed. 1740).

[286] In his art. Daniel, in the 2nd edition of Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie (1878). It is also adopted by Buhl in the corresponding article in the 3rd edition (1898) of the same work.

[287] It is adopted also in the art. Daniel in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, by Prof. E. L. Curtis, of Yale, and in that in Black’s Encyclopaedia Biblica (col. 1007), by Prof. Kamphausen, of Bonn.

[288] The arguments in the preceding paragraph are substantially those of Delitzsch, in his article just referred to. p. 474.

ἥξει καί ποτʼ ἄπυστ [εἰς] Ἀσσίδος ὄλβιον οὖδας

ἀνὴρ πορφυρέην λώπην ἐπιειμένος ὤμοις,

  390  ἄγριος, ἀλλοδίκης, φλογόεις• ἤγειρε γὰρ αὐτὸν

πρόσθε κεραυνὸς φῶτα• κακὸν δʼ Ἀσίη ζυγὸν ἕξει

πᾶσα, πολὺν δὲ χθὼν πίεται φόνον ὀμβρηθεῖσα.

ἀλλὰ καὶ ὣς πανάϊστον ἅπαντʼ Ἀΐδης θεραπεύσει•

ὧν δή περ γενεὴν αὐτὸς θέλει ἐξαπολέσσαι,

  395  ἐκ τῶν δὴ γενεῆς κείνου γέυοζ ἐξαπολεῖται•

ῥίζαν ἴαν γε διδούς, ἣν καὶ κόψει Βροτολοιγὸς

ἐκ δέκα δὴ κεράτων, παρὰ δὲ φυτὸν ἄλλο φυτεύσει.

κόψει πορφυρέης γενεῆς γενετῆρα μαχητήν,

καὐτὸς ἀφ υἱῶν, ὦν ἐς ὁμόφρονα αἴσιον ἄρρης

  400  φθεῖται• καὶ τοτὲ δὴ παραφυόμενον κέρας ἄρξει.

The ‘man clad with purple, fierce, unjust, fiery, lightning-born,’ who is to enslave Asia is, it seems, Antiochus Epiphanes (whose invasion of Egypt is certainly referred to in ll. 611–615). The race which he wishes to destroy, but by which his own race will be destroyed, is that of his brother Seleucus IV. (b.c. 187–175), whose son, Demetrius I., caused the ‘one root’ which Antiochus left, viz. his son and successor, Antiochus V. Eupator (164–162), to be put to death (1Ma 7:1-4): this the writer expresses by saying, ‘the destroyer (Ares, the god of war) will cut him off out of ten horns’, i.e. as the last of ten kings. The (illegitimate) ‘plant’ planted beside him is Alexander Balas, who defeated and slew Demetrius I., the ‘warrior father of a royal race’ in 150 (1Ma 10:49 f.), and usurped the throne of Syria from 150 to 146. In 146, however, Alexandar Balas (l. 399) was attacked and defeated by Demetrius II., son of Demetrius I., and his father in-law, Ptolemy Philometor, and soon afterwards murdered (1Ma 11:8-19; Jos. Ant. xiii. iv. 8). The ‘horn’ growing alongside, that was then to rule, is the parvenu Trypho, guardian of the youthful Antiochus VI., who having procured the death of his ward, held the throne of Syria from 142 to 137 (1Ma 12:39; 1Ma 13:31 f., 1Ma 15:37). If this highly probable interpretation is correct (and it is accepted by Schürer), the ‘ten horns,’ though not entirely, are nevertheless largely (see p. 101 f.) the same Seleucid princes as in Dan.; and it is reasonable to regard the passage as indicating the sense in which the ‘horns’ of Dan. were understood at the time when it was written (see further Schürer, ii. p. 798 f.).

2Es 12:11 (cited p. 95), where the interpretation of Daniel 7:7-8 given in Daniel 7:23-26 seems to be corrected, may also perhaps justify the inference that this interpretation had previously been the prevalent one: it would be but natural that, when the empire of the Greeks had passed away, without the prophecy being fulfilled, it should be re-interpreted of the Romans (cf. Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian, p. 173).

For these reasons it is impossible to think either that the ‘little horn’ of ch. 7 represents any other ruler but Antiochus Epiphanes, or that the fourth empire of ch. 2 and ch. 7 is any other than the Greek empire of Alexander’s successors. That the symbolism of the two visions leaves ‘nothing to be desired’ upon this interpretation, has been shewn by Delitzsch. “By the material of the feet being heterogeneous is signified the division of the kingdom, in consequence of which these offshoots (‘Ausläufer’) of it arose (cf. Daniel 11:5); by its consisting of iron and clay is signified the superior strength of the one kingdom as compared with the other (Daniel 11:5); by the iron and clay being mingled, without being organically united, is signified the union of the two kingdoms by matrimonial alliances (Daniel 11:6; Daniel 11:17), without any real unity between them being attained. And how naturally are the silver breast and arms referred to the Median empire, and the brazen belly and loins to the Persian! ‘After thee,’ says Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:39), ‘will arise another kingdom, inferior to thine.’ Was then the Persian empire inferior to the Chaldaean? It may be answered that it was so in its Median beginnings. But what justification is there for referring the word inferior’ to the beginnings of the second empire, rather than to the period when it displayed most fully its distinctive character? The reference is to the Median Empire which, because it was in general of less importance than the others, is passed by in the interpretation (Daniel 2:39) in few words. Of the third empire, on the contrary, it is said (ibid.) that it will ‘bear rule over all the earth.’ That is the Persian empire. Only this is again a universal empire, in the fullest sense of the term, as the Chaldaean was. The intermediate Median empire, weaker than both, merely forms the transition from the one to the other[289].”

[289] Delitzsch had already shewn, substantially as is done above, in the note on Daniel 2:39, that according to the representation of the Book of Daniel, there was a Median empire, following the Chaldaean, and at the same time distinct from the Persian.

What, however, upon this interpretation of the fourth empire, is denoted by the ‘ten horns’? The most probable view is that they represent the successors of Alexander upon the throne of Antioch, the line out of which Antiochus Epiphanes, the ‘little horn,’ ultimately arose. ‘That all ten appear simultaneously is a consequence of the vision [comp. in ch. 2 how the four successive empires appear as parts of the same image], and does not authorize the conclusion that all were contemporary, though of course the three uprooted by Antiochus must have been contemporary with him’ (Delitzsch). The first seven of these successors are: (1) Seleucus (I.) Nicator (b.c. 312–280); (2) Antiochus (I.) Soter (279–261); (3) Antiochus (II.) Theos (260–246); (4) Seleucus (II.) Callinicus (245–226); (5) Seleucus (III.) Ceraunus (225–223); (6) Antiochus (III.) the Great (222–187); (7) Seleucus (IV.) Philopator (186–176). The last three are reckoned differently. According to some[290], they are (8) Heliodorus, the chief minister of Seleucus Philopator, who, having poisoned his master, aimed at the throne for himself, and would, no doubt, have secured it, had not Antiochus Epiphanes returned from Rome in time, with the help of Attalus and Eumenes of Pergamum, to prevent it (see further on Daniel 11:20)[291]; (9) Demetrius, son of Seleucus Philopator and nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes, who after his father’s murder was the legitimate heir to the throne, but who was detained as hostage at Rome in lieu of Antiochus Epiphanes, and only actually succeeded to the throne after Antiochus Epiphanes’ death; (10) Ptolemy (VII.) Philometor, king of Egypt, also nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes (being son of his sister Cleopatra), whom, according to Jerome, a party in Syria desired to place on the throne, but whom Antiochus ‘by simulating clemency’ displaced[292]: Philometor afterwards laid claim to the Syrian provinces of Coele-Syria and Palestine, but being attacked by Antiochus, he fell into his uncle’s hands, and had it not been for the interference of the Romans, would, in all probability, have permanently lost the crown of Egypt (see more fully on Daniel 11:21). These three men, as Ewald points out, were all politically prominent at the time; they all stood in Antiochus’s way, and had in one way or another to be put aside before he could secure his crown: they might thus, in the imagery of the vision, be well described as ‘plucked up’ (Daniel 7:8), ‘falling down’ (Daniel 7:20), or ‘abased’ (Daniel 7:24), before him. Others[293], arguing that the fourth beast represents the Greek supremacy as a whole, consider that Alexander, the first king, should not be excluded from the enumeration: they accordingly begin the list with him, obtaining then (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) Demetrius: upon this view it is supposed that the murder of Seleucus Philopator, though in fact the work of Heliodorus, was attributed popularly at the time to the suggestion, or instigation, of Antiochus (who, indeed, almost immediately succeeded his brother, and consequently was the one who, to all appearance, benefited most materially by his removal). The exclusion of Ptolemy Philometor from this enumeration, is thought to be a point in its favour; for before the accession of Antiochus, he was not, it is pointed out, king of Syria, and it is doubtful (p. 101, not[294]) whether even any claim to the throne was then made on his behalf. Others[295], again, doubt whether Demetrius is rightly included among the ten kings (for though he was the lawful heir after his father s death, he was not actually king at the time here referred to), and prefer, therefore, (8) Seleucus Philopator; (9) Heliodorus; (10) an unnamed brother of Demetrius, who, according to a fragment of John of Antioch, was put to death by Antiochus[296]. One or other of these alternatives may be reasonably adopted, as sufficiently satisfying the requirements of the case; our knowledge of the times does not, unfortunately, enable us to decide with confidence which deserves the preference.

[290] Bertholdt, von Lengerke, Ewald, Meinhold; cf. Delitzsch, p. 476.

[291] Cf. Appian, Syr. 45: τὸν δὲ Ἡλιόδωρον … εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν βιαζόμενον ἐκβάλλουσιν; and (of Antiochus) τῆς ἀρχῆς ἁρπαζομένης ὑπὸ ἀλλοτρίων βασιλεὺς οἰκεῖος ὤφθη.

[292] The statement, sometimes made, that Cleopatra herself claimed the throne of Syria for her son, is only matter of inference (cf. Pusey, p. 150). It is, however, true that the claim was afterwards (148–147 b.c.) raised, and even acted on by the Roman senate (Polyb. xxxiii. 16), on behalf of Philometor’s son-in-law, Alexander Balas; and that Philometor, having marched into Syria to assist Alexander in enforcing his claim, was actually for a short time king of Syria (1Ma 11:13; Polyb. xl. 12; Jos. Ant. xiii. 4: see Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 366, and the coin figured on p. 376).

[293] Hitzig, Cornill, Behrmann, Prince,—though Behrmann is disposed to treat the number symbolically, and to doubt whether particular individuals are referred to: the ‘ten horns’ he regards as symbolizing generally the divided rule of the Diadochi (p. 46). We cannot feel sure what the author means, so that this view must at least be admitted as a possible one.

[294] ote Delitzsch had already shewn, substantially as is done above, in the note on Daniel 2:39, that according to the representation of the Book of Daniel, there was a Median empire, following the Chaldaean, and at the same time distinct from the Persian.

[295] Von Gutschmid, Kuenen, Bevan.

[296] Müller, Fragm. hist. Graec. iv. 558.

Bleek supposed that the ten horns represented the parts of Alexander’s empire which, after his death, became independent kingdoms, the number ten being chosen in view of the generals who, in the partition of b.c. 323, obtained the chief provinces, viz. 1 Craterus (Macedonia), 2 Antipater (Greece), 3 Lysimachus (Thrace), 4 Leonatus (Little Phrygia on the Hellespont), 5 Antigonus (Great Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia), 6 Kassander (Caria), 7 Eumenes (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia), 8 Laomedon (Syria and Palestine), 9 Pithon (Media), 10 Ptolemy Lagi (Egypt). However, according to Justin (xiii. 4) the entire number of provinces was not 10, but 28, and the principle upon which 10 are selected out of them appears to be arbitrary; moreover, these provinces were not independent kingdoms, but satrapies of an empire still regarded as one and undivided (see Pusey, p. 153 ff).

Da 7:1-28.

VISION OF THE FOUR BEASTS.

This chapter treats of the same subject as the second chapter. But there the four kingdoms, and Messiah's final kingdom, were regarded according to their external political aspect, but here according to the mind of God concerning them, and their moral features. The outward political history had been shown in its general features to the world ruler, whose position fitted him for receiving such a revelation. But God's prophet here receives disclosures as to the characters of the powers of the world, in a religious point of view, suited to his position and receptivity. Hence in the second chapter the images are taken from the inanimate sphere; in the seventh chapter they are taken from the animate. Nebuchadnezzar saw superficially the world power as a splendid human figure, and the kingdom of God as a mere stone at the first. Daniel sees the world kingdoms in their inner essence as of an animal nature lower than human, being estranged from God; and that only in the kingdom of God ("the Son of man," the representative man) is the true dignity of man realized. So, as contrasted with Nebuchadnezzar's vision, the kingdom of God appears to Daniel, from the very first, superior to the world kingdom. For though in physical force the beasts excel man, man has essentially spiritual powers. Nebuchadnezzar's colossal image represents mankind in its own strength, but only the outward man. Daniel sees man spiritually degraded to the beast level, led by blind impulses, through his alienation from God. It is only from above that the perfect Son of man comes, and in His kingdom man attains his true destiny. Compare

Ps 8:1-9 with Ge 1:26-28.

Humanity is impossible without divinity: it sinks to bestiality

(Ps 32:9; 49:20; 73:22).

Obstinate heathen nations are compared to "bulls"

(Ps 68:30);

Egypt to the dragon in the Nile

(Isa 27:1; 51:9; Eze 29:3).

The animal with all its sagacity looks always to the ground, without consciousness of relation to God. What elevates man is communion with God, in willing subjection to Him. The moment he tries to exalt himself to independence of God, as did Nebuchadnezzar

(Da 4:30),

he sinks to the beast's level. Daniel's acquaintance with the animal colossal figures in Babylon and Nineveh was a psychological preparation for his animal visions.

Ho 13:7, 8

would occur to him while viewing those ensigns of the world power. Compare

Jer 2:15; 4:7; 5:6.

1. Belshazzar--Good Hebrew manuscripts have "Belshazzar"; meaning "Bel is to be burnt with hostile fire"

(Jer 50:2; 51:44).

In the history he is called by his ordinary name; in the prophecy, which gives his true destiny, he is called a corresponding name, by the change of a letter.

visions of his head--not confused "dreams," but distinct images seen while his mind was collected.

sum--a "summary." In predictions, generally, details are not given so fully as to leave no scope for free agency, faith, and patient waiting for God manifesting His will in the event. He "wrote" it for the Church in all ages; he "told" it for the comfort of his captive fellow countrymen.

In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon - On the character and reign of Belshazzar, see Introduction to Daniel 5 Section II. He was the last of the kings of Babylon, and this fact may cast some light on the disclosures made in the dream.

Daniel had a dream - Margin, as in Hebrew, saw. He saw a series of events in vision when he was asleep. The dream refers to that representation, and was of such a nature that it was proper to speak of it as if he saw it. Compare the notes at Daniel 2:1.

And visions of his head upon his bed - See the notes at Daniel 4:5.

Then he wrote the dream - He made a record of it at the time. He did not commit it to tradition, or wait for its fulfillment before it was recorded, but long before the events referred to occurred he committed the prediction to writing, that when the prophecy was fulfilled they might be compared with it. It was customary among the prophets to record their predictions, whether communicated in a dream, in a vision, or by words to them, that there might be no doubt when the event occurred that there had been an inspired prediction of it, and that there might be an opportunity of a careful comparison of the prediction with the event. Often the prophets were commanded to record their predictions. See Isaiah 8:1, Isaiah 8:16; Isaiah 30:8; Habakkuk 2:2. Compare Revelation 1:19; Revelation 14:13; Revelation 21:5. In many instances, as in the case before us, the record was made hundreds of years before the event occurred, and as there is all the evidence that there could be in a case that the record has not been altered to adapt it to the event, the highest proof is thus furnished of the inspiration of the prophets. The meaning here is, that Daniel wrote out the dream as soon as it occurred.

And told the sum of the matters - Chaldee, "And spake the head of the words." That is, he spake or told them by writing. He made a communication of them in this manner to the world. It is not implied that he made any oral communication of them to anyone, but that he communicated them - to wit, in the way specified. The word "sum" here - ראשׁ rē'sh - means "head"; and would properly denote such a record as would be a heading up, or a summary - as stating in a brief way the contents of a book, or the chief points of a thing without going into detail. The meaning here seems to be that he did not go into detail - as by writing names, and dates, and places; or, perhaps, that he did not enter into a minute description of all that he saw in regard to the beasts that came up from the sea, but that he recorded what might be considered as peculiar, and as having special significancy.

The Codex Chisianus renders this, ἔγραψεν ἐις κεφάλαια λόγων egrapsen eis kephalaia logōn - "He wrote in heads of words," that is, he reduced it to a summary description. It is well remarked by Lengerke, on this place, that the prophets, when they described what was to occur to tyrants in future times, conveyed their oracles in a comparatively dark and obscure manner, yet so as to be clear when the events should occur. The reason of this is obvious. If the meaning of many of the predictions had been understood by those to whom they referred, that fact would have been a motive to them to induce them to defeat them; and as the fulfillment depended on their voluntary agency, the prophecy would have been void. It was necessary, therefore, in general, to avoid direct predictions, and the mention of names, dates, and places, and to make use of symbols whose meaning would be obscure at the time when the prediction was made, but which would be plain when the event should occur. A comparison of Daniel 7:4, Daniel 7:9, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:14, will show that only a sumptuary of what was to occur was recorded.

Matters - Margin, as in Chaldee, words. The term words, however; is often used to denote things.