성경 주석서

이 책의 앞 여섯 장은 역사적 내용이었다. 이제는 예언으로 이루어진 뒤 여섯 장에 두려움과 떨림으로 들어간다. 그 안에는 어둡고 이해하기 어려워 감히 그 뜻을 단정할 수 없는 내용이 많다. 그러나 분명하고 유익한 내용도 많으며, 하나님이 그것을 잘 활용하도록 우리를 도우실 것이라 믿는다. 이 장에는 다음 내용이 있다. I. 다니엘이 본 네 짐승의 환상(단 7:1-8). II. 하나님의 통치와 심판의 보좌에 관한 환상(단 7:9-14). III. 곁에 서 있던 천사가 다니엘에게 알려 준 이 환상들의 해석(단 7:15-28). 이 환상들이 세상 끝까지 내다보는 것인지, 아니면 곧 성취될 일이었는지를 말하기는 어렵다. 가장 분별력 있는 해석자들 사이에서도 이에 관한 견해가 일치하지 않는다.

제1절—장 분석

이 장에는 벨사살 통치 제1년에 다니엘이 꾼 놀라운 예언적 꿈과 그 꿈의 해석이 기록되어 있다. 이 장의 내용을 간략히 진술한 뒤, 더 명확하게 해설하기 위해 이 장을 해석하고 적용하는 여러 방법과 견해를 제시하는 것이 적절할 것이다. 이 장의 주요 내용은 환상(다니엘 7:1-14)과 해석(다니엘 7:15-28)이다.

I. 환상, 다니엘 7:1-14. 이 꿈은 벨사살 통치 제1년에 일어났고 곧바로 기록되었다. 다니엘은 바닷가에 서 있으며, 거센 바람이 바다에 불어 파도가 사납게 요동하는 광경을 본다. 갑자기 그는 요동하는 물결에서 네 괴물이 솟아오르는 것을 본다. 각각 잠시 머무는 듯하다가 사라진다. 첫째 짐승은 전체 형태가 사자와 비슷했지만 독수리 같은 날개가 있었다. 다니엘이 이를 주의 깊게 바라보는 동안 날개가 뽑혔고, 그 짐승은 사람처럼 똑바로 서게 되었으며 사람의 마음을 받았다.

그 뒤 이 짐승이 어떻게 되었는지는 언급되지 않는다. 이어 둘째 짐승이 나타났는데 곰과 비슷했고 몸 한쪽을 들고 있었으며 입에는 갈빗대 세 개를 물고 있었다. 그 짐승에게 일어나 많은 고기를 먹으라는 명령이 주어졌다. 이 짐승이 그 뒤 어떻게 되었는지도 더 말하지 않는다. 이어 표범 같은 또 다른 짐승이 일어났는데 날개 넷과 머리 넷이 있었고, 이 짐승에게 넓은 통치권이 주어졌다. 이 짐승이 어떻게 되었는지도 언급되지 않는다. 그다음에는 훨씬 더 기이한 넷째 짐승이 일어났다. 그 형태는 말하지 않지만 사납고 강했다. 큰 쇠 이빨이 있었고, 앞에 있는 모든 것을 짓밟고 삼키며 산산이 부수었다. 처음에는 이 짐승에게 뿔 열 개가 있었는데, 곧 그 가운데에서 다른 뿔 하나가 솟아났다. 처음에는 더 작은 뿔이었지만 이것이 자라면서 열 뿔 가운데 셋이 뿌리째 뽑혔다. 이 작은 뿔이 직접 뽑았거나 그 뿔에게 자리를 내주기 위해 뽑힌 듯하다. 더욱 기이하게도 이 작은 뿔에는 지성과 경계심을 상징하는 사람의 눈들이 있었고, 교만과 거만을 드러내는 큰 말을 하는 입이 있었다. 다니엘은 왕좌가 놓이거나 세워지고 옛적부터 항상 계신 이가 앉으실 때까지, 곧 옛 통치 형태들이 끝나고 하나님의 통치가 도입되어 세워질 때까지 이 기이한 환상을 바라보았다. “뿔이 말한” 큰 말들 때문에 짐승이 죽임을 당하고 그 몸이 파괴되어 타오르는 불꽃에 던져질 때까지 바라보았다. 그동안 다른 짐승들에게서는 통치권이 빼앗겼지만, 그들의 생명은 잠시 연장되었다. 이어 환상 가운데 사람의 모습을 한 이가 나타나 옛적부터 항상 계신 이에게 나아갔다. 그에게 모든 백성을 다스리는 보편적 통치권과 결코 멸망하지 않을 나라가 주어졌다.

II. 환상의 해석, 다니엘 7:15-28. 다니엘은 자기가 본 환상으로 크게 근심하여 곁에 서 있는 이에게 다가가 그 뜻을 물었다(다니엘 7:15-16). 그가 받은 해석은 대체로 다음과 같다. 그가 본 네 짐승은 땅에 존재하게 될 네 왕 또는 네 나라를 나타내며, 환상의 큰 목적은 지극히 높으신 이의 성도들이 마침내 나라를 얻어 영원히 다스릴 것이라는 사실을 밝히는 데 있었다(다니엘 7:17-18). 환상의 중대한 목적은 여러 왕조의 계승과 각 왕조의 고유한 성격을 묘사하여, 마침내 세상 통치권이 하나님의 백성의 손에 넘어가거나 땅의 실질적 통치가 의인들의 손에 놓일 때까지를 보여 주는 것이었다. 모든 변혁이 지향한 궁극적 목표, 곧 환상이 나타내려 한 것은 성도들이 마침내 땅에서 다스리는 일이었다. 온 천하의 나라가 지극히 높으신 이의 성도들의 백성에게 주어질 때가 올 것이었다. 달리 말하면 땅에 “모든 통치권” 또는 모든 “통치자”(다니엘 7:27 난외주)가 그분에게 복종하는 상태가 이루어질 것이었다. 궁극적으로 바라보는 일과 첫 세 짐승으로 상징된 첫 세 나라에 관한 이 일반적 설명은 다니엘에게 만족스러웠다. 그러나 구조가 매우 기이하고 다른 모든 짐승과 다르며 놀라운 변화를 겪은 넷째 짐승이 구체적으로 무엇을 나타내는지에 관해서는 여전히 의문이 남았다(다니엘 7:19-22). 넷째 짐승으로 상징된 사건들에 관해 그에게 알려진 내용을 요약하면 다음과 같다.

(1) 이 짐승은 땅에 일어날 넷째 나라 또는 왕조를 나타내며, 여러 면에서 앞선 세 나라와 다를 것이었다. 이 나라는 압제적인 정복으로 두드러질 것이었다. 온 땅을 정복하고 침략한 자들을 부수고 쓰러뜨리며 짓밟을 것이었다. 이 묘사는 엄하고 강력하며 잔인하고 성공적인 통치권을 특징짓는다. 이 통치권은 공의로운 법의 시행보다 무기의 공포로 정복한 민족들을 지배 아래 둘 것이었다(다니엘 7:23).

(2) 다니엘이 그 머리에서 솟아난 것을 본 열 뿔은 일어날 열 왕 또는 그 나라의 권세를 차례로 행사할 통치자들의 계승을 나타냈다(다니엘 7:24).

(3) 열 뿔 가운데에서 그 뒤에 솟아난 다른 뿔은 일어날 또 다른 왕조를 나타냈으며, 이 왕조에는 독특한 특징들이 있을 것이었다. 그것은 앞선 왕조들에서 솟아난다는 점에서 그들과 어느 정도 연결될 것이었다. 그러나 가장 중요한 면들에서는 그들과 달랐다. 그 특징은 다음과 같이 요약할 수 있다.

(a) 짐승의 머리에서 뿔이 솟아난 것처럼 그들 가운데에서 솟아나거나 어떤 방식으로 그들에게 붙어 있고 연결될 것이다. 이는 새 권력이 넷째 짐승으로 상징된 왕조에서 어떻게든 솟아났음을 적절히 나타낸다.

(b) 거기서 솟아나기는 하지만 그것과 “다를” 것이다. 그 성격은 그 기원이라는 단순한 사실이 아니라 다른 어떤 것에 의해 규정될 것이다.

(c) “이 왕들 가운데 셋을 굴복시킬” 것이다. 곧 열 뿔로 상징된 권력과 권세 가운데 일정 부분을 정복하고 쓰러뜨릴 것이다. 이는 넷째 짐승으로 상징된 나라의 권력 가운데 대략 삼분의 일을 찬탈한다는 뜻일 수 있다.

(d) 거만함과 오만함이 특징이 될 것이다. 그 주장을 정당하게 해석하면 “지극히 높으신 이를 대적하여 말하는” 정도에 이를 것이다.

(e) “지극히 높으신 이의 성도들을 괴롭게 할” 것이다. 이는 분명 박해를 가리킨다.

(f) “때와 법을 바꾸려” 할 만큼 입법 권한을 주장할 것이다. 확립된 법을 지배하려는 어떤 주장 또는 비상한 권세를 분명히 가리킨다(다니엘 7:24-25).

(4) 이 모든 것은 “한 때와 두 때와 반 때” 동안 이 새 권력의 손에 주어질 것이다. 이는 그 권력이 영속하지 않고 끝날 것임을 뜻한다(다니엘 7:25).

(5) 그 뒤에 심판, 곧 이 새 권력에 관한 사법적 결정이 있을 것이고, 그 통치권은 빼앗겨 완전히 멸망할 것이다(다니엘 7:26).

(6) 온 땅의 통치권이 성도들의 손에 넘어갈 때가 올 것이다. 달리 말하면 진리와 공의의 원칙이 보편적으로 다스릴 것이다(다니엘 7:27).

이 장의 결론인 다니엘 7:28에서 다니엘은 이 계시가 자기 마음에 깊은 영향을 끼쳤다고 말한다. 그는 먼 미래를 바라보고 인간사의 진행 과정에서 일어날 거대한 변화들을 숙고하도록 허락받았다. 심지어 모든 민족이 하나님의 법의 지배 아래 들어오고 지극히 높으신 이의 벗들이 모든 권력을 소유할 때를 내다보았다. 이러한 사건들은 마음을 엄숙한 생각으로 채우기에 충분했으므로, 그가 깊은 감정으로 그것들을 숙고한 것은 놀라운 일이 아니다.

제2절—이 장을 해석하는 여러 방법

이 장을 해석하는 방법들이 매우 달랐으며 올바른 해석이 무엇인지에 관해 주석가들이 전혀 일치하지 않는다는 사실은 굳이 말할 필요도 없다. 이 장을 해설하기 전에 그 방법들 가운데 일부를 언급하여, 이 장을 고찰할 때 염두에 두는 것이 유익할 것이다. 그 방법들 가운데 어느 하나라도 성경 저자가 사용한 언어를 공정하게 해설한 것과 일치하는지를 살펴보면 참된 해석이 무엇인지 더 잘 확인할 수 있다. 제시된 견해들은 다음 부류로 나눌 수 있다.

I. 하르트는 여기의 네 짐승이 느부갓네살, 에윌므로닥, 벨사살, 고레스라는 특정한 네 왕을 가리킨다고 본다.

II. 아이히호른이 따르는 에프렘의 견해에 따르면, 첫째 짐승은 바벨론-갈대아 왕국을 가리킨다. 둘째는 키악사레스 2세가 다스린 메대 제국을 가리키며, 세 “갈빗대”는 그 제국을 구성한 메대와 페르시아와 갈대아 지역을 나타낸다. 셋째는 페르시아 제국을 가리키며, 네 머리와 날개는 페르시아 제국이 하늘 아래 네 방위 또는 온 세계로 뻗어 나간 것을 나타낸다. 넷째는 알렉산드로스와 그 후계자들이 다스린 그리스 제국을 가리킨다. 열 뿔은 알렉산드로스의 후계자들 가운데 탁월한 열 왕을, 그들 가운데 솟아난 “작은 뿔”은 안티오코스 에피파네스를 나타낸다. 에프렘과 아이히호른에 따르면 뒤이은 상태는 메시아의 나라를 가리킨다.

III. 헤첼이 따르는 또 다른 부류의 해석자들을 대표하는 그로티우스는 여기 언급된 나라의 계승을 바벨론-갈대아 왕국, 페르시아 왕국, 알렉산드로스와 그 후계자들의 왕국으로 본다. 다섯째는 로마 제국이다.

IV. 교회 안에서 가장 널리 우세했던 해석은 첫째 짐승이 갈대아 왕국, 둘째가 메대-페르시아, 셋째가 알렉산드로스와 그 후계자들이 다스린 그리스 제국, 넷째가 로마 제국을 나타낸다는 견해이다. 성도들의 통치는 메시아와 그분의 법이 다스리는 것을 뜻한다. 그러나 이 견해는 특히 이 나라들 가운데 넷째와 다섯째 나라에 관해 매우 다양하게 변형되었고, 열 뿔과 그 가운데 솟아난 작은 뿔의 의미에 관해서는 더욱 그러했다. 다섯째 나라를 그리스도의 통치로 보는 이들 가운데 어떤 사람들은 넷째 나라가 카이사르들이 다스린 로마를 가리키고, 열 뿔은 차례로 이어진 열 명의 섭정자를, 작은 뿔은 율리우스 카이사르를 가리킨다고 본다. 마지막 나라를 땅에서 이루어질 그리스도의 인격적 통치와 그분이 세우실 나라로 보는 다른 사람들은 열 뿔이 로마 권력에서 나온 열 왕 또는 왕조를 가리킨다고 본다. 이들은 차례로 이어진 황제들이거나, 북방 유목민들이 침입한 뒤에 등장한 이들이거나, 로마 권력이 무너진 뒤 그것을 계승한 유럽의 특정 왕국들일 수 있다. 작은 뿔은 여러 분파를 거느린 튀르크 권력, 무함마드, 교황권 또는 적그리스도 가운데 하나를 가리킨다고 본다.

V. 유대인들은 일반적으로 다섯째 나라가 메시아의 통치를 가리킨다고 본다. 그러나 예언의 구체적인 부분들을 적용하는 일에서는 그들 사이에도 견해가 매우 다양했다. 그들 가운데 많은 옛 해석자들은 열 뿔이 열 명의 로마 황제를, 마지막 뿔이 티투스 베스파시아누스를 나타낸다고 보았다. 후대의 유대인 해석자 대부분은 이를 그들의 전설적인 곡과 마곡에 적용한다.

VI. 지지자들이 있었던 또 다른 해석에 따르면, 첫째 나라는 갈대아, 둘째는 페르시아, 셋째는 알렉산드로스의 나라, 넷째는 그의 후계자들의 나라, 다섯째는 시리아 왕들의 전제 정치에서 유대 민족을 구하려고 일어난 하스몬 왕조의 통치이다.

VII. 교회 안에서 어느 정도 널리 받아들여졌던 한 해석 방식의 사례로 코케이우스의 견해를 들 수 있다. 그는 독수리 날개를 지닌 첫째 짐승이 로마의 그리스도인 황제들의 통치와, 그들 아래서 그리스도교가 동서의 먼 지역으로 퍼진 것을 나타낸다고 본다. 입에 갈빗대 세 개를 문 둘째 짐승은 아리우스파인 고트족과 반달족과 롬바르드족을, 머리 넷과 날개 넷을 지닌 셋째 짐승은 네 칼리프국을 거느린 이슬람 왕국을 나타낸다. 넷째 짐승은 샤를마뉴의 왕국을 가리키며, 이 나라의 열 뿔은 카롤링거, 작센, 잘레, 스웨덴, 네덜란드, 잉글랜드 등의 군주와 왕조 또는 민족을 가리킨다. 작은 뿔은 실제 적그리스도인 교황권을 가리킨다.

나는 이 여러 견해와 해석 방법에 관한 설명을 베르톨트의 『다니엘』 419-426쪽에서 번역했다. 여기에 베르톨트 자신이 주장하고 다른 많은 사람도 지지했으며, 베르톨트가 426-446쪽에서 길게 설명하고 변호한 견해를 덧붙여야 한다. 그 견해의 요지는 첫째 나라가 느부갓네살이 다스린 바벨론 왕국이고, 첫째 짐승의 날개는 그 제국이 널리 확장된 것을 나타낸다는 것이다. “갈빗대” 또는 송곳니 세 개를 지닌 둘째 짐승은 페르시아라는 하나의 왕권 아래 세워진 메대와 리디아와 바벨론 왕국을 나타낸다. 날개 넷과 머리 넷을 지닌 셋째 짐승은 알렉산드로스가 다스린 그리스 왕조와 그 나라가 세계의 네 방면 전체로 퍼진 것을 나타낸다. 넷째 짐승은 히브리인들이 그 아래에서 큰 고난을 겪은 프톨레마이오스 왕조와 셀레우코스 왕조를 나타낸다. 이 나라를 두고 다니엘 7:7이 “그것은 그 전에 있던 모든 것과 달랐다”고 한 것은 “넷째 나라의 복수성”, 곧 여러 다른 나라로 이루어진 집합체, 집합적 의미의 한 나라였다는 사실을 가리킨다. “열 뿔”은 그 나라에서 차례로 통치한 열 명의 군주 또는 왕을 나타낸다. 베르톨트는 그들을 다음 순서로 열거한다.

1. 셀레우코스 니카토르

2. 안티오코스 소테르

3. 안티오코스 테오스

4. 셀레우코스 칼리니코스

5. 셀레우코스 케라우노스

6. 안티오코스 대왕

7. 셀레우코스 필로파토르

8. 헬리오도로스

9. 프톨레마이오스 필로메토르

10. 데메트리오스

작은 뿔로 상징된 열한째 왕은 히브리 백성에게 많은 재앙을 가져온 안티오코스 에피파네스였다. 베르톨트에 따르면 그의 통치는 “한 때와 두 때와 반 때”, 곧 삼 년 반 동안 지속되었다. 그 뒤 나라는 하나님의 백성에게 회복되어 영속적인 통치가 되고, 마침내 메시아 아래에서 온 세상을 채우며 세상 끝날까지 지속된다.

“작은 뿔”이 안티오코스 에피파네스를 가리킨다는 이 해석은 스튜어트 교수도 주장한다. 『예언에 관한 시사점』 제2판 85-98쪽을 보라. 또한 『다니엘 주석』 173-194쪽과 205-211쪽을 비교하라.

이처럼 다양한 견해 가운데 이 장의 의미에 관해 만족스러운 결론에 도달할 유일한 희망은 본문과 다니엘이 사용한 상징들의 공정한 의미를 주의 깊게 검토하는 데 있다.

선지자는 이 책의 앞선 장들에서 포로 생활 가운데 자기 자신과 형제들에게 일어난 몇 가지 주목할 만한 사건을 서술하고, 하나님의 도우심으로 다른 사람들의 꿈을 해석할 수 있음을 입증한 뒤, 이제 자신이 본 환상을 자세히 이야기한다. 여기서 그는 앞 장에 기록된 사건들보다 앞선 시기로 되돌아간다. 선지자의 환상 가운데 순서상 첫째는 몹시 요동치는 바다에서 올라온 네 짐승에 관한 것이며(다니엘 7:1-9), 이어 넷째 짐승의 뿔 하나가 내뱉은 교만하고 신성모독적인 말 때문에 그 짐승의 통치를 소멸시킨 인자 같은 이에 관한 것이다(다니엘 7:9-14). 한 천사가 이 장에 담긴 상형적 표상을 풀이하여, 서로 다른 네 짐승이 사람이 거주하는 온 땅에서 차례로 계승될 네 최고 제국을 나타낸다고 밝힌다. 이 제국들은 또 다른 상형적 표상을 통해 느부갓네살에게 미리 보여진 것과 분명히 동일하다(둘째 장을 보라)(다니엘 7:15-26). 그러나 하나님의 백성을 위로하기 위하여, 여호와의 경륜 가운데 정해진 때에 “나라와 권세와 온 천하 나라들의 위대함이 지극히 높으신 이의 성도들에게 붙인 바 되리라”는 말이 덧붙는다. 또 이 나라는 앞선 모든 통치가 그러했던 것과 달리 결코 멸망하지도, 다른 백성에게 넘어가지도 않고 그 자체로 영원히 서 있으리라고 한다(다니엘 7:27, 다니엘 7:28). 여기서 한 가지 지적해 두는 것이 마땅하다. 제25절에서 성도들과 싸우는 작은 뿔(일반적으로 교황 권력을 상징적으로 나타낸 것으로 여겨진다)의 통치 기간으로 언급된 한 때와 두 때와 반 때는, 프랑스 왕 피핀이 교황에게 세속 권력을 부여한 주후 755년이나 756년에 시작되었을 가능성이 가장 크다. 이 가설을 따르면 그 기간의 종결은 그리스도 기원 2000년경이 되는데, 이때는 유대인과 그리스도인이 어떤 주목할 만한 대변혁의 시기로 지목해 온 때다. 그들의 생각으로는 그때에 세상이 새로워지고, 악인이 교회를 괴롭히기를 그치며, 지극히 높으신 이의 성도들이 사람이 거주하는 온 땅을 다스리게 된다. 그러나 이것은 모두 가설일 뿐이다.

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).

다니엘 7:1-28. 네 짐승의 환상. 이 장은 둘째 장과 같은 주제를 다룬다. 그러나 둘째 장에서는 네 왕국과 메시아의 최종 왕국이 그 외적 정치 모습에 따라 다루어졌고, 여기서는 그것들에 대한 하나님의 관점과 그 도덕적 특징에 따라 다루어진다. 외적 정치사는 그런 계시를 받을 위치에 있던 세상 통치자에게 일반적 특징으로 보여졌다. 그러나 여기서 하나님의 선지자는 종교적 관점에서 세상 권세들의 성격에 관한 계시를 받는데, 이는 그의 위치와 수용성에 알맞다. 그러므로 둘째 장에서는 형상들이 무생물 영역에서 취해졌고, 일곱째 장에서는 생물 영역에서 취해졌다. 느부갓네살은 세상 권세를 화려한 인간 형상으로, 하나님의 왕국을 처음에는 한낱 돌로 피상적으로 보았다. 다니엘은 세상 왕국들의 내적 본질을 하나님에게서 멀어진, 인간보다 낮은 짐승 같은 성질로 본다. 그리고 오직 하나님의 왕국, 곧 대표 인간인 "인자" 안에서만 인간의 참 존엄이 실현된다는 것을 본다. 따라서 느부갓네살의 환상과 대조하여 하나님의 왕국은 처음부터 세상 왕국보다 우월하게 다니엘에게 나타난다. 짐승들이 육체적 힘에서는 사람보다 뛰어나지만, 사람에게는 본질적으로 영적 능력이 있기 때문이다. 느부갓네살의 거대한 신상은 자기 힘 안에 있는 인류를 나타내지만, 그것은 겉사람만을 나타낸다. 다니엘은 사람이 하나님에게서 멀어짐으로 말미암아 눈먼 충동에 이끌려 영적으로 짐승 수준으로 타락한 것을 본다. 완전한 인자는 오직 위로부터 오며, 그의 왕국 안에서 사람은 자기의 참 목적에 이른다. 시편 8:1-9와 창세기 1:26-28을 비교하라. 신성 없이는 인성이 불가능하다. 그것은 짐승성으로 가라앉는다(시편 32:9; 49:20; 73:22). 완고한 이방 나라들은 "수소들"에 비유된다(시편 68:30). 이집트는 나일 강의 용에 비유된다(이사야 27:1; 51:9; 에스겔 29:3). 동물은 아무리 영리해도 항상 땅을 바라보며 하나님과의 관계를 의식하지 못한다. 사람을 높이는 것은 하나님과의 교제와 그분께 기꺼이 복종하는 것이다. 사람이 느부갓네살처럼(다니엘 4:30) 하나님에게서 독립하려고 자신을 높이는 순간, 그는 짐승의 수준으로 떨어진다. 바벨론과 니느웨의 거대한 동물 형상들에 대한 다니엘의 지식은 그의 동물 환상을 위한 심리적 준비였다. 그가 세상 권세의 그 표상들을 보았을 때 호세아 13:7, 8이 떠올랐을 것이다. 예레미야 2:15; 4:7; 5:6도 비교하라. 1. 벨사살. 좋은 히브리어 사본들은 "벨사살"이라 하는데, 이는 "벨이 적대적 불에 살라질 것이다"라는 뜻이다(예레미야 50:2; 51:44). 역사에서는 그의 보통 이름으로 불리고, 예언에서는 글자 하나의 변화로 그의 참 운명을 나타내는 대응 이름으로 불린다. 머리의 환상들은 혼란한 꿈들이 아니라, 정신이 모아져 있을 때 본 분명한 형상들이다. 요지는 "개요"이다. 일반적으로 예언에서는 자유 행위, 믿음, 그리고 사건 속에서 자기 뜻을 나타내시는 하나님을 기다리는 인내가 들어설 여지를 전혀 남기지 않을 만큼 세부 사항이 완전히 주어지지는 않는다. 그는 모든 시대의 교회를 위해 그것을 기록했고, 포로 된 동족을 위로하기 위해 그것을 말했다.

바벨론 왕 벨사살 원년에—벨사살의 성격과 통치에 대해서는 다니엘 5장 서론 제2절을 보라. 그는 바벨론의 마지막 왕이었으며, 이 사실은 꿈에서 밝혀진 내용에 어느 정도 빛을 비출 수 있다.

다니엘이 꿈을 꾸었다—히브리어를 따른 난외주는 ‘보았다’라고 한다. 그는 잠들었을 때 환상 가운데 일련의 사건을 보았다. ‘꿈’은 그 표상을 가리키며, 그 성격상 마치 그가 그것을 직접 본 것처럼 말하는 것이 적절했다. 다니엘 2:1 주석과 비교하라.

침상에서 그의 머릿속으로 환상들이 나타났다—다니엘 4:5 주석을 보라.

그때 그가 그 꿈을 기록했다—그는 그 당시에 꿈을 기록으로 남겼다. 전승에 맡기거나 성취될 때까지 기다렸다가 기록한 것이 아니라, 언급된 사건들이 일어나기 오래전에 그 예언을 글로 써 두었다. 이는 예언이 성취될 때 사람들이 사건과 예언을 비교할 수 있게 하려는 것이었다. 선지자들은 꿈이나 환상이나 그들에게 주어진 말씀으로 전달받은 예언을 관례적으로 기록했다. 사건이 일어났을 때 그것에 관한 영감받은 예언이 미리 존재했다는 사실을 의심하지 못하게 하고, 예언과 사건을 주의 깊게 비교할 기회를 마련하기 위해서였다. 선지자들은 흔히 자기 예언을 기록하라는 명령을 받았다. 이사야 8:1, 16; 30:8; 하박국 2:2를 보라. 요한계시록 1:19; 14:13; 21:5와 비교하라. 우리 앞의 사례처럼 많은 경우 기록은 사건이 일어나기 수백 년 전에 작성되었다. 사건에 맞추려고 기록을 변경하지 않았다는 점에 관해 가능한 모든 증거가 있으므로, 이는 선지자들이 영감받았다는 가장 강력한 증거가 된다. 여기의 뜻은 다니엘이 꿈을 꾸자마자 그것을 기록했다는 것이다.

그 일들의 요점을 진술했다—갈대아어로는 “말씀들의 머리를 말했다”라는 뜻이다. 곧 글로 써서 그것들을 말하거나 진술했다. 그는 이런 방식으로 그것들을 세상에 전달했다. 누구에게 말로 전했다는 뜻은 아니며, 명시된 방식, 곧 기록으로 전달했다는 뜻이다. 여기서 “요점”에 해당하는 ראשׁ(rē'sh)는 “머리”를 뜻한다. 따라서 내용을 한데 모아 대표하는 기록 또는 요약, 곧 책의 내용을 간단히 진술하거나 세부 사항으로 들어가지 않고 어떤 일의 주요 요점을 말하는 기록을 적절히 나타낸다. 여기의 뜻은 그가 이름과 날짜와 장소를 적는 식으로 세부 사항에 들어가지 않았다는 듯하다. 또는 바다에서 올라온 짐승들에 관해 본 모든 것을 세밀하게 묘사하지 않고, 독특하고 특별한 의미를 지닌 것으로 여길 만한 것을 기록했다는 뜻일 수 있다.

키시아누스 사본은 이를 ἔγραψεν ἐις κεφάλαια λόγων(egrapsen eis kephalaia logōn), 곧 “말씀들의 표제들로 기록했다”라고 번역한다. 이는 내용을 요약된 묘사로 정리했다는 뜻이다. 렝게르케는 이 구절에서 선지자들이 훗날 폭군들에게 일어날 일을 묘사할 때, 사건이 일어난 뒤에는 명료해지지만 그전에는 비교적 어둡고 모호한 방식으로 신탁을 전달했다고 적절히 지적한다. 그 이유는 명백하다. 많은 예언의 의미를 그 대상자들이 이해했다면, 그 사실은 예언이 성취되지 못하게 하려는 동기가 되었을 것이다. 성취는 그들의 자발적 행위에 달려 있었으므로 예언은 무효가 되었을 것이다. 따라서 일반적으로 직접적인 예언과 이름과 날짜와 장소의 언급을 피하고, 예언이 주어질 당시에는 뜻이 모호하지만 사건이 일어나면 명백해질 상징들을 사용할 필요가 있었다. 다니엘 7:4, 9, 11, 14를 비교하면 앞으로 일어날 일의 요약만 기록되었음을 알 수 있다.

일들—갈대아어를 따른 난외주는 ‘말씀들’이라고 한다. 그러나 ‘말씀들’이라는 용어는 흔히 사물이나 사건을 나타내는 데도 사용된다.