Daniel 7 is the final chapter in the Aramaic section of the book. Structurally, the chapter completes the chiastic arrangement of chapters 2–7. It parallels Daniel 2 in presenting the fourfold succession of Gentile powers that will be followed by the establishment of God’s final kingdom.1 But before we look at the details of the chapter, we need to consider several critical issues.
In biblical prophecy, the seventh chapter of Daniel occupies a unique place. As interpreted by conservative expositors, the vision of Daniel provides the most comprehensive and detailed prophecy of future events to be found anywhere in the Old Testament. Although its interpretation has varied widely, conservative scholars generally are agreed, with few exceptions, that Daniel traces the course of four great world empires, namely, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, concluding with the climax of world history in the second coming of Jesus Christ and the inauguration of the eternal kingdom of God, represented as a fifth and final kingdom which is from heaven.2
Interpreted in this way, the chapter forms a panoramic view of future events to which additional details are added later in the book as well as in the New Testament, especially in the Revelation. Such a panorama of future events is of great importance to the student of prophecy, as it provides a broad outline to which all other prophetic events may be related. Conservative interpreters are agreed that this is genuine prophecy, that it is futuristic—that is, related to future events from Daniel’s point of view—and that its culmination is in the kingdom that Christ brings.
In the introduction to his discussion of “The Four World-kingdoms,” Keil has well summarized the issues involved in chapter 7:
There yet remains for our consideration the question, What are the historical world-kingdoms which are represented by Nebuchadnezzar’s image (ch. 2), and by Daniel’s vision of four beasts rising up out of the sea? Almost all interpreters understand that these two visions are to be interpreted in the same way. “The four kingdoms or dynasties, which are symbolized (ch. 2) by the different parts of the human image, from the head to the feet, are the same as those which were symbolized by the four great beasts rising up out of the sea.”3
Keil noted also that the commonly accepted view in the church was that these four kingdoms were Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.4 But when faith in the supernatural origin and character of biblical prophecy was shaken in later centuries, the authenticity of the book of Daniel was rejected, and the identity of the fourth kingdom as the Roman world-monarchy was denied.
Conservative scholarship has solid reasons for interpreting the fourth kingdom as Rome. Porphyry, the third-century A.D. pagan antagonist of Christianity who invented the idea of a pseudo-Daniel writing in the second century B.C., did not find Christian support until the rise of modern higher criticism. The whole attempt, therefore, to make the book of Daniel history instead of prophecy has been considered untenable by orthodoxy. With it, the view that the fourth kingdom is Greece and not Rome has also been rejected by conservative scholars as unsupported by the book of Daniel and contradicted by the New Testament as well as historic fulfillment.
In Matthew 24:15 Christ Himself presented the abomination of desolation predicted in Daniel 9:27 and 12:11 as being future, not past. Prophecies in the book of Revelation written late in the first century also anticipate as future the fulfillment of parallel prophecies in Daniel. For example, Revelation 13 parallels the final stage of Daniel’s fourth empire. This could not, therefore, refer to events fulfilled in the second century B.C. Daniel 9:26 announces that the Messiah will be cut off and the city of Jerusalem destroyed—events that occurred in the Roman period. The Jewish historian Josephus believed that Daniel had predicted the rise of Rome, and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Dan. 9:26). “in the same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.”5
The author of the apocryphal book 2 Esdras, who lived near the close of the first century A.D., clearly identified the fourth kingdom of Daniel’s vision as the Roman Empire (2 Esd. 12:11–12). To these arguments may be added the details of the second, third, and fourth empires throughout the book of Daniel, which harmonize precisely with the Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman Empires. The alternate views of the critics can be held only if Daniel’s prophecy be considered in factual error in several places, since the details of the prophecies do not really coincide with the critics’ theories. For these reasons, conservative scholars have held firmly to the traditional identification of the four empires in chapter 7 of Daniel, which mirror those of chapter 2.
The conservative interpretation, however, has been confronted with a broadside of critical objections to the plausibility of such detailed prophecy of future events. As noted previously, critics argue that the real author of Daniel lived during the persecution of the Jews by the Seleucid emperor Antiochus Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.), and from that viewpoint he looked backward over the preceding four centuries, organized history in a manner that was significant for him, and made this the basis for anticipating a climax to the Maccabean persecution then under way. Accordingly, the pseudo-Daniel considered Antiochus to be symbolic of the evil powers of this world that the author believed were soon to be judged by God, who was to intervene and replace the rule of tyranny under Antiochus with that of the saints of the Most High. But this view requires the interpretation of many statements in Daniel as less than factual and actually not scriptural prophecy at all. This point of view as a whole is an expansion of Porphyry’s unbelief rather than a product of a reverent, believing study of the Scriptures.
Critics approach Daniel somewhat a priori, assuming that prediction of particular events in the future is impossible and, therefore, requiring a late date for the book of Daniel so that it is history rather than prophecy. This is often denied, however, by such scholarly writers as H. H. Rowley who states, “The conclusions we have reached have not been born of a priori disbelief in accurate prophecy, but of a posteriori demonstration that we have not accurate prophecy.”6 Nevertheless, it is quite plain, as the critical view is unfolded, that the content of Daniel itself is quite offensive to the critical mind and that broad statements are made that this or that fact in the book of Daniel is untrue either because of its nature or because there is no outside confirming evidence.
According to the critics, the four empires of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Their theory has two major lines of support. First, they find evidence that the kingdom of Media is represented as being in existence in the book of Daniel by the mention of Darius the Mede (5:31; 6:1, 6, 9, 25, 28). Actually, there was no Median Empire in power at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C., as it had already been swallowed up by Persia by 550 B.C.
The alleged error in relation to Darius the Mede, however, misrepresents what the book actually claims. The fact that Darius was a Mede indicated his race, but does not mean that the empire was Median. Daniel 6 clearly states that the kingdom over which Darius the Mede was reigning in Babylon was the kingdom of the “Medes and Persians” (vv. 8, 12, 15). In other words, the book of Daniel itself identifies the kingdom as the Medo-Persian Empire, not solely a Median empire at this point. The error is in the critics’ interpretation, not in what Daniel actually teaches.
The second critical argument is that the fourth empire is Greece, thus reflecting present circumstances at the time the pseudo-Daniel wrote the book in the second century. This would require the second and third empires to be Media and Persia. The fact that Daniel’s “prophecies” of these empires do not fit the facts of history is taken as error on the part of the pseudo-Daniel. The weakness of the critical approach here is unconsciously revealed in Rowley’s discussion in which he puts most of his weight on the attempt to identify the fourth kingdom as Greece, rather than addressing the serious historical problems that arise if one attempts to separate Medo-Persia into two sequential empires.7 The conservative interpreter of the book of Daniel finds that Rowley’s interpretation tends to emphasize extrascriptural sources, magnify minor points of obscurity, and often ignores the plain statements of the book of Daniel itself.
Montgomery adopts an even more extreme interpretation. He not only attributes the book of Daniel to a second-century author but takes the position that the first six chapters were written by a different author and at a different time from chapters 7 to 12. He states, “The criticism of the unity of the bk. began in the 17th cent., with the observation of the distinction of languages, the Aram, and Heb.; Spinoza discovered two documents, cc. 1–7 and 8–12, referring the latter to the undoubted authorship of Dan., and confessing ignorance as to the origin of the former.”8 In order to support this, Montgomery says that chapter 7 was originally written in Hebrew instead of Aramaic as we now have it.9 He confesses, however, “But a critical distinction on the basis of diversity of language is now generally denied. The extreme positions taken respectively by the defenders and the impugners of the historicity of Dan. have induced the great majority of critics to assign the bk. as a whole to either the 6th or the 2d cent., with as a rule little or no discussion on the part of the [commentator] of the possibility of composite origin; indeed most ignore the problem.”10
The final decision can only be made on the basis of which view offers the most plausible explanation of the text itself. The inherent congruity of the conservative interpretation of Daniel 7 as opposed to the critical theories will be considered below. If Daniel is genuine Scripture, of course, this supports the conservative interpretation. If Daniel is a forgery, and its prophecy is actually history, the book becomes quite meaningless for most Bible expositors. Rowley presents the hollow claim that the critical view “which has been adopted does not destroy faith but strengthens it, in that it provides a reasonable ground for it.”11 Actually, he is saying that the choice is between faith in error and faith in the “true view,” that is, the critical interpretation.
7:1–3 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream and told the sum of the matter. Daniel declared, “I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. And four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another.”
The opening verses introduce Daniel’s remarkable experience. The year was probably 553 B.C., fourteen years before the fall of Babylon.12 Nabonidus, the actual king of Babylon beginning in 556 B.C., had appointed Belshazzar as his coregent in control of Babylonia itself while Nabonidus conducted military maneuvers in Arabia.13 As Nebuchadnezzar had died in 562 B.C., nine years before Belshazzar began to reign, it is clear that the events of chapter 7 occurred chronologically between Daniel 4 and 5.
A relief of a dragon-like composite creature from the Ishtar Gate in Babylon.
By mentioning the specific time of the vision, Daniel consciously and deliberately rooted his visions as occurring in the historical background of the sixth century. The vision of chapter 8 is dated in Belshazzar’s third year. According to Daniel 9:1–2, he discovered the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years of captivity in the first year of Darius the Mede and, later in the same chapter, had a third vision. Daniel’s fourth vision in chapters 10–12 occurred in the third year of Cyrus (10:1). In chapter 11, there is mention of an earlier activity of the angel in strengthening Darius the Mede in his first year, another historical event related to the prophetic portion of Daniel. All of these are introduced so naturally and are so integral to the narrative that they support the sixth-century date for the book of Daniel.
Daniel was evidently asleep as he received his vision, although he had a later vision while awake (9:23). Here, for the first time in the book of Daniel, a vision is given directly to Daniel, and in verse 2, he is quoted in the first person for the first time.
A great deal of discussion has been devoted to the significance of Daniel 7 as it relates to the book as a whole. One point of view, held by conservative as well as liberal interpreters, is that the book of Daniel divides into two halves or units with six chapters each. From the standpoint of world history this has much to commend itself, for Daniel’s vision in chapter 7 is both a summary of what has been revealed before, especially in the vision of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 2, and the outline of world history with which the last half of Daniel is primarily concerned. In the first six chapters, generalities are revealed. In the last six chapters, specifics are given, such as the detailed description of the end of the times of the Gentiles and the relationship of Israel to world history, with special reference to the time of great tribulation.
Another point of view argued strongly by Culver is that the book of Daniel divides into three major divisions: (1) introduction, Daniel 1; (2) the times of the Gentiles, presented in Aramaic, the common language of the Gentiles at that time, Daniel 2–7; and (3) Israel in relation to the Gentiles, written in Hebrew, Daniel 8–12.14 Culver’s point of view, which he credits to Auberlen,15 has much to commend itself and is especially theologically discerning because it distinguishes the two major programs of God in the Old Testament, namely, the program for the Gentiles and the program for Israel. In either point of view, however, chapter 7 is a high point in revelation in the book of Daniel; and, in some sense, the material before as well as the material that follows pivots upon the detailed revelation of this chapter.
Notice the sharp contrast between the vision given to Daniel here and the vision given to Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 2. On the one hand, in chapter 2, an evil, pagan king is used as a vehicle of divine revelation that pictures world history as an imposing image in the form of a man. In chapter 7, the vision is given through the godly prophet, Daniel, and world history is depicted as four horrible beasts, the last of which almost defies description. In chapter 2, Daniel is the interpreter. In chapter 7, an angel is the interpreter. chapter 2 considers world history from a human viewpoint as a glorious and imposing spectacle. chapter 7 views world history from God’s standpoint in its immorality, brutality, and depravity. In detail of prophecy, chapter 7 far exceeds chapter 2 and is in some sense a commentary on the earlier revelation.
Critics have massed their severest criticism against the credibility of Daniel 7 and treated it almost contemptuously. But by so doing they only reveal the artificial criteria by which they judge divine revelation. Conservative scholars, on the other hand, have hailed chapter 7 as one of the great prophecies of the Bible and the key to God’s entire program from Babylon to the second coming of Christ. Critics have suggested that the original form of this chapter was Hebrew and later it was translated into Aramaic,16 but there is really no justification or documentary support for this apart from a premise that Daniel itself is a forgery. From a literary standpoint, it is only natural that the Aramaic section of Daniel, dealing with the Gentile world, should be in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the time.
Beginning in verse 2, Daniel records what he calls “the sum of the matter” in verse 1, that is, the details of his vision that he declares he “saw” (see 7:7, 13; cf. “looked,” 7:4, 6, 9, 11, 21). The verbs “saw” and “looked” are the same in Aramaic and can be translated, “as I was looking.” (The verb “considered” in 7:8 is a different word.) In the vision, four winds are seen striving on a great sea. Symbolically, the sea may represent the mass of humanity, or the nations of the world, as in Matthew 13:47 and Revelation 13:1 (cf. Isa. 8:6–8; Jer. 46:7–8; 47:2; Rev. 17:1, 15).17 The sea is identified with the earth in 7:17 and is clearly symbolic. The turbulence of the sea may well represent the strife of Gentile history (Isa. 17:12–13; 57:20; Jer. 6:23).18
As Keil states, “The great sea is not the Mediterranean, … for such a geographical reference is foreign to the context. It is the ocean; and the storm on it represents the ‘tumults of the people,’ commotions among the nations of the world, … corresponding to the prophetic comparison found in Jer. 17:12, 46:7 f. ‘Since the beasts represent the forms of the world-power, the sea must represent that out of which they arise, the whole heathen world’ (Hofmann).”19
It seems clear that the sea represents the nations and the four great beasts represent the four great world empires that are given subsequent revelation. If this is the case, what is the meaning of the four winds? The Scriptures do not tell us, but since the wind striving with the world is a symbol of the sovereign power of God striving with people (Gen. 6:3; John 3:8), the prophetic meaning may be God’s sovereign power in conflict with sinful humanity. God often used the wind as a means to attain His ends (Gen. 8:1; Exod. 10:13–19; 14:21; 15:10; Num. 11:31; 1 Kings 18:45; 19:11). Compare Satan’s use of wind in Job 1:19. Of more than 120 references in the Bible to wind (more than 90 in the Old Testament and about 30 in the New), well over half are related to events and ideas that reflect the sovereignty and power of God. In Daniel, wind is uniformly used to represent God’s sovereign power, which is the focus of the book. Gentile history is the record of God striving with the nations and ultimately bringing them into subjection when Christ returns to reign (Ps. 2).
7:4 “The first was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then as I looked its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and the mind of a man was given to it.”
As Daniel looked intently, he saw the wings plucked from this beast, which was then set up on its two feet and given a man’s mind or nature. Interpreters of all stripes have generally agreed that chapter 7 is in some sense a recapitulation of chapter 2 and covers the same four empires. There is also agreement that the first empire represents the reign of Nebuchadnezzar or the Neo-Babylonian Empire, corresponding to the head of gold. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar, “You are the head of gold” (2:38), so there is no uncertainty that in this chapter the first kingdom is either the reign of Nebuchadnezzar or the empire he represents. There is more unanimity on the identification of the first beast of chapter 7 than on any other point in this chapter.20
This beast was compared to a lion with eagles’ wings. The lion is a common representation of royal power. Solomon, for instance, had twelve lions on either side of the steps leading up to his throne (1 Kings 10:20; 2 Chron. 9:19). Winged lions guarded the gates of the Babylonians’ royal palaces. The lion was indeed the king of the beasts. In the same way, the eagle was the king of the air. In Ezekiel 17:3, 7, a great eagle is used as a picture first of Babylon and then of Egypt.21
Illustration of what the first beast in Daniel 7 might have looked like in Daniel’s dream.
In spite of the power indicated in this symbolism, Daniel saw the beast become man-like. This is most commonly interpreted as the symbolic representation of Nebuchadnezzar’s experience in chapter 4 when he was humbled before God and made to realize that, even though he was a great ruler, he was only a man. His lion-like character, or royal power, was his only at God’s pleasure. The symbolism is accurate and corresponds to the historical facts.
Although Daniel did not dwell on the fall of Babylon, described in detail in chapter 5, the decline of Babylon and the rise of the Medo-Persian Empire were implied. Other prophets spoke at length on the fall of Babylon. Following the reference to the tower of Babel in Genesis 11, there is no biblical mention of Babylon until the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel discuss Babylon’s future. Isaiah describes the fall of Babylon as similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Isa. 13:1–22; cf. Rev. 17), with particular mention of the Medes in verses 17–19. Two other extended prophecies about Babylon are found in Isaiah 21 and 47.
Jeremiah, who witnessed the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, refers to Babylon throughout his prophecy, of which the most important sections are 25:11–14; 29:10; and 50:1–51:62. The last two long chapters of Jeremiah are devoted entirely to Babylon. Ezekiel, himself a captive, is occupied with Babylon (Ezek. 17:12–24) and, like Jeremiah, predicts Babylon’s conquest of Egypt (Ezek. 29:18–20; 30:10–25; 32:1–32).
7:5 “And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear. It was raised up on one side. It had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was told, ‘Arise, devour much flesh.’”
In contrast to the unanimity of identifying the first beast with Babylon, there is a diversity of interpretation concerning the second beast’s identity. Practically all liberal higher critics identify it as the Median Empire. Rowley cites almost overwhelming support for this identification which, according to him, “is found in the Peshitta version of the book of Daniel, in Ephraem Syrus and in Cosmas indicopleustes. It also stands in the anonymous commentator whose work is published in Mai’s Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collection Rowley notes that this long-forgotten theory was revived in the eighteenth century, and cites an imposing group of modern scholars who hold it.22
Although conservative scholars might be outnumbered, it is significant that most who attribute accuracy to the book of Daniel regard the second kingdom as Medo-Persia. The central issue is that there was never a time when the Median Empire ruled over the Ancient Near East as a single, dominant power. Herodotus reports that Cyrus conquered the Medes (Histories 1.130) and then this combined empire conquered Babylon (Histories 1.191). Since the Median Empire had already been conquered and subsumed by the Persians, it is impossible for a separate Median empire to exist after the Babylonian empire. Even Rowley admits that his view hangs upon the identification of the fourth empire as Greece, which, as already has been stated, depends first on the conclusion that Daniel is a forgery, and second on the assumption that prophecy cannot be accurately given in detail concerning future events.
The identification of the second kingdom as the Medo-Persian Empire, which even Rowley recognizes as “the traditional identification,” is ably supported by one of the greatest Old Testament scholars of modern times, Robert Dick Wilson. His entire work on Studies in the Book of Daniel methodically devastates the liberal point of view.23
Also telling is the fact that archeological discoveries have proved beyond question that the second empire was in fact Medo-Persia. The Persian ruler Cyrus conquered Babylon in less than a month—not nearly enough time for a distinct Median empire to appear—and the myth of a separate Median empire at this time is not supported by the historical facts. The liberal position has to hold that the vision of the second beast is a false prophecy that does not correspond to the facts of history, since it supposedly describes a distinct Median empire. If Daniel’s revelation is truly from God, it must correspond precisely to what history itself records. In chapter 6, a combined kingdom of the Medes and Persians is mentioned repeatedly (cf. vv. 8, 12, 15). These references alone should silence the critic who wants to attribute to Daniel a fallacious and unhistorical kingdom of the Medes. Daniel’s record corresponds to history, whereas the critics’ view does not.
Illustration of what the second beast in Daniel 7 might have looked like in Daniel’s dream.
If Daniel’s revelation is true prophecy, what is the symbolism of the bear, which is not normally related to symbolism in the Old Testament? The meaning seems to be that the second empire will be powerful like a bear, ferocious (Isa. 13:17–18), but less majestic, less swift, and less glorious. The beast of Revelation 13 that gathers into its power the characteristics of all previous beasts is said to have feet as a bear (Rev. 13:2).
The bear was said to raise itself up on one side. As Driver expresses it, “In the O. T. It is spoken of as being, next to the lion, the most formidable beast of prey known in Palestine (1 Sam. 17:34; Am. 5:19; cf. 2 Ki. 2:24; Hos. 13:8); at the same time, it is inferior to the lion in strength and appearance, and is heavy and ungainly in its movements.”24 Why, however, does the bear raise itself up? While this could picture the animal rising on its hind legs, or lying down with one paw lifted up, it is also possible that it is referring to a physical abnormality by which one side was more dominant than the other.25 Probably the best explanation is that it represented the one-sided union of the Persian and Median Empires. Persia at this time, although coming up last chronologically, was by far the greater and more powerful and had absorbed the Medes. This is represented also in chapter 8 by the two horns of the ram with the horn that comes up last being higher and greater. The ram with its unequal horns is identified as “the kings of Media and Persia” (Dan. 8:20). This interpretation also helps to support the Medo-Persian character of the second empire and is true to the facts of history.
The bear also was described as having three ribs in its mouth. Normally a bear lives mostly on fruits, vegetables, and roots, but will eat flesh when hungry and attack other animals and people. Scripture does not tell us the meaning of the three ribs, and many suggestions have been offered. One possible suggestion is that it refers to Media, Persia, and Babylon as representing the three major components of the Medo-Babylonian Empire. An alternate view that seems more plausible is that it represents the Medo-Persian conquests of Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt.26
Thus, the bear is a symbol of government and military conquest and the ribs are the people subdued by the Medo-Persian Empire. The bear was told to continue its conquest, which is why Egypt could be included as part of the additional conquests the Medes and Persians made in the years that followed the fall of Babylon. Taken as a whole, this prophecy accurately portrays the characteristics and history of the Medo-Persian Empire, which, although beginning in Daniel’s day, continued for over two hundred years until the time of Alexander the Great in 336 B.C.
7:6 “After this I looked, and behold, another, like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back. And the beast had four heads, and dominion was given to it.”
Daniel described a third beast differing from either of the two preceding it. This third beast is commonly identified as the empire of Greece.27 The only thing said about this beast is that dominion was given to it.
The leopard is less grand and majestic than a lion, but it is swifter and was much feared as an animal of prey in Old Testament times. The leopard’s speed made it the standard of comparison in Habakkuk 1:8 where the horses of the Chaldeans are described as swifter than leopards. Leopards characteristically would lie in wait for their prey (Jer. 5:6; Hos. 13:7) and then pounce upon their victims with great speed and agility. Young prefers the translation “panther,” to indicate a leopard of unusual size and power.28
Illustration of what the third beast in Daniel 7 might have looked like in Daniel’s dream.
The impression of great speed inherent in a leopard was further enhanced by the four wings on its back. The wings correspond to the number of the leopard’s heads, which obviously refer to its intelligent direction. The heads indicate that, in contrast to the earlier beasts that had only one head, the third empire would have four governmental divisions with corresponding heads.
In their zeal to promote the idea that the third empire is Persia, liberal critics bring up many petty objections to equating the third beast with Greece. On the face of it, however, the history of Greece under Alexander the Great corresponds precisely to what is here described. With the swiftness of a leopard, Alexander conquered most of the civilized world all the way from Macedonia to Africa and eastward to India. The lightning character of his conquests is without precedent in the ancient world, and this is fully in keeping with the image of speed embodied in the leopard and the four wings on its back.
It is a well-established fact of history that Alexander had four principal successors. Calvin, after Jerome, considered these Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip, and Antigonus.29 Keil and most modern commentaries prefer to recognize the four kings who emerge about twenty-two years after Alexander’s death after the overthrow of Antigonus at the battle of Ipsus (301 B.C.). These four kings and their reigns were, according to Keil, Lysimachus, who held Thrace and Bithynia; Cassander, who held Macedonia and Greece; Seleucus, who controlled Syria, Babylonia, and territories as far east as India; and Ptolemy, who controlled Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia Petrea.30
Other views have been offered, in spite of the aptness of the interpretation of verse 6 as the kingdom of Alexander and the four wings and four heads as its fourfold component parts that became evident after Alexander’s death. For example, Young agrees that the third empire is Greece, but takes the four heads to represent the four corners of the earth and not the four successors of Alexander, or the geographical divisions of Alexander’s conquests—namely, Greece, Western Asia, Egypt, and Persia. He states, “Here the four heads, representing the four corners of the earth, symbolize ecumenicity of the kingdom.”31
In view of the transparent fact that Alexander did have four generals who succeeded him and divided his empire into four divisions, it would seem that this is the best interpretation of the four heads and wings. As Leupold states, “We are more firmly convinced than ever that they [the four beasts] are Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The arguments advanced in support of Media as being the second in both series are not convincing.”32
The interpretation that takes the four horns as reference to the four subdivisions of Alexander’s kingdom is quite superior to the interpretation of those who want to relate this to Persia in order to eliminate the prophetic element. The issue here, as so often in the book of Daniel, is whether Daniel can accurately predict future events—in this instance, the fourfold division of the Greek Empire several hundred years before it occurred. The difficulty of the liberal critics in interpreting these prophecies is further evidence that they are operating on the wrong premises. The interpretative disputes of the first three empires, however, are relatively insignificant in comparison to the interpretative problems of the fourth world empire. This one was to extend to the end of human history as Daniel saw it, and contains so many elements that by any stretch of the imagination cannot be conformed to the history of the second century B.C. or earlier.
7:7–8 “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.”
The crucial issue in the interpretation of the entire book of Daniel, and especially of chapter 7, is the identification of the fourth beast. On this point, liberal critics generally insist that the fourth beast is Greece or the kingdom of Alexander the Great. Conservative scholars with few exceptions generally identify the fourth beast as Rome.33
The dominion of Rome, beginning with the occupation of Sicily in 241 B.C. as a result of victory in the first Punic conflict, rapidly made the Mediterranean Sea a Roman lake by the beginning of the second century B.C. Spain was conquered first, and then Carthage at the battle of Zama in North Africa in 202 B.C. After subjugating the area north of Italy, Rome then moved east, conquering Macedonia, Greece, and Asia Minor. The Roman general Pompey swept into Jerusalem in 63 B.C. after destroying remnants of the Seleucid Empire (Syria). During following decades, Rome extended control to southern Britain, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany west of the Rhine River.
The Roman Empire continued to gradually grow for more than four centuries (reaching its height in A.D. 117), in contrast to the sudden rise of the preceding empires. It likewise declined slowly, beginning in the third century. The decline became obvious in the fifth century A.D., with the Romans leaving Britain in A.D. 407 and suffering a sack of Rome in 410 by the Visigoths. It was not until A.D. 1453 that the last Roman or Byzantine ruler was killed in battle and Mehmed II conquered Constantinople. The question facing the expositor is whether Daniel is here describing the Roman Empire, clearly the greatest of all empires of history. The interpreter is forced to make a decision as the evaluation of the supporting evidence, the theological implications, and the resulting prophetic program depend almost entirely on this question.34
Illustration of what the fourth beast in Daniel 7 might have looked like in Daniel’s dream.
On this issue the question of whether the book of Daniel is a genuine sixth-century writing or a second-century forgery is determinative. Rowley objects strenuously to the accusation that the liberal view—that the fourth kingdom is Greece—stems from prejudice, and he attempts to turn the argument against the conservative as unfairly accusing the liberal. Rowley quotes Charles H. H. Wright: “Wright imports prejudice into the question by saying: ‘the real objections of the modern school to the Old “Roman” interpretation arise from a determination to get rid at all costs of the predictive element in prophecy, and to reduce the prophecies of the Scripture, Old and New, to the position of being only guesses of ancient seers, or vaticinia post eventa.’ That the Greek view commanded so long and respectable an array of names among its supporters, prior to the establishment of the modern school, is a sufficient refutation of this unworthy remark. That since the establishment of the critical school, the Greek view has continued to be held by scholars of unimpeachable orthodoxy, is ample proof that the case for that view rests on a far more substantial basis than prejudice.”35
It is probably fair to say that liberals are not conscious of their prejudice in this matter, but Rowley himself gives the matter away in his later discussion. After describing the bewildering variety of views, both in support of the Roman and of the Greek Empire interpretations, Rowley states:
Within the circle of those who hold the Greek view, therefore, there is wide divergence on this point, and while up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, their reading of history and of the visions run concurrently, and they may be considered together, the only form of the Greek view which is here claimed to fit the prophecies is that which locates the composition of these chapters, at any rate in the form in which they now stand before us, in the Maccabean Age. On this view, the author was a man who was moved of the spirit of God to encourage his fellows to resist the attack of Antiochus Epiphanes upon the religion and culture of his race, and who rightly perceives that the victory must lie with them, if they were to be loyal unto their God, but whose message was coloured with the Messianic hopes that were not to be fulfilled.36
In other words, Rowley himself says that the only sensible support for the Greek interpretation is that the book of Daniel is a second-century production. This amounts to a major admission that identification of the fourth empire as Greek depends on the thesis that the book of Daniel is a late forgery.37 Rowley completely fails to support the Greek interpretation by any consensus among its followers, and his discussion is a hopeless maze of alternating views, which he either rejects or accepts often as matters of opinion.
The diversity of interpretation is indeed confusing to any expositor of this portion of Scripture. But if the book of Daniel is a sixth-century writing, and therefore genuine Scripture, it follows that the Roman view is more consistent than the Greek Empire interpretation. This is especially true for those following premillennial interpretation. The Roman view is supported in the exegesis of the passage that follows.
Daniel described the fourth beast in verse 7 as a fascinating spectacle. It was “terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong.” This description is supported by its great iron teeth that distinguished it from any known animal. As Daniel watched, the beast was observed to devour and break in pieces and stamp the residue of the preceding kingdoms. Daniel was explicit that this beast was quite different from any before it.
The description of the fourth beast to this point more obviously corresponds to the Roman Empire than to the empire of Alexander the Great. Alexander conquered by rapid troop movements and seldom crushed the people whom he conquered. By contrast, the Romans were ruthless in their destruction of civilizations and peoples, killing captives by the thousands and selling them into slavery by the hundreds of thousands. As Leupold states, referring to the iron teeth, “That must surely signify a singularly voracious, cruel, and even vindictive world power. Rome could never get enough of conquest. Rivals like Carthage just had to be broken: Carthago delenda est. Rome had no interest in raising the conquered nations to any high level of development. All her designs were imperial; let the nations be crushed and stamped underfoot.”38 The description of Daniel 7:7 clearly is more appropriate for the empire of Rome than for the Macedonian kingdom or any of its derived divisions.
Probably the most decisive argument in favor of interpreting the fourth empire as Roman is the fact that the New Testament seems to follow this interpretation. Christ’s reference to the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15) clearly pictures the desecration of the temple, here prophesied as a future event. Even if Young is wrong in identifying this with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 7039 and the view is followed that it represents a still future event signaling the start of the great tribulation, in either case, it is Roman rather than Greek, as the Greek view would require fulfillment in the second century B.C. The New Testament also seems to employ the symbolism of Daniel in the book of Revelation, presented as future even after the destruction of the temple.40 These New Testament allusions to Daniel that require the fourth empire to be Roman (cf. also Dan. 9:26) make unnecessary the tangled explanations that attempt to identify the ten horns, or at least seven of them, with the Seleucid kings.41
The interpretation identifying this empire as Rome immediately has a major problem in that there is no real correspondence to the Roman Empire historically in the phrase “and it had ten horns.” The interpretation of the vision later in the chapter only serves to emphasize this problem.
Interpreters who agree that the Roman Empire is in view differ in their explanations of how the ten horns relate to Rome. Amillennial scholars like Young and Leupold tend to spiritualize both the number ten and the number three, and thus escape the necessity of finding any literal fulfillment. Both of them find literal fulfillment impossible because no ten kings reigned simultaneously in the Roman period.42 Young, however, considers fulfillment in the Roman Empire in the past, with no further fulfillment being necessary.43 Leupold finds ultimate fulfillment at the second coming of Christ, rather than in history.44 Premillennialists offer another view, providing literal fulfillment: ten actual kingdoms will exist simultaneously in the future tribulation period.45
In verse 8, as Daniel continued to gaze intently upon the vision, he saw another little horn emerging from the head of the beast, and in the process, uprooting three of the first ten horns. The little horn was described as having eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great things.
If there were no commentary on this passage and the interpreter was left to find its meaning simply on what the text states, it would be a reasonable conclusion that the little horn is a man, and that, therefore, the ten horns that precede were also men who were rulers in relationship to the fourth kingdom. Eyes and a mouth are human characteristics.46
Commentators have been quick to note that in chapter 8 there is also a little horn, which conservative expositors have identified with Antiochus Epiphanes. This has been taken as evidence that the little horn of Daniel 7 is also from the Greek or Maccabean period in its latter stages. Further consideration is given to this in chapter 8. It must be observed, however, that the little horn of chapter 8 comes out of an entirely different context than that of chapter 7. Although both horns are described as “little,” the horn of chapter 7 is not said to grow like the horn in chapter 8, although in the end he becomes a greater power than the little horn of chapter 8. To assume that the two little horns are the same is to decide the matter on assumed similarities without regard for the contradictions. Archer states,
There can be no question that the little horn in chapter 8 points to a ruler of the Greek empire, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes. The critics, therefore, assume that since the same term is used, the little horn in chapter 7 must refer to the same individual. This, however, can hardly be the case, since the four-winged leopard of chapter 7 clearly corresponds to the four-horned goat of chapter 8; that is, both represent the Greek empire which divided into four after Alexander’s death. The only reasonable deduction to draw is that there are two little horns involved in the symbolic visions of Daniel. One of them emerged from the third empire, and the other is to emerge from the fourth.47
Lang, a conservative premillennial scholar, took a more novel approach to explain the relationship between the two horns. He identified the little horn of Daniel 7 with that of Daniel 8, but he resolved the apparent historical difficulty by suggesting the little horn in both chapters was not to be identified with Rome or with Antiochus Epiphanes. Instead, he concluded the final empire out of which the little horn arises in both chapters is end-time Babylon.48 However, Lang’s proposal fails to explain the fact that the Roman Empire was in power at the time of Christ’s first coming when the messianic kingdom was presented to Israel or that Rome is associated with both the destruction of the temple and the “prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26. Rome cannot be removed from the prophecies of Daniel, as Lang seeks to do.
7:9–10 “As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came out from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.”
No system of biblical interpretation can claim to be adequate unless it provides a satisfactory interpretation of the conclusion of the vision. Three major facts stand out in verses 9–14. First, in verses 9 and 10, Daniel had a vision of heaven at the time of final judgment of the nations. Second, in verses 11 and 12, the little horn representing the last ruler of the times of the Gentiles was destroyed along with his empire. Third, the fifth kingdom—the kingdom of the Son of Man who comes with the clouds of heaven—was brought in, beginning the everlasting dominion of God. All three factors combine to make clear that this is a summary conclusion that is catastrophic in nature and introduces a radical change. The critical assertion of the fourth empire as belonging to Alexander has no reasonable explanation for any one of these three factors, let alone an explanation for all of them. If this is genuine prophecy, it belongs to a future consummation that was not realized by the historical Greeks or the Romans.
In verse 9, Daniel saw thrones placed in heaven, and the “Ancient of Days” was seated on one. The scene as a whole corresponds to what John saw and recorded in Revelation 4–5. The Ancient of Days seems to correspond to God the Father, as distinct from God the Son who is introduced in Daniel 7:13 as the “son of man.”
Basing his argument on John 5:22, Gaebelein declares, “The Ancient of Days is the Lord Jesus Christ,” and finds confirmation in Revelation 1:12–14.49 To support this, he divides chapter 7 into four separate visions instead of one vision, as it is generally taken. However, if in the same chapter the Ancient of Days is clearly distinct from the son of man as in verse 13, it is futile to argue from other passages in the same chapter that the Ancient of Days is Christ. The expression “Ancient of Days” is used of God only in this chapter where the title is repeated (vv. 13, 22). The whiteness of His hair and clothing emphasize purity rather than age, although it may also imply that God is eternal.50
Daniel saw God the Father sitting upon a throne, one of many as indicated in the contrast between the plural early in verse 9 and the singular in the latter part. Who sits on the thrones first mentioned is not indicated, but this may either refer to angelic authority, or the second and third Persons of the Trinity may be intended. The throne’s major characteristic is a burning flame, and the wheels of the throne, whatever their meaning, are also burning (cf. Ezek. 1:13–21). The glory of God, pictured as a fiery flame, is a common representation in Scripture. Fire is a symbol of judgment and is associated with theophanies in the Old Testament. In Psalm 97 it is revealed that “righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne” (v. 2), and “Fire goes before him and burns up his adversaries all around” (v. 3).
John describes Jesus Christ in similar terms in Revelation: “The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace” (Rev. 1:14–15; cf. Exod. 3:2; Deut. 4:24; 1 Tim. 6:16; Heb. 12:29). That Christ as the Son of Man should have a similar glory to God the Father is no contradiction, as their glory is the same even though their persons are distinguished.
In this scene of blazing glory, innumerable saints and angels (cf. Deut. 33:2) are pictured as ministering to God. The books are opened in His presence and judgment is rendered. It is apparent that this is the hour of final decision as far as the nations of the world are concerned. Daniel did not enlarge on the concept of “the books.” The implication is, however, in light of Revelation 20:12, that this is a record of people’s works (cf. Isa. 65:6–7 for record of evil deeds, and Mal. 3:16 for remembrance of good deeds) on the basis of which they will be judged.
In Matthew 25:31–46, there is a corresponding judgment that chronologically may be considered to follow the one here pictured. In Daniel, the judgment is in heaven and relates to the little horn and the beast. In Matthew, the judgment follows the second coming of Christ pictured in Daniel 7:13–14 and extends the original judgment upon the beast to the entire world. Even without any emendation or explanation from other texts of the Bible, it is clear that this is at the end of the interadvent age and the end of the times of the Gentiles. It therefore demands a fulfillment that is yet future, and it is futile to attempt to find anything in history that provides a reasonable fulfillment of this passage.
7:11–12 “I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.”
The scene of the vision shifted once again to earth. Young, after Montgomery and Keil, holds that because of should be translated “from the time of.”51 Their point is that the vision of heaven immediately followed the arrogant words of the little horn. As the prophet listened to the great words uttered by the little horn of verse 8, he saw the beast destroyed and given to burning flames. This passage is another illustration of how quickly God can dispose of the mightiest of earthly rulers, and how evil men are ultimately brought to divine judgment. Critics maintain that the beast here is the Seleucid power in general and the mouth is Antiochus Epiphanes, killed in battle in 164 B.C. But the kingdom of God from heaven did not follow the downfall of Antiochus. Although the Maccabean revolt was followed by the independent Jewish kingdom, and the Roman conquest was not until a century later in 63 B.C., the ultimate beneficiary of Antiochus was Rome.
The destruction of the beast, however, does not fit the historic Roman Empire either, which took centuries to lose all its strength. This is a sudden act of divine judgment in which the major ruler is killed and his government destroyed. This passage is an obvious parallel to Revelation 19:20 where the beast and the false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire at the time of the second coming of Christ.
Verse 12 has proved mysterious to liberal critics, who have great difficulty in understanding how the rest of the beasts have their lives prolonged even though their dominion is taken away. If the earlier beasts were empires that were succeeded by the fourth beast, how can they be prolonged after the fourth beast’s death?
The answer is that the destruction of the fourth beast here described refers to a time yet future in connection with the second advent of Christ. Montgomery suggests that the expression “a season and a time” are semantic equivalents (cf. Dan. 2:21; Acts 1:7) and denote “a fixed fate.”52 Verse 12 is saying that the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Greek Empires were to some extent continued in their successors; that is, Gentile power shifted as to rulership, but continued more or less in the same pattern: thus the statement, “their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.” By contrast, at the second coming of Christ the fourth empire is destroyed, and a totally different kingdom from heaven succeeds it. This is borne out by the image of chapter 2, as Driver notes: “the entire image remains intact until the stone falls upon the feet (representing the fourth and last kingdom), when the whole of it breaks up together.”53
When Medo-Persia followed Babylon, the dominion of Babylon was taken away, but in some sense the lives of the participants were prolonged. The same is true when Greece succeeded Medo-Persia and when Rome succeeded Greece. But the end of the fourth beast is dramatic, cataclysmic, and final. Both the rulers and the people involved are to be destroyed. As noted, this interpretation agrees with Revelation 19:19–20, which records the beast as destroyed in the lake of fire and his followers struck down at the second coming of Christ. It is confirmed by Matthew 25:31–46, which records the judgment of the nations at Christ’s return.
7:13–14 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”
Here is the climax of Daniel’s vision. Again, heaven rather than earth is in view. verse 13 follows verse 10 chronologically. verses 11–12 are explanatory and do not advance the narrative. Porteous correctly notes, “The interposition, however, of vv. 11 and 12 is necessary to express the author’s meaning.”54 One described as “like a son of man,” in obvious contrast with the beasts and the little horn, comes before the throne of the Ancient of Days, attended by the clouds of heaven. The purpose of this heavenly presentation is indicated in verse 14 where the Son of Man is given a worldwide kingdom involving all peoples. In contrast to the preceding kingdoms, this is a kingdom that “shall not be destroyed.” This kingdom is obviously the expression of divine sovereignty dealing dramatically with the human situation in a way that introduces the eternal state where God is manifestly supreme in His government of the universe.
Conservative scholars are agreed that the Son of Man is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ rather than an angelic agency.55 The description of Him as being worthy of ruling all nations is obviously in keeping with many passages in the Bible referring to the millennial rule of Jesus Christ, for example, Psalm 2:6–9 and Isaiah 11. Like the scene in Revelation 4–5, Christ is portrayed as a separate person from God the Father. The expression that He is attended by “clouds of heaven” implies His deity (1 Thess. 4:17). A parallel appears in Revelation 1:7, “Behold, he is coming with the clouds,” in fulfillment of Acts 1 where in His ascension Christ was received by a cloud and the angels tell the disciples that Christ “will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9–11). Clouds in Scripture are frequently characteristic of revelation of deity (Exod. 13:21–22; 19:9, 16; 1 Kings 8:10–11; Isa. 19:1; Jer. 4:13; Ezek. 10:4; Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26).
Some liberal scholars argue that the lack of the definite article with the title “son of man” means that this was merely a human being who appeared to Daniel.56 Although there might be some linguistic support for this idea, Jesus’ frequent use of this title for Himself in the New Testament is the divine commentary on the phrase (cf. Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27, 28; 17:9, 12, 22, etc.). “Son of Man” was, in fact, Jesus’ favorite description of Himself during His earthly ministry.
In verse 13, the Son of Man is presented as being near the Ancient of Days, and in verse 14 He is given dominion over all peoples and nations. This could not be an angel, nor could it be the body of saints, as it corresponds clearly to other Scriptures that predict that Christ will rule over all nations (Ps. 72:11; Rev. 19:15–16). Only Christ will come with clouds of heaven, and be the King of kings and Lord of lords over all nations throughout eternity. Inasmuch as all the nations that survive His purging judgment and come under His dominion are saints, it would be a confusion to make the Son of Man the personification of the saints. Keil states on this point,
With all other interpreters, we must accordingly firmly maintain that he who appears with the clouds of heaven comes from heaven to earth and is a personal existence, and is brought before God, who judges the world, that he may receive dominion, majesty, and a kingdom. But in the words “as a man” it is not meant that he was only a man. He that comes with the clouds of heaven may, as Kranichfeld rightly observes, “be regarded, according to the current representations, as the God of Israel coming on the clouds, while yet he who appears takes the outward form of a man.”57
Young observes that some expositors regard the Son of Man as representing the people of Israel. But as he points out, the earliest interpretation regarded this as messianic and referring to the Christ, and this interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Jesus Christ took the title Himself in the New Testament.58
From verse 14 it is apparent that Daniel was given revelation in addition to what he saw in the vision. While the vision could portray the Son of Man receiving authority, the purpose of this act would have to be revealed to Daniel. At every point the kingdom from heaven is contrasted with the preceding kingdoms of the four great world empires and shown to be superior.
If Daniel’s prophecy beginning with the phrase “it had ten horns” in verse 7 and continuing through verse 14 is yet to be fulfilled, a question naturally arises: Why did Daniel not include the events of the age between the first and second advents of Christ?
In the main, commentators have offered three options. First, like the liberal scholars, they could deny literal fulfillment and even claim that Daniel was in error. Second, they could find these prophecies were symbolically fulfilled in church history. This has been the viewpoint in part of postmillennialism and amillennialism. Or third, they could find these prophecies to be distinctly future and not at all fulfilled by the first coming of Christ, the decline of the Roman Empire, or anything else in history. The third view, which is the futuristic interpretation, is the only one that provides the possibility of literal fulfillment of this prophecy.
It has been enthusiastically presented that the church is the fifth kingdom of Daniel’s prophecy, that the Son of Man’s coming is His first coming to the earth, and that the church is responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire. But nothing is stranger to church history than this interpretation. It is questionable whether the Roman Empire had any serious opposition from the Christian church or that the growing power of the church contributed in a major way to its downfall. Edward Gibbon, in his classic work on the Roman Empire, gives “four principal causes of the ruin of Rome, which continued to operate over a period of more than a thousand years: 1. The injuries of time and nature. 2. The hostile attacks of the barbarians and Christians. 3. The use and abuse of the materials. 4. The domestic quarrels of the Romans.”59
Undoubtedly, the church’s growing presence in the declining Roman Empire was a factor in its history, and Gibbon includes “the rise, establishment, and sects of Christianity”60 in a detailed list of factors contributing to the Empire’s decline and fall. Yet it is quite clear that the church was not the major factor and in no way can be identified as a sudden and catastrophic cause for the fall of the Roman Empire. Although the church dominated Europe during the Middle Ages, its power began to be disrupted by the Protestant Reformation at the very time that the Roman Empire was gasping its last in the fifteenth century. Although the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church is recognized by everyone, it does not fulfill the prophecy of Daniel 7:23, that the fourth kingdom “shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces.” This would require figurative interpretation of prophecy far beyond any correspondence to the facts of either prophecy or history.
Far better is the interpretation that does honor to the text and justifies belief in its accuracy as prophetic revelation. This point of view contends that the present church age is not included in the Old Testament’s prophetic foreviews. The first and second comings of Christ are frequently spoken of in the same breath, as for instance in Isaiah 61:1–2, which Christ expounded in Luke 4:18–19. Significantly, Christ quoted only the portion dealing with His first coming and stopped in the middle of a sentence because the last part of the sentence related to His second advent. In a similar way, Daniel’s prophetic vision takes human history up to the first coming of Christ when the Roman Empire was in sway, and then leaps to the end of the age when, in fulfillment of prophecy, the fourth empire will be revived and suffer its fatal judgment at the hands of Christ at His second coming. This interpretation, though not without its problems, allows an accurate and detailed interpretation of this prophecy.61 Even Leupold, who may be classified as a conservative amillenarian, states,
Why does the sequence of historical kingdoms in this vision extend no farther than the Roman whereas we know that many developments came after the Roman Empire and have continued to come before the judgment? We can venture only opinions under this head, opinions that we believe are reasonable and conform with the situation as it is outlined. One suggestion to be borne in mind is the fact that the prophets, barring the conclusion of chapter 9 in Daniel, never see the interval of time lying between the first and second coming of Christ. In the matter of history, therefore, Daniel does not see beyond Christ’s days in the flesh and perhaps the persecution as it came upon the early church.62
If Daniel 7 had concluded with verse 14, it is probable, with the help of the book of Revelation and other scriptural passages, that a reasonable explanation could be made of the text. In view of the complexity and importance of the prophecy, the chapter continues to give the reader a divinely inspired interpretation. It should be borne in mind that while a symbol is obviously parabolic and figurative, its interpretation should be taken literally. Accordingly, the explanation can be taken as a factual exegesis of the truth involved in the vision.
7:15–18 “As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious, and the visions of my head alarmed me. I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of the things. ‘These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.’”
With the visions revealed, Daniel recorded his reaction and the interpretation given him. Having such a vision in the middle of the night must have been a terrifying experience; Daniel had seen a panorama of tremendous events to come. Like Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 2, Daniel, although a prophet, is troubled by his lack of understanding of the vision.
Daniel was grieved in his spirit and perplexed. By “my spirit” he referred to his whole personality. The expression “my spirit within me”—literally, “in the midst of the sheath”—compares the soul in the body to a sword in its sheath. Keil notes that it is also found in Job 27:3, in the writings of the rabbis (cf. Buxt. Lex. talm. s. v.), and also Pliny, 7:52.63 Daniel was extremely concerned about what he had seen.
In verse 16, Daniel became an actor in the scene by addressing a question to a personage standing by, generally considered to be an angel. When Daniel asked for the truth being revealed by this vision, the interpreter made known its meaning. The fact that Daniel could not himself interpret the vision increases the critical questions of those who do not accept Daniel as a sixth-century prophetic book. But there is nothing unusual about this situation. A similar account is found in Genesis 28 when God speaks to Jacob in his vision. In Exodus 3, God speaks to Moses out of the burning bush (although this event did not involve a vision). Conversation with people seen in visions occurs in Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple (Ezek. 40–48), and in the visions of Zechariah (Zech. 1–6). Almost exact parallels can be found in the book of Revelation where John is frequently given the interpretation of a vision (cf. Rev. 20:1–15; 21:9). Daniel had the same experience in chapters 8, 10, and 12.
Even when Daniel described and interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2, the passage clearly states that “the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night” (2:19). In sharing the dream and interpretation with the king, Daniel said, “this mystery has been revealed to me, not because of any wisdom that I have more than all the living” (2:30). It seems that chapter 7 simply provides additional insight into how God revealed His prophetic truth to Daniel.
The interpreter of Daniel’s vision first gave a general interpretation (vv. 17–18). In the verses that follow, more details are given. The summary statement in verse 17 is that the great beasts represent four kings that shall arise out of the earth. Liberal scholars have criticized the fact that the verse states twice that the beasts were four, and Charles states, “The words ‘which are four’ are omitted by the Septuagint. They are certainly unnecessary; for the seer knows perfectly well the number of the kingdoms.”64 The repetition of the number, however, is to make clear that the four beasts, each individually, represent a king. The “four kings” obviously refer to four kingdoms, as the beasts represent both a king and a kingdom.
Criticism has also been directed at the statement “shall arise out of the earth,” as if this were a conflict with the four beasts coming out of the sea (Dan. 7:3). Charles says, “… the words ‘shall arise out of the earth’ are certainly corrupt. According to 7:3, they arise out of the sea: cf. Rev. 13:1, 4, Ezra 11:1.” He goes on to say, “By a careful study of the LXX and Theod. we arrive at the following text: ‘These great beasts are four kingdoms, which shall be destroyed from the earth.’”65 What Charles does not take into consideration is that the sea represents symbolically the nations covering the earth, and what is symbolic in Daniel 7:3 is literal in 7:17.
In verse 18, the interpreter stated that “the saints of the most High” shall possess the kingdom forever. There has been considerable discussion about the identity of these saints: this term would seem to include the saved of all ages as well as the holy angels who may be described as “the holy ones” (cf. Dan. 7:21, 22, 25, 27; 8:24; 12:7; cf. Pss. 16:3; 34:9; Jude 14). In The Wars of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the faithful Jews have celestial warriors mingled with them in their ranks.66 The saints “receive” the kingdom, yet this is more than merely a passive reception. This is implied in the statement that “Darius the Mede received the kingdom” (5:31), meaning that he took aggressive steps to establish his control. Daniel 7:18 goes on to emphasize that the saints possess the kingdom forever, contrasting the everlasting character of the fifth kingdom to the preceding kingdoms, which in due time passed away.
The “Most High” translates a plural noun that could mean “high ones” or “high places.” Young is correct, however, in identifying this as God, with the plural expressing majesty. The expression is repeated in Daniel 7:22, 25, 27. This kingdom is eternal in its characteristics and sovereignty, yet it also may without difficulty include the millennial kingdom and God’s eternal rule that follow.
7:19–22 “Then I desired to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrifying, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze, and which devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet, and about the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn that came up and before which three of them fell, the horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, and that seemed greater than its companions. As I looked, this horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom.”
Daniel wanted to know the particulars about the fourth beast, especially those that distinguished it from the beasts that preceded. After the end was introduced in verse 18, beginning in verse 19 attention again focused on the conflict leading up to this and the items requiring explanation—among them the traits of the fourth beast that made it so terrifying. Here Daniel added particulars not previously indicated in his recital of the vision, namely, the bronze claws, the fact that the little horn was stronger than the other horns, that this little horn made war with the saints and prevailed against them (cf. Rev. 11:7; 13:7), and that judgment was given to the saints.
The fact that Daniel raised questions about the fourth empire rather than the preceding ones has been taken by critical scholars as another proof of the late date for Daniel. They argue that if Daniel actually lived in the sixth century B.C., as conservative scholars maintain, he would have also been very curious about the first three beasts. Montgomery states, “The seer’s contemporary interest is revealed by his inquisitiveness concerning the last beast and the judgment which hitherto had been hid in figures.”67
But there is no justification for this argument. Daniel’s vision emphasized the fourth beast because of its uniqueness and because of its impact on God’s saints. As Archer observed, “Of all the beasts Daniel saw, he regarded the fourth with the greatest curiosity and dread (v. 19), because it resembled no animal known to human experience. In particular he wondered about the ten horns from which the little horn emerged (v. 20) and which was allowed to overcome God’s holy people (v. 21).”68
Whereas only three verses are given to the first three beasts, the remaining twenty-one verses of the chapter concern the fourth beast and his era; and Daniel used eleven verses to describe the details.
If this is genuine prophecy, it is also true that Daniel was being guided providentially to that which is important from God’s standpoint. Even from a human standpoint, the end of the ages with the triumph of the saints would be a matter of primary concern to Daniel. The critics’ argument is dissipated by their own premise that even the fourth kingdom was already history at the time a second-century writer recorded it, and in that case Daniel’s curiosity would have to be faked in seeking the interpretation of history rather than a prophetic vision. There is no indication in the text that Daniel thought the fourth beast already had been fulfilled in history.
The judgment rendered “for,” or on behalf of, the saints delivers them from the unrighteous oppression of the beast and prepares them to receive the kingdom. The “Ancient of Days” refers to God, as in verses 9 and 13, and is identical to “the Most High” (vv. 18, 25, 27). In the same way the destruction of the fourth beast and the inauguration of the fifth kingdom from heaven is described as the time when the saints will possess the kingdom, a clear factor pointing to the end of the age and the second coming of Jesus Christ.
7:23–25 “Thus he said: ‘As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces. As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings. He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.’”
The interpreter of the vision states plainly in verse 23 that the fourth beast represents the fourth kingdom, which will be different from the preceding kingdoms and will be worldwide in its sway. In the process, it will tread down and break in pieces the preceding kingdoms. This interpretation eliminates the idea that the fifth kingdom refers to the rule of God in the new heavens and the new earth (Rev. 21 and 22), or that it is merely a spiritual kingdom that gradually gains sway by persuasion, such as the kingdom of God on earth at the present time. By its terminology verses 23–27 demand that, for the fifth kingdom to overcome the fourth, the fifth must be a sovereign and political kingdom, whatever its spiritual characteristics. They also demand that this be a future fulfillment, since nothing in history corresponds to this.
The ten horns of the vision are declared to be ten kings that shall arise. They clearly are simultaneous in their reign because three of them are disrupted by the little horn who is another ruler, but not given the title of king here. He also will be different from the ten horns, and shall subdue three of them.
If the ten kings are in power at the end of the age, which also seems to be supported by the ten kings of Revelation 13:1; 17:12, it follows that they must still be future. The fact that they appear in the book of Revelation, written long after the fall of the Greek Empire, plainly relates them to the Roman Empire in its final stage.
Just as there is special emphasis upon the fourth beast in the vision, so in the prophetic interpretation particular attention is given to the little horn, the outstanding personage at the end of the age, who will be destroyed with the inauguration of the kingdom from heaven. He is described as a blasphemer and a persecutor of the saints. He will also attempt to “change the times and the law,” that is, to change times of religious observances and traditions such as characterize those who worship God. Critics relate this to Antiochus Epiphanes.69 While Antiochus may foreshadow the activities of the little horn of Daniel 7, the complete fulfillment will be much more severe and extensive.
The duration of the little horn’s power continues “for a time, times, and half a time.” This expression, also found in Daniel 12:7, is incorrectly identified with “the times of the Gentiles” in Luke 21:24 by Montgomery. As he points out, however, the normal, traditional explanation is that the expression means three and one-half years. “Essaying an exact interpretation, ‘time’ may be interpreted as ‘year’ after the usual interpretation at 4:13 (q.v.). The traditional, and by far the most common, understanding of’ ‘times’ is as of a dual; the word is pointed as a [plural], but the [Aramaic], later having lost the dual, the tendency of [the Masoretic text] is to ignore it in the [biblical Aramaic]. Accordingly, one plus two plus one-half equals three and one-half years. The term is identical with the half-year week of 9:27 [which] equals three and one-half years.”70
Given other Scriptures (cf. Dan. 4:25 where periods of times equals years), the meaning seems clearly to refer to the last three and one-half years preceding Christ’s second advent, which will bring in the final form of God’s kingdom on earth. This computation is confirmed by the forty-two months, or three and one-half years, in Revelation 11:2 and 13:5, and the 1,260 days of Revelation 11:3. Daniel also refers to 1,290 days in 12:11 and 1,335 days in 12:12, which apparently includes the establishment of the fifth kingdom as well as the destruction of the beast. All of these considerations lend support to the futuristic interpretation of this final period of world history.71
7:26–28 “‘But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end. And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’ Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly alarmed me, and my color changed, but I kept the matter in my heart.”
As Daniel had indicated, the interpreter confirmed the vision as describing judgment upon the fourth beast and its ruler, the taking away of his power to rule, and how he is destroyed, either at the end or destroyed eternally. At the destruction of the fourth empire, the kingdom then becomes the possession of God’s saints. This does not mean that God will not rule, as verse 14 plainly states that dominion is given to the Son of Man. But it does indicate that the kingdom will be for the benefit and welfare of the saints in contrast to their previous experience of persecution. Contrary to the preceding kingdoms, which are terminated abruptly by God’s judgment, the final kingdom will be everlasting, and in it all powers and peoples will serve and obey God.
Daniel then penned a postscript to the interpretation of the vision. He described again how his thoughts troubled him, but he kept the matter in his heart, that is, did not reveal it to others. Thus ends one of the great chapters of the Bible that conservative scholars recognize as a panoramic view of future events revealed to Daniel in the sixth century B.C.
Until the rise of modern criticism, the majority view was that the fourth kingdom is Rome. There is nothing in this chapter to alter the conclusion that Rome’s final state has not yet been fulfilled, and that it is a genuine prophetic revelation of God’s program for human history. Today, when attention is again being riveted upon the Middle East, and particularly upon Israel, these issues are not merely of academic interest because they are the key to the present movement of history in anticipation of what lies ahead.
1 Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 85.
2 For an outline study of Daniel’s view of world history by the author, see John F. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 53–60.
3 Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 245.
4 Ibid.
5 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7.
6 H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1959), 179.
7 In this attempt he uses a total of sixty-seven pages, whereas he devotes only twenty-one pages to proving that Daniel taught that the second and third kingdoms are the Median and Persian kingdoms (Rowley, Darius the Mede, 70–137).
8 James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 88.
9 Ibid., 282.
10 Ibid., 88–89.
11 Rowley, Darius the Mede, 179.
12 Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 179.
13 D. J. Wiseman, “Belshazzar,” in The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 139.
14 R. D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody, n.d.), 95–104.
15 Carl August Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations of St. John (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1857).
16 Montgomery, Daniel, 282.
17 So Archer writes, “The sea (v. 2) is symbolic of polluted, turbulent humanity (cf. Isa. 57:20) as they try to exploit and govern in their own wisdom and strength” (Archer, “Daniel,” 85).
18 Arthur Jeffery, The Book of Daniel, The interpreter’s Bible, George A. Buttrick, ed. (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951), 452.
19 Keil, Daniel, 222. G. H. Lang argues at length that “the great sea” is the Mediterranean, citing a large number of Scripture references (Num. 34:6–7; Josh. 1:4; 9:1; 15:11–12; 15:47; 23:4; Ezek. 47:10, 15, 19, 20; 48:28). He concludes that the disturbance symbolized by the beast coming out of the sea prophesies that the origin of action would be the Mediterranean. This is, at least, a plausible interpretation (George Henry Lang, The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel [repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1973], 86–89).
20 The radical textual emendations of H. Ginsberg (Studies in Daniel [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1948], chap. 2, 5ff.) have been successfully disposed of by H. H. Rowley (“The Unity of the Book of Daniel,” in Hebrew Union College Annual 23 [1951], 233–73, and The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament [London: Lutterworth, 1952], 250ff.).
21 Baldwin also notes, “The lion and eagle are both used by Jeremiah in a description of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 49:10–22)” (Joyce C. Baldwin, Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978], 139).
22 Rowley, Darius the Mede, 144–46.
23 R. D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel (repr. New York: Putnam, 1917). See especially his chapter on “The Medes and the Conquest of Babylon,” 1:145–49.
24 Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Daniel, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 82.
25 John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 164.
26 Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 145. Archer notes, “This corresponds perfectly to the three major conquests the Medes and Persians made under the leadership of King Cyrus and his son Cambyses: viz., the Lydian kingdom in Asia Minor (which fell to Cyrus in 546), the Chaldean Empire (which he annexed in 539), and the kingdom of Egypt (which Cambyses acquired in 525)” (Archer, “Daniel,” 85).
27 For a summary of Daniel’s prophecies about Greece, see Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, 76–82.
28 Young, Daniel, 145–46.
29 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 2 vols., Thomas Myers, trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852), 2:18–19; Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, Gleason L. Archer Jr., trans. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 75.
30 Keil, Daniel, 293. For a brief history of events leading to the division of Alexander’s empire, see Harold Hoehner, “Between the Testaments,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 81–82.
31 Young, Daniel, 146.
32 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 287. See also Archer (“Daniel,” 86), who forcefully states, “Very clearly, then, the four heads and four wings represent the Macedonian conquest and its subsequent divisions. But there is no way in which a quadripartite character can be made out for the Persian Empire either under Cyrus or under any of his successors. That empire remained unified till its end, when it suddenly collapsed under the onslaught of Alexander the Great.”
33 So Miller writes, “By the second century B.C., Rome had superseded Greece as the dominant world power. The fourth beast, therefore, represents the Roman Empire, symbolized in chap. 2 by the iron legs and feet of the great statue” (Stephen Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001], 201).
34 For a summary of the history of Rome, see Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, 83–87.
35 Rowley, Darius the Mede, 71.
36 Ibid., 93.
37 Goldingay illustrates this point when he refers to the chapter as a “quasi-predictive vision deriving from the period on which it focuses and to which it is especially relevant (that of the king symbolized by the small horn) [rather] than an actual predictive vision from the sixth century. It thus presupposes actions by Antiochus IV against Jerusalem …” (Goldingay, Daniel, 157).
38 Leupold, Daniel, 297–98.
39 Young, Daniel, 293.
40 Cf. ibid.
41 Cf. ibid., 290.
42 Cf. Young, Daniel, 275–94; and Leupold, Daniel, 298–99.
43 Young, Daniel, 148–50.
44 Leupold, Daniel, 308.
45 Premillennialists look to Revelation 13 and 17 for support. A beast with ten horns rises from the sea in 13:1. In 17:12 an angel announces to John that “the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast.” Thus the ten horns were still future at the time the book of Revelation was written, six centuries after Daniel.
46 So Archer writes, “These features seem to imply that this little horn symbolizes an arrogant and vainglorious ruler, rather than an entire kingdom” (Archer, “Daniel,” 87).
47 Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 384.
48 G. H. Lang, Daniel.
49 A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel (New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911), 77.
50 Miller, Daniel, 204.
51 Young, Daniel, 152.
52 Montgomery, Daniel, 302.
53 Driver, Daniel, 87.
54 Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 110.
55 For a good discussion as to why this refers to Christ, see Wood, Daniel, 192–93; and Miller, Daniel, 207–10.
56 So Towner writes, “This usage must simply be understood as a title of address, one could call a prophet ‘son of man’ and mean simply ‘Mister’!” W. Sibley Towner, Daniel, Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Preaching and Teaching (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984), 103.
57 Keil, Daniel, 236.
58 The Jewish apocryphal book of Enoch, which is earlier than Jude, attests that the term refers to an individual. See the excellent footnote in Alexander Jones, ed., The Jerusalem Bible (Garden City, NY; London: Doubleday; Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966) at Daniel 7:13 (1437, OT) and Matthew 8:20 (27, NT). Young, Daniel, 155–56.
59 Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 6 vols. (New York: Peter Fenelon Collier & Son, 1901), 2:1441.
60 Ibid., 2:1458.
61 It also agrees with the apostle Paul’s description of the church as a “mystery” that “was not made known to the sons of men in other generations” (Eph. 3:1–6; Col. 1:24–26).
62 Leupold, Daniel, 313–14.
63 Keil, Daniel, 237–39.
64 Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 79.
65 Ibid.
66 T. H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956), 275.
67 Montgomery, Daniel, 307.
68 Archer, “Daniel,” 93.
69 Driver, Daniel, 92; cf. also Montgomery, Daniel, 311–12.
70 Montgomery, Daniel, 312.
71 For a good summary of the argument from these passages, see Wood, Daniel, 201–2.