Section II The Chaldean Apocalypse
(A Message to the Nations in Aramaic)
Daniel 2:1—7:28
A. NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S DREAM, 2:1-49
1. Haunting Dreams Beyond Recall (2:1-3)
The first three verses of this section continue the narrative in Hebrew. Following the words, Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack (4), the Aramaic section begins and continues until the close of c. 7.
Most evangelical expositors identify this chapter and its counterpart, c. 7, as the key passages in the book. Here we see the God of heaven revealing to a pagan king the divine intent through the ages and stages of history until the consummation in the kingdom of God.
Nebuchadnezzar (1) was in the prime of his young manhood and had but recently fallen heir to the throne. The power that was accumulating under his hand was increasing at an astonishing rate. Furthermore, by an imaginative and daring program of building in the cities through his own land he was winning both the religious leaders and the civilian population to enthusiastic support of his leadership.
At this juncture in his career the king showed a remarkable quality of greatness. Instead of driving on in an increasing frenzy of achievement he brought himself to a halt in order that he might think about the meaning of his own life and of the power that had come to him. What would be his destiny? And what would be the outcome of the empire which he had helped so recently to found? As he pondered he dreamed and his dreams, though confused, served to stimulate even more profound thoughts and questions about destiny and ultimate meaning. His spirit was troubled, and bis sleep brake from him (1). God was behind these questions and dreams.
So urgent did these questions become to Nebuchadnezzar that he took extreme measures to solve his problems. His own intellectual efforts were not sufficient to answer his questions. He called the experts and specialists in science, philosophy, and religion into consultation. The special function of each of the four groups mentioned is not altogether clear. But it seems the magicians (2) were experts in the occult arts, the astrologers were supposed to have access to supernatural knowledge through the study of the heavens, sorcerers were manipulators of supernatural powers through incantations, and the Chaldeans were the leaders of a priestly caste in Babylonian society.
The question naturally arises, Why did not Nebuchadnezzar include Daniel and his friends in his summons at the first? It is quite probable that these newcomers had not yet won a recognized place among the professional wise men and advisors. Furthermore, these Hebrews, gifted though they were, had not been accepted into the priestly caste.
2. A Despot's Impossible Demands (2:4-13)
The king presented to his wise men the problem of his deep concern about the dream which had awakened him and started his thoughts flowing in a troubled stream. The priestly representatives, the Chaldeans (4), became spokesmen for the rest and requested a more exact statement of the problem. They asked for the specific details of the dream before they would undertake an interpretation. This demand nettled the king. He accused them of talking till the time be changed (9), i.e., simply stalling for time. If their profession of supernatural ability was genuine, they must guarantee their interpretation by telling him what the dream was. This of course pulled the cover off their hypocrisy, for they had no way of knowing what the dream was.
Because the king had made this a matter of life and death for all the wise men, they began desperately to maneuver for their survival. When they found that even the king could not help them, for he had forgotten the dream, they saw how hopeless their case was. Driven to the wall, they were driven to the truth. It is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh (11).
Keil1 insists that the king had not really forgotten the dream, but was determined to test the genuineness of the ability of these professed wise men. If they could accurately produce the details of his dream, he would be sure that their interpretation would have validity. But if they could not even produce the dream, their profession of supernatural ability was a fraud and the dire punishment the king had threatened would be their just desert. But whether or not the dream had been forgotten, the plight of the wise men had become desperate.
The punishment decreed by Nebuchadnezzar was quite usual among the Babylonians (see 3:29). Dismemberment of captives of war had even been practiced by the Hebrews (I Sam. 15:33) as a manifestation of extreme judgment. Nebuchadnezzar added to this horror the confiscation of property and the desecration of the victims' homes by turning them into a dunghill (5), i.e., public latrines.
3. God Gives Daniel the Key (2:14-23)
Though Daniel and his companions had escaped the summons to the king, they did not escape involvement in the edict to slay the wise men (14). They too were marked for execution. When Daniel learned the nature of the edict and the reason for its severity, he went at once to the king. The fact that he had such access gives witness to the high standing he had earned in the examinations which he had so recently passed (1:19-20). In the presence of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel daringly placed himself on record by promising that he would shew the king the interpretation (16), if given time. The king, so recently furious with the desperate manipulations of the wise men, was evidently impressed with the sincerity and firm confidence of Daniel.
Daniel's own action was consistent with the man of God he was. He called his three companions with him into a time of desperate intercessory prayer. The answer to that prayer was not long in coming. When Daniel himself beheld the dream in a night vision, he broke out in a hymn of exultant praise to God.
Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever,
to whom belong wisdom and might.
He changes times and seasons;
he removes kings and sets up kings;
he gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to those who have understanding;
he reveals deep and mysterious things;
he knows what is in the darkness,
and the light dwells with him (20-22, RSV)
4. Daniel's Presentation to the King (2:24-30)
Daniel's confidence in God and in the answer he had received was complete, I will shew unto the king the interpretation (24). The vision God had given him was identical with what the king had seen, for God had given both. So he need not even inquire of the king to test it.
Arioch's excitement in learning that Daniel was so soon ready was evident in his actions; he brought in Daniel before the king in haste (25). When the dubious king asked whether Daniel could fulfill his difficult demand, he faced a man who stood on firmer ground than the soil of Babylon. Daniel humbly declared that his source of knowledge was a revelation from the God in heaven that revealeth secrets (28). He disclaimed any particular wisdom of his own. Furthermore, this particular revelation was directed from God to the king himself, that he might know the thoughts of his own heart and what shall be in the latter days.
5. Daniel's Interpretation (2:31-45)
Thou, O King, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible (31; “its appearance was frightening,” RSV). This immense and dazzling sight had overwhelmed and confused the king. Although the image was one, it was a composite. It started with shining gold at the head (32) and rapidly deteriorated in quality through chest and arms of silver, belly and…thighs of brass or bronze, legs of iron (33), and feet a mixture of iron and brittle clay. Then out of a mountain a stone (34) was cut with no hands in evidence. When the stone smote the image at its base it crushed the whole structure and ground it to bits that were scattered like chaff (35) and carried off by the wind. The stone itself grew into a great mountain.
Daniel instantly identified the king with the image he had seen. Thou, O King, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory (37). Furthermore, and more specifically, Thou art this head of gold (38).
It is not difficult to imagine the amazement and the exultation which the king must have felt at this remarkable disclosure. Here in clear focus were the very details of the dream he could scarcely remember. And with it was a sure guarantee of the truth of its supernatural message to him. But as he listened he learned that he was but the first in a succession of empires. They all had one goal in history—dissolution under the triumph and dominance of the kingdom of the God of heaven, which shall never be destroyed. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever (44).
Then Daniel clinched the purpose of the dream which, he reminded the king, had come from God. The great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter (45). The king's most profound questionings were answered. The meaning of destiny for him and for all earthly rulers was that the hand of God is upon the course of history and the ultimate goal is not man's rule in increasing splendor but the rule of God over the ruins of man's folly.
Although interpreters have differed in identifying the five kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, the mainstream of tradition and of evangelical interpretation has agreed almost unanimously. The first (38), is clearly stated; the head of gold is the Neo-Babylonian empire. The fifth (44) is just as clear; it is the kingdom of God. The second (39a ) is quite generally conceded to be the Medo-Persian empire. The third (39b ) and the fourth (40) have had a wider range of difference, especially among those who would make the fourth kingdom the Grecian rule or the rule of those who succeeded Alexander. These would focus the last messages of the Book of Daniel on the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. But for the most part, since the days of Jerome, the third kingdom has been identified as that of Greece founded by Alexander, and the fourth as Rome. Verse 43 has been interpreted as reflecting either the weakness of mixed marriages or the rapid decline of society in the collapse of the fourth kingdom (Berk., fn.). Since the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream and Daniel's vision of c. 7 are obviously parallel, the interpretation of the dream must be controlled by the content of the vision.
6. Daniel's Exaltation (2:46-49)
The response of Nebuchadnezzar to the remarkable revelation was total and overwhelming. Pagan that he was, he reacted in the only way he knew. He fell in worship before this manifestation of the supernatural embodied, as he thought, in Daniel. He ordered the pouring of an oblation (46) and the burning of incense. Then he gave praise to Daniel's God, a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets (47). To show his gratitude in a practical way he poured out gifts on Daniel and advanced him to chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon (48). At Daniel's request, his three companions were given important political appointments. But Daniel sat in the gate of the king (49) means that he remained at the king's court.
B. NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S COLOSSUS, 3:1-30
1. An Emperor's Self-deification (3:1-7)
A vigorous defense of Nebuchadnezzar and his intention is made by J. A. Seiss. He argues that the daring concept of the great image was a direct result of the dream the king had seen. Had he not himself fallen in worship before the man who bore the message from the God of heaven?
Now all his realm would bow before this wonderful idea revealed to him. In his mixed up pagan mind this was a wonderful tribute to the God of Daniel and his Hebrew friends. This would make their refusal all the more unreasonable and infuriating.
Under the clear and full light of revelation and the divine institutes which Nebuchadnezzar did not have, it is very plain that he made a great mistake which can by no means be justified or excused on Biblical grounds. But the mistake was in the method and not in the motives. It was the mistake of defective education, not of intent. He meant it honestly, to acknowledge and glorify that very God of heaven who had so remarkably communicated with him. He intended that his empire, through all its assembled representatives, should thus acknowledge that God in a tangible copy of the image given in the dream. All the depths of his religious nature, experiences and convictions would thus rise up to insist upon the duty and propriety of compliance with what he had so devoutly and honestly arranged and commanded.”2
But it is likely that this effort at a defense of Babylon's pagan king does not cover all the ground. It does not seem likely that Nebuchadnezzar would be erecting the image to one of the ancient gods of Babylon, since the land was filled with competing deities and their temples. It is, however, possible that his dream had had a profound effect upon him as to his own place in the world and in history. Was not he the head of gold? Did he not stand first and highest of all the earthly kings to be? It is not difficult to conceive of the growing vanity of this Oriental despot whose heathen mind failed to fathom the real meaning of the insights God had tried to share with him. This statue eighteen feet wide and standing ninety feet tall, towering over the plain of Dura (1) so as to be visible for miles, would proclaim to all the brilliance of the man who designed it and the glory of the king whom it symbolized. The plain of Dura was apparently near Babylon, but its exact location is otherwise unknown.
Whatever may have been Nebuchadnezzar's motive, the edict which summoned all the political leaders of the realm, great and small (3), left no doubt as to what the king required. Instantly, at the prearranged signal, the sound of the imperial orchestra (5), every man was to fall in worship before the image.
2. Plot Against the Hebrews (3:8-18)
It is hardly surprising that the three Hebrews, so recently advanced to political leadership, should have aroused some jealousy among the officials. That Daniel seems to have been ignored in the summons can be explained only by some absence on business, or the fact that some special assignment by the king engaged him. Certain Chaldeans (8), not the priestly caste but Babylonian citizens, saw to it that the three Hebrews did not escape. When they were reported to the king, he flew into a rage (13) and summoned them immediately. Without giving them a chance to defend themselves he presented them another chance to do obeisance at a special sounding of the music. A refusal would mean the immediate execution of the irreversible decree—they would be cast into the burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? (15) raged the king.
The poise and calm of the three servants of the most high God was in clear contrast to the unrestrained turbulence of the king. The daring of their faith was matched by their self-possession. O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful (cautious, or calculating results) to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up (16-18).
True faith is not linked to circumstances nor to consequences. It is founded upon the immutable faithfulness of God. And faith is strong in relation to the element of faithfulness in the believer. It might have seemed a small thing to rationalize ever so little. Did they not owe the king some small courtesy of consideration? Could they not bow with their knees and stand up in their hearts? A small concession to the king's limited understanding of divine things would be a small matter.
But no! The very reputation of the character of the true and living God depended on this moment. Multitudes of heathen from many lands were watching. Whether God chose to deliver them from the flame or not, they must be faithful to the honor of His name.
3. Trial by Fire (3:19-25)
The threatened punishment was put into almost immediate execution. In the king's mounting fury “the expression of his face was changed” (19, RSV), and the fires were stoked to a sevenfold heat. A picked group of the king's mightiest soldiers were ordered to bind (20) the three unresisting prisoners, dressed as they were “in their mantles, their tunics, their hats, and their other garments” (21, RSV), and cast them in. As Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego fell into the flames, their executioners died before them, overcome by the intense heat.
Nebuchadnezzar was hardened to seeing men die, even by the most horrible means. But what happened galvanized him into amazed action. Springing to his feet, he called to his counsellors. Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?…Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God (24-25).
Seiss,3 following Keil and many others, renders the last phrase of 25, “like to a son of the gods.” Keil4 explains:
The fourth whom Nebuchadnezzar saw in the furnace was like in his appearance…to a son of the gods, i.e., to one of the race of the gods. In verse 28 the same personage is called an angel of God, Nebuchadnezzar there following the conception of the Jews, in consequence of the conversation which no doubt he had with the three who were saved. Here, on the other hand, he speaks in the spirit and meaning of the Babylonian doctrine of the gods. …
Nebuchadnezzar approached to the door of the furnace and cried to the three men to come out addressing them as the servants of the most high God. This address does not go beyond the circle of heathen ideas. He does not call the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego the only true God, but only the most high God, the chief of the gods.
Whether or not we limit the depth of Nebuchadnezzar's insight into the identity of the fourth who walked in the flames, it is clear that here was a manifestation of the supernatural, and the king was not too blind to see that. God was there in the furnace of affliction with His servants. And the presence of the God who created the very principle of light and heat was sufficient to control the effect of these natural forces upon the persons of these men who had dared to put their trust in Him.
4. Nebuchadnezzar's Tribute to the True God (3:26-30)
Nebuchadnezzar's summons to his three Hebrew servants as they stepped forth unharmed from the maw of the inferno contained a spontaneous tribute to the mighty God whom they trusted. And in that tribute he recognized that they served a higher Master than himself. Ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither (26). The amazement of the king and of his assembled officialdom was instant and evident. How could it be that three defenseless men thrown to the flames could escape not only unharmed but without even the smell of smoke upon their clothing? But there before their eyes was the evidence! The supernatural was at work.
This was a vivid moment of revelation. The king cried out in praise to this living God whose mighty work he had just seen. Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him (28).
Nebuchadnezzar further uttered a remarkable testimony to the fidelity and courage of these three servants of God. They had trusted in God, regardless of consequences. They had dared to change the king's word as they yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God (28).
The Lord, our God, is most clearly made known as He reveals His glory through fleshly vessels of His humble servants. To the king this was the God, not of the cosmos nor of eternity, but of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego (29). And in their helplessness, in their trial by fire in the furnace of affliction, the power and glory of God were disclosed.
Furthermore, it was in the furnace that the form of the fourth was revealed. Here half a millennium before the miracle of the Incarnation, God's eternally preexistent Son came and walked with those who were His own in the midst of the affliction. Here shone the glory of the Word which was to become flesh and dwell among us (John 1:14). Later that same glory shone brilliant and dazzling from the midst of the candlesticks (Rev. 1:13).
The king was deeply moved by this experience. Throughout his realm he ordered a reverent respect for this God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. The dire threat of dismemberment and destruction of property which accompanied the edict characterized the pagan cruelty of this king to whom religion by coercion and fear was a natural way of thinking. There is little evidence that King Nebuchadnezzar was converted, even though he was forced to admit that there is no other God that can deliver after this sort (29). The gods of Babylon were not renounced, but for the time the most high God was exalted as the greatest among them.
As a practical response of appreciation for the three faithful witnesses the king forthwith promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the province of Babylon (30). The Aramaic expresses it, “He made them to prosper.”
C. NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S PERSONAL JUDGMENT, 4:1-37
1. Ascription of Praise to the Most High God (4:1-3)
The fourth chapter of Daniel has been described as the most remarkable state paper that has come down to us from ancient times. Bearing within it the inscription of Nebuchadnezzar the king (1), it spoke with imperial authority to all people, nations, and languages recognizing his authority. Without shame or apology this proclamation exalted the high God (2). Few world leaders of any age have excelled Nebuchadnezzar in giving glory to God or in rightfully setting forth His exalted character. This could well be called the “Emperor's Theodicy”—an exalted vindication of God's judgments and His justice.
How great are his signs,
how mighty his wonders!
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and his dominion is from generation
to generation (3, RSV).
2. A Troubled Dream (4:4-18)
There is no clear indication as to what time in Nebuchadnezzar's reign this humbling and enlightening experience came to him. Keil suggests that it occurred “in the later period of his reign, after he had not only carried on wars for the founding and establishment of his world-kingdom, but also, for the most part at least, finished his splendid buildings.”5
There was nothing in his environment but what would give the king deep satisfaction. He had swept the world in his conquests. He had been eminently successful as a designer and builder, both in Babylon and throughout his realm. Now at home in his palace he was at rest…and flourishing (4). But his peace and satisfaction were broken by a dream that deeply disturbed him. As he had done before on a similar occasion, he called in all the wise men of Babylon (6). But for all their vaunted wisdom they did not make known (7) the king's mystery. Whether Daniel had been contacted in the first summons is not altogether clear. Perhaps he had been purposely excluded by the king until the majority of the wise men had been given opportunity to prove what they could do. But at the last Daniel came in before me (8). Of him the king testified, I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee (9).
The king had seen in his dream a tree (10) growing ever taller and broader until it reached unto heaven (11) and seemed to cover the earth. The foliage was so verdant and the fruit so copious that it furnished food and shade for all (12), man, bird, and beast. Then a heavenly being called a watcher…an holy one (13) appeared and rent the silence with a mighty command, Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit (14).
The heavenly messenger went on with specific details of the frightening dream that sounded ominously like a portent of judgment. And judgment it was, but judgment tempered with mercy. For Nebuchadnezzar was set on a collision course, and God would be faithful to him.
Keil6 suggests it is possible that in the king's identification of the decree of the watchers (17) there is a hint of the ancient Babylonian theology. In the hierarchy of deities there were thirty counselling gods serving the five great planetary gods. Fifteen of those were in charge of the upper world, and fifteen of the nether world. Each ten days a messenger from each council would visit the other world and bring some word. But whatever theological limitation Nebuchadnezzar may have had, he came clearly to know that a greater God, the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men.
3. Daniel's Interpretation (4:19-27)
When the pagan philosophers and scientists of the court had given up in confusion, Daniel was ushered in and greeted by the king with a deference that revealed his high opinion of this servant of God. Thou art able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee (18), spoke the king. But Daniel, when he had heard the dream, was overwhelmed with a great astonishment and stood speechless for an hour. Then, encouraged by the king, he gave the reason for his dismay. My Lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies (19).
The towering tree was indeed the king himself. Its amazing growth and strength were an accurate picture of his great power. Thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth (22). But the tragic sequel was that this greatness was decreed soon to end. The king, renowned throughout the earth for his genius, would lose his reason and turn to grovel on the ground like a beast. Indeed he who was honored as the greatest of living human beings would forfeit his humanity and consider himself to be an ox feeding on grass. Till seven times pass over him (23) indicated seven years of insanity for the king.
But in the midst of this shocking foretoken of doom, that to the king must have seemed more terrible than death, came assurances of God's infinite faithfulness and mercy. Though the tree was cut down, the stump (23) was left to revive and grow again. Furthermore it was encircled with a band of iron and brass, a symbol of the firmness of God's promise of survival and restoration. At the end of his interpretation, Daniel stood before the king and pled that he would repent of his sins of injustice and oppression, that God might prolong his tranquillity (27).
4. Fulfillment and Dethronement (4:28-33)
Nebuchadnezzar's failure to heed the warnings and turn to God in genuine repentance is a graphic reflection on human weakness and wickedness. Twelve months (29) went by and the terrifying vision faded. Perhaps it would not happen after all.
One day in a high mood of self-gratification the king began to exult in the glory of his achievements. As he walked “on the roof of his royal palace” (RSV), beneath his feet was the most splendid edifice Babylon had ever seen, adorned in gold and brilliant colors of glazed tile. Nearby were the artificial mountain and the magic hanging gardens built for his queen from the mountains of Media. There was this great Babylon (30). From a small town on one side of the Euphrates he had doubled its area to both sides of the river. He had filled it with new buildings and temples of a distinctive architecture. He had surrounded it with walls renowned for their height and thickness. Chariot teams could race abreast upon their top. One hundred and thirty miles of these walls encompassed the city. One hundred gateways, with brass gates, controlled access to the city. And outside was a reservoir 138 miles in circumference, conserving and controlling the waters of the Euphrates. Canals for navigation and irrigation laced the area. Dikes lined the Euphrates to the sea, and breakwaters made the Persian Gulf safe for shipping.
With such a vision filling his mind we can well conceive the king's elation. He who already had everything took glory to himself: Is not this great Babylon, that I have built…for the honour of my majesty? (30) Inflated to the bursting point with his self-esteem, he collapsed into the abyss of spiritual and mental darkness.
Nebuchadnezzar's interlude of insanity here reported is not known otherwise, as we can well understand. Any reference to it in the Babylonian sources would be carefully obliterated after the king regained his sanity and his position. The monarch's extreme pride was punished by striking and humiliating judgment. The particular form of Nebuchadnezzar's delusion is known as lycanthropy.
5. Restoration (4:34-37)
The king's recital of his recovery and his ascription of praise to God, the most High, properly climax this chapter. As God had promised, his kingdom had been preserved to him. His cabinet of counsellors, among whom Daniel could very well have been one, administered the kingdom throughout the “seven times” (32) of the king's incapacity. If this was seven years, as most commentators interpret it, it shows something of the esteem in which the king's subjects held him, as well as God's faithful providence which so inclined their hearts.
We may well ask, Why did God permit the restoration? Even more, why did God guarantee it, to such an ego-centered autocrat as Nebuchadnezzar? Was it not that God might through this man reveal His glory?
God had designed this experience as a special discipline of learning to Nebuchadnezzar. Its special purpose was, in Daniel's words, “till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will” (25). And we note that his recovery came when I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven (34).
The king had learned his lesson well. Whatever he had known of God before, much or little, he now broke forth in praise that was profound in the depth and breadth of its meaning. The nature of the Most High God stands out in clear relief against the paganism and superstitution of that day. Here we see disclosed: (1) God's eternity—Him that liveth forever (34); (2) His sovereignty—Whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation; (3) His omnipresence—He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth (35); (4) His omnipotence—None can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? (5) His justice—“All his works are right and his ways are just” (37, RSV).
D. FALL OF THE CHALDEAN EMPIRE, 5:1-31
The first half of the Book of Daniel is the record of a series of crucial encounters between the vaunted pride and power of puny men and the great and good God, who in the ultimate sense governs the affairs of men whether or not they acknowledge it. The incident of this fifth chapter comes as a climax to the story of the meteoric journey through history of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom.
At the death of Nebuchadnezzar, his son, Evil-merodach, succeeded to the throne. This is the king who gave special honor to King Jehoiachin after his thirty-seven years of exile by releasing him from prison and assigning him a pension (Jer. 52: 31-34; II Kings 25:27-30).
After two years Evil-merodach's brother-in-law, Neriglissar, led a revolt and assassinated him. Neriglissar had married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and claimed some royal right, especially through his young son, Labashi Marduk. But the lad won no support and soon was dispatched by his trusted friends. The generals and political leaders selected Nabonidus, another son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar, and a tried and trusted aid throughout much of his reign. Nitocris, daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, bore Nabonidus a son, Belshazzar. Because of his royal blood, Belshazzar, three years after Nabonidus' accession to the throne, was made co-regent with his father. He was given the special assignment to govern the city and province of Babylon. This was the Belshazzar of Daniel, as the cuneiform tablets have disclosed after decades of confusion even by conservative scholars as to the historical identity of this king.7
1. Belshazzar's Profane Orgy (5:1-4)
For all his royal heritage from the great Nebuchadnezzar, his grandfather, Belshazzar became renowned for his profligacy and cruelty. Xenophon is credited with the story of a hunting incident in which one of Belshazzar's nobles outshot the king and brought down the game. Thereupon Belshazzar slew the noble on the spot. Later at a feast one of the guests was complimented by one of the women. The king ordered the guest mutilated to eliminate any further occasion for such compliments.8 Brought up in luxury, with power and adulation thrust early upon him, he could scarcely escape growing up to be an insensate egotist and a heartless autocrat.
But now fourteen years as second in command in the kingdom, Belshazzar was faced with serious responsibility. Nabonidus, his father, was in the field with the Chaldean army trying to fend off the blows of the combined forces of the Medes and Persians. One after another of the lands about Babylon had fallen. Now the armies of Cyrus surrounded the capital itself as their final prize.
But was not this great Babylon impregnable? Its walls could withstand any assault. Its wealth of provisions and its inexhaustible water supply could outlast any siege. To demonstrate his reckless disdain of the Persian threat, Belshazzar proclaimed a festival for the whole city. By special invitation to a thousand of his lords (1) he called a feast in the royal palace. He invited the women of the royal harem to add gaiety to the party. Then the king himself led the festivities by demonstrating his prowess with drink. At length, “inflamed by the taste of wine” (2, Berk.), Belshazzar followed a reckless impulse. He ordered brought in the sacred vessels which his grandfather had carried to Babylon from Jerusalem (3) fifty years before. They would drink from these as none had ever before dared to drink and praise all the gods (4) of Babylon. So noisy did the din become that Xenophon reported Cyrus' general, Gobryas, to have declared, “I should not be surprised if the doors of the palace are now open, for the whole city seems tonight to be given up to revelry.”9
2. The Apparition of Doom (5:5-9)
Suddenly without warning the revelries were frozen into stunned silence. Against the plastered wall appeared a man's hand (5) slowly writing a message. But not a word could the king make out, nor any of his courtiers. “Then the king's color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together” (6, RSV). When Belshazzar found his voice, he began to shout loudly for the experts in wisdom, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers (7), to come and explain this mystery. The king promised every inducement of reward and advancement to anyone who could read the writing and show the interpretation of its message. He would be clothed in scarlet (royal purple), be decked about the neck with a golden chain, and promoted to the third place in kingdom rulership. This was the highest spot available, for Nabonidus held first place and Belshazzar second.
When the wise men could find no answer at all, the king and all the company were smitten with fresh consternation. The Aramaic term used here, mishettabbeshiyn, implies much more than astonishment; rather there was “confusion and great commotion in the assembly.”10
3. Daniel Called (5:10-12)
As men cried out and women screamed, the queen (10; queen mother, Nitocris), who had absented herself from the feast, came in from her quarters in the palace to the assembly hall. Taking command of the hysterical situation with poise and dignity, she gently chided the king, her son, and instructed him what intelligent action to take. She reminded him of a man … in whom is the spirit of the holy gods (11). This man had proved his remarkable ability again and again to unlock supernatural secrets in the days of his grandfather Nebuchadnezzar. This was none other than Daniel…named Belteshazzar (12), onetime chief of the wise men of Babylon.
4. Daniel's Interpretation (5:13-29)
Then was Daniel brought in before the king (13). Long neglected and all but forgotten, now God's man was the man of the hour. Offered the same extravagant reward that the king had previously promised (16), Daniel brushed aside the baubles (17) and went straight to the crisis facing the drunken king and his city. Daniel courteously but forthrightly faced him with a message from God. The lessons that Belshazzar should have learned from history, especially from the life of his grandfather and God's dealings with him, were recalled. Nebuchadnezzar's pride and his tragic humiliation were pointed out (18-22). Then came a thrust to Belshazzar's own conscience: And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; but hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven (22-23).
The writing on the wall was finished. Four cryptic words glowed on the plaster. They were in Chaldean, plainly written, but what did they mean? Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin (25). Daniel explained each word with a twofold meaning. Mene, Mene meant “numbered, numbered”; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it (26); Tekel—“weighed”; thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting (27). Pharsin—“broken fragments” (the U means “and”). Using the singular participial form, Peres—fragmented, Daniel prounonced the final doom, Thy kingdom is divided, or broken to pieces, and given to the Medes and Persians (28).
5. Collapse of the Empire (5:30-31)
Scarcely had the honored decorations been placed on Daniel when the shouting soldiers of Gobryas and Cyrus broke into the palace. Tradition has had it that the engineers of Cyrus diverted the river and walked inside the defenses along the dry channel But more solid evidence seems to indicte that insurrectionists within the city had opened the gates and invited the Persian armies inside. The city fell with little loss of life beyond that of Belshazzar. When King Nabonidus' army had been soundly beaten, Cyrus assigned him a permanent residence in Carmania, a not far distant province, where he lived out his days.
But for Belshazzar, Nabonidus' son, how pathetically futile was the father's prayer recorded on a large cuneiform cylinder found in the Ziggurat at Ur! Addressed to Sin, the Moon-God, it reads: “As for me Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the venerator of thy great divinity, may I be satisfied with the fulness of life, and as for Belshazzar, the first son of my loins, lengthen his day; let him not turn to sinning.”11
In c. 5 against the background judgment of v. 27 we see the theme “When God Pronounces Doom.” (1) When men will not learn from the experience of others, 17-22; (2) When men ignore and defy God, 22-23; (3) When men live in sensuality, 1-3; (4) When men worship other gods, 23. Cf. also Seiss.12
E. THE REIGN OF DARIUS, THE MEDE, 6:1-28
The final verse of c. 5 with the first verse of c. 6 introduces us to a new government. Though Cyrus was the conqueror, Darius the Mede is introduced as the ruling monarch in Babylon. It seems to have been the policy of Cyrus to leave the administration of government in the hands of others while he pressed on to new conquests.
For many years one of the crucial problems of the Book of Daniel has been the identity of Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus (5:31; 9:1). Secular history throws no light on the problem. The same could have been said of Belshazzar until the cuneiform inscriptions began to disclose their secrets. Josephus thought that Darius was the son of Astyages, known to the Greeks by another name.13 This would mean that he was grandson to Cyaxeres, the great Median ally of Nebuchadnezzar.
Some have sought to identify Darius with Gobryas, the general of Cyrus' army which took Babylon. He is credited with governing for a brief time. But his death within two months after the capture of Babylon would scarcely support this theory.
John C. Whitcomb in his book, Darius the Mede, suggests strong reasons for identifying the Median Darius with a Gubaru whose name was discovered in the cuneiform records. This Gubaru is called “Governor of Babylon and the District Beyond the River.” Under the authority of Cyrus, Gubaru appointed governors to rule with him in the absence of Cyrus, who resided for extended periods in his capital at Ecbatana. Gubaru was given practically unlimited power over the huge satrapy of Babylonia. Even into the reign of Cambyses, Cyrus' son, Gubaru continued his authority.14
1. Daniel's Political Advancement (6:1-3)
In the reorganization of the government, Darius followed the liberal policy of Cyrus and moved immediately to distribute responsibility of administration. The appointment of 120 princes (1), over whom three presidents (2) were placed, may have been a more or less temporary arrangement to assure the orderly levying of taxes and maintaining a system of collection and accounting. The brief explanation in 2 seems to indicate this: that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no damage.
Of the three presidents, Daniel was first. And Darius found in him such an excellent spirit (3) that he moved to extend his authority over the whole realm.
Daniel was now in his middle or late eighties. He had been through the testings of one political crisis after another. Now his reputation for integrity and honesty had carried through to the new rulers. Perhaps informants had advised the new rulers of Daniel's stand on the fateful night of Belshazzar's fall. What-ever the circumstances, God's man was ready to serve where he was needed.
2. Plot of the Princes (6:4-9)
A man of fidelity and honesty is disconcerting to disreputable schemers. To see Daniel about to receive a further promotion beyond them was more than the presidents and princes (4) could endure. They must destroy Daniel at any cost. Their failure to find flaws in Daniel's administration of his office made them know they must attack him on his strongest point—his religion and the law of his God (5).
The king was gullible for the suggestion. It was fairly common for a Median or Persian ruler to stand in the place of one of their gods and call for the worship of the people. Darius was flattered with being the center of religious devotion for a month, so signed the writing and the decree (9).
3. Daniel's Courageous Devotion (6:10-24)
Daniel's response was unequivocal. To alter his habits of devotion or to become secretive about his relation to his God would be base denial. He kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime (10). This was a law that had no right to be on the statute books. To make a matter of deep conscience an illegality is high treason against the God of heaven. The issue of the authority of the state and the right of individual conscience has become crucial again and again in our enlightened century. And like Daniel, men have been betrayed for a conscientious stand. The plotting princes reported to Darius, “That fellow, Daniel, one of the Jewish captives, is paying no attention to you or your law. He is asking favors of his God three times a day” (13; LP).
The king was dismayed when he was faced with the implications of his action. He set his heart on Daniel to deliver him (14) out of the legal trap in which together they had been caught by this nefarious plot. The schemers pressed their advantage heartlessly and shamelessly (15). They drove the king to do what he revolted from doing, to cast Daniel into the den of lions (16).
The den was sealed with the royal signet (17), so that there was no chance for escape. The king returned to the palace, but not to eat or to sleep. Darius passed the night fasting (18) and no doubt in praying to what gods he knew. The dawn had scarcely come when the king hurried to the den. The RSV renders it, “When he came near to the den where Daniel was, he cried out in a tone of anguish and said to Daniel, ‘O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?’” (20)
With a forlorn hope the evening before he had said to Daniel, “May your God, whom you worship so faithfully, deliver you” (16, Berk.)
Daniel's reply from the depths of the cave was the most wonderful sound the king could hope to hear. O king, live for ever. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths (21-22).
The king's joy reveals the esteem in which he held Daniel. And his sense of outraged justice is seen in his effort to right the wrong he had done by the immediate reversal of the edict and the peremptory punishment of the evil schemers.
4. The Decree of Darius (6:25-28)
While the immediate reaction of Darius was to correct the injustice that had been done to Daniel and to punish the real offenders, he went much further than this. He recognized that the real wrong had been done against Daniel's God. In truth, the edict which had put Daniel in the lions' den had for a time outlawed the living God (26) in the realm of the Medes and Persians. That edict must be counteracted by one as sweeping in its outreach and as specific in its implications. So where the first edict had forbidden prayer to any but to the king, the second commanded reverence for Daniel's God throughout the realm. Whether true worship can ever be insured by royal edict, it most surely can be encouraged. The king's command and ascription of praise set forth the glory of God in terms almost as comprehensive and clear as those proclaimed by the great Nebuchadnezzar, the Chaldean. The God of Daniel…he is the living God, and stedfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end. He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth (26-27).
Darius' recognition of the supernatural character of Daniel's deliverance is disclosed in the two Aramaic terms used in 27 to describe God's work—' athiyn and thiymhiyn, signs and wonders. The singular noun ' ath implies “a signal or beacon” and so “a portent, a miracle or sign.” The second word, temah, implies “amazement, astonishment, marvel,” and so also, “miracle, wonder.” That hungry beasts should be held in such control as to leave God's man unharmed is indeed a miracle, especially so since when in a short time those same animals, released from the power that restrained them, broke in pieces the bones of those who had defied God. Such a miracle is utterly unacceptable to those who insist on a natural explanation for every event. But to those who accept the revelation of a God who has disclosed himself to be free to act within His own created universe, this miracle is no more impossible than any other act of God by which He has chosen to fulfill His purposes. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are filled with such incidents. By this means is unfolded the kind of God we serve, the living God…stedfast for ever (26).
In c. 6 we see “Courage and Its Consequences.” (1) Courage to be faithful, 1-10; (2) Courage tested, 11-17; (3) Courage vindicated, 18-23; (4) God's kingdom advanced, 25-27 (A. F. Harper).
Verse 28 relates the reigns of Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian to Daniel, who served under both. History makes clear that these monarchs were co-regents, Darius the Median serving at Babylon under Cyrus, who had consolidated the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians and was their recognized head. It seems that Darius could not have reigned more than two years at the most. Other dated references mention only the first year of Darius (9:1; 11:1).
F. EMPIRES RISE AND WANE UNTIL THE CONSUMMATION, 7:1-28
Daniel 7 concludes the Aramaic section of the book (see comments on 1:1-2) and closes the messages relating to the heathen world-powers. In a sense this chapter forms a bridge between the Gentile section and the Jewish section following. The first, couched in the language of the lands into which Israel and Judah had been exiled, brought God's word to the emperors and empires of the Gentiles. The second, in the language of promise to the people of the promise, brought God's sure word to the remnant of Israel. The perspective of the first is the Gentile world order. The perspective of the last brings God's kingdom into the foreground, albeit in conflict with the world forces. Thus this seventh chapter converges both perspectives, the earthly and the heavenly. Together with c. 2 it has been characterized as the heart of the message of Daniel.
1. The Four Beasts (7:1-8)
a. The beasts and Nebuchadnezzar's image (7:1-3). The first year of Belshazzar (1) would be fourteen years prior to the fall of the Neo-Babylonian kingdom. Daniel's dream of the shape of things to come swept the vistas of time from where the prophet stood, more than five centuries before Christ's birth, down through our times, to the end of the ages. From his vantage point, surrounded by the quiet darkness of the night (2), there emerged a picture of sound and fury—raging winds of the heaven wrestling together over the great sea, roaring beasts (3) ascending from the waters, stalking across the earth, each in turn pursued by another.
The winds of heaven striving upon the sea is a graphic picture of the two dimensions of reality in history. There is the earthly existence of peoples and nations represented by the tumultuous sea and the solid earth. There is the heavenly, supernatural order. Both realms are involved in the course of human affairs, and between them and within them there is a dynamic conflict of forces.
There is a striking parallel between Daniel's vision depicted here and Nebuchadnezzar's vision of the great image. Indeed they quite clearly depict the same historical realities, though from different viewpoints. Chapter 2 pictures history as God permitted a pagan monarch to glimpse it. The image had in it elements of Nebuchadnezzar's own situation. In Daniel's vision here we share the view of a man of God who catches a glimpse of God's outlook.
Nebuchadnezzar saw the world order towering in magnificent grandeur, a gleaming golden colossus, but Daniel saw the same substance as frightful and ravening beasts.
Stevens notes the pertinence of the symbol of beastliness as applied to the tyrants of history. “We must bow in respect to this expression of the divine estimate of the character of the world's imperial rule. What are the attributes of beasts? To keep their own at any cost within their might; to quarrel over what they do not have, but what they want; to fly easily into blood-thirsty rage at any affront…under passion to take utmost satisfaction in the blood, the agonies, the loss, the death of the objects of their rage.…God foresaw this spirit prevalent in the world empires down to the end. Indeed it is the very spirit of world-empire. And militarism is its indispensable implement.”15 Truly “the Lord seeth not as man seeth” (I Sam. 16:7).
b. The winged lion (7:4). The identification of the first three beasts seems quite clearly to parallel the interpretation by Daniel of the image of c. 2. The lion with eagle's wings…lifted up…and made to stand on its feet as a man and receiving a man's heart suggests Nebuchadnezzar as the great personification of the Babylonian empire. His degradation is suggested in the denuded wings, and his restoration in the gift of a man's heart and a man's erect stance. The king of beasts for strength and ferocity and the king of birds for grace, swiftness, and rapacity combined to picture the regal power and grandeur of this king and his kingdom.
c. The lumbering bear (7:5). The second beast, like to a bear, “having its paw raised, ready to strike” (Berk.), came next to the lion in ferocity. The three ribs in its mouth and the command, Arise, devour much flesh, depict its predatory character. The kingdoms of Babylonia, Lydia, and Egypt are suggested by the ribs held in the bear's teeth.16
Pusey graphically describes the lumbering stolidity of the bearish Persian empire—massive and ponderous in its military strategy, wasteful of human life and resources. Xerxes' expedition against Greece, which met its initial defeat at the Battle of Marathon, more nearly resembled the migration of vast hordes than the movement of an army. It was estimated to have consisted of more than two and a half million fighting men.17
d. The fleet-winged leopard (7:6). The leopard with four wings of a fowl is an apt symbol of the Greek, Alexander, whose amazing speed and striking power quickly laid Persia and the world at his feet. The fourfold division of his realm soon after his death is suggested in the four heads.
e. The indescribable monster (7: 7-8). The fourth beast becomes the special subject of the angel's interpretation in 15-28. This dreadful, but nondescript creature strongly recalls the heterogeneous character of the lower part of Nebuchadnezzar's image with legs of iron and feet and toes a mixture of iron and miry clay (2:40-43).
(1) Power, pillage, and terror (7). The distinctive character of the fourth beast is the terror it is calculated to arouse in the beholder; it was dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth. “It devoured and tore its victims in pieces, and stamped the remaining portions of it with its feet” (Berk.). Its marked difference from the other beasts before it is especially noted.
(2) Ten horns (7). Growing out of the head of this beast were ten horns. Symbols of military might these horns represent ten kings or kingdoms (cf. 24). Springing from the one head they presented a unity in diversity, as parts of the one beast. They also belonged to the same period in history in contrast to the successive appearance of the beasts.
(3) The frightful little horn (8). Springing out of the same head and displacing three of the first horns was a little horn. More devastating than any of its predecessors, this horn becomes a chief subject of the remainder of the chapter. A human being, gifted with extraordinary intelligence and sagacity, with towering pride, is suggested by the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.
2. The Ancient of Days Sits in Judgment (7:9-14)
a. The thrones of judgment (7:9-10). As the fury of the fourth beast reached a climax, Daniel saw thrones being placed,18 and the Ancient of Days takes His seat of judgment. Clothed in ineffable light, surrounded with multiplied millions who serve Him, the Judge summons to judgment…and the hooks were opened. This picture is clearly reflected in Rev. 20:4.
b. The judgment of the beast and of the beasts (7:11-12). The fourth beast meets his end in the judgment of God. The beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. With him went the little horn. The rest of the beasts were granted some surcease, though their authority was taken from them and brought under the divine dominion.
c. A new king and a new kingdom (7:13-14). There follows a beatific vision of one like the Son of man (13), who comes with the clouds of heaven and receives an everlasting…kingdom (14) of which all people, nations, and languages become subjects. Jesus' own choice of the title “Son of man” inevitably identifies the new King. And Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom identifies the new dominion.
The relation of this vision to that of 2:44 is evident. There the stone cut from the mountain displaces the kingdoms (cf. Matt. 24:30 and Rev. 1:7).
3. The Angel's Interpretation (7:15-28).
a. Explanation of the beasts (7:15-18). Little wonder that Daniel was overwhelmed and troubled (15) at the vision he had just seen. Wise as he was in the ways of God, he had insight enough to comprehend something of the significance of the panorama that had swept before him. But the breadth of it, and the dark implications for earth's peoples, and for his own people, were more than Daniel could calmly take in.
God is good to provide His children help when they sorely need it. God's angel was there to assist Daniel toward clearer understanding. The four beasts, he explained, were four kings (17), or kingdoms. But the final outcome of history is a fifth Kingdom, the rule of the saints of the most High (18).
b. The fourth beast (7:19-26) was Daniel's chief anxiety, as it has been the concern of students of Daniel's book ever since. So the angel concentrated on this aspect and gave it major attention.
This beast with great teeth…of iron and claws of brass (19) was indescribably dreadful. It was more wanton in its destructiveness and heartless in its cruelty than any of its predecessors. Though at first it had ten horns (20), another little horn sprang up to displace three others and distinguished itself in its vigor and growth. In ferocity and boastfulness it was more stout than his fellows. At last it attacked God himself, the Most High, and made war with the saints, and prevailed against them (21).
This fourth beast, the angel explained, shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth…diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces (23).
(1) What empire is this? What kingdom in history can be identified with the dread picture of this fourth beast? Following the interpretation adopted in c. 2 it would be the Roman Empire, though most modern interpreters disagree with this view. The popular view is that the dragon-like beast represents the Greeks, whose ten horns represents the ten rulers who succeeded Alexander. The little horn is Antiochus Ephiphanes.19
(2) Rome identified. Young in support of the Roman view says, “It is probably correct to say that the traditional view is that this fourth empire is Rome. This was expressed as early as the time of Josephus, and it has been held very widely. We may mention Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, Luther, Calvin as expounders, or at least adherents, of this position. In later times such great believing scholars as E. W. Hengstenberg, H. Ch. Hävernick, Carl Paul Caspari, Karl Friedrich Keil, Edward Pusey and Robert Dick Wilson [supported this view].”20
Young gives two reasons why the Roman view came to ascendancy in New Testament times and has held its ground with conservative interpreters since.
a) “Our Lord identified himself as the Son of Man, the heavenly figure of Daniel 7, and connected the ‘abomination of desolation’ with the future destruction of the Temple (Matt. 24).”
b) “Paul used the language of Daniel to describe the antichrist, and the Book of Revelation employed the symbolism of Daniel 7 to refer to powers that were then existent and future.
“The reason why the Roman view became so prevalent in the early church is because this view is found in the New Testament, not because men thought they had found a simple way out of the difficulty.”21
(3) What is the “little horn” (8, 11, 20-22, 24-26)? Conservative interpreters quite universally agree that the little horn of Daniel 7 is the Antichrist, who is to come in the end of time. Against Porphyry, Jerome insisted on this.22 Few who accept for Daniel a supernatural inspiration have questioned Jerome's contention. However a number insist that the little horn of this chapter is not to be identified with the smaller horn of c. 8. As for the little horn, the blasphemous audacity, the towering egotism, of this human being who comes forth from the political soil of human history marks him as the culmination of iniquity and godlessness. His characterization as having the eyes of man (8) suggests that he is a man of extraordinary genius, possessing intelligence, sagacity, and insight far beyond his contemporaries. He will win the world by reasonableness and logic as much as by armed might. His mouth speaking great things (8) indicates gifts of eloquence, and persuasion, a power of communication that serves as weapons of v/ar against God and man.
This is Paul's “man of sin…the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (II Thess. 2:3-4). This is the “mystery of iniquity” (II Thess. 2:7), the “lawless one” (II Thess. 2:8, RSV). That this evil one should be identified as Antiochus Epiphanes is impossible. That tyrant had been dead for some two hundred years by Paul's time. He might well symbolize the “lawless one,” but Paul placed Antichrist at the end of the age, at the culmination of the conflict between God and Anti-God.
The clause, He shall speak great words against the most High (25), is controlled by the preposition against. The Aramaic word letsadh signifies “at the side of, against.” “It denotes that he would use language by which he would set God aside, and give regard to another. He would give himself out as God, making himself like God and destroy the saints of God.”23
c. The kingdoms of men and the kingdom of God (7:13-14, 18, 22, 27-28)
(1) Divergent theories. What is this kingdom (18) which the Most High shall deliver to the Son of man (13) and through Him to the saints of the most High (22) ? Where is it located? Who are its citizens? When does it come? Numerous theories have clustered around this most important theme. Perhaps there is no more important aspect of revelation, aside from redemption itself, than the kingdom of God. Nor is there any subject more essential to understanding the full implications of redemption and the meaning of the gospel in its universal setting.
(a) Israel is God's “anointed,” and provides the core of the Kingdom. This is the liberal view and relates closely to the theory that the fourth kingdom is Greece, and the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes. There is no recognition of a personal, superhuman Messiah. It is sometimes allowed that Onias, the high priest who resisted Antiochus and was slain by him, could be “the anointed.” But it is argued that the writer of Daniel could not have known anything of a personal Messiah to come, and certainly nothing of one who would become the King of God's kingdom.
(b) A spiritualizing view. This view is credited first to Origen and has been followed by many interpreters down through the centuries. From this point of view there does not need to be any time of final, crucial judgment. Christ is Judge now and has been ever since His first advent. The Kingdom is already here, and wherever the realm of God extends its sway over men's hearts. Most Catholic writers, following Augustine, hold this view in some modified respects, identifying the Kingdom with the Church. Augustine's The City of God is a classic example of its presentation. Neoorthodoxy in its eschatology leans to the spiritualizing interpretation of the continuous encounter of men and nations with the righteous Judge and His judgment.
(c) Israel in Palestine. This theory is held by most dispensationalists and fundamentalist interpreters of prophecy. Gabelin, Ironside, Blackstone, Larkin, and many others have ably promoted this “parenthesis view.”24 It is so called because of the long parenthesis or hiatus required by the theory between the First Advent and the Second Coming. The Church age or dispensation is viewed as a blank in prophecy, a time of waiting until God can work out His purposes in bringing Israel back from banishment to the land of promise, Palestine. The Old Testament covenant is made with the literal Israel and can be fulfilled only in her.
The Kingdom is viewed as a political Kingdom of which Christ is King and Israel the government. The locale is earth. and a small spot on earth, Palestine. The time of this golden age is a thousand years at the end of time, the millennium.
(d) The Kingdom in continuity to the consummation. This theory combines two of the preceding theories in a sort of larger synthesis. It holds that the kingdom of God is that same rule of God which Jesus instituted in His ministry, death, and resurrection. It was this which He proclaimed when He said, “The kingdom of God is come.” It was this He intended His disciples to pray for whenever they prayed: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10).
But the kingdom of God is more than this. Jesus proclaimed the growth and increase of the Kingdom in such parables as that of the sower. He made clear also in parables of judgment that there was to be a culmination of the Kingdom in the end of time. That culmination would be in tribulation and judgment, but more importantly it would ensue in the total victory of God and His people in a reign of righteousness and peace on earth.
Jesus had nothing to say of a millennium, nor does Daniel. The Kingdom is to be an everlasting Kingdom and its rule to cover all nations. Young points out that in the second (and so, in the seventh) chapter of Daniel, “The Messianic kingdom is represented as being of eternal duration. For that reason we are not warranted in identifying it with a millennium of only one thousand years' length.”25
The representation of the Scripture that the Kingdom is to be eternal is a strong argument against the assumption that it is to last for only one thousand years.26
Yet further, the kingdom of God is more than a narrow political regime with one small race, downtrodden as it has been, exercising autocratic control over all other people. The kingdom of God to come will not contravene the principles of grace which Jesus established. The essential character of salvation, of personal relationship in holy living, will not be set aside in the time of consummation. Rather, this will be a time of fulfilment when the angel's message announcing Messiah's birth will come to pass—“On earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!” (Luke 2:14, RSV)
Then will He whom Isaiah named “Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6) reign in righteousness and “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. 11:9; Hab. 2:14).
(2) The Kingdom and the kingdoms. One of the most disputed problems of this chapter is the relation of the kingdom of God in its consummation to the kingdoms of men in the end time. The parenthesis theory requires the hypothesis of a revived Roman Empire, headed by ten kings and finally by the Antichrist himself, who displaces three kings. The dealings of this evil one will be specifically with a reconstituted Israel who will regard him as Messiah and pledge themselves to him in a covenant. This covenant the king breaks unconscionably and turns his fury on Israel itself. These are the saints with whom the little horn made war…and prevailed against (21); indeed he shall wear out the saints of the most High (25) and would destroy them except for divine intervention.
Both Keil and Young resist this interpretation.27 In interpreting both the second chapter and this chapter Young points out that the God of heaven sets up His kingdom, not after, but “in the days of these kings.” Indeed c. 2 requires, and c. 7 allows, that these kingdoms in some sense endure until the final consummation. The image of c. 2 remains whole until in the last stage it is smitten in the feet. In 7:12 we read, As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. And in Rev. 11:15, “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.” Further we read, “And the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it” (the New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:24). It would seem that human existence on the earth has not ceased in the time of the consummation, nor have the social structures of law and order vanished. We could well reason that in the coming of earth's proper King what is good in human living would rather be enhanced than displaced or destroyed.
But we must go further. The Messianic kingdom not only has a beginning; it has a consummation! That we should fail to see in Daniel's symbols of empire the essential unity of the successive kingdoms would seem to be an important oversight.
There is an essential cultural link through all succeeding ages. Just the fact that an emperor has been dethroned does not imply that his people have disappeard from the face of the earth. Nor have they forgotten what they have learned from their fathers, if it has seemed good or useful. The pomp and magnificence of Babylon merged into the giantism of Persia, and Persia's sensuous and materialistic civilization flowed into Greece, as did the brilliance of Grecian literature and art and philosophy make Romans more Greek than the Greeks. And to this day the iron of Rome's laws and political structures is a part of the warp and woof of Western civilization.
As to the ten kings, depicted as ten horns of the fourth beast, Keil and Young both show that the number ten is not to be taken mathematically but symbolically. The ten signifies a round number of completeness and sufficiency.28
An interesting sidelight on this discussion is furnished by the picture of the beast of end time disclosed in the Apocalypse. “I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority” (Rev. 13:1-2).
Obviously this beast is a composite of the four beasts of Daniel 7. All the elements of power and culture and wickedness are blended into one. It would seem clear that the political manifestation in the end time will grow directly out of world civilizations and will become a supremely evil manifestation of all that is godless.
But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever (18). The end of history is not to be an atomic explosion, nor the destruction of what is good. The goal of God's design is the kingdom of God and the consummation and preservation of all that is good and beautiful and true and holy.