INTRODUCTION
1. Purpose
The book of Daniel was written in the context of the Fall of Jerusalem and the deportation of the Jews to Babylonia. Despite decades of warning by numerous prophets, the people’s flagrant apostasy and immorality finally brought to pass the destruction God had warned them about ever since the time of Moses (Dt 28:64; 29:28; 2Ch 36:16).
From a human viewpoint, it now seemed that the religion of the Hebrews had been completely discredited. The Lord appeared inferior to the gods of Assyria and Babylon. It was therefore essential at this time in Israel’s history for God to display his power in such a way as to prove that he was the one true God and the sovereign Lord of history. So by a series of miracles he vindicated his position as the only true God over against his detractors and convinced the supreme rulers of Babylon and Persia that he, the Lord, was the greatest power both on earth and in heaven.
2. Authorship and Date
Many today deny that the prophet Daniel wrote this book, particularly the last six chapters. The most common argument is that the remarkably accurate “predictions” in Daniel (esp. ch. 11) were the result of a pious fraud, perpetrated by some zealous propagandist of the Maccabean movement, who wished to encourage a spirit of heroism among the Jewish patriots resisting Antiochus IV. Many modern scholars claim that every accurate prediction in Daniel was written after it had already been fulfilled, i.e., in the period of the Maccabean revolt (168–65 B.C.).
The clear testimony of the book itself, however, is that Daniel was the author (cf. 8:1; 9:2, 20; 10:2). Nor is there any question that Jesus also accepted Daniel as the author of this book (Mt 24:15; cf. Da 9:27 et al.). Furthermore, careful linguistic and historical analysis of the book supports a date much earlier than the second century B.C.
As to the date of the composition of Daniel, the first chapter refers to Daniel’s capture in 605 B.C., and Daniel continued his public service until the first year of Cyrus (1:21), i.e., about 537 B.C. Daniel probably completed his memoirs c. 532 B.C., when he was about ninety years old. The appearance of Persian-derived governmental terms in Daniel strongly suggests that it was given its final form after Persian had become the official language of the government. Actually, the text of Daniel is in two languages: Hebrew (chs. 1, 8–12) and Aramaic (chs. 2–7). The Aramaic chapters pertain to the Babylonian and Persian empires, whereas the other six chapters relate to God’s special plans for his covenant people.
3. Canonicity
Daniel should be regarded as having been inherently canonical from the very time it was first written and as having achieved recognition by God’s people as the inspired word of God quite soon after its publication. It certainly would have found a ready reception among the exiles who returned to Judea under Zerubbabel because of its encouragement for them to trust in God’s continuing providence in their behalf during the discouragements of those early years of recolonization. The discovery of several fragments of a second-century MS of Daniel in Qumran Cave I indicates that Jewish believers considered the book as inspired and authoritative.
4. Theological Values
The principal theological emphasis in Daniel is the absolute sovereignty of the Lord, the God of Israel. The book consistently emphasizes that the fortunes of kings and the affairs of humans are subject to God’s decrees, and that he is able to accomplish his will despite the most determined opposition of the mightiest potentates on earth. The miracles recorded in chs. 1–6 clearly demonstrate God’s sovereignty on behalf of his saints.
A second theological emphasis is the power of persistent prayer. Daniel and his companions were delivered from dangers and dilemmas by prayer. Especially impressive is Daniel’s intense prayer on behalf of his nation for God to restore his people to their land at the end of the seventy years (9:2–19; cf. 10:12–14).
Another theological emphasis is the long-range purview of God’s marvelous plan of the ages. Daniel predicts the precise year of Christ’s appearance and the beginning of his ministry in A.D. 27 (cf. Da 9:25–26). Daniel was given the revelation of the eschatological Seventieth Week (9:26b–27), a week that we still eagerly look forward to.
Lastly, underlying the entire scenario is the indomitable grace of God. Even after the sternest warnings of the prophets had been disregarded and severe judgment of near total destruction had overtaken the nation in 587 B.C., the Lord never abandoned his people to the full consequences of their sin but in lovingkindness subjected them to an ordeal that purged them of idolatry. Then he allowed them to return to their homeland, thus setting the stage for the coming of the Messiah. The book of Daniel thus sets forth the pattern of God’s persevering grace that characterizes the NT as well, that “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Ro 11:29).
EXPOSITION
I. The Selection and Preparation of God’s Special Servants (1:1–21)
1–2 Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, first invaded Palestine in 605 B.C. and took captives back to Babylon. His second invasion was in 597 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 24:10–14). The third and final captivity took place in 587 B.C., when all the remaining people of Judah who had not escaped were taken to Babylon (for the significance of these dates, see the comments on ch. 9).
The first (i.e., 605) invasion was in the “third” year of the reign of Jehoiakim; this follows the Babylonian method of designating the years of a king’s reign. According to the Jewish method of counting those years, 605 B.C. was his fourth regnal year (Jer 25:1). Jehoiakim began his reign in 608, as an appointee of Neco king of Egypt, who officially changed his name from Eliakim (“El will establish”) to Jehoiakim (“Yahweh will establish”).
From the very beginning of this book, Daniel makes it clear that Nebuchadnezzar’s success was not due to his own prowess but was the work of the one true God, who had brought about the complete collapse of the Judean monarchy. Thus the theme of God’s absolute sovereignty is implied already here, a theme that dominates the entire book.
3–7 Nebuchadnezzar enlisted the most promising and gifted young men from Judah into his service, all of whom were assigned new names that contained the names of false gods of Babylon. A court official named Ashpenaz was put in charge of their physical and intellectual development. They were expected to follow the demanding course of study (cf. v.4) of the Chaldean curriculum.
Four of the Jewish youths accepted in the academy are singled out as having the courage to object to the food prepared for them and desiring to observe the dietary laws of the Torah (cf. Lev 11; Dt 14). Probably most of the meat items on the regular menu were from animals sacrificed to the gods of Babylon, and no doubt the wine from the king’s table had first been part of the libation to these deities. Therefore even those portions of food and drink not inherently unclean had been tainted by contact with pagan cultic usage.
At the very beginning of their careers, therefore, these young worshipers faced a clear-cut issue of obedience and faith. Had they complied with their rulers, they would have displeased God, to whom they were surrendered body and soul. This early refusal to disobey God prepared them for future greatness as true witnesses for him in this pagan culture.
8–16 Daniel, spokesman for the four young Hebrews, determined to refuse the food from the king’s table. Rather than break faith with God, he was willing to be expelled from the royal academy with the disgrace and danger that entailed.
But Daniel found “favor” (lit., “love or loyalty based on a mutual commitment”; GK 2876) with Ashpenaz and felt he could confide in him. Daniel proposed that the four Hebrews be given “vegetables” (“herbs” or “garden plants”) to eat and “water to drink” and that Ashpenaz see whether after a ten-day testing period all four of them did not look healthier than any of the other students. Such reversal of the laws of nutrition would require a miracle; yet Ashpenaz was willing to take the risk. The venture proved completely successful. No further objection could be raised against their simple diet.
17 Daniel and his friends were granted special wisdom by the Lord, not because of their diet, but because of his approval of their faith and commitment to his word. Daniel even mastered oneiromancy (the interpretation of dreams; cf. Joseph in the court of Egypt).
18–20 Ashpenaz proudly presented his students before Nebuchadnezzar for the final examinations. Out of the entire group of brilliant young men, the king found that the four Hebrews excelled vastly; so he gave them responsible posts in his government. “Magicians” (GK 3033) probably were those who used a chart or design to answer questions. “Enchanters” (GK 879) is derived from the Akkadian word for “soothsayer.” The text does not state that the four Hebrews actually engaged in divination or conjuration (cf. Dt 18:10–12) but that they attained “wisdom and understanding,” which implies that they surpassed the professional heathen diviners and conjurers. (Nowhere is there any indication that Daniel resorted to occult practices. He simply went to God in prayer, and God revealed the answer to him.)
21 Daniel’s career in public service continued “until the first year of King Cyrus.” Since Babylon was at first entrusted to Darius the Mede by King Cyrus (Da 5:31) after its fall in 539, and since Da 9 is dated in the “first year” of that Darius (9:1), Darius possibly remained as titular king till 538 or 537. If so, the “first year” of Cyrus king of Babylon would have been 537–536 B.C., which was probably the year when the forty-two thousand Jews returned to Palestine under Zerubbabel. If Daniel studied in the royal academy for three years, his first government appointment might have been around 601 B.C. Thus his whole term of service would have been about sixty-five years (601–536 B.C.).
II. Nebuchadnezzar’s First Dream: God’s Plan for the Ages (2:1–49)
A. The Babylonian Wise Men’s Impotence (2:1–13)
1–3 Nebuchadnezzar was convinced that his remarkable dream contained a message of utmost importance. He ordered his experts in oneiromancy to reconstruct the dream itself and then to tell him its significance.
In addition to the magicians or diviners and the enchanters or conjurers, “sorcerers” (GK 4175) are mentioned, along with “astrologers.” The word for “to practice sorcery” (or witchcraft) comes from Akkadian and strongly suggests necromancy as the original idea. “Astrologers” (GK 4169) translates a Sumerian term that is applied to a special class of astrologer-soothsayers. This fourth class of wise men acted as spokesmen for the whole group.
4–9 Verse 4 marks a transition from Hebrew to Aramaic in the text of Daniel, prefaced by the statement that the wise men spoke Aramaic with the king (see Introduction).
“O king, live forever!” represents a wish that the king would live on from one age to another (cf. 1Ki 1:31). The soothsayers’ request for the king to reveal his dream to them was met with a surprising rejection. He wanted them to give its contents and then to explain the meaning. If they really had powers of divination, their gods would be able to pass the dream on to them. This would prove that they were not giving a purely human and essentially worthless conjecture as to the interpretation.
To his stringent demand, Nebuchadnezzar added a gruesome threat. Failure to reconstruct his dream would prove that the wise men were charlatans who deserved death for all the years they had deceived the king. They would be “cut to pieces” (cf. Eze 16:40; 23:47) and their estates utterly destroyed and left as refuse heaps. But if they should succeed, Nebuchadnezzar promised them wealth and honor far beyond what they already had. The “wise men” were powerless before the threats of punishment and the inducements of reward. They could only beg the king to change his mind and divulge his dream. This enraged him further as he accused them of stalling for time to find a way out of their dilemma. But no deception would help them, nor could they look for any unexpected turn of events to extricate them.
10–13 In desperation the wise men insisted that the king’s demand was unreasonable, unprecedented, and beyond mortal ability. This defense convinced the king that his wise men were liars and deserved the penalty he had announced. So he issued a warrant for the arrest and execution of all the wise men (v.1), including the four young Hebrews.
B. Daniel’s Intercession and Offer (2:14–23)
14–16 Arioch, the captain of the royal bodyguard, told Daniel why all the wise men had been condemned. At Daniel’s request Arioch took him to Nebuchadnezzar to secure a stay of execution until Daniel had an opportunity to consult his God about the mysterious dream. The stage was set to show the reality, wisdom, and power of the one true God—the Lord of Israel. Daniel knew that he had to trust in God’s faithfulness to do the impossible. If he succeeded, Nebuchadnezzar and all Babylon would be confronted with irrefutable proof that only Israel’s God was real, sovereign, and limitless in his power.
17–23 Daniel, confident that God would answer his prayer, sought to make his prayer even more effective by enlisting his three companions in a concert of prayer. Verses 20–23 are a ringing manifesto of biblical faith over against the pretensions of pagan pride. Although the Babylonians may have triumphed on earth, the God of Israel was absolute Sovereign in heaven and on earth. His power is illustrated by his complete control over the events of history, bringing about the reversals of fortune that give history its unpredictability. God determines the time and duration of events. Thus he not only decreed the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.—an event future for Daniel in 602 B.C.—but also the exact number of years of the Captivity (cf. 9:2).
Daniel acknowledged that God alone bestows wisdom and discernment (v.21b). Only by his grace are humans able to achieve anything or to understand the “deep and hidden things” or what “lies in darkness.” Thus, all the knowledge of Nebuchadnezzar’s wise men could not give the king his dream and deliver them from imminent death.
Daniel closed his thanksgiving on a joyous note, expressing his confidence that the knowledge he had received of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was absolutely accurate. Acknowledging that the superhuman “wisdom” and “power” he was about to display as the interpreter of the king’s dream had been granted in response to the collective prayers of him and his four companions, Daniel gave God all the glory.
C. Daniel’s Recitation of the King’s Dream (2:24–35)
24–25 Daniel assured Arioch, who was to execute the wise men, that he had the answer. Arioch, anxious to claim credit for himself in having discovered Daniel, hurried to tell Nebuchadnezzar his good news.
26–30 Capitalizing on Nebuchadnezzar’s half-incredulous inquiry as to whether Daniel could actually describe his dream, Daniel pointed to the pagan seers’ inability to unravel the mystery, thereby exposing the worthlessness of their theology and of polytheism in general. That the Lord’s spokesman alone had the answer points unmistakably to the reality of the God of the Hebrews. Then Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar what he had seen in his dream.
First, Daniel reminded the king that preceding his dream, he was thinking about the future. Disclaiming any personal ability in transmitting this revelation and publicly giving God all the glory, Daniel implied that God had noticed the king’s statesmanlike concern and had granted him a full answer to his thoughts on what was to come.
31–35 Daniel disclosed the main theme of the dream—the colossal image composed of a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, and legs of iron, with feet of iron mingled with clay. This composite statue was then reduced to powder by a huge stone, and the powder was blown away by the wind. Where the image had stood, the rock grew to the size of a huge mountain that filled the whole scene.
D. Daniel’s Interpretation of the King’s Dream (2:36–47)
36–38 The golden head represented Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian Empire. The head came first in the explanation probably because “head” often means “beginning.” To Nebuchadnezzar, his government was the ideal type and was therefore esteemed as highly as gold. He exercised unrestricted authority throughout Babylon. His word was law.
The first world-empire, then, was the Neo-Babylonian, over which Nebuchadnezzar ruled for about forty more years—from 605 to 562 or 560 B.C. But his empire did not last more than twenty-one years after his death. His son Evil-Merodach reigned only two years (562–560). Neriglissar reigned four years (560–556) and Labashi-Marduk only one (556). Nabonidus engineered a coup d’etat in 555 and ruled till Babylon fell in 539.
39 The second empire (silver) is said to be “inferior” to Babylon. From Nebuchadnezzar’s standpoint the restriction on the king’s authority to annul a law once he had made it (6:12) was less desirable than his own unfettered power. The silver empire was to be Medo-Persia, which began with Cyrus the Great, who conquered Babylon in 539 and died ten years later. His older son, Cambyses, conquered Egypt but died in 523 or 522. After a brief reign by an upstart claiming to be Cyrus’s younger son, Darius son of Hystaspes deposed and assassinated him and established a new dynasty. Darius brought the Persian Empire to its zenith of power but left unsettled the question of the Greeks in his western border, even though he did conquer Thrace. Xerxes (485–464) his son, in an abortive invasion in 480–479, failed to conquer the Greeks. Nor did his successor Artaxerxes I (464–424), who rather contented himself with intrigue by setting the Greek city-states against one another. Later Persian emperors—Darius II (423–404), Artaxerxes II (404–359), Artaxerxes III (359–338), Arses (338–336), and Darius III (336–31)—declined still further in power. This silver empire was supreme in the Near and Middle East for about two centuries.
The third empire (bronze) was even less desirable from Nebuchadnezzar’s standpoint. This empire was the Greco-Macedonian Empire established by Alexander the Great. Though Greece was to “rule over the whole earth,” its political tradition was more republican than its predecessor. Alexander began his invasion of Persia in 334, crushed its last resistance in 331, and established a realm extending from the border of Yugoslavia to beyond the Indus Valley in India—the largest empire of ancient times. After his death in 323, Alexander’s territory was split into four realms, ruled over by his former generals (Antipater in Macedon-Greece, Lysimachus in Thrace-Asia Minor, Seleucus in Asia, and Ptolemy in Egypt, Cyrenaica, and Palestine). This situation crystallized after the Battle of Ipsus in 301, when the final attempt to maintain a unified empire was crushed through the defeat of the imperial regent Antigonus. The eastern sections of the Seleucid realm revolted from the central authority at Antioch and were gradually absorbed by the Parthians as far westward as Mesopotamia. But the remainder of the former Greek Empire was annexed by Rome after Antiochus the Great was defeated at Magnesia in 190 B.C. Macedon was annexed by Rome in 168, Greece was permanently subdued in 146, the Seleucid domains west of the Tigris were annexed by Pompey the Great in 63 B.C., and Egypt was reduced to a Roman province after the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C. Thus the bronze kingdom lasted about 260 or 300 years before it was supplanted by the fourth kingdom prefigured in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-image.
40–43 The fourth empire is symbolized by the legs of iron. From a despotic standpoint, the Roman Republic was of far less value than gold, silver, or bronze. Iron connotes toughness and ruthlessness and describes the Roman Empire that reached its widest extent under the reign of Trajan (98–117 A.D.), who occupied Rumania and much of Assyria for a few brief years.
A later phase of the fourth empire is symbolized by the feet and ten toes made up of iron and clay, a fragile base for the huge monument. The implication is that this final phase would be marked by a kind of federation rather than by a powerful single realm. The iron may represent the influence of the old Roman culture and tradition and the clay the inherent weakness in a socialist society based on relativism in morality and philosophy. This mixture results in weakness and confusion, foreshadowing the approaching day of doom. Within the scope of v.43 are disunity, class struggle, and even civil war, resulting from the failure of a hopelessly divided society to achieve an integrated world-order. Iron and clay may coexist but cannot combine into a strong and durable world power.
44–45a The final scene is of a rock cut from a mountain that rolls down and smashes against the great image’s brittle feet (cf. v.34), toppling it over. The entire monument is then reduced to dust and swept away by the wind. Then the rock becomes a mountain (the fifth kingdom) that fills the earth. In contrast to the transitory nature of the four man-made empires, this God-established kingdom is destined to endure forever. Daniel 7 and parallel passages leave no doubt that this fifth realm is the kingdom ruled over by Christ.
45b–47 Daniel closed his interpretation of the dream by assuring Nebuchadnezzar that it was divinely inspired and absolutely trustworthy. Thus the God of heaven graciously granted the king knowledge of the future, unraveling the baffling mystery. The king could only respond by acknowledging Israel’s Lord as “God of gods” (i.e., the Supreme God) and “Lord of kings” on earth, the true Lord of history. Moreover, the king acknowledged the Lord’s supremacy in revealing the mysteries of the future, something no pagan god could do.
In token of his submission to Daniel’s God, Nebuchadnezzar prostrated himself before Daniel and gave him an offering and incense. What a remarkable scene! The despot who but an hour before had ordered the execution of all his wise men was prostrating himself before this foreign captive from a third-rate subject nation! The king’s praise to the Lord, however, does not necessarily mean that he doubted the existence of other gods, much less that he had experienced any sort of conversion.
E. The Promotion of Daniel and His Comrades (2:48–49)
48–49 As a result of Daniel’s outstanding performance, Nebuchadnezzar put him in charge of all the diviners. He officially became “ruler” (lit., “chief of appointed officials”; GK 10715) over the whole bureau of “wise men.” The king fulfilled his original promise (2:6) and loaded Daniel with gifts and honors, appointing him civil governor of the entire capital province of Babylon. Normally this would be reserved for a Chaldean nobleman of the master race. For a Jew to be so honored was unprecedented. Daniel requested that his three companions be given high appointments too, thus strengthening his position.
III. The Golden Image and the Fiery Furnace (3:1–30)
A. The Erection of the Image (3:1–3)
1–2 Nebuchadnezzar forgot his new religious insights and had a statue made of gold (i.e., covered with gold leaf; there was not enough gold in all Babylon to make a statue so large of solid gold), undoubtedly reflecting the head in the dream-image. It is doubtful that the statue represented the king himself as there is no evidence that statues of Mesopotamian rulers were ever worshiped during the ruler’s lifetime. More likely the statue represented Nebuchadnezzar’s patron god, Nebo (or Nabu). Prostration before this god would amount to a pledge of allegiance to his viceroy, Nebuchadnezzar. The recent establishment of the Babylonian Empire as successor to Assyria made it appropriate for Nebuchadnezzar to assemble all the leaders of his domain and exact from them an oath of loyalty, certified by a ceremony of adoration of Babylon’s god. Any who refused to comply were to be immediately executed in a superheated furnace.
3 The titles of the various ranks of government officials indicate a well-organized bureaucracy. “Satraps” were in charge of fairly large realms. “Prefects” were military commanders or more likely lieutenant governors. “Governors” were leaders of smaller territories. “Advisers” were “counsel-givers.” “Provincial official” is a general term for a governmental executive.
B. The Institution of State Religion (3:4–7)
4–7 Nebuchadnezzar enlisted the royal musicians to furnish a proper setting for the ceremony. “All kinds of music” indicates that there were other instruments besides the six listed. This orchestra would give the signal for all to bow down and worship the golden statue, declaring their commitment to the Babylonian government and their willingness to incur divine wrath if they should ever break their oath of fealty. The nearby furnace was a grim reminder of the dreadful alternative to compliance. When the music struck up, all foreheads touched the ground—except three.
C. The Accusation and Trial of God’s Faithful Witnesses (3:8–18)
8–12 After the public worship, some malicious men (called “Chaldeans” in the NIV note) reported to the king the disobedience of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These informers approached the king as members of the master race, denouncing the Jews. This heightens their reference to Daniel’s three Hebrew associates in government service as “some Jews,” with a contemptuous emphasis on their despised nationality. With a show of zeal for the king, the Chaldeans quoted his edict word for word and then related how these three recalcitrant Jews had dared to “pay no attention to” the express command of “King Nebuchadnezzar”; they had refused to bow down and worship the golden image!
13–18 Nebuchadnezzar became furious and ordered the offenders to be brought before him. Half incredulously he stared at them and asked whether they really had disobeyed his decree. Then he magnanimously gave them an opportunity to save themselves. He would order the musicians to play again so the three men might prove their loyalty and obedience by worshiping the image then and there. But Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego loved the Lord more than life itself. Ready to lay down their lives for God’s glory, the three refused to plead with Nebuchadnezzar to make an exception of them. They were confident that the Lord would deal with this king who thought he was sovereign on earth.
Nebuchadnezzar made the mistake of defying the Lord, saying, “Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?” Nebuchadnezzar had converted his confrontation with humans into a contest with the Lord God Almighty. Ungratefully he scoffed at the very God who had granted him success in battle (cf. Jer 27:6–8). Therefore he would undergo one humiliation after another, till he groveled in the dust before Israel’s God.
The heroism of the three men went even further as they were ready to be burned up in the fiery furnace rather than betray their God. Scripture contains few more heroic words than “But even if he does not” (v.18). Interestingly, Scripture is silent as to Daniel’s whereabouts at this time. Perhaps he was away on official business.
D. The Sentence Imposed and Executed (3:19–23)
19–23 Nebuchadnezzar had no recourse but to order the immediate execution of the three young Hebrews. In his rage he went to absurd lengths. No mortal could have survived an instant in the huge furnace, but the king insisted that it be heated to maximum intensity. So fierce was the fire that even to come near it was fatal. Equally absurd was Nebuchadnezzar’s command for the three to be fully dressed with their hats on. Finally, they were “firmly tied” and thrown like logs into the furnace. Apparently there was no door to hide the inside from view. So apart from the swirling flames and smoke, the men were quite visible to an outside observer.
E. The Deliverance and the Fourth Man (3:24–27)
24–27 The dumbfounded Nebuchadnezzar saw the Hebrews walking upright in the flames without their bonds, and he saw a fourth person walking with them. After his officials confirmed that only three men had been thrown into the furnace, the king described the fourth one as resembling deity. All four persons in the furnace were walking around freely. Their divine companion in the flames had delivered Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from all harm.
Nebuchadnezzar commanded the three to come out of the furnace; so they climbed out—but not the fourth, who had apparently disappeared. To the officials’ amazement neither the clothing nor the bodies of the three Hebrews gave any indication of having been in the fire. Their God had indeed been able to deliver them (cf. v.17).
F. Nebuchadnezzar’s Second Submission to God (3:28–30)
28–30 Before such an awesome display of God’s power, Nebuchadnezzar could only acknowledge his defeat. He hastened to praise the Lord and thereby confess his admiration for the courage and fidelity of the three Hebrews. To make amends Nebuchadnezzar decreed death and destruction for anyone saying anything against the God of Israel. Then Nebuchadnezzar promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to a higher office in Babylon.
The Neo-Babylonian Empire 626–539 B.C.
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
IV. Nebuchadnezzar’s Second Dream and Humiliation (4:1–37)
A. The Circumstances of the Second Dream (4:1–7)
1–3 This chapter is unique in Scripture because it is composed under the authority of a pagan. Though he may have been intellectually convinced of the sovereignty and omniscience of the one true God, Nebuchadnezzar hardly had a true heart conversion. The decree showed his gratitude to the Lord for delivering him from insanity and restoring him to his throne. He wanted every person in his empire to share this knowledge and join him in giving glory to the God of heaven. Nebuchadnezzar frankly confessed his own arrogance in attributing to himself the glory for what the grace and power of God had done for him.
After blessing his subjects, Nebuchadnezzar exalted the miracle-working power and eternal sovereignty of the God of Israel. He made it clear that he had experienced this power both in his warning dream (explained by Daniel) and its pride-shattering fulfillment, his seven years of bestial insanity. These convinced him that God alone is the source of power, both in nature and in human affairs, and that no ruler possessed any authority except by God’s permission. In contrast to the transient reigns of human rulers, the authority of God goes on forever.
4–7 The setting for the following event is the apparent security and prosperity of the king after vanquishing all his enemies and the occasion of another dream. Again (cf. 2:2) the king sent for his wise men, although on this occasion he told them the substance of the dream (cf. ch. 2). When they could not come up with any interpretation, once more the king turned to the one true expert, Daniel the seer.
B. The Description of the Dream (4:8–18)
8 Daniel’s official court name is “Belteshazzar” (“Protect his life”), most likely an abbreviated form of Bel-belteshazzar (“Bel, protect his life”) or even Nebu-belteshazzar (“Nebo, protect his life,” if by “his god” the king was referring to the god whose name began his own, Nebu-chadnezzar). In contrast to the other soothsayers in his court, Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged that Daniel was truly inspired by God (or the gods).
9–18 The king told Daniel his dream about the great tree that grew to dominate the landscape for many miles and about its lush foliage and abundant fruit that provided shelter and nourishment for all sorts of creatures. Suddenly “a “holy one” (lit., “watchman”; GK 10620) descended from heaven and pronounced judgment on the tree, ordering it to be chopped down and its foliage stripped away. Verse 17 indicates that this particular class of angels can execute the judgments of God. The felling of the tree scattered the birds and beasts that were dependent on it. Only the stump was spared, and it was to be encircled with bands of iron and bronze and to remain in the grassy meadow (v.15a).
The symbolism changes from the stump to a man to a brute beast (vv.15b–16). “Mind” (GK 10381) refers to the inner self as the seat of moral reflection, the will, and pattern of behavior. The person this tree stump represents is to be transformed into an animal for seven “times,” here undoubtedly years (see NIV note; cf. 7:25). The sentence was decreed from heaven so that the full sovereignty of the “Most High” might be demonstrated before all the world, and that people might realize that God chooses who is to wear the crown and sometimes selects the humblest and lowliest (cf. 1Sa 2:7–8; Job 5:11). (For a prideful person portrayed as a lofty tree, see Isa 2:12–13; 10:34; Eze 31:3–17.) By appealing to Daniel, the king showed his confidence in him and his God. So once again the honor of Daniel’s God was at stake.
C. Daniel’s Interpretation and Warning (4:19–27)
19–22 Daniel’s loyalty to the king and his kindness to Daniel made it difficult to reveal the interpretation of the dream. At the king’s insistence Daniel finally began to speak. After voicing the fruitless wish that the dream might apply to Nebuchadnezzar’s worst enemies, Daniel explained that the mighty tree represented Nebuchadnezzar in all his military success, organizing an empire that stretched to the “distant parts of the earth.”
23–27 Daniel came to the heart of the warning: Nebuchadnezzar would lose both his power to rule and his sanity. He would be reduced to the mentality of a beast for seven years, eating grass like cattle. This humiliation would teach him to respect God’s sovereignty and to appreciate his glory and power.
Verse 26 closes with Daniel’s prediction about the surviving tree stump: after his seven years of dementia, Nebuchadnezzar will be restored to his throne. Normally any monarch suffering from insanity would be replaced. But the unlikely promise of God that the throne would he restored to Nebuchadnezzar after the termination of his insanity was fulfilled. The prospect of seven years of insanity was terrible; so Daniel closed with an earnest admonition for Nebuchadnezzar to defer the evil day by immediately amending his life. If he would recognize that he was subject to God’s moral law and responsible to him for good government, the discipline might be deferred. Nothing is said about Nebuchadnezzar’s response, but the one-year delay implies that he made some effort to follow Daniel’s recommendation.
D. The King’s Punishment (4:28–33)
28–30 Though eager to avoid judgment, Nebuchadnezzar nevertheless retained his pride, taking all the credit for the achievements he owed to God’s grace. Perhaps he refrained from boasting during his reprieve, but he never realized his indebtedness to God (see ZPEB, 4:395–99, for a description of Nebuchadnezzar’s accomplishments).
31–32 After boasting that he had built Babylon the Great as a residence for himself by his own power (v.30), Nebuchadnezzar heard an unexpected word from God—he would experience the full weight of God’s wrath and the punishment threatened in his fateful dream.
33 Nebuchadnezzar was abhorred even by his lowliest subjects and reduced to the state of a beast. His skin toughened into hide through constant exposure to the weather; his hair, matted and coarse, looked like eagle feathers; and his uncut fingernails and toenails became like claws. So the boasting king, a victim of a condition known as boanthropy, sank to a subhuman level.
E. The King’s Repentance (4:34–37)
34–35 After seven years the Lord fulfilled his promise. By divine grace the humiliated king’s reason returned. His first response was to praise, honor, and glorify God as the eternal, omnipotent Sovereign of the universe. Second, he honored him as the Ruler whose kingdom would never end. Third, Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged that humans are as nothing before God. Finally, Nebuchadnezzar saw that God is beyond the control of any human being and accountable to no one.
36–37 Now that he had begun to fear the Lord, Nebuchadnezzar was qualified for renewed leadership. The court and the army commanders were electrified to see that his reason had returned, and they thronged to congratulate him and hail him as their sovereign. “I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before” was his grateful testimony. The “head of gold” (2:38) had bowed in humble submission to the God of Daniel.
Through this event the Jews held captive in Babylon could not help but know that their Lord was the true and living God and that all the gods of the pagans were only idols. They knew for certain that the apparently limitless power of Nebuchadnezzar was under the control of the Lord God Almighty.
V. Belshazzar’s Feast (5:1–31)
A. The Profanation of the Holy Vessels (5:1–4)
(As background for this episode, see ZPEB, 1:446, 515–16.)
1–4 Belshazzar the king conducted a state banquet for his nobles. In drunken bravado he decided to entertain them with the vessels from the temple in Jerusalem. Belshazzar and his guests taunted the Lord by praising their gods and drinking from the sacred goblets. Once again an arrogant Babylonian monarch defied the Lord God of Israel.
B. The Handwriting on the Wall (5:5–9)
5–6 Divine intervention came without announcement. Suddenly fingers appeared on the palace wall, wrote four words, and vanished. The party was over. The drunken Belshazzar stared at the words, terrified.
7–9 The king sent for his wise men to unravel the message. They could come up with nothing, despite inducements of riches and position. (Belshazzar could offer nothing higher than the third highest rank in the government since he himself was a viceroy under his father, Nabonidus.) As in Nebuchadnezzar’s day, the wise men were baffled (cf. 2:2–11; 4:7).
C. The Queen Mother’s Recommendation (5:10–16)
10 Daniel (who was probably about eighty-one by 539 B.C.) was not included among those summoned. Perhaps he was in semiretirement, though ch. 8 indicates that he had been active as recently as the third year of Belshazzar (cf. v.1) but had not been enjoying good health (v.27). Evidently Belshazzar’s administration had set him aside though he lived in Babylon. But the king’s mother, likely a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, thought of Daniel as soon as she saw the commotion in the banquet hall and urged the king to stop worrying.
11–12 The queen mother commended Daniel to the king, adding that Nebuchadnezzar had found him to be far superior to all the rest of his wise men (cf. 4:8), for Daniel could unravel mysteries and solve enigmas. Surely he was the right one for Belshazzar to consult. She referred to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s “father.” Strictly speaking Nabonidus was his true father; but if Nabonidus had indeed married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar to legitimize his usurpation of the throne, Nebuchadnezzar would have been Belshazzar’s grandfather.
13–16 Belshazzar sent for Daniel at once, apparently meeting him for the first time. He explained his concern and asked Daniel to explain the mysterious writing. The king also enumerated the same rewards—including the position of “third highest ruler”—he had offered the other wise men.
D. Daniel’s Interpretation (5:17–28)
17–24 Disclaiming all promotions, Daniel answered the king’s request. Studying the inscription on the wall, Daniel prefaced his interpretation with the reason for the judgment it contained. He reviewed the experience of Nebuchadnezzar being humbled by the decree of the Lord. The young king should have remembered what these experiences had taught his grandfather about humility and respect for the Lord. Belshazzar’s blasphemous conduct of profaning the Lord’s holy vessels in his drunken orgy had led to the handwriting on the wall, proclaiming Belshazzar’s doom.
25–28 Daniel then interpreted the four words. “Mene,” meaning “numbered” or “measured,” signified that the years of Belshazzar’s reign had reached their end. “Tekel” is related to the word for “shekel,” whose root idea is “to weigh.” In Belshazzar’s case, God found him deficient in his scales and therefore rejected him. “Peres” is derived from a root that means “to divide.” Belshazzar’s kingdom would be divided or separated from him and given to the Medes and Persians then besieging the city.
E. Daniel’s Honor and Belshazzar’s Demise (5:29–31)
29 Daniel’s interpretation greatly disturbed Belshazzar, for it was spelling his imminent doom. Perhaps hoping to forestall judgment, the king fulfilled his promises to the letter, bestowing the royal chain of gold on Daniel and proclaiming him the third ruler in the kingdom.
30–31 But the time for repentance had run out. Belshazzar had gone too far in profaning the vessels of the temple. Destruction was closing in on Belshazzar and his kingdom even while Daniel’s investiture was taking place. The Medo-Persian troops were moving along the exposed riverbed under cover of darkness and climbing the walls of the defenses throughout the city.
Verse 30 tersely reports that Belshazzar was slain that same night. The government of Babylon was then entrusted to Darius the Mede at the age of sixty-two. Thus was fulfilled Daniel’s prediction that the Babylonian Empire would pass under the yoke of the Medo-Persian Empire, as kingdom number two in the four-kingdom series. (For the identity of Darius and further background to this chapter, see ZPEB, 2:26–29; cf. also EBC 7, in loc.)
VI. Daniel and the Lions’ Den (6:1–28)
A. The Conspiracy Against Daniel (6:1–9)
1–3 One of Darius’s first responsibilities was to appoint administrators over the territory won from the Babylonians. The 120 “satraps” must have been in charge of the smaller subdivisions. Over these 120 were three commissioners, of whom Daniel was chairman. Daniel’s long experience and wide acquaintance with Babylonian government, combined with his superhuman knowledge and skill, made him a likely choice for prime minister.
4 Daniel encountered hostility in the new Persian government, no doubt because his enemies were race-conscious and did not appreciate the elevation of a Jewish captive. To be sure, King Cyrus was either looking favorably on the request of the Jews for release or had already promulgated the decree cited in Ezr 1:1–4. Though objects of Cyrus’s charity, the Jews were nevertheless considered inferior, especially by their conquerors. Daniel’s elevation to prime minister so disturbed his subordinates that they scrutinized his affairs, hoping to find something that marred his past. But their investigations proved fruitless; Daniel’s integrity was beyond question.
5 The way to get Daniel was to force him to choose between obedience to his God and obedience to the government. A statute was needed that seemed merely political to Darius but was clearly religious for Daniel. So his enemies proposed that for one month all petitions be directed to Darius alone. This flattered him and also served to impress the captives that they were now under the Persians.
6–9 The government overseers came to the king “as a group” (i.e., an official delegation) to present their proposal, falsely implying that Daniel concurred with them. Darius had no reason to suspect that the other two royal administrators would misrepresent Daniel’s position in this matter. The suggested mode of compelling every subject in the former Babylonian domain to acknowledge the authority of Persia seemed a statesmanlike measure that would contribute to the unification of the kingdom. The time limit of one month seemed reasonable. So Darius affirmed the decree.
B. Daniel’s Detection, Trial, and Sentence (6:10–17)
10 The new ordinance mandated death by caged lions for noncompliance (v.12). When Daniel received notice of this new law, he faced a dilemma. Prayer and fellowship with the Lord had safeguarded him from the corrupting influences of Babylonian culture. To preserve his role in government and to save his own life, he would have to compromise his integrity by ceasing to pray to God or by praying privately. But faithful Daniel could not compromise. He would trust the Lord for deliverance. His habit had been to pray regularly toward Jerusalem, the focal point of his hopes and prayers for the progress of the kingdom of God. (Ch. 9 reveals Daniel’s concern for Jerusalem and the Jews’ restoration to their land.)
11–14 Apparently in collusion in order to make a public test case of Daniel, the hostile officials waited for him to pray and then burst in on him, catching him violating the new decree. They lost no time in reporting Daniel to Darius, reminding him that he had forbidden all petitions to anyone but himself during the thirty-day period. Darius acknowledged that the decree was still in force and that the “laws of the Medes and Persians” could neither be changed nor revoked. In reporting Daniel’s disobedience to the king, the conspirators represented Daniel’s praying thrice daily as willful disrespect to his king rather than as devotion to his God. Darius’s response was not what the conspirators had expected. Indeed, he “was greatly distressed,” probably realizing that he had been manipulated by Daniel’s enemies. Throughout the day he tried his best to save Daniel’s life.
15–17 By sunset the king resigned himself to comply with the conspirators’ desire when they reminded him of his irrevocable decree. Concerned for his cherished minister, Darius went with Daniel to the lion pit. Before it was closed, Darius called down to Daniel, “May your God, whom you serve continually, rescue you!” For Darius these words voiced a tremulous hope (cf. v.20). A heavy stone was placed over the pit and secured with clay tablets bearing the king’s royal seal and that of other officials.
C. Daniel’s Deliverance and His Foes’ Punishment (6:18–24)
18–24 Darius was a troubled man. Daniel’s peril precluded the king from eating and entertainment. His anxious thoughts kept him awake till the first gray light of dawn, when he hastened to the lion pit, which was already unsealed. Darius’s apprehensive call stressed his hope that the “living” God whom Daniel served had “been able to rescue [him] from the lions.” Daniel’s voice from the bottom of the pit, relating how God had sent his angel to shut the lions’ mouths and to prove him guiltless, brought great joy to Darius. Not a scratch was found on Daniel. The evidence was incontrovertible—Daniel’s God had “stopped the mouths of lions” (Heb 11:33).
Daniel’s accusers were guilty of devising a decree to deprive the king of his most able counselor and of lying to the king when they had averred that “all agreed” (v.7) to recommend this decree. Therefore Darius ordered Daniel’s accusers to be brought before him; he then cast them with their families into the same pit. The fate of the conspirators and their families is a masterly touch of poetic justice: “And before they reached the floor of the den, the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones.” Perhaps Darius consigned the families to death to minimize the danger of revenge against the executioner. Daniel’s position as prime minister was now secure.
D. Darius’s Testimony to God’s Sovereignty (6:25–28)
25–27 Darius made a public proclamation giving glory to the God of the Hebrews, commanding all citizens of the realm to honor him. The sense of vv.26–27 is like the last clause of 3:29—“no other god can save in this way”—and like 4:3. Three emphases stand out in vv.26–27: (1) Daniel’s God is alive and shows it by the way he acts in history, responding to the requirements of justice and the needs of his people; (2) God’s rule is eternal (unlike the empires built by mortals); (3) God miraculously delivers his people, with wonders in heaven and on earth. Once again God acted redemptively to strengthen his people’s faith in him.
28 The chapter ends on a positive note, highlighting Daniel’s continuing usefulness in royal service throughout the rest of the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus (cf. 1:21). After this, Daniel apparently retired from public service and gave himself to the study of the Scriptures and to prayer. He received the revelations of chs. 10–12 in the third year of Cyrus (cf. 10:1).
VII. The Triumph of the Son of Man (7:1–28)
A. The Four Beasts and the Succession of Empires (7:1–8)
1 In the latter part of his career, Daniel received a series of visions and revelations. The revelation in this chapter is dated “in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon.” Nabonidus, his father, came to the throne in 556 B.C.; but he apparently entrusted to Belshazzar the “army and the kingship” of Babylon while he himself campaigned in north and central Arabia (so the Nabonidus Chronicle). It is uncertain whether the actual kingship of Babylon was immediately entrusted to Belshazzar at the commencement of his father’s reign or whether his appointment as viceroy came later, as Nabonidus found himself detained in Arabia.
Verse 1 says that Daniel recorded only the “substance” of his memorable vision, though twenty-six verses may seem to us like a rather full report. Chapter 7 parallels ch. 2; both set forth the four empires, followed by the complete overthrow of all ungodly resistance, as the final (fifth) kingdom is established on earth to enforce the standards of God’s righteousness. The winged lion corresponds to the golden head of the dream image (ch. 2), the ravenous bear to its arms and chest, the swift leopard to its belly and thighs, and the fearsome ten-horned beast to its legs and feet. Lastly, the stone cut out without hands that in ch. 2 demolishes the dream-image has its counterpart in the glorified Son of Man who is installed as Lord over all the earth. Butch. 7 tells us something ch. 2 does not—the Messiah himself will head up the final kingdom of righteousness.
2–3 “The great sea,” possibly the Mediterranean, symbolizes the turbulent Gentile world (cf. Rev 13:1 and 21:1; cf. also Isa 57:20). Revelation 7:1 portrays the four winds as under the control of four mighty angels; in Rev 9:14, by the River Euphrates, they are bidden to release the winds on the earth so that one-third of humankind will perish in war (v.15). Apparently the four winds represent God’s judgments, hurling themselves on the ungodly nations from all four points of the compass. From the sea (Gentile nations) emerge in succession four fearsome beasts (namely, the empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome), which apparently go on shore to perform their roles.
4 The first beast is a winged lion, whose eaglelike pinions are soon plucked so that instead of flying it stands on the ground. The lion was a symbol of Babylon, especially in Nebuchadnezzar’s time, when the Ishtar Gate entrance was adorned with yellow lions. The final detail—“the heart of a man was given to it”—may refer to the restoration of Nebuchadnezzar’s sanity after his seven-year dementia; plucking the lion’s wings symbolizes the reduction of his pride and power at the time of his insanity (ch. 4).
5 The second beast—a hulking bear—apparently displaces the lion, though there is no mention of any conflict. The description of the bear suggests the alliance of two powers, one dominating the other—namely, Medo-Persia, with Persia dominating. One side of the bear was higher than the other, and it devoured three ribs from some other animal it had killed. This corresponds to the three major conquests the Medes and Persians made under Cyrus and his son Cambyses: the Lydian kingdom in Asia Minor (546), the Chaldean Empire (539), and Egypt (which Cambyses acquired in 525).
6 The third beast—the four-winged leopard with four heads—portrays the division of Alexander’s swiftly won empire into four separate parts shortly after his death (see comment on 8:8). There is no way a quadripartite character can be the Persian Empire, for it remained unified till its end, under the onslaught of Alexander in 334–331.
7 The fourth beast is unlike any known to the human race, “terrifying and frightening and very powerful” (more fearsome than the preceding empires). Its teeth were of iron; hence it would be more crushing in its military power, exploitation, and repression than the other three. Another difference is the ten horns (conceivably two five-pronged antlers). There is an obvious correspondence between these horns and the ten toes of the dream image (ch. 2), and the mention of iron in the teeth suggests the legs and toes of iron in that image. Thus the superior power of the colossus of Rome—as over against the less unified and weaker empires of Greece, Persia, and Babylon—is emphasized in the symbolism of this terrible fourth beast. Its ultimate form in a confederation of ten states is suggested by the horns (cf. note on 2:41).
8 In this latter-day, ten-state federation, a “little horn” emerges as the largest of them all, uprooting and destroying three adjacent horns (apparently subjecting the remaining six to vassalage). The contemporaneity of all ten of these states (or rulers) is virtually demanded, since six remain in subservience to the aggressive little horn. The victorious little horn’s features symbolize an arrogant and vainglorious ruler rather than an entire kingdom (cf. ch. 4, where the Chaldean power is symbolized in the personality of Nebuchadnezzar whereas the bear and the leopard symbolize the Medo-Persian and Greek empires as entire realms). The final clause introduces the ruthless world dictator of the last days (cf. 2Th 2:3–4, 8). This little horn emerges from the fourth empire, unlike the little horn of ch. 8 (vv.9–11), which arises from the third empire (see comments on ch. 8).
B. The Kingdom of God and the Enthroned Messiah (7:9–14)
9–12 The fifth kingdom as the final form of world power overthrows and utterly destroys all the preceding empires erected by violence-worshiping men. Attention is directed to God, “the Ancient of Days” (cf. Eze 1:13). The fire represents the brilliant manifestation of his splendor as well as the fierce heat of his judgment. A lava-like “river of fire” depicts vast destructive power. An enormous crowd stands by as the heavenly court convenes for the examination and conviction of the rebellious little horn (i.e., the final world dictator) and his followers. The record books that are opened presumably contain the sins of the little horn and his adherents (cf. Rev 20:12–13). The blasphemous beast spews out his boastings against humans and God till the very moment he is dragged before the heavenly tribunal. Then his mouth is stopped as his physical life is taken and his body consigned to the flames of judgment. The remnants of the world powers (“the other beasts”) likewise come under judgment. They “were allowed to live for a period of time”; this may mean that the unbelieving world powers that precede the little horn are reserved for judgment by the returning Christ.
13–14 At this point Daniel saw the glorified Son of Man (v.13 is the most frequently quoted verse from Daniel in the NT). The personage who appears before God in the form of a human being is of heavenly origin. He comes to the place of coronation accompanied by the clouds of heaven and is clearly no mere human being in essence. The expression “like a son of man” identifies this final Ruler of the world not only as human, in contrast to the beasts (the four world empires), but also as the heavenly Sovereign incarnate. During his earthly ministry, the Lord Jesus maintained this same emphasis on his incarnate nature (that he was truly human as well as truly God). He repeatedly referred to himself as “the Son of Man” (i.e., that same one foretold in Da 7:13; see comment on Mark 8:31). Moreover, v.13 is the only place in the OT where “son of man” is used of a divine personage rather than a human being. Furthermore, Christ himself emphasized his return to earth accompanied by “clouds” (cf. Mt 24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26; cf. also Ac 1:9–11; Rev 1:7). Nothing could be clearer than that Jesus regarded Da 7:13 as predictive of himself and that the two elements “like a son of man” and “with the clouds of heaven” combined to constitute a messianic title.
The messianic Son of Man is brought before the throne of the Ancient of Days to be awarded the crown of universal dominion. This picture refers to his appointment as absolute Lord and Judge by virtue of his atoning ministry as God incarnate—the One who lived a sinless life (Isa 53:9), paid the price for the redemption of the human race (Isa 53:5–6), and was vindicated by his bodily resurrection as Judge of the entire human race (Ac 17:31; Ro 2:16). So also his ascension into heaven means that he will be enthroned in glory (Ps 110:1; Ac 2:66) till all his enemies have been subdued (Heb 10:12–13).
The Son of Man is to be the supreme source of political power on earth after his earthly kingdom is established; all humans will worship and serve him. The outcome of human history will be a return of Adam’s race under the rule of the divine Son of Man to loving obedience and subjection to the sovereignty of God (cf. Mt 28:18).
C. The Vision Interpreted by the Angel (7:15–28)
15–18 Despite the victorious conclusion of his dream, Daniel was distressed by his inability to understand several features of it. So he asked an angel standing nearby to explain some of these puzzling details. The angel gave a general reply (vv.17–18) to Daniel’s first question, indicating that the four beasts represented the successive world empires that would dominate the Near East till the last days. But he added that the ultimate sovereignty over the world would be granted to “the saints of the Most High” (cf. v.27). The reason for emphasizing the participation of God’s people in the final kingdom may be because it is a literal, earthly kingdom rather than a spiritual domain.
19–22 Daniel regarded the fourth beast with the greatest curiosity and dread. In particular he wondered about the ten horns and the little horn that emerged and overcame God’s holy people. Despite the assurance that the ultimate victory would be the Lord’s and that his people would finally prevail, Daniel was deeply concerned about their impending persecution.
23 The angel’s answer (vv.23–27) centers on the career of the little horn (cf. 2Th 2:8–9; Rev 13:1–10) and his rise and fall at the second coming of Christ. In v.23 the angel refers to the Roman Empire, which will be markedly “different from” the three preceding empires. Its difference will not be in size (Alexander’s empire far exceeded Trajan’s) but in organization and unity, enabling it to endure for centuries beyond the lifetime of the preceding Near East empires. “The whole earth” refers (as in general OT usage) to the entire territory of the Near and Middle East that in any way relates to the Holy Land. The word translated “earth” (GK 10075), depending on context, might mean a single country or a region. Here it is the portion of the world included in the Roman Empire, or possibly the regions immediately adjacent to it. The Roman state is seen as devouring the surrounding nations bite by bite and thus acquiring an entire complex of subject kingdoms and nations.
24 The interpreting angel turned from the historic Roman Empire to its ultimate ten-horn phase (cf. 2:41–43) and the emergence of the final world dictator. He arises after ten horns have been set up and subdues three of these ten to his own direct rule. He will then subject the other seven states to vassalage.
25 The little horn will claim divine honors (even as he blasphemes the one true God). He will abandon all pretense of permitting freedom of religion and will revile the Lord of heaven and earth. By cruel and systematic pressure he will “oppress” (lit., “wear out”) those with biblical convictions. Such continual and protracted persecution far more effectively breaks the human spirit than the single moment of crisis that calls for a heroic decision. It is easier to die for the Lord than to live for him under constant harassment and strain. This dictator will impose a new legal system, doubtless based on totalitarian principles in which the service of the government or the state will be substituted for the absolute standards of God’s moral law. All opposition to the decisions and policies of the little horn will be adjudged treasonable and punishable by death. His program will include a revision of the calendar (implied by “to change the set times”). This was attempted during the French Revolution.
Significantly, the radical phase of the Beast’s rule endures for “a time, times and half a time,” or three and a half years. This is half of the seven years that mark the period of the little horn’s career. Judging from 9:26–27, it appears that at the beginning of this final heptad of years the “ruler who will come” will “confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven’ [but] in the middle of that ‘seven’ ” will compel the offering of sacrifices to cease. Thus after the first three and a half years of his career, the Beast will abrogate his “covenant” with the religious establishment (cf. 12:11; Mt 24:15; 2Th 2:4). This would leave three and a half years for his program to be carried out unhindered by any rival theistic ideology.
26–27 The last two verses of the angel’s explanation make it clear that a great day of judgment and destruction on the Beast’s empire and on the whole wicked world will usher in the seating of the Son of Man on the throne of absolute sovereignty and the commencement of the fifth kingdom (cf. ch. 2) administered by his faithful believers. No unsubdued, rebellious elements will be left among the surviving inhabitants of earth; “the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven” will be granted to “the saints, the people of the Most High,” indicating that the Son of Man (v.13) is to be equated with the Most High himself. In the final clause a clear difference is made between the plural “saints” and the singular “him,” the one who is called “the Most High,” whose kingdom will be everlasting—words not applicable to a finite human being.
Identification of the Four Kingdoms
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
28 Apparently Daniel experienced a tremendous emotional drain as a result of his extended interview with God’s supernatural messenger (cf. Isa 6:5). His facial hue changed because of his inward concern about the severe trials awaiting his people. Yet these solemn disclosures were not proper matters to divulge to anyone else; so apart from writing them down, he kept them to himself.
VIII. The Grecian Conquest of Persia and the Tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes (8:1–27)
Here the text switches from Aramaic back to Hebrew (see Introduction).
A. The Vision of the Ram, the He-Goat, and the Little Horn (8:1–12)
1 This vision was granted Daniel two years after the previous one (cf. 7:1). It somewhat resembles it in subject matter and in manner of presentation, for it too portrays successive world empires as fierce beasts; and it also culminates in a tyrant described as a “little horn.” Yet there are significant differences in detail between the two chapters, especially regarding the third and fourth kingdoms.
2 Daniel received this new vision either at the Babylonian capital itself or while on a diplomatic mission to Susa, the capital of Elam. The scene Daniel saw in the vision was not Susa proper but rather the Ulai, a wide, artificial canal that flowed near the city. Appropriately enough, this furnished the setting for the rise of the beast representing Persia.
3 The Medo-Persian power is depicted as a large, powerful ram with two formidable horns. Though one horn was larger than the other, the horn that “grew up later” outstripped the former in size. Obviously this refers to the domination of the Persian power over the Median in the federated Medo-Persian Empire that was even then being formed (cf. 7:5, the bear “raised up on one of its sides”). The larger horn came later, even as Cyrus and his Persians came later than Cyaxeres and Astyages of Media.
4 The three general areas of Medo-Persian expansion were westward, northward, and southward. Initially the Medo-Persian troops were nearly invincible; hence the various beasts representing the surrounding nations opposing Persian expansion are described as helpless against the mighty ram. Cyrus had everything his own way and became arrogant over his universal success.
5–7 Verse 5 foretells coming disaster for Cyrus in the figure of a swift, one-horned goat that with one mighty charge shatters the horns of the Medo-Persian ram. First, the goat is described as coming from the west (i.e., Macedonia and Greece, as Alexander did in 334 B.C.). Second, he moves so fast that his hooves barely touch the ground as he charges all the way to the eastern limit of the Persian domain (“crossing the whole earth”). Third, this irresistible invading force is under the leadership of one man rather than a coalition of nations. In vain the ram attempts to withstand the charge of the goat, as the goat hurls himself against the ram—an implied prediction that the Macedonian-Greek forces would launch an unprovoked invasion such as took place in 334. The completeness of Alexander’s victories is fittingly prefigured by this crushing attack on the ram.
Alexander’s conquest of the entire Near and Middle East within three years stands unique in military history and is appropriately portrayed by the lightning speed of this one-horned goat. Despite the immense numerical superiority of the Persian imperial forces and their possession of military equipment like war elephants, the tactical genius of young Alexander proved decisive.
8 “The goat became very great” suggests Alexander’s thrust beyond the borders of the empire he had conquered even into Afghanistan and the Indus Valley (327 B.C.). Or it may refer to the growth in arrogance that led him to assume the pretensions to divinity that distressed his Macedonian troops, who finally mutinied. In support of his claim to have descended from Zeus-Ammon, which had been solemnly announced by the Egyptian priesthood after his liberation of Egypt from Persian tyranny, Alexander had required even his comrades-in-arms to prostrate themselves before him, in conformity with Oriental custom. In accord with his newly conceived imperial policy of granting equality to his Persian subjects along with his victorious Macedonian-Greek supporters, he went so far as to take the Persian princess Roxana as his queen and to designate his future son by her, Alexander IV, as successor to the Greco-Persian Empire.
Yet, as v.8 predicts, “at the height of his [the goat’s] power his large horn was broken off.” Alexander died of a sudden fever brought on by dissipation (though it was rumored that he was actually poisoned by Cassander, the son of Antipater, viceroy of Macedonia) at Babylon in 323, at the age of thirty-three. Although efforts were made to hold the empire together—first by Antipater himself as regent for little Alexander IV (and for Philip III Arrhidaeus, his half-witted uncle), and then, after Antipater’s death in 319, by Antigonus Monopthalmus, another highly respected general—the ambitions of such regional commanders as Ptolemy in Egypt, Seleucus in Babylonia, Lysimachus in Thrace and Asia Minor, and Cassander in Macedonia-Greece made this impossible. By 311 Seleucus asserted his claim to independent rule in Babylon, and the other three followed suit about the same time. Despite the earnest efforts of Antigonus and his brilliant son, Demetrius Poliorcetes, to subdue these separatist leaders, the final conflict at Ipsus in 301 resulted in defeat and death for Antigonus. The four ruthless and powerful generals named above became the “Diadochi” (“Successors”), who partitioned the Macedonian realm into four parts.
The prophecy “in its [the large horn’s] place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven” was fulfilled when Cassander retained his hold on Macedonia and Greece; Lysimachus held Thrace and the western half of Asia Minor as far as Cappadocia and Phrygia; Ptolemy consolidated Palestine, Cilicia, and Cyprus with his Egyptian-Libyan domains; and Seleucus controlled the rest of Asia all the way to the Indus Valley. While it is true that various vicissitudes beset these four realms during the third century and after (Pergamum, Bithynia, and Pontus achieved local independence in Asia Minor after the death of Lysimachus; and the eastern provinces of the Seleucid Empire achieved sovereignty as the kingdoms of Bactria and Parthia), nevertheless the initial division of Alexander’s empire was unquestionably fourfold, as this verse and 7:6 (the four-winged leopard) indicate.
9–10 Verses 9–12 foretell the rise of a “small horn” from the midst of the four horns of the Diadochi. It is described as attaining success in aggression against the “south,” or the domains of the Ptolemies. This evidently refers to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (“the Manifest/Conspicuous One”; see comment on 8:23–25), who usurped the Seleucid throne from his nephew (son of his older brother, Seleucus IV) and succeeded in invading Egypt 170–169 B.C. His expeditions against rebellious elements in Parthia and Armenia were initially successful “to the east” as well, and his determination to impose religious and cultural uniformity on all his domains led to a brutal suppression of Jewish worship at Jerusalem and generally throughout Palestine (here referred to as “the Beautiful Land”; cf. 11:16, 41). This suppression came to a head in December 168 B.C., when Antiochus returned in frustration from Alexandria (Egypt), where he had been turned back by the Roman commander Popilius Laenas, and vented his exasperation on the Jews. He sent his general, Apollonius, with twenty thousand troops under orders to seize Jerusalem on a Sabbath. There he erected an idol of Zeus and desecrated the altar by offering swine on it. This idol became known to the Jews as “the abomination of desolation” (cf. 11:31), a type of a future abomination to be set up in the Jerusalem sanctuary in the last days (cf. Mt 24:15).
Some observations are in order concerning the relationship between the “little horn” (lit., “a horn from a small one”) in 8:9 and the “little horn” in 7:8. The horn in ch. 7 emerged from the ten horns of the fourth beast, whereas this horn in 8:9 arises from the four-horned beast that represents the third kingdom, the empire of Alexander the Great (as all critics agree). Since the author of Daniel invests numbers with high significance, there is no possibility that he could have meant to equate a ten-horned beast with a four-horned one. The only plausible explanation is that the little horn arising from the third kingdom is a prototype of the little horn of the fourth kingdom. The crisis destined to confront God’s people in the time of the earlier little horn, Antiochus Epiphanes, will bear a strong similarity to the one that will befall them in the final phase of the fourth kingdom in the last days (see Mt 24:15). In each case a determined effort is made by a ruthless dictator to suppress completely the biblical faith and the worship of the one true God. Rather than concluding that the little horn of ch. 7 is also intended as a prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes (with a resultant identification of the fourth kingdom as the Greek or Seleucid Empire), we are to understand the relationship between the little horn of the Greek Empire and that of the latter-day fourth kingdom to be that of type and antitype, similar to that between Joshua and Jesus (Heb 4:8) and Melchizedek and Christ (Heb 7). In Da 11 both the typical little horn (Antiochus) and the antitypical little horn appear in succession, the transition from the one to the other taking place at 11:36, after which are predicted the circumstances of the destined death of the antitype that were not at all true of Antiochus Epiphanes himself. Therefore, the two figures cannot be identical, nor can the Greek Empire be equated with the fourth kingdom of Daniel’s prophetic scheme.
Continuing with the predicted career of Antiochus (v.10), we encounter the remarkable statement that he will grow up to “the host of heaven” and will throw “some of the starry host down to the earth,” where he will “trample on them.” “Host” (GK 7372) is a term most often used of the armies of angels in the service of God (e.g., “LORD of hosts” in KJV) or else of the stars in heaven (cf. Jer 33:22). But it is also used of the people of God, who are to become as the stars in number (Ge 12:3; 15:5) and are spoken of as “the LORD’s divisions” (Ex 12:41). Daniel 12:3 states that true believers (lit., “those who are wise”) “will shine like the brightness of the heavens [lit., stars] for ever and ever.” Since the Greek tyrant can hardly affect either the angels of heaven or the literal stars in the sky, it is quite evident that the phrase “the host of the heavens” must refer to those Jewish believers who will join the Maccabees in defending their faith and liberty. It is then implied here that Antiochus will cut down and destroy many of the Jews during the time of tribulation he will bring on them, when he will have “trampled on them.”
From 171 or 170 B.C. and thereafter, Antiochus pursued his evil policy of securing control of the high priesthood and bringing increasing pressure on the Jewish hierarchy to surrender their religious loyalties in the interests of conformity to Greek culture and idolatry. Already in 175, at the beginning of his reign, he had expelled the godly high priest Onias III from office and replaced him with his Hellenizing younger brother, Jason. Before long a certain Jew named Menelaus, who was apparently also of the high priestly family, bribed Antiochus to depose Jason and appoint him high priest in his place. But while Antiochus was successfully campaigning in Egypt against Ptolemy VII (181–145 B.C.), Jason laid siege to Jerusalem in the hope of ousting Menelaus. In the process of dealing subsequently with Jason, Antiochus took occasion to storm Jerusalem and pillage the temple itself. Reinstalling Menelaus as high priest, Antiochus gave him the mandate to continue an aggressive policy of Hellenization. But in December of 168 (cf. above), he had Jerusalem again seized by treachery and subjected it to prolonged looting and massacre, and a year later he converted its sanctuary into a temple to Zeus (Dec. 16, 167). So it continued until that memorable day, three years later, when Judas Maccabaeus rededicated the sacred structure to the worship of God (Dec 14, 164 B.C.), an event celebrated as Hanukkah by the Jewish community.
11 This verse describes how the megalomania of Antiochus advances to such extremes that he will declare himself equal with God (“Prince of the host”). He will halt the regular morning and evening sacrifice. (This was the daily burnt offering ordained in Nu 28:3, consisting of one lamb presented at sunrise and one at sunset, together with flour and oil [Nu 28:5].) This offering presented the atonement of the believing nation, whether or not any other sacrifice was brought before the Lord on that particular day. But the Seleucid tyrant commanded these offerings to be suspended in 168 and substituted a heathen sacrifice presented to an idol of Zeus, after the altar of the Lord had been destroyed and his temple pillaged and desecrated (“and the place of his sanctuary was brought low”).
12 Judah’s three-year tribulation period, during which the temple would be defiled and prostituted to heathen use, is now described. The phrase rendered “because of” is somewhat ambiguous. The verse as a whole probably should be rendered as follows:
And on account of transgression [presumably the transgression of Jason and Menelaus and the pro-Syrian faction among the worldly minded Jews of the Maccabean period] the host [of God’s people, the Jewish believers] will be given up [to the persecuting power of Antiochus IV] along with the [suspended] continual burnt offering; and the horn [Antiochus] will fling the truth [of the scriptural faith and service of God] to the ground [by forbidding it on pain of death], and he will perform [his will, or carry out his program of enforcing idolatry] and will [for the three-year period] prosper.
B. Gabriel’s Interpretation of the Vision (8:13–27)
13–14 There were two or possibly even three “holy ones” (GK 7705; i.e., heavenly beings) conversing about the prophetic meaning of the vision just described. Apparently the second angel (“another holy one”) posed the question to the third (“to him”) as to the duration of the terrible period when the temple and altar of the Lord would be desecrated (v.11). The answer given by the third angel was that this condition would last for “2,300 evenings and mornings.” This period of time has been understood by interpreters in two ways, either as 2,300 twenty-four-hour days (“evening morning” meaning an entire day from sunset to sunset; cf. Ge 1) or as 1,150 days composed of 1,150 evenings and 1,150 mornings. In other words, the interval would either be 6 years and 111 days or 3 years and 55 days. Most evidence seems to favor the latter interpretation. The context speaks of the suspension of the “sacrifice,” a reference to the “continual burnt offering” that was offered regularly each morning and evening. Surely there could have been no other reason for the compound expression than the reference to the two sacrifices that marked each day in temple worship.
Consequently, we are to understand v.14 as predicting the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabaeus on 25 Chislev (or Dec. 14), 164 B.C.; 1,150 days before that would point to a terminus a quo of three years, one month, and 25 days earlier, or Tishri 167 B.C. While the actual erection of the idolatrous altar in the temple took place in Chislev 167, or one month and 15 days later, there is no reason to suppose that Antiochus Epiphanes’s administrators may not have abolished the offering itself at that earlier date. Verse 14 simply specifies that when the 2,300 evenings and mornings have elapsed, “then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.” That certainly happened when the first Hanukkah was celebrated on 25 Chislev 164.
15–18 Some other heavenly being not otherwise specified commissioned Gabriel to explain the meaning of the vision to the swooning prophet. Gabriel was instructed to identify the coming world empires and the climactic events of the “time of the end.” The overwhelming splendor of Gabriel’s presence rendered Daniel completely helpless, but the angel’s transforming touch restored him.
19–22 This passage furnishes a general summary of the rise of the second and third kingdoms. Gabriel gave no details about the Persian era beyond indicating its compound character as Medo-Persian. But he did identify the large single horn between the goat’s eyes as the first king of the Greek Empire. This mighty conqueror was soon replaced by four other horns, which were the Diadochi (see comments on 7:8; 8:8). He added that none of these four would “have the same power” (i.e., of Alexander). History proved this true.
23–25 This passage depicts the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, described as a “stern-faced king, a master of intrigue” (lit., “a master at understanding hidden things”), who will at first enjoy much success. He will crush “mighty men” (presumably nobles and regional commanders who supported rival claimants to the throne) and also “the holy people” (i.e., the believing Jews).
Two noteworthy traits will characterize Antiochus’s rule: (1) his treachery and intrigue, to catch his victims unawares and unprepared (as in Jerusalem in 168–167 B.C.); (2) his overweening pride, which led him to claim divine honors. The coins of Antiochus actually bore the title “God manifest.” This clearly exhibited his character as the typical “little horn,” a model for the antitypical “little horn” referred to in 7:8 (cf. 2Th 2:3–4).
While we are not told whether Antiochus made a formal claim to deity while enthroned in the court of the Jerusalem temple, he certainly did assume the right to determine what gods his subjects should worship, feeling that he was the earthly embodiment of the powers of heaven and that all rule and authority were given him. Like Nebuchadnezzar, he expected all his subjects to bow down to the great image he had set up. But he went even beyond Nebuchadnezzar in trying to abolish the ancestral religion of the Jews, forbidding them on pain of death to circumcise their children and making the possession of the Hebrew Scriptures a capital offense. By erecting the statue of Zeus Olympius (or Capitolinus) in the temple of the Lord and sacrificing swine on the altar, he committed the greatest possible sacrilege and affront to the Jewish people.
Yet v.25 predicts Antiochus’s sudden destruction, not by human means, but by God’s intervention. As a condign penalty for having taken “his stand against the Prince of princes” (the Lord God Almighty), Antiochus would be removed from the scene. He was. After making an unsuccessful attempt to pillage Nanaea, a wealthy temple in Elymais, he died of a sudden malady.
Ancient sources have somewhat diverse accounts of Antiochus’s fatal illness. The author of 1Mc 6:4, 8–16 says that Antiochus withdrew to Babylon after his repulse at Elymais, that he became deathly ill after hearing of the victories of Judas Maccabaeus, and that he died many days later. But 2Mc 9:1–28 states that Antiochus had attempted to raid a temple in Persepolis (rather than Elymais), and that it was at Ecbatana that he heard the disturbing news of the Maccabean victories. Then, as he was uttering dire threats of reprisal against them, he was seized with severe abdominal pains that never left him; and thus he fell out of the chariot in which he was riding. Finally, as a result of his severe injuries from the fall and the attack of worms on his bowels, accompanied by a revolting stench, he finally died with vain petitions on his lips, imploring the God of Israel to spare his life. The various accounts agree in stating that the tyrant met his end by a nonhuman agency. The question of Antiochus’s death is of special importance in 11:45.
26–27 Chapter 8 closes with Gabriel’s command for Daniel to keep confidential the predictions just revealed to him because they are related to “the distant future” (cf. 12:9). It is also significant that Gabriel states that the vision refers to “many days” (i.e., to many years in the future). (NIV’s “distant future” is somewhat inexact but certainly should not be pressed to refer to the last days just before the Lord’s return; the “many days” in this case obviously refers to the crisis years of 167–164 B.C.) Verse 27 describes the emotional strain the prophet felt following this encounter with the angel Gabriel. It drained him to the point of illness for several days. Even after he went back to the king’s service, he kept brooding over the vision and its fulfillment. Perhaps what most disturbed Daniel was the prediction of the time of great tribulation appointed for the true people of God under the tyranny of the “little horn.”
IX. The Vision of the Seventy Weeks (9:1–27)
A. Daniel’s Great Prayer (9:1–19)
1–3 Daniel, a diligent student of Scripture, built his prayer life on God’s Word. Significantly, even before any formal endorsement had been accorded them, he included Jeremiah’s writings as inspired Scripture, even though Jeremiah had died only a few decades earlier. As Daniel studied Jer 25:11–13, he saw that God had appointed a period of seventy years for the captivity of Israel, at the end of which Babylon would be judged by God. Daniel was gripped by the words in Jer 29:10.
Since this episode took place in 539 or 538 (“the first year of Darius”; on the identity of Darius the Mede, see ZPEB, 2:29), less than fifty years had elapsed since the Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar (587 B.C.) or the destruction of the temple in 586. The earliest possible terminus a quo for the seventy years of exile would be Daniel’s own captivity in Babylon (604 B.C.). While 538 might be three or four years short of the full seventy, it was not too soon for Daniel to begin praying. In view of the recent collapse of the Chaldean Empire and the benevolent attitude of Cyrus toward the religious preferences of his newly conquered subjects, Daniel was moved to claim the promise implied by the number seventy in Jeremiah’s writings. So he implored the Lord to reckon those years from the year of his own exile and to ensure the reestablishment of Israel in the Land of Promise by seventy years from the first Palestinian invasion of King Nebuchadnezzar.
Although this passage does not actually mention the predictions concerning King Cyrus that were revealed to Isaiah back in the early seventh century, undoubtedly Daniel knew about them (cf. Isa 44:28; 45:1–2). Daniel must have been stirred when he first heard reports of the young king of Persia who made himself master of the entire Medo-Persian domain. When Cyrus finally launched his invasion of Mesopotamia and laid siege to Babylon itself, Daniel’s heart must have leaped at seeing prophecy being fulfilled. Now that Cyrus had indeed attained the success that the Lord had promised him years before, Daniel besought the Lord to move the conqueror’s heart to let the Hebrew exiles return to their land. Isaiah 45:4, 13 were promises that Daniel could claim at this critical time in Israel’s history.
4–6 Verses 4–19 show how a true man of God should approach the Sovereign of the universe. Daniel made striking spiritual preparations for his ministry of intercession: he fasted, mourned, and clothed himself with sackcloth (v.3). Daniel realized he could not urge on God any merit of his nation, for they had forfeited all claim to divine mercy. By their persistent transgression of their covenant with God, their embracing of heathen idolatry and immorality, and their martyrdom of the prophets (cf. 2Ch 36:16), they had literally compelled him to bring on them the promised curses (cf. Lev 26:39–45; Dt 28:45–63; 30:1–5). They had richly deserved the destruction of their cities and the loss of their property, freedom, and native land; and they lacked any ground of merit on which to entreat God’s favor. The only basis for Daniel’s approach to God was his earnest desire for the Lord to glorify himself by displaying the riches of his mercy and grace in pardoning and restoring his guilty but repentant people to their land in fulfillment of his promise in Jer 25 and 29.
With these convictions Daniel devoted himself to a prayer of adoration and confession. In this chapter Daniel for the first time used the sacred Tetragrammaton, the covenant name of Yahweh (i.e., “LORD,” v.2 and the preamble of v.4; GK 3378). Even though he found himself exiled from the sacred soil of Israel, Daniel boldly claimed the Lord’s mercy as the covenant-keeping God of Israel. Although he addressed him as “Lord” in the opening sentence of his prayer and in v.7, Daniel addressed him directly as “LORD” in v.8 and referred to him by the same covenant name in vv.10, 13, and 14.
In his first words Daniel combined both aspects of God’s nature, glorifying him as the “great and awesome God” and as the faithful, promise-keeping God. The Lord allowed his people to go down in utter defeat because they had forced his hand by flagrant and shameless sin.
As spokesman of his people, Daniel confessed their sin and wickedness and acknowledged that the Jews had succumbed to the surrounding cultures. They had been unwilling to repent at the warning of God’s prophets. The whole nation had become involved in rejecting the Lord; there remained such a small remnant of faithful believers that Judah was not worth saving from the coming destruction. Daniel could find no excuse for their betrayal of their sacred trust.
7–11a Rather than appearing to be a chosen people (Dt 7:6), blessed of God in military success (Dt 28:7) and feared by the nations (Dt 28:10), Israel had been laid waste, its inhabitants killed or exiled. The Jews had become objects of scorn, deprived of property and freedom and derided for their claim to know the one true God. What made their disgrace even more shameful was their flagrant ingratitude toward their compassionate, forgiving God, whose pardon and mercy they ridiculed and rejected.
11–14 Daniel exalted the justice of God (cf. Dt 28–32); it was more important for God to retain his integrity and uphold his moral law than for his guilty people to escape the consequences of their infidelity. Had God not fulfilled his word of judgment, little credence could be placed in his word of grace. The fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the Captivity vindicated the holiness and righteousness of God and demonstrated the sanctity of his moral law.
15–19 Daniel appealed to God’s pity on the exiled nation and ruined Jerusalem, basing his appeal on God’s honor and glory. Daniel was chiefly concerned about God’s reputation in the eyes of the world. If the Lord allowed his sanctuary and Holy City to lie in ruins and his people to remain in exile, who among the surrounding nations would believe that the Lord was the true and holy Sovereign over all the universe? That, in Daniel’s mind, was the worst thing about the tragedy of Jerusalem’s fall and the Captivity—the pagans would conclude that the Lord was unable to protect his people against Babylon’s gods. Moreover, since God had promised full pardon and restoration to his repentant people, the prophet felt emboldened to press the Lord for an early return of the Jewish captives to Palestine, that a new commonwealth of chastened believers might be established there and a testimony set up again for the one true God. Because of the purity of his motives and the earnestness of his desire, Daniel was heard and soon received his answer.
B. The Divine Answer: Seventy Heptads of Years (9:20–27)
20–23 The Lord’s response came swiftly. Daniel had not even finished his prayer before Gabriel came to reveal God’s will to his faithful servant. The term “the man” (GK 408) indicates that the archangel appeared in human form and spoke to Daniel as one man speaks to another. Daniel saw Gabriel approaching in “swift flight,” and Gabriel responded to his prayer at the time of the evening sacrifice—i.e., at sunset. Evidently Daniel had prayed till late afternoon. Of course, no actual sacrifice could have been offered in Babylon—or in Palestine—without a new altar on the site of the destroyed temple. But devout Jews in Persia would have observed both sunrise and sunset as appropriate times of the day for offering adoration, praise, and supplication.
Gabriel began his teaching by encouraging Daniel; his faith was precious in God’s eyes. The Lord is more eager to answer than we are to ask, and in Daniel’s case there were powerful grounds for a speedy reply, reassuring him of the Lord’s intention to bring to an end the seventy years of Israel’s captivity.
24 This verse sets forth the approach of “seventy ‘sevens’” of years during which God would accomplish his plan of national and spiritual redemption for Israel. The seventy “weeks” or “heptads” (lit., “units of seven,” whether days or years) are 490 years (divided, as we shall see, into three sections). This was the time to elapse before the accomplishment of six great achievements for the Holy City and for God’s covenant people. The first three relate to the removal of sin; the second three to the restoration of righteousness.
1. The first achievement is “to finish transgression.” The culmination of the appointed years will witness the conclusion of human “transgression” (GK 7322) or “rebellion” against God—a development most naturally entered into with the establishment of an entirely new order on earth. This requires nothing less than the inauguration of the kingdom of God on earth. Certainly the crucifixion of Christ in A.D. 30 did not put an end to human iniquity or rebellion on earth.
2. The second achievement is “to put an end to sins.” The Hebrew term for “sin” (GK 2633) refers to missing the mark or the true goal of life; it implies immorality of a more general sort rather than revolt against authority implied by “transgression.” This achievement suggests the bringing in of a new society in which righteousness will prevail in complete contrast to the present condition of the human race.
3. The third achievement is “to atone for wickedness.” This certainly points to the Crucifixion, which ushered in the final stage of human history before the establishment of the fifth kingdom (cf. 2:35, 44). At Pentecost Peter referred to “the last days” spoken of by the prophet Joel (cf. Ac 2:16–17). This implies that the “last days” began at the inauguration of the NT church at Pentecost. The Feast of Pentecost occurred just seven weeks after the Resurrection, which followed the Crucifixion by three days. The Crucifixion was the atonement that made possible the establishment of the new order, the church of the redeemed, and the coming millennial kingdom.
4. The fourth achievement is “to bring in everlasting righteousness.” This clearly indicates an order of society in which righteousness, justice, and conformity to the standards of Scripture will prevail on earth, rather than the temporary periods of upright government that have occasionally occurred in world history till now.
5. The fifth achievement will be the fulfillment of the vision and “the prophecy,” which serves as the grand and central goal of God’s plan for the ages, that final stage of human history when the Son of Man receives “authority, glory and sovereign power” (7:14) so that all peoples will serve him. This fulfillment surely goes beyond the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ to include his enthronement—on the throne of David—as supreme Ruler over all the earth.
6. The final goal to be achieved at the end of the seventy weeks is the anointing of “the most holy.” This most likely refers to the consecration of the temple of the Lord, conceivably the millennial temple (cf. Eze 40–44).
Before the question of the seventieth week can be properly handled, the terminus ad quem of the seventy weeks must first be established. If all six goals of v.24 were attained by the crucifixion of Christ and the establishment of the early church seven years after his death, then it might be fair to assume that the entire 490 years of the seventy weeks were to be understood as running consecutively and coming to a close in A.D. 37. But since all or most of the six goals seem to be yet unfulfilled, it follows that if the seventieth week finds fulfillment at all, it must be identified as the last seven years before Christ’s return to earth as millennial King.
25–26 Verse 25 is crucial. Only sixty-nine heptads are listed here, broken into two segments. The first segment of seven amounts to forty-nine years, during which the city of Jerusalem is to be “rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.”
Verse 26 specifies the termination of the sixty-nine heptads: the cutting off of the Messiah. After the appearance of Messiah as Ruler–483 years after the sixty-nine weeks have begun—he will be cut off. This accords very well with a three-year ministry of the Messiah prior to his crucifixion. Verse 26 goes on to indicate that when Messiah is cut off, he will be bereft of followers; all of them will flee from him at the time of his arrest, trial, and death. (Or “nothing” may mean that he will die without any material wealth or resources.)
For the terminus a quo, notice that v.25 specifies the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem with streets and moats, which will be completed within forty-nine years of the terminus a quo. The most likely fulfillment is the decree issued to Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (i.e., 457 B.C.) (for other possibilities, see EBC, 7:113–16). Its text (Ezr 7:12–26) emphasizes restoring the temple and enforcing the Mosaic code. Yet Ezra understood the decree to include permission to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. To be sure, he did not succeed in doing so; his attention was focused on urgently needed community reforms. Certainly he lacked the resources for so ambitious an undertaking; so the rebuilding never went beyond the talking stage. If this led to a delay of thirteen years in working on the walls, Nehemiah’s disappointment (Ne 1:4) when in 446 he heard that no progress had been made seems all the more appropriate. Nehemiah no doubt had hoped for more tangible results from Ezra’s leadership during his twelve years there.
If, then, the terminus a quo for the decree in v.25 be reckoned as 457 B.C. (the date of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem), we may compute the first seven heptads as running from 457 to 408, within which time the rebuilding of the walls, streets, and moats was completed. Then from 408 we count off the sixty-two heptads (434 years) also mentioned in v.25 and come out to A.D. 26 (408 is 26 less than 434). But actually we come out to A.D. 27, since there is no year 0. If Christ was crucified on 14 Abib A.D. 30, as is generally believed (cf. EBC, 1:598–99, 607), this would come out to a remarkably exact fulfillment of the terms of v.25. Christ’s public ministry, from the time of his baptism in the Jordan till his death and resurrection at Jerusalem, must have taken up about three years. The 483 years from the issuing of the decree of Artaxerxes came to an end in A.D. 27, the year of the “coming” of Messiah as Ruler. It was indeed “after the sixty-two ‘sevens’ ”—three years after—that “the Anointed One” was “cut off.”
The second sentence of v.26 is perhaps more accurately rendered, “The people of a prince who shall come will destroy both the city and the sanctuary.” (The reason for the ambiguity here is that the definite article is missing in front of “ruler” in the Hebrew, which would be necessary for the rendering “the people of the ruler.”) Subsequent history shows this to be a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus in A.D. 70, forty years after Calvary, or forty-three years after the end of the sixty-ninth “week”—if the 457 B.C. theory is correct for the commencement of the seventy weeks.
The next sentence or two indicate what is to happen after the destruction of Jerusalem: lit., “And the end of it will be in the overflowing, and unto the end there will be war, a strict determination of desolations” or “the determined amount of desolations.” The general tenor is in striking conformity with Christ’s own prediction (Mt 24:7–22). Notice that this entire intervening period is referred to before the final or seventieth week is mentioned in v.27. It is difficult to explain why this is so if the entire seventy weeks are intended to run consecutively and without interruption. It seems far more reasonable to infer that a long period of time of war and desolation is to intervene between the sixty-ninth week (when Messiah appears at his first advent) and the seventieth week, which is to usher in Christ’s second advent.
27 This verse evokes the question, Who? The “ruler” in v.26 is the last eligible antecedent in the Hebrew text, which normally is to be taken as the subject of the following verb. If it was a ruler of the Roman people who was to destroy Jerusalem (in A.D. 70), then it would be a ruler of the Roman Empire—in its final phase, i.e., the ten-toes phase of ch. 2 and the ten-horned-beast phase of ch. 7—who will conclude this covenant. (Of course it could not be the same ruler, for a long period seems to be referred to in the last part of v.26; the earlier ruler must therefore be a type or forerunner of the “Roman” ruler of the last days.)
Who are “the many”? (The Heb. indicates “the many” rather than “many.”) Apparently this refers to the true believers, presumably Jewish believers in Christ. The foregoing thus indicates that the latter day ruler over the “Roman” people will “confirm” a “covenant” with the believing Jews for a stipulated period of seven years, permitting them to carry on their religious practices.
After about three and one-half years, the world dictator will break his agreement with the Jews. Possibly he will feel secure enough in his autocratic position to carry out his original, secret plan to impose an absolute dictatorship on all the people of his empire, especially the Jews. All pretense of religious toleration will be dropped as he aspires to display himself as the incarnation of all divine authority on earth (cf. 2Th 2:4).
The final statement of v.27 is difficult (see NIV note). The Hebrew has no word for “temple” or any verb for “set.” A more literal translation is, “And on the wing of abominations (he is going to) commit abominations, and toward the end [or ‘up until’] the predetermined (judgment) will be poured out upon him.” In other words, the subject of “commit abominations” (lit. Heb.) is the Antichrist himself, carried over from v.26; and what we have here is more likely a construction like “he is about to commit abominations.” It seems unjustified to supply a verb “to set.” Since there is no word for “temple,” it is more reasonable to understand “wing” as a figure for the vulture-like role of the Antichrist as he swoops down on his beleaguered victims.
The phrase “that causes desolation” (GK 9037) resembles “the abomination that causes desolation” in Da 11:31 and 12:11. Apparently these three passages were in Christ’s mind when he predicted the final horrors of the Tribulation (cf. Mt 24:15). Furthermore, Jesus obviously regarded the fulfillment of this prophecy as yet future. It is simplest to take the “desolator” as the world dictator of the last days, who will resort to violence to carry through his ruthless policy of despotism. Revelation 13 indicates that he will remain in control of world affairs down to the End, enforcing his will by violent means till the final conflict of Armageddon. The dictator will hold sway till the wrath of God is poured out in fury on the God-defying world of the Beast (little horn or ruler). What is “poured out” may include the vials or bowls of divine wrath mentioned in Rev 16; but certainly what “is poured out on him” points to the climax at Armageddon, when the blasphemous world ruler will be crushed by the full weight of God’s judgment.
X. The Triumph of Persistent Prayer (10:1–21)
A. Daniel’s Disturbing Vision and Prayerful Concern (10:1–3)
1–3 The “third year of Cyrus” identifies this vision as the latest recorded in the Book of Daniel. Since the reign of Darius lasted until 538 or 537, Cyrus’s third year (at Babylon) would have been 535/534, probably just a few years before Daniel’s death. (If he was born around 620 B.C., Daniel would have been ninety by 530.) The vision’s message related to “a great war,” portending troublesome times for the people of God. Daniel was so impressed by this revelation that he mourned and fasted for three weeks, giving himself to intense supplication and prayer (cf. v.12).
B. God’s Delayed Messenger (10:4–14)
4–6 In early spring, Daniel received his answer through an angel while standing by the Tigris River, evidently there on some kind of official business. Verses 5–6 are probably the most detailed description in Scripture of the appearance of an angel (cf. Jdg 13:6; Lk 24:4; Ac 1:10). The angel (1) was dressed in linen, possibly the dazzling white apparel referred to in Lk 24:4; (2) he had a “gold” belt around his waist, possibly in the form of chain links, hinged panels, or gold thread embroidery; (3) his body glowed luminously; (4) his face flashed like lightning; (5) his eyes blazed like torches (cf. Rev 1:14); (6) his arms and legs (evidently uncovered) gleamed like burnished bronze; and (7) his voice was like the “sound of a multitude” (cf. Rev 10:1–3).
7–11 Although Daniel’s companions did not see the vision, they sensed the angel’s presence and fled in terror (cf. Ac 9:7; 22:9). Left alone with this awesome messenger, Daniel once again was emotionally overwhelmed (cf. 8:27). After hearing the angel speak to him, Daniel swooned. But the angel’s touch soon aroused him. Daniel stood up, respectfully attentive to God’s message. The remarkable greeting reassured him of God’s love and concern for his faithful servants. Daniel’s privileged status resulted from his complete absorption in the will and glory of the Lord. The angel called on Daniel to listen carefully to what he was about to receive. From the standpoint of 535 B.C., ch. 11 is full of confusing detail couched in vague terms, though the subsequent fulfillment in later times is amazingly accurate.
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
12–14 Daniel was told what happened in heaven when three weeks earlier he had begun to pray for an understanding of God’s plan for Israel’s future. Because Daniel had set his “mind to gain understanding and to humble [himself] before [his] God,” the Lord commissioned his angelic messenger with the answer to Daniel’s petition. The powers of evil apparently are able to hinder the delivery of the answers to requests God is minded to answer. God’s response was immediate, but “the prince of the Persian kingdom”—apparently the satanic agent assigned to the Persian realm—vigorously opposed the actual delivery of the answer.
While God can override the united resistance of all the forces of hell, he accords to demons certain limited powers of obstruction and rebellion like those he allows human beings. The exercise of free will in opposition to the Lord of heaven is permitted when he sees fit (but see Job 1:12; 2:6; cf. also 1Co 10:13). The angels of God can thwart the agents of the Devil, as here Michael broke the hindrance put up by the demonic “king of Persia” and paved the way for the interpreting angel to deliver God’s answer to Daniel. Michael was a faithful “minister” to someone who would “inherit salvation” (cf. Heb 1:14). This shows the importance of perseverance (cf. Lk 18:1).
In v.14 the angel begins to explain the destiny of the Hebrew people up to the last days. If the vision pertains to the last days, it is a mistake to try to interpret the end point as being the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century B.C. The vision goes beyond his age to the final period in world history, before the Son of Man comes to establish the kingdom of God on earth. Beyond the type (Antiochus IV) is projected the antitype (see 11:40; also the comments on 8:9–10).
C. The Angel’s Encouragement (10:15–21)
15–19 Daniel, perhaps too emotionally overcome to form any words, bowed toward the ground as the angel spoke to him. Then a heavenly figure in human form touched Daniel’s lips, enabling him to speak. At first he could only speak of his utter weakness (cf. Isa 6:5), but the angel’s touch was all Daniel needed to regain his speech. The angel touched Daniel again, giving him renewed strength. In the presence of the mighty angel, Daniel was reassured that the Lord was with him; he was then ready to give close attention to God’s revelation of the future and write it down with utmost care.
20–21 The angel revealed that he was still in combat for the Lord and would soon return to the battlefield to fight against renewed attacks from the demon assigned to Persia. This antagonist would be succeeded by another satanic champion called the “prince of Greece.” These battles between the warriors of heaven and those of hell most likely take place in heaven (cf. Rev 12:7) and result in the defeat of Satan. It is encouraging to know that God has mighty champions among the holy angels to defend the saints against the attacks of the Evil One.
XI. The Tribulation Under Antiochus and Antichrist (11:1–45)
A. From the Persian Empire to the Death of Alexander (11:1–4)
1 Clearly 11:1 points back to 10:20–21, which speaks of the angel’s alliance with the archangel, Michael, against the demons of Persia and Greece, and specifies the first year of Darius the Mede (539–538 B.C.) as the time when Michael’s contest with Satan’s emissaries began. Apparently the struggle had been going on for four or five years (since the episode of chs. 10–12 takes place in the third year of Cyrus as king; see 10:1).
The occasion for the spiritual warfare was the restoration of the believing remnant of Israel to the Holy Land and their survival there as a commonwealth of the faithful, living in obedience to the Scriptures. Knowing that such a development could lead to the ultimate appearance of the Messiah, Satan and his hosts were determined to thwart the renewal of Israel and the deliverance of her people from destruction. The supreme effort to exterminate them altogether was to take place some fifty-five years later, in the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), when Haman secured his consent to obliterate the entire Jewish race (see the book of Esther). The conflict between Michael and the “prince of Persia” (10:13) may have had some bearing on this event, and Michael’s victory may have paved the way for Queen Esther to thwart this genocide. The second major effort of Satan was to take place under Antiochus Epiphanes, who sought to obliterate the Jewish faith by forbidding its practice on pain of death. The momentous events of 167–164 B.C. may well have been profoundly affected by this supernatural warfare between heaven and hell (see comments on 8:13–14).
2 Michael began to detail what God ordained for the future of the second commonwealth up until the crisis reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Persian king who invaded Greece was, of course, Xerxes, who reigned 485–464 B.C. The three kings who preceded him after the death of Cyrus were (1) Cambyses, Cyrus’s elder son, who in the six or seven years of his reign (529–523) conquered Egypt; (2) then for a year or two an imposter named Gaumata or Bardiya (523–522), who passed himself off as Cyrus’s younger son, Smerdis (who had been secretly murdered by his brother’s agents); and (3) Darius the Persian (522–485), the son of Hystaspes, who in 522 assassinated the imposter and was elevated to the kingship in his place. Darius himself was of royal blood, being a cousin of Cyrus through his father, Hystaspes.
In 490 B.C. Darius attempted to conquer Athens to punish it for aiding the Ionian Greek cities in their abortive revolt against their Persian overlords. But his naval expedition came to grief at Marathon. As a result, Xerxes, Darius’s son, not only inherited an obligation to wreak vengeance on Athens but also was motivated by the momentum of empire building to keep pushing westward to add yet another realm to the vast domain he had inherited from his father. Xerxes, however, sustained an even greater defeat than his father had. After his huge army (estimated at a million men) had subdued virtually all of Greece down to the Isthmus of Corinth and the city of Athens had been reduced to ashes, Xerxes’ navy was soundly defeated by the united Greek fleet at Salamis in 480 B.C. This setback prompted him to retreat hastily to Asia. The land army of one hundred thousand men that he left behind was completely crushed in 479 by the allied forces of the Greeks at Plataea.
3–4 The next phase in world empires was the rise of Alexander the Great. Although v.3 does not make it altogether clear that this “mighty king” would inaugurate a new empire in place of the Persian one, v.4 leaves no doubt that he was the ruler predicted here. “After he has appeared” is better translated “As soon as he has appeared,” which suggests that he would have a comparatively brief reign. Alexander’s first clash with the Persians came at Granicus in 334, and his final overthrow of Persian power took place in 331 at Gaugamela. After that he pushed eastward to Afghanistan and the Indus River and Bahawalpur, beyond the farthest reaches of Persian conquest. There he was compelled by his battle-weary troops to return to Babylon in 327. Thus in seven or eight years he accomplished the most dazzling military conquest in human history. But he lived only four years more, dying in Babylon of a fever in 323 after one of his drunken bouts.
Verse 4 foretells the division of Alexander’s domains among four smaller and weaker empires. After a period of imperial regency under Perdiccas (murdered in 321) and Antigonus (crushed at Ipsus in 301), the widespread domains of Alexander were parceled out to the four Diadochi (see comment on 8:8 for the history foretold here).
B. The Wars Between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids (11:5–20)
5–6 “The king of the South” was to be Ptolemy I (Soter), son of Lagus, whose ambitions extended far beyond the borders of Egypt (his charge from Alexander) to Palestine and the rest of Asia. Temporarily his naval forces captured Cyprus and important bases in Asia Minor, and there were even times when he wielded considerable influence over some of the city-states of the Greek mainland. But during the 280 years between Ptolemy I and Cleopatra VII (who met her end around 30 B.C.), the domain of the Ptolemies was mostly restricted to Egypt and Cyprus; they lost Palestine to the Seleucid king Antiochus III shortly before 200 B.C. “One of his commanders [who] will become even stronger than he” was Seleucus Nicator of the Seleucid Empire, who had served under Perdiccas and Antigonus in Babylon but had had a falling out with the latter in 316. Thereafter he defected to Ptolemy. After the defeat of Antigonus, he returned to Babylon (where he was well liked) with Ptolemy’s sponsorship in 312, two years after which he assumed the title of king, so that 310 became the official starting date for the Seleucid Era. Since Seleucus secured control of Alexander’s old domains all the way to the Indus on the east and to Syria and Phoenicia on the west, his authority far surpassed that of his sponsor, Ptolemy. Seleucus’s dynasty endured till 64 B.C., when Pompey delivered the coup de grace to a truncated empire that had already lost Babylon and all its eastern dominions to the Parthians.
After Ptolemy I’s death in 285, his son Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) continued the contest with the Seleucids till 252, when a treaty of peace was finally arranged with Antiochus II (Theos), under the terms of which Antiochus was to marry Berenice, the daughter of Philadelphus. This furnished a serious complication since Antiochus already had a wife, a powerful, influential woman named Laodice. She did not take kindly to being divorced, despite the obvious political advantages with Ptolemaic Egypt (v.6). Thus she organized a successful conspiracy, operating from her place of banishment after the divorce; and she managed to have both Berenice and her infant son assassinated. Soon afterward the king himself was poisoned (247 B.C.), and the pro-Laodice party engineered a coup d’etat that made her queen regent during the minority of her son, Seleucus II (Callinicus). Thus the prophecy was fulfilled concerning Berenice, that she would be “handed over,” along with the nobles who supported her in Antioch.
7–12 Ptolemy Philadelphus died in 247 B.C., soon after the tragedy that had overtaken his daughter Berenice. But his capable son Ptolemy III (Euergetes) organized a great expeditionary force against Syria to avenge his sister’s death. This war raged from 246 to 241, and Ptolemy captured and pillaged the Seleucid capital of Antioch and invaded its eastern domains as far as Bactria. Finally he returned to Egypt laden with spoil, but he did not see fit to add much of the Seleucid territory on a permanent basis. He did, however, shatter the Seleucid navy in the Aegean Sea and succeeded on other fronts as well, for he reunited Cyrenaica (at the western end of Libya), after twelve years of independence with the Ptolemaic domains. He also recovered all his father’s conquests on the coasts of Asia Minor and temporarily gained control of portions of Thrace.
Verse 8 mentions the recovery of the idols and sacred treasures taken to Persia as booty by Cambyses in 524 B.C., the recovery of which moved the Egyptians to acclaim Ptolemy III as Euergetes (“Benefactor”). The verse concludes by alluding to the treaty of peace Ptolemy III made with Seleucus II in 240. Although there is no record of Seleucus II’s attempting to invade Egypt proper, v.9 records his successful foray into Ptolemaic territory to regain control of northern Syria and Phoenicia, probably in the 230s.
Seleucus II (Callinicus) died in 226 and was succeeded by his son Seleucus III (Soter), who reigned for only three years (v.10). His principal efforts were directed against Asia Minor. The second son of Callinicus, Antiochus III, received the surname “the Great” because of his military successes. Coming to the throne in 223, he first had to suppress a revolt in the eastern provinces led by his trusted governor, Molon, who had set himself up as an independent king (220 B.C.). Antiochus III next launched an expedition against Phoenicia and Palestine (219–218) that ended in a serious setback at Raphia, where he was soundly beaten by the smaller army of Ptolemy IV (vv.11–12). In the peace that followed, Antiochus III ceded all Phoenicia and Palestine back to Ptolemy IV and left him in undisturbed possession of them till later. During the following years Antiochus attained his most brilliant successes in subjugating the rebellious provinces in the Middle East all the way to the Caspian Sea in the north and the Indus River on the east. These invasions absorbed all his energies from 212 to 204. But finally in 203, when Ptolemy IV died and was succeeded by Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), a mere boy of four, Antiochus saw his opportunity to strike at Egypt again.
13–19 Antiochus advanced once more against Phoenicia and Palestine with his battle-seasoned veterans and pushed all the way down to the fortress of Gaza, which fell in 201. Verse 14 continues: “In those times many will rise against the king of the South [i.e., Ptolemy V]. The violent men among your own people [i.e., the pro-Seleucid Jews] will rebel in fulfillment of the vision [i.e., this prophecy now being revealed], but without success.” This refers to the counteroffensive launched by the powerful General Scopas of the Egyptian forces, who punished all the leaders in Jerusalem and Judah who favored the claims of Antiochus and were disaffected with the Ptolemaic government. But soon the war swept down from the north, and Scopas met with a severe loss at Panium (near Caesarea Philippi) in 200 B.C. From there he retreated to Sidon on the Phoenician coast, the “fortified city” of v.15.
When Scopas finally surrendered to Antiochus III at Sidon, the Holy Land (“Beautiful Land,” v.16) was permanently acquired by the Antioch government, to the exclusion of Egypt. Antiochus did not pursue a general policy of destruction but simply exacted reprisals from the pro-Egyptian party leaders he captured. On his entrance into Jerusalem in 198 B.C., he was welcomed as a deliverer and benefactor.
More literally v.17 reads: “Then he will set his face to come with the power of all his kingdom, and equitable conditions shall be with him, and he will accomplish it. And he will give to him the daughter of women in order for her to corrupt [or ‘destroy’] him [or possibly ‘it,’ referring to the kingdom of Egypt].” The clear intention of Antiochus was to bring the boy king Ptolemy V, who in 197 was ten or less, under the influence of his daughter, expecting her to maintain a strongly pro-Seleucid policy in Egypt. Then if Cleopatra gave birth to a son, he would become legal heir to both crowns, which conceivably might create a situation favorable to strong control in Egypt on the part of Antiochus himself, the maternal grandfather. However, after the marriage finally took place in 195, Cleopatra became completely sympathetic to her husband, Ptolemy V, and the Ptolemaic cause, much to her father’s disappointment. Therefore when she gave birth to a royal heir (Ptolemy VI), her father gained no particular advantage or political leverage. When Ptolemy V died (181), Cleopatra became queen regent because the Egyptians all loved and appreciated her loyalty to their cause. But she herself died not long after, which meant the end of all possible Seleucid influence on Egyptian affairs. Antiochus himself had died in 187 B.C.
Soon after his victory over Scopas at Panium and Sidon, Antiochus III became involved in a new war front against Pergamum and the Aegean coastline island of Rhodes. As Antiochus’s forces closed in on them, the Rhodians appealed to Rome for aid. Another important development was the arrival of Hannibal from exile in Macedonia to join Antiochus as a military adviser. The Roman government resented Antiochus’s offer of asylum to their enemy. But Antiochus was not to be cowed, for he felt that he had the power to cope with Rome’s military might. Therefore in 196 he crossed the Hellespont and the Aegean with his powerful navy and conquered considerable territory in Thrace. The “coastlands” (usually “islands”) included all areas contiguous to the seacoast.
About this time the west-central Greek confederacy of the Aetolian League asked Antiochus for assistance against Macedon and the Peloponnesians. He therefore sent a modest naval force in 192 to land on the coast of central Greece and cooperate with the Aetolians. But the latter proved to be militarily ineffective, and the Macedonians joined forces with the Achaean League to oppose Antiochus from both the north and the south. The Romans were only too happy to jump into the fray; so they joined their Greek allies to overwhelm the Seleucid command post at Thermopylae—the historic site of the Persian War in 480 B.C. As a result of this setback, Antiochus withdrew to Asia Minor in 191, especially since his navy was beaten in several engagements with the Roman fleet. During the winter of 190–189, the Roman troops followed him across to Asia and finally met him in a pitched battle at Magnesia, west of Sardis. Although Antiochus had an army of seventy thousand at his disposal to confront the Roman force of thirty thousand, he was badly defeated. Thus his “insolence” (v.18) met with disaster.
The Roman “commander” was none other than Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, brother to Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, who had brilliantly defeated Hannibal at Zama in 202 B.C. After he compelled Antiochus to surrender, the commander dictated severe peace terms, which were included in the Treaty of Apamea, signed in 188. Antiochus was compelled to surrender not only all claims to Europe but also the greater part of Asia Minor as well: his boundary was to be the Taurus Range. Furthermore, he had to surrender his entire elephant brigade, all his navy, and twenty selected hostages. Finally, he was obliged to pay an indemnity of fifteen or twenty thousand talents over a period of several years. Antiochus’s second son, who was named after him, was among the twenty hostages taken to Rome, where he spent the formative years of his life. He later became the dreaded persecutor of the Jews, Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Antiochus the Great met an inglorious end in 187. Unable to meet the required indemnity payments out of his exhausted treasury, he resorted to pillaging—or attempting to pillage—the temple of Bel in Elymais. The local inhabitants were so incensed that they stormed his modest army with desperate bravery and succeeded in killing him and defending their temple (v.19).
20 The “tax collector” sent out by Seleucus IV (Philopator), the elder son of Antiochus, was apparently his special fund-raiser, Heliodorus. According to 2Mc 3:7–40, a certain traitorous Jew named Simon sent information to the king that the Jerusalem temple contained sufficient treasure to meet all the king’s needs. Impoverished as his treasury was (partly through the yearly indemnity payments to Rome of one thousand talents), Seleucus eagerly grasped at the prospect of plundering the temple and sent off Heliodorus to carry out this assignment. Only a frightful vision of mighty angels assaulting and flogging him kept Heliodorus from invading the temple and he returned home empty-handed. No other details are given here of the twelve-year reign of this rather ineffectual king, except that he did not die in battle or in a mob action as had his father, Antiochus. Yet Seleucus IV met an untimely end through poison administered by Heliodorus.
C. The Great Persecution Under Antiochus Epiphanes (11:21–35)
21 The tyrannical oppressor who did his utmost to destroy the Jewish religion altogether previously appeared in 8:9–12, 23–25 as the sinister “little horn” who would suspend the worship of God in the Jerusalem temple. Now he is introduced as a despicable tyrant who will shed much blood and enjoy power for a time. Verse 21 states that this tyrant “has not been given the honor of royalty.” The young son of Seleucus IV, Demetrius I, was next in line to receive the crown. But since he had been sent to Rome as a replacement hostage for his uncle Antiochus (see comment on v.19), it was deemed best to put Antiochus in charge of the government as prince regent; he became Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This man was determined to set aside his nephew’s claims altogether, even though he was already in his twenties and quite competent to rule. So Antiochus curried favor with governmental leaders and, by promises of promotion and large favors in return for their support, managed to secure approval for succession to the throne vacated by his poisoned brother. Fortunately Demetrius was still being held in Rome, where he was safe for the time being from assassination by his uncle’s agents. Later on he was able to make good his claim to the throne, for he left Rome to lead an army against the son of Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus V (Eupator), in 162.
Epiphanes, that “contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty,” converted his regency into royalty soon after 175 and launched his own career as an ambitious and vigorous leader. The title “Epiphanes” (“the Illustrious One”) also carries the meaning of “very evident” or “manifest.” His coins show that he linked up Epiphanes with the added title Theos (“God”), thus yielding the combination “Illustrious God” or “God Manifest.” Bearing in mind his role as a type of the Antichrist or Beast of the last days (who appears in ch. 7 as the “little horn,” arising from the fourth kingdom), it becomes particularly meaningful to read about the future antitype in 2Th 2:3–4. Not only did Antiochus enthrone himself for adoration by the Jews as he sat in the court of the desecrated Jerusalem temple (in 168 B.C.), but he also claimed divine honors for himself on every major coin that he minted.
22–24 Verse 22 introduces the brilliantly successful beginning of Antiochus Epiphanes’ reign, as he took up anew the struggle with Ptolemaic Egypt. Epiphanes threw his intended victims off guard by offering them his friendship and alliance. Then he would maneuver for an advantageous position till he could catch them by surprise. So it was with Ptolemy VI (Philometor), who had ascended the throne in 181 B.C. at the age of six, after the death of his mother, Cleopatra (see comment on v.17). But after he assumed power, he determined to recapture the regions of Palestine and Phoenicia that had been lost to Antiochus III. At first Ptolemy VII’s invasion was successful, for he had challenged Antiochus with a large, well-equipped army. But eventually he encountered a serious reverse and became a prisoner of Antiochus Epiphanes.
The Egyptians gave up hope of regaining their king and appointed his young brother Physcon as king in his place. On learning this, Epiphanes craftily intervened on behalf of Ptolemy Philometor, his royal prisoner, and mounted an expeditionary force against Physcon’s government in order to reestablish Philometor on his throne—as Antiochus’s ally rather than his adversary. As the price of his help in expelling Physcon, Antiochus made a treaty of friendship and alliance with Philometor aimed at gaining a foothold in Egypt itself and ultimately uniting the two kingdoms under his own authority. The seriousness of this aim is attested by the issue of coinage (in the large and medium-sized bronzes, at least) that bore the same types as the corresponding Ptolemaic coinage (the head of Zeus on the front and the Ptolemaic eagle on the back) but with the legend “King Antiochus, God Manifest” rather than the usual Egyptian “Ptolemy the King.” Although these Egyptian-type coins were presumably used in the Seleucid territory rather than in Egypt itself, they at least hinted at his potential claims to the Ptolemaic domains. Actually, Antiochus had penetrated Egypt itself all the way to Memphis, which he captured, along with Philometor himself.
Later on Antiochus’s alliance with Philometor wore so thin that his reestablished protege decided to make peace with Ptolemy Physcon, his defeated brother, because he felt he needed his help in dislodging Antiochus’s troops from the border fortress of Pelusium. With Physcon as his associate, Philometor was able to raise a considerable army to expel the Seleucid army. But as soon as Epiphanes learned of this development, he again marched against Egypt, intending to subdue it once and for all. But this effort was forestalled by the intervention of the Roman fleet, which had been hurriedly dispatched to Alexandria in response to the urgent request of the embattled Ptolemies. The aggressive Roman commander Popilius Laenas met Antiochus marshaling his hosts for a siege of Alexandria and informed him that the Roman government ordered him to quit Egypt immediately or face the consequences of war with Rome. Remembering what had happened to his father at Magnesia and recalling his years as a young hostage in Roman captivity, it did not take Antiochus very long to give way before this mandate—especially after Popilius drew a circle around him with his staff and ordered him to make his decision before he stepped outside it. Even though Antiochus had for a time succeeded in destroying the power of “the prince of the covenant” (v.22)—Ptolemy Philometor—the remaining verses predicting his eventual failure found their fulfillment in this humiliation that took place near Alexandria in 169 B.C.
Verses 23–24 describe the above developments: “After coming to an agreement with him [i.e., Philometor], he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people [his initial invasion had been made by a small force] he will rise to power.” The phrase “richest provinces” apparently refers not only to Egypt itself but also to the eastern provinces all the way to Bactria, where successful campaigns were conducted by Eucratides, Antiochus’s general. In 166, Antiochus conducted a full-scale muster of his armies at Daphnae, just outside Antioch, in celebration of the tenth anniversary of his rule—even after his expulsion from Egypt by Popilius Laenas.
25–28 Verses 25–26 refer to the earlier invasion of Egypt in 170, after Ptolemy had attempted an attack on Palestine. The king of the South’s great army did not make him invincible because “of the plots devised against him” by Antiochus and his agents in Egypt. “Those who eat from the king’s provisions will try to destroy him [i.e., Ptolemy Philometor]; his army will be swept away” probably refers to negotiations carried on by the two victors at the banquet table, apparently after Physcon had been defeated and expelled from Egypt, with the help of Antiochus’s troops. At this stage these ostensibly cordial allies were already plotting against each other.
Quite clearly “the end” pertained to the permanent suspension of Antiochus’s campaign to annex Egypt to his domains; it is explained by v.28: “The king of the North will return to his own country [i.e., to his capital of Antioch] with great wealth [from plundering Physcon’s army], but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.” The significant term here is “the holy covenant.” Apparently this does not refer to the covenant between Antiochus and Ptolemy VII but seems to signify the religious establishment in Jerusalem or even the monotheistic Jewish population as a whole. It is here that the clash between Antiochus and the faith of Israel begins on a serious level.
The original friction had arisen over the question of the high priesthood. Early in his reign Antiochus IV had been approached by a younger member of the high priestly family named Jason, who promised the king that if he would depose from office the current, legitimate high priest, Onias III, then he—Jason—would pay the king a handsome bribe for this service. Antiochus was happy to accede to this request; Onias was removed and Jason installed in his place. But once the precedent of imperial interference had been set, still another brother, Menelaus, offered Antiochus a bribe still larger than Jason’s if he would be installed in place of Jason. Antiochus had no scruples about supplanting one rascal by another, so long as he himself was enriched in the process. So in 172 B.C. Menelaus took Jason’s place and set about selling some of the votive offerings and golden utensils of the temple to raise the cash necessary for the bribe. At this sacrilege the godly high priest Onias, though deposed, earnestly protested and so angered Menelaus that he had Onias killed. But this murder so angered the populace of Jerusalem that they became bitter against Menelaus and sent representatives to Antiochus himself to accuse Menelaus and his wicked brother Lysimachus. Antiochus did execute Andronicus, the agent of Menelaus who had murdered Onias. But a little later a courtier Menelaus had bribed persuaded Antiochus to act against the Jerusalemites. So instead of punishing Menelaus as he deserved, the king had the Jerusalem representatives put to death in Tyre, where the whole matter was being adjudicated (cf. 2Mc 4:30–50).
Later on (167 B.C.) Antiochus, following his bitter disappointment in Egypt, went and encamped near Jerusalem. He had a score to settle with Jason, who had taken the city in an effort to overthrow Menelaus. Acting on a false report that Antiochus had died in Egypt, Jason had organized a regiment of a thousand armed supporters for a coup d’etat. He massacred a large number of citizens and shut Menelaus up in the Jerusalem citadel. Hearing of this, Antiochus decided to suppress the Jewish religion altogether and to exact stern reprisal from those who had taken up arms against his government. So he marched into Jerusalem with overwhelming forces, released Menelaus, and conducted a massacre in which eighty thousand men, women, and children were put to the sword (2Mc 5:11–14). Then he profaned the temple, accompanied by the despicable Menelaus, and robbed it of its golden vessels and other sacred objects (vv.15–21).
The date of this desecration and pillage of Jerusalem was Dec. 16, 168 B.C (see comments on 8:9–10)—a day of special significance, seeing that exactly four years later the patriot leader Judas Maccabaeus rededicated the temple to the worship of the Lord, having cleansed it from all its pagan defilements. But the actual suspension of the regular morning and evening sacrifices had apparently taken place 55 or 54 days prior to the desecration of the temple itself (if our interpretation of Da 8:14 is correct), because three years would total 1,095 or 1,096 days, and the 2,300 “evenings and mornings” (i.e., sacrifices) come out to 1,150 days. It seems, therefore, that during the earlier disturbances between Jason and Menelaus the regular daily offerings were suspended since the incumbent high priest was shut up in the Acra (Citadel) by Jason’s troops. This, then, was the fulfillment of the prediction of 11:28 regarding Antiochus’s “action” taken “against the holy covenant.” This verse actually sums up the entire series of measures taken by Antiochus in suppressing the religious liberties of Judah, from 172 to 168 B.C.
29–30 The more exact chronology of Antiochus’s later act of desecration is set forth in these verses. The “outcome” (v.29) was different this time because he was compelled by Popilius Laenas to withdraw from Egypt altogether. From the preceding discussion, it is evident that the followers of Menelaus, who made no protest as Antiochus removed the holy vessels from the Holy Place, are referred to here as “those who forsake the holy covenant.” Menelaus and his followers were willing to suppress all religious scruples rather than cross the will of the tyrant who had put them in power.
31 In addition to the desecration already described, the abolition of the daily sacrifices to the Lord was made binding by the erection in the temple of the Lord of “the abomination [GK 9199] that causes desolation.” Apparently this was a statue of Jupiter or Zeus Olympius because 2Mc 6:2 indicates that the temple itself was to be renamed the Temple of Zeus Olympius. Pagans invariably installed an image in the inner sanctuary of any temple dedicated to the worship of that deity. Even if the actual statue was not installed in the Jerusalem temple as early as Dec. 16 (25 Chislev), 168 B.C., an idolatrous altar was formally consecrated there at that time. Thus the same type of desecration overtook the second temple as befell the first temple in the evil days of Ahaz (735–715) and Manasseh (695–642; cf. 2Ki 16:10–16; 21:3–5). Interestingly, Christ’s only explicit reference to “the prophet Daniel” as being the author of the book of Daniel occurs in the Olivet Discourse (cf. Mt 24:15), where he refers to “the abomination that causes desolation,” the exact wording of the LXX for this verse (cf. Da 12:11).
32 Antiochus was a master in manipulating Jewish leaders who were divided in their loyalties, winning them over to his cause by glowing promises of preferment and reward. He already had as partisans for his cause a number of influential leaders in Jerusalem society and politics who were convinced of the expediency of a pro-Hellenic policy. These were doubtless “those who have violated the covenant”—i.e., their covenant relation with the Lord. First Maccabees 1:11–15 describes how certain “transgressors of the law” gathered about them a party of collaborators who were ready to throw off their Jewish loyalties and commitment to the Lord in their zeal to be accepted and find approval with their Syrian-Greek overlords.
The hope of Israel lay with committed believers who would risk their lives rather than betray their honor. A band of heroic patriots was stirred to action by a certain priest named Mattathias. He was the father of the valiant Maccabees: Judas, Jonathan, and Simon, each of whom later became “prince of Israel” during the victorious war of independence against the Seleucid government. These patriots, sparked by the zeal of the Hasidim movement, were the mainstay of the resistance that opposed the pro-Seleucid Jewish compromisers as well as Antiochus and his successors. They fulfilled the prediction of v.32: “The people who know their God will firmly resist him [i.e., Epiphanes].”
Later some of the Hasidim (“the godly, pious, loyal ones”) became the sect of the Pharisees (“separated ones”) who earnestly obeyed every regulation and oral interpretation of the Law. Later still a smaller group broke off and became out-and-out separatists rather than attempting, like the Pharisees, to reform the religious establishment from within. The Essenes, one group of whom made their headquarters at Qumran under the leadership of the unnamed “Teacher of Righteousness,” believed in complete separation, abjuring the rationalism of the Sadducees and the materialism of the Pharisees. Such were the offshoots of “the people who know their God.”
33 During the persecution by Antiochus, the patriot leaders would preach to their fearful countrymen stirring messages of repentance and wholehearted commitment to the holy standards of the law of Moses and of the prophets, who upheld their sanctity during the ensuing centuries. They would summon their people to trust in the promises and power of the Lord instead of bowing to the demands of the pagan tyrant. Thus “those who are wise” would engage in a ministry of education and evangelism among their own countrymen, urging them first to get back to God and to pattern their lives according to Scripture. Then they were to answer the call to arms and hazard their very lives for the liberation of their land from the yoke of their God-hating persecutor. Yet the patriot leaders would have to endure great hardships and danger, and many would lose their lives and property, as the tyrant’s forces turned their swords against them.
These predictions were fulfilled in 168 B.C., when the standard of revolt was raised by Mattathias, the leading priest in the city of Modein, located in the hills of Ephraim. After killing the officer of Antiochus who had come to enforce the new decree concerning idolatrous worship, Mattathias and his five sons (John Gaddis, Simon Thassi, Judas Maccabaeus, Eleazar Avaran, and Jonathan Apphus) led a guerrilla band that fled to the hills (1Mc 2:23–28) and attracted many adherents from other cities in the Judean province. A large number of the original patriots died in their first engagement with the king’s troops because they refused to fight in their own defense on the Sabbath, the day on which they were attacked (1Mc 2:38). But revising their policy after this tragic slaughter, they decided to fight even on the Sabbath, if compelled to do so. Then they engaged in vigorous attacks on all their fellow Jews who had bowed to Antiochus’s ordinance and forsaken their God. Not long afterward Mattathias died, entrusting the leadership of the Israelite forces to his own capable sons.
Judas Maccabaeus (originally he alone received the title “Hammer”) assumed the military leadership and gained a brilliant victory over the forces of Apollonius, whom he slew in battle. Judas’s second triumph involved routing an even larger army under Seron. A third army of formidable proportions came down from Syria under Lysias, Antiochus’s deputy, equipped with a fearsome elephant corps. Thanks to the heroism of Judas’s brother Eleazar, who managed to plunge his sword into an elephant’s chest before it fell on him and crushed him to death, even this mighty host was put to flight by the Maccabean military forces. So the Maccabees fulfilled the predictions (cf. Mic 4:12–13; Zec 9:13; 10:8–9).
34 Presumably the “little help” refers to the relatively small numbers of compatriots who joined the Maccabean troops after the early successes of the original guerrilla band. They saw how they kept on fighting with great courage against overwhelming odds, even though they soon lost Mattathias and many of their first leaders. And then, because one Seleucid army after another fell before their onslaught, the Maccabean troops were able to intimidate many of their fellow citizens who had previously held back from the conflict. Particularly when the Hasidim began to round up those who had collaborated with the Seleucids and put them to death (1Mc 2:42) and Judas himself hunted out those in the various cities who had deserted Scriptural standards (“the lawless,” as Maccabees calls them), goodly numbers of insincere followers attached themselves to the patriot cause, hoping to save their own skins. Such supporters, however, proved to be of more help to the enemy than to the cause of freedom when later invasions were launched against them by the successors of Antiochus Epiphanes after his death in 164.
35 The account of the Maccabean uprising concludes with a strong emphasis on the spiritual meaning of this heroic struggle for those who risked their lives for the survival of the commonwealth of Israel. In the first instance, v.35 refers to the terrible reverse that overtook the pitifully outnumbered army of Judas himself at the battle of Mount Azotus in 161. He chose to die bravely in battle rather than save his life through a strategic retreat (1Mc 9:1–19). After he had won this victory for King Demetrius I in 161, Bacchides followed it up with a systematic search for all Judas’s leaders and supporters and did his best to wipe them out. But it was not long before the tide turned and Jonathan, Judas’s brother, was able to defeat the Syrian forces and compel them to retreat to Antioch. Thus the cause of freedom was maintained through vicissitudes of defeat and success, till finally a strong Jewish kingdom was founded by John Hyrcanus, son of Simon Maccabaeus (135–105), and enlarged to its fullest extent by his warlike son Alexander Jannaeus (104–78 B.C.).
D. The Latter-Day Counterpart Persecution (11:36–39)
36–39 With the conclusion of the preceding pericope at v.35, the predictive material that incontestably applies to the Hellenistic empires and the contest between the Seleucids and the Jewish patriots ends. Verses 36–39 contain some features that hardly apply to Antiochus IV, though most of the details could apply to him as well as to his latter-day antitype, “the Beast.” All of ch. 11 to this point contains strikingly accurate predictions of the whole sweep of events from the reign of Cyrus (during which Daniel brought his career to a close) to the unsuccessful effort of Antiochus Epiphanes to stamp out the Jewish faith. This pattern of prediction and fulfillment is compelling evidence of the divine inspiration and authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, since only God could possibly foreknow the future and see to it that his plan would be precisely fulfilled as foretold by a prophet of God more than 360 years in advance.
Verse 36 contains material that can be applied to Antiochus IV as well as material that cannot be applied to him: “The king will do as he pleases [cf. 8:4; 11:3; 11:16—the latter two refer to Alexander and Antiochus the Great, respectively]. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god [hardly demonstrable of Antiochus, as we shall see] and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods [as Antiochus blasphemed against the Lord]. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed [presumably referring to the wrath of God, who decreed this tribulation as a punishment for sin, possibly referring to the time between the desecration of the temple in 168 and its rededication in 164].” Yet as these words stand, they seem equally if not more appropriate to Christ’s statement in Mt 24:21–22 predicting the Tribulation.
Although Antiochus entitled himself “God Manifest” on his coins, this is not necessarily tantamount to “magnifying himself above every god.” In fact, he placed a statue, not of himself, but of Zeus Olympius (or possibly Jupiter Capitolinus), as the cult image in the Jerusalem temple, just as he represented Zeus enthroned on the reverse side of his coins, adorned with the title of Nikephoros (“Victory-winner”). Antiochus was evidently loyal to the Greek religious tradition that revered the entire Olympian set of gods.
The first clause of v.37—“He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers”—hardly fits Antiochus either. On the contrary, he compelled his Jewish subjects to worship the god of his fathers on pain of death. This statement seems more appropriate for a dictator of our modern age or the last days. The words “He will show no regard . . . for the one desired by women” are difficult. Some commentators see here an allusion to Tammuz or Adonis, the object of a special cult practiced by women from the second millennium B.C. and continued till the time of Antiochus. Yet there is no evidence in the historical records that Antiochus ever opposed or forbade this ancient practice. More literally the phrase reads “the love of women” or, better, “the desire of women,” perhaps pointing to the cruelty Antiochus showed toward all of the women he was involved with.
The phrase “the gods [or ‘God’] of his fathers” (v.37) might refer to the true God, who generally is referred to in the plural (though with a singular verb or adjective). Some commentators (esp. dispensational) take this phrase to refer to the God of the Hebrews and therefore deduce that the Antichrist himself will be an apostate Jew. While elsewhere in the OT the phrase “the God of your fathers” does indeed refer to the Lord himself, it does not necessarily follow that the Antichrist is a Jew, unless it can be demonstrated (as it surely cannot be) that the pagans never worshiped the god or gods (the plural would be more likely than the singular in the case of the heathen) of their own fathers.
Verse 37 emphasizes that this little horn will have no regard for any god. This hardly applies to Antiochus either, who exalted Zeus on the reverse side of his coinage and did everything to compel his Jewish subjects to sacrifice and bow down to his heathen gods. This therefore could only apply to his eschatological antitype, the Beast of the last days—who apparently will be an atheistic or ungodly dictator. Whether or not the Beast concedes the existence of gods in theory, he will certainly exalt himself above them in conducting his government. He will represent himself as the incarnation of the power and the will of the gods, if such there be. Thus there will be no appeal from his will to the will of heavenly deities who might outrank him or sit in judgment over him.
It is clear from v.38, however, that the Beast will not exclude all practice of religion: “Instead of them [i.e., the gods of his fathers], he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor.” This hardly refers to the well-known devotion Antiochus showed toward Zeus Olympius, for Zeus Olympius was certainly a god of his fathers. Rather, if this prediction relates to Antiochus, it would apply to some Roman deity whose cult he embraced as a youth while a hostage at Rome. Possibly this is a reference to Jupiter Capitolinus, the patron god of Rome itself, whose powerful protection Antiochus may have sought. In that case, he may have equated Zeus Olympius with Jupiter Capitolinus, as the deity to whom he dedicated the Jerusalem temple in 168 B.C.
But it must be conceded that “god of fortresses” does not clearly point to Capitolinus, and so this whole interpretation is thoroughly conjectural. Yet it is worth pointing out that the offering of votive gifts of silver, gold, and precious stones sounds more like an ancient, pre-Christian setting than a modern religious practice, except perhaps in the older traditions of medieval Christianity.
Verse 39 continues the account of the little horn and his conquests. Presumably this “foreign god” is the same one mentioned in v.38, even though the definite article is missing before “god.” The application of this verse to Antiochus is hardly clear. Some take this in a completely futuristic sense.
E. The Triumph and Fall of Antichrist (11:40–45)
40 It is utterly hopeless to try to tie the details of the final paragraph of this chapter into the known career of Antiochus Epiphanes. As we have seen vv.36–39 contain important features irreconcilable with Antiochus. And from v.40 on there is the greatest contrast between his career and that of the little horn, whose end is here described. Furthermore, the shift of scene to the last days seems to be doubly emphasized by the introductory words “At the time of the end” (lit., “And in the end time”). The transition between v.35 and v.36 is not so clearly indicated, for the latter verse is simply introduced with a Hebrew connective (lit., “Then the king will do as he pleases”).
On the analogy of the struggle between the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria, we might expect to see in the final Near Eastern struggle a contest between a bloc of nations allied with Egypt, including Libya and Nubia (or Sudan) referred to in v.43, and a Syrian coalition, comprising a league of Middle Eastern nations. Yet if the antitype of Antiochus Epiphanes is referred to by the title “king of the North,” which was applied to the Seleucid kings in the earlier narrative, then we cannot be altogether certain that we are dealing with a ruler located in either Syrian Damascus or Antioch (a city now under Turkish control). It may be that the eschatological counterpart is actually an Italian leader. The “ruler who will come” (9:26) will have to be a Roman or be somehow connected with the latter-day revival of the Roman Empire. The historical Roman Empire was mainly centered around the Mediterranean with its capital in Italy; so there is a good possibility that “the ruler who will come” will be from Europe rather than from the Near East. This is not beyond dispute, however, since at least one emperor of Rome, Elegabalus, was a Syrian or Phoenician; he reigned A.D. 218–22 and was succeeded by his cousin Severus Alexander, who was also Syrian or Phoenician, having been born in Acre.
The political cause of the clash between the two superpowers and their allies is not indicated, but the large amount of troops and armaments is clearly implied by the “chariots,” “cavalry,” and “fleet of ships.” Presumably the warfare will be carried on by modern instruments of warfare—though to communicate with Daniel’s generation, ancient equivalents are used here. Likewise, the ancient names of the countries or states occupying the region where the final conflict will be carried on are used in the prediction, though most of those political units will no longer bear these names in the last days. Edom, Moab, Ammon, Assyria, and Babylon have long since ceased to exist as political entities, their places having been taken by later peoples occupying their territory.
“He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood” suggests the kind of spectacular success the Nazis had early in World War II. It also indicates that a large number of smaller, weaker nations will be drawn into the conflict between the two great powers of the North and the South and that Antichrist in particular will extend his authority with irresistible power.
41 This verse focuses on the Holy Land, the focal point for this terrible war. Israel will be ravaged by Antichrist’s forces, as will many surrounding states, except those in the area of present-day Jordan, which for some unexplained reason (possibly because of their willing collaboration against Israel) will be spared from invasion. The “Beautiful Land” refers to the Holy Land from the standpoint of its special favor in the eyes of God rather than because of its natural beauty.
42–45 Apparently the king of the South will suffer defeat at the hands of Antichrist (“the king of the North,” v.40), even though he had at first felt strong enough to initiate the conflict with the king of the North. Egypt will at last be defeated (v.42), whether or not it is completely and permanently added to Antichrist’s realm. He will go on to capture all the reserves of silver and gold locked up in their vaults (v.43). Their loyal allies, the Libyans to the west and the Nubians (or Sudanese) to the south, will also be subjugated by him. At last his triumph over the powerful antagonists to the south will be consummated. But his satisfaction over this will be short-lived because (v.44) news of trouble in the Middle East will bring him out of Egypt in a fury to crush his opponents in Palestine. There, perhaps in the vicinity of Megiddo, he will encamp “between the seas” (v.45, i.e., the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean), within easy striking distance of Jerusalem itself. “The beautiful holy mountain” is Moriah, where the temple stood.
Verse 45 ends with an abrupt obituary: “Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.” At the moment when Antichrist seems to be sweeping away all opposition, disaster overtakes him, like that which will overtake the pillaging and raping attackers of the Holy City (cf. Zec 14:12–3; Rev 19:19–20; cf. also Rev 16:16). This prediction of the location of the death of the Antichrist of Da 11:36–45 eliminates the figure of Antiochus Epiphanes, who died in Persia, after an unsuccessful raid on a temple in Elymais. There is no way the details of vv.40–45 can be fitted into the career of Antiochus Epiphanes.
XII. The Tribulation and Final Triumph of God’s People (12:1–13)
A. The Great Tribulation (12:1)
1 “At that time” refers to the fortunes of God’s covenant people during the career of Antichrist. The closing verses of ch. 11 deal exclusively with his military and political career, described in broad and general outline. But his internal policy toward the community of God’s people within his empire has not been referred to thus far. Here we are told that it will be characterized by brutal oppression and persecution surpassing anything Israel—or perhaps any other nation—has ever experienced. Jesus enlarged on this prediction in the Olivet Discourse (see Mt 24:21), quite evidently taking this prophecy in Daniel as relating to the last days.
Michael is described as “the great prince who protects your people [lit., who stands beside your people]” through this time of horror. Apparently God has assigned the special protection of his people to this mighty champion, and he will have a key part in protecting the people of Christ in the last days (Rev 17:6).
The faithful believers who are preserved through this harrowing ordeal are referred to as those whose names are “found written in the book.” Evidently “the Book of Life” (cf. Ex 32:33) is the roster of professing believers who stand in covenant relationship with God, though apostates among them may have their name removed from this list (cf. Ps 69:28; see also Mal 3:16 and esp. Rev 20:12–15). Jesus himself was conscious of this heavenly register (Lk 10:20). Comparing these references, we find that the Book of Life contains the names of both the “elect” and those who profess faith in Christ but by their lives deny the authority and will of God. These latter will be deleted from the list of the redeemed.
In what sense will all those whose names are “found written” in the Lord’s book “be delivered”? Will they be exempt from martyrdom at the hands of the Beast during the Great Tribulation? Probably not, since a great many of the true believers even back in the days of the Maccabean revolt were compelled to lay down their lives. The context of this passage seems to be definitely referring to the end times; and v.2 clearly refers to those who have already died but attain to the resurrection from the dead. They are delivered from the power of Satan and the curse of the “second death” (Rev 21:8).
B. The Resurrection and Judgment (12:2–3)
2 Those involved in the raising of the dead are said to “sleep in the dust of the earth”—i.e., they have experienced physical death (the first death implied in Rev 20:4–6) and have been buried. Yet they do not experience annihilation or a permanent imprisonment in the bonds of death so far as their body is concerned. That they will be awakened from “the dust of the earth” definitely points to bodily resurrection, not simply a renewal of the soul. They will then enter the next phase of their existence according to their faith or unbelief in their earthly life.
Resurrection is universal, whether believers or unbelievers, whether saved or lost. But in contrast to the resurrection of the saved, the resurrection of the unsaved will be neither a blessing nor a deliverance (cf. Jn 5:28–29). The unsaved will be exposed to “shame” and “contempt” (cf. Rev 20:11–15).
The word for “everlasting” (GK 6409) originally meant “lifetime,” “era,” or “age.” When used of God, it takes on the connotation of endlessness (i.e., eternity; cf. Ps 90:2). Some thus argue that punishment in hell is only for a “lifetime” or “age.” But if hell is not eternal, neither is God; for the same Hebrew and Greek words are used for both (cf. Rev 4:10; 20:10; 21:8).
3 At the judgment seat of Christ (cf. Isa 11:3 and Ro 2:16 for the identity of the Judge) the faithful children of God will be robed in the shining garments of their Redeemer’s righteousness. True believers are here described as “those who are wise” and “those who lead many to righteousness.” The term for “wise” (GK 8505) connotes acting sensibly or appropriately in view of the holy will of God and of the final day of judgment beyond the grave.
The parallel expression—“those who lead many to righteousness”—indicates that the fruit of a Christ-centered life is new believers won to the Lord. These faithful soul winners “will shine . . . like the stars for ever and ever.” He who will come like “a star . . . out of Jacob” (Nu 24:17) will see his glory reflected in his followers.
Verses 2–3 clearly affirm the doctrines of resurrection and of eternity. The OT too embraces the expectation of resurrection glory (cf. Job 19:26; Pss 17:15; 73:23–24; Isa 25:8). In a sense the assurance of resurrection and eternal life is the capstone of OT revelation.
C. The Sealed Prophecies (12:4)
4 In the ancient Near East important documents were “closed up” and “sealed.” The original document was kept in a secure place (“closed up”) to conserve the interests and rights of all parties to the transaction. In Mesopotamian cultures these “documents” were clay tablets whose veracity was attested to by the cylinder seals the scribes rolled over the bottom section of the tablets. Once a document was thus sealed, it became official and unchangeable. The second tablet, the official copy, likewise was witnessed to by seal. Daniel was to certify by his personal seal to the faithfulness of the foregoing text as an exact transcript of what God had communicated to him through his angel. Thus this record would be preserved to the day when all the predictions would be fulfilled.
“Will go here and there” depicts movement like the strokes of an oar or a swimmer’s arms. The verb stem connotes an intensity that may imply eagerness in moving quickly and excitedly back and forth. Here the meaning seems to be that many of God’s people who pay heed to these prophetic sayings will eagerly seek to understand how they are presently being fulfilled or how they are going to be fulfilled in the future. As the predictions concerning the Persian and Greek kings are carried out during the fourth, third, and second centuries B.C., and those referring to the Roman conquest during the first century, so the distinction between the typical tribulation under Antiochus Epiphanes and the antitypical Great Tribulation in the end time will become clear. From this standpoint the knowledge of Bible students greatly increased between the time of Daniel’s sixth-century contemporaries and the period of Jerome, whose epoch-making commentary appeared around A.D. 400. Since Jerome’s time there has been a corresponding increase of knowledge, especially with the rise of archaeology and the knowledge of ancient linguistics, to say nothing of the amazing developments leading up to the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral land since 1948.
D. The Prediction of the Three and One-Half Years (12:5–7)
5–7 On either side of the Tigris River (cf. 10:4), Daniel saw two “others,” i.e., other angels besides the one who had been addressing him since 10:11. These two angels were personally interested in coming events in God’s program of redemption (cf. Zec 1:12–13; 2:3–4; 1Pe 1:12). One angel asked the man in linen how long it would be till the remarkable prediction concerning the Antichrist (ch. 11) would be fulfilled. The man in linen, with a solemn oath and raised hands, said that the time interval would be “a time, times and half a time” (i.e., three and a half years), at the time when the power of the “holy people” of the end time would be broken. Apparently Antichrist will harass them to the point of utter defeat and extinction; then God will intervene in a mighty judgment on the invaders, and they will be utterly destroyed (cf. Zec 14:3). The three and a half years referred to here, which is exactly one-half the full seven years of the seventieth week in 9:27, would be the second half since it ends (in all probability) with the destruction of the Beast at the Battle of Armageddon.
E. The Final Commission to Daniel (12:8–13)
8–9 Daniel, confused by these predictions, asked for clarification of the mystifying prophecies, doubtless concerning the people of God whose power was to be “broken.” The angel did not directly answer Daniel’s question. Although the implication of victorious survival comes through quite clearly at the close of v.13, the answer of the angel relates to the faithful completion and custody of the prophetic scroll itself.
10 During this intervening period of time, the people of God will be refined in their faith and purified in their motivation through the testings that they will endure. Moreover, the unbelieving world will not improve as a result of the testimony of the faithful but will increase in wickedness (cf. 2Ti 3:13; Rev 22:11). So we read that “none of the wicked will understand,” though those who are “wise” in the Scriptures will comprehend quite fully what is going on during these times.
11–12 Verse 7 has supplied the approximate figure of three and a half years (i.e., 1,278 days; see comments at 9:24–26) for the length of the second, more intense phase of the Great Tribulation. But it appears from v.11 that the interval between the setting up of the “abomination that causes desolation” (subsequent to the abrogation of the covenant between Antichrist and Israel) and the final deliverance of Jerusalem from his hosts will come out more exactly to 12 more days than that, or a total of 1,290 days. For beleaguered saints enduring the horrors of the end time, the precise knowledge of the exact day of deliverance (cf. Mt 24:22) will be of great reassurance.
Verse 12 is one of the most enigmatic statements in this chapter. Between 1,290 and 1,335 days there is an interval of 45 days, or a month and a half. What is destined to take place in that short period can only be conjectured. It may be the time when the thousand-year earthly rule of Christ will be officially inaugurated, as he takes his seat on David’s throne. The intervening time may well be devoted to repairing the devastation and burying the bodies left by the Armageddon campaign (cf. Eze 39:12). The believers who survive to that day and share in the glory of Jesus’ coronation on earth are here acclaimed as “blessed” (GK 897). They are about to become citizens of the most wonderful society governed by the most wonderful ruler in all human history—the millennial kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ!
13 The final verse of the book contains an encouraging word for the aged Daniel: “You will rest [i.e., his body will rest in the grave] and then at the end of the days you will rise [on the day of resurrection] to receive your allotted inheritance.” Revelation 20:4 speaks of “thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.” Then it goes on to say that those who died as martyrs will at that time “come to life” and reign with Christ a thousand years. Surely Daniel will be outstanding among the galaxy of judges and kings. Yet it is also true that those of us who are sincere and obedient believers will have a part in the supernatural glory of the Son of Man himself, who will assume supreme control over the entire earth (cf. Isa 11:9b; Zec 9:10b).
The Old Testament in the New
| OT Text | NT Text | Subject |
| Da 7:3–7 | Rev 13:1–2 | Beasts from the sea |
| Da 7:10 | Rev 20:12 | Court books being opened |
| Da 7:13–14 | Mt 24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Lk 21:27; Rev 1:13; 14:14 | Coming Son of Man |
| Da 7:21 | Rev 13:7 | War against the saints |
| Da 7:24 | Rev 17:12 | Ten horns as ten kings |
| Da 7:25 | Rev 12:14 | Three times and a half |
| Da 7:27 | Rev 11:15 | An everlasting kingdom |
| Da 9:27 | Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14 | Abomination of desolation |
| Da 10:5–6 | Rev 1:13–15 | Vision of a man |
| Da 11:31 | Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14 | Abomination of desolation |
| Da 11:36 | Rev 13:6 | Blaspheming God |
| Da 12:4 | Rev 10:4 | Sealed words |
| Da 12:7 | Rev 12:14 | Three times and a half |