II. DANIEL’S VISIONS (7:1–12:13)

A. The Four Beasts (7:1–28)

OVERVIEW

Daniel’s dream of the four beasts rising out of the sea described in ch. 7 begins the “visions” or “apocalyptic” section of the book (chs. 7–12). The chapter also completes the Aramaic portion of the book, the messages to the Gentile nations (2:4–7:28). This unit of the narrative of Daniel’s experience as a captive in Babylon ends as it began, with a vision of four world kingdoms that come to an end and then are replaced by a fifth (cf. Seow, 99–100, on the similarities and differences between chs. 2 and 7). The widely recognized chiastic arrangement of the Aramaic passages of the book demonstrates the inverted structure of the messages to the Gentile nations (see “Structure and Unity” in the introduction):

Commentators are unanimous in their assessment of the importance of Daniel 7 as both a transitional and pivotal chapter in the book (e.g., Seow, 99). The chapter is transitional in terms of the literary architecture of the book because it marks the shift from the narrative genre of court story (chs. 1–6) to the apocalyptic genre of vision (chs. 7–12; cf. Towner, 91). Longman has summarized the themes of chs. 7–12 under six headings: (1) human evil is horrible; (2) a specific time of deliverance (for the Jews from oppression) is announced; (3) repentance leads to deliverance; (4) a cosmic war stands behind human conflict; (5) judgment is certain for those who resist God and oppress his people; and (6) equally true is the fact that God’s people will experience new life. The “visions” half of the book also denotes the change in genre and point-of-view from “report” in the third-person voice to that of “diary” or “personal journal” in the first-person voice. Last, the transitional nature of ch. 7 is observed in its relationship to chs. 2–6 as part of the Aramaic portion of the book and in its relationship to chs. 8–12 by way of the subject matter (cf. Collins, Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 80).

The chapter is also pivotal in terms of audience since the message of the visions is directed toward the Hebrews, especially the group known as the maśkîlîm (or those “wise”; cf. 11:33, 35; 12:3, 10), rather than the Gentile nations (cf. Seow, 99). The setting of the visions moves from an emphasis on Daniel in the foreign setting of Babylon “to the fate of Jerusalem and the community living there” (Redditt, 115). Beyond this, the topic or subject matter of the eternal kingdom of the Ancient of Days is developed specifically with a view toward “the saints of the Most High” (v.22). The chapter also introduces the notoriously difficult “son of man” figure in the OT (vv.13–14). In addition, ch. 7 (and the visions section of the book) is important because of its place in the development of proto-apocalyptic prophetic literature in the OT and its influence on later Jewish apocalyptic literature. Finally, ch. 7 is pivotal for the role it plays in the issue of predictive prophecy (versus ex eventu prophecy) in the OT.

The literary form of ch. 7 is symbolic vision account encapsulated in a dream report (so Lucas, 163). Collins (Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 78) identifies the additional subgenres of “throne vision” (vv.9–10), “description of judgment scene” (vv.11–15), and (characteristic of critical scholarship on Daniel) “ex eventu prophecy” with reference to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (vv.23–25). The basic structure of the chapter is widely recognized and may be outlined as follows:

  1. 1. Introduction (v.1)
  2. 2. Dream Report (vv.2–14)
  3. 3. Interpretation of the Dream in Two Parts (vv.15–27)
  4. 4. Four Kingdoms (vv.15–18)
  5. 5. Fourth Beast (vv.19–27)
  6. 6. Conclusion (v.28)

According to Lucas, 165, the structure of the chapter “makes clear what it is that the author wants to emphasize.” The dream report (vv.2–14) is a palistrophe (i.e., a chiastic literary device that inverts or counterbalances key themes hinging on one fundamental teaching or idea), and the throne scene (vv.9–11) stands at the center of the vision report of the four beasts. “Human kings may seem to be free to rampage at will, but there is a throne in heaven and One on it to whom they are ultimately subject” (Lucas, 165). Goldingay, 154, notes that the lengthy opening formula (v.11a) serves to highlight the announcement of divine judgment of the “little horn” (v.11b). The poetic form of vv.13–14 at the close of the palistrophic vision report (vv.2–14) accents the establishment of the everlasting kingdom as “the climax of the vision” (Lucas, 165). Finally, the repetition of the judgment of the “little horn” and the establishment of the everlasting kingdom in the interpretation of the dream (vv.26–27) reiterate the climax of Daniel’s symbolic vision.

Biblical scholars still debate the historical validity of Daniel’s vision of the four beasts as reported in the date formula of the introduction (v.1). Conservative scholars accept the report as an account of an authentic vision experienced by Daniel set at the beginning of the coregency of Nabonidus and Belshazzar (ca. 553 BC; e.g., Miller, 194). Baldwin, 138, courageously rejects the “literary device” approach and avers, “we shall treat them [i.e., the visions] as direct revelations from God to Daniel.” By contrast, critical scholars tend to regard the dream or vision reports as simply a literary device employed by a later writer. For example, Goldingay, 157, discounts ch. 7 as “an actual predictive vision from the sixth century” and instead identifies the pericope as “a quasi-predictive vision deriving from the period on which it focuses” (i.e., the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in mid-167 BC). Redditt, 116, and Gowan, 105, are representative of more recent critical scholarship assigning the setting and date of ch. 7 to the action of Antiochus IV Epiphanes against Jerusalem in 167 BC.

Like Porteous, 96, some critical scholars still struggle with the literary integrity or unity of ch. 7 (see the discussion in Collins, Daniel, 277–80; cf. Redditt’s three-redactor hypothesis, 114–16). Lucas, 167, is more cautious. He typifies a growing trend for appreciation of the literary artistry of the Bible and notes that “there is less willingness than there used to be to assume that repetition, variation, and unevenness are evidence of more than one hand at work. These features can often be explained as deliberate rhetorical features” (cf. Smith-Christopher, 100, who admits only vv.21–22 as a possible later addition to ch. 7, “if any”; and Seow, who takes a “final form” literary approach and omits any discussion of the unity of ch. 7). On the textual issues in Daniel 7, including a discussion of the variances between the Hebrew MT and the Greek LXX, see Lacocque, 135–37, 149–51; Goldingay, 143–46; and Lucas, 160–63.

Daniel’s vision consisted of a series of animals rising out of a churning sea (vv.2–3). The first three beasts (vv.3–6) are well-known creatures of the animal kingdom in the biblical world (albeit each with some unusual variation in appearance): a lion (with eagle’s wings and human feet), a bear (with ribs in its mouth), and a leopard (with four heads and four wings). Esoteric symbolism is typically listed as one of the characteristic features of the genre of apocalyptic literature (cf. Collins, Daniel, 54–56; see “Literary Form” in the introduction). Considerable ink has been spilled in attempts to identify the source or sources behind the image of Daniel’s vision in ch. 7. Among the “usual suspects” in the lineup are the Babylonian creation myths (especially the Enuma Elish) and Canaanite mythology (especially the Baal and Yamm cycle; see the summaries in Collins, Daniel, 280–94; Lucas, 167–76; J. H. Walton, “The Anzu Myth as Relevant Background for Daniel 7?” in The Book of Daniel, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint [Leiden: Brill, 2002], 1:69–89).

Russell, 115, cautions against seeing any wholesale dependence of Daniel’s account on the sources of Babylonian mythology or reading into it the “meanings and nuances” of the Babylonian creation stories. He goes on to say that “the writer is taking over the stock-in-trade of symbolic imagery handed down in those religious circles in which he moved, using them to convey a message relevant to his own day affirming the victory of God over evil forces ranged against him and his faithful people.” Walton (“The Anzu Myth,” 88) concurs, at least to the extent that the imagery of Daniel’s vision represents “an informed and articulate literary mosaic whose author has assimilated and mastered a wide spectrum of literary traditions in order to transform them to his own theological will and purpose.”

According to Towner, 94, although the beasts of the animal allegory may have had their origin in the myths of the ancient Near East, they have been stripped of their mythic character and “have become arbitrary symbols for a succession of historical kingdoms.” Russell, 115–16, equates those kingdoms not with the malevolent powers associated with the Babylonian creation epics but rather with “those brute forces of evil which become only too evident in the unfolding of history—kings and rulers who tyrannise the people of God, empires and kingdoms which terrify for a time but whose ‘doom is writ.’”

Naturally, the extensive symbolism in Daniel’s vision gives rise to multiple interpretations of the imagery. For example, critical scholars tend to identify the kingdoms represented by the four animals of Daniel’s vision as Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece (e.g., Redditt, 119; Porteous, 105–6), while conservative or traditional scholars equate the animals with Babylonia, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome (e.g., Baldwin, 147; Miller, 198–203). Likewise, the “little horn” (v.8) is variously viewed as a reference to the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (e.g., Lacocque, 141; Collins, Daniel, 299) or the Antichrist (e.g., Archer, 87; Young, 150). Finally, the figure of the “son of man” is considered alternately as the archangel Michael (e.g., Collins, Daniel, 310); the angel Gabriel; a lesser, unnamed angel; a Davidic king; a priestly figure; the nation of Israel; and so on (see the discussion in Collins, Daniel, 304–10; Redditt, 127; see the next section on “Understanding Visionary Literature”).

Understanding Visionary Literature. Biblical proto-apocalyptic literature and its later offshoot, intertestamental Jewish apocalyptic literature, are visionary genres given to interpretation of current events and prediction of future events in symbols, ciphers, and codes—usually by means of angelic mediation (e.g., 7:16; 8:16). As such they represent subcategories of the genre of prophecy in the larger scheme of hermeneutics or biblical interpretation. Apocalyptic literature is “crisis” literature, typically conveying specific messages to particular groups of people caught up in dire situations. Several basic questions are helpful in interpreting visionary literature in the Bible: Who is addressed? By whom? When? In what setting? For what reason? What is the relationship of the passage under investigation to the rest of the Bible?

Visionary literature announces an end to the way things are and opens up alternative possibilities to the audience as a result of God’s impending intervention in human affairs. Three types of messages are usually associated with the visionary literature of the Bible: (1) a message of encouragement to the oppressed; (2) a warning to the oppressor; and (3) a call to faith for those wavering between God’s truth and human “wisdom.”

Visionary literature portrays settings, characters, and events in ways different from ordinary reality. While the visions depict literal events, the symbolic descriptions do not necessarily represent the events literally. Leland Ryken (How To Read the Bible as Literature [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 165–74) offers helpful guidelines for reading and understanding visionary literature:

Finally, visionary literature in the Bible has given rise to four major interpretive approaches to the understanding of the time-orientation of the divine revelation. The preterist approach views all the events described in the visions as past. By contrast, the futurist sees the events portrayed in the visions as yet come. The historicist appeals to the visions to trace the ideological or theological development of an age or an era (e.g., the history of Israel or the church age). The idealist understands the vision as a symbolic representation of the timeless conflict between good and evil (see W. W. Klein, C. L. Blomberg, and R. L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation [Dallas: Word, 1993], 292–312, 369–74). The commentary below offers brief summaries of the both the preterist and the futurist understandings of Daniel’s visions where appropriate.

1. Introduction (7:1)

1In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying on his bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream.

COMMENTARY

1 The date formula locates Daniel’s vision of the animals rising out of the sea to the first year of King Belshazzar’s reign (v.1a). Belshazzar’s first year would have been the initial year of the coregency he exercised in Babylon during the decade his father Nabonidus spent in Tema (Arabia; see comments on 5:1–4). Neo-Babylonian documents indicate that Nabonidus, during the third year of his reign, entrusted the kingship to his son Belshazzar (cf. Miller, 194). His rule commenced about 556 BC, meaning his third year would date approximately to 553 BC (cf. Baldwin, 138, who places the date at 552/551 BC).

Daniel’s experience (v.1) is described both as a dream (Aram. ḥēlem) and as visions (Aram. ḥezû) passing through his mind. According to Redditt, 117, the difference between dreams and visions is clear, since “dreams typically come while one is asleep, while visions come while one is in a state of altered consciousness.” The fact that Daniel is “lying on his bed” (but apparently not asleep) suggests his experience has the character of a vision (cf. Lucas, 177). Daniel is also a participant in what he sees by speaking with a member of the heavenly court—another characteristic of the visionary-type experience. Daniel’s two subsequent experiences relate to the reception of divine revelation are described as visions (8:1; 10:1).

Verse 1 also records that Daniel “wrote down the substance of his dream.” The precedent of writing down such revelations is established in the earlier Hebrew prophets (e.g., Isa 8:1; Jer 30:2; Eze 43:11). The documentation of prophetic dreams, visions, and oracles made the prophecies more concrete and facilitated their dissemination to the intended audience. Beyond this, as Goldingay, 160, observes, putting the revelation in writing “made prophecy, prophet, and God open to vindication: the written word was fixed and could be tested by events.”

NOTE

1–2 A “vision” (Aram./Heb. , ḥzh; GK 10256) sometimes entails “the experience of seeing images in a revelatory dream” (J. A. Naudé, “,” NIDOTTE, 2:58). The visual manifestation of the vision was designed to complement the revelation of the divine word, enabling the “seer” to proclaim God’s message with authority. The primary emphasis in the revelatory vision, however, “was on the revelation of the divine word” (ibid.). The seeing of a vision was a divine gift granted by God to his chosen messengers. The word “vision” is often associated with the OT prophets (e.g., Jer 14:14; 23:16; La 2:9; Mic 3:6), although Daniel himself is not designated a “prophet” (Heb. , nābî ʾ).

2. Dream Report (7:2–14)

2Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. 3Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.

4“The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.

5“And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’

6“After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

7“After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.

8“While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

9“As I looked,

“thrones were set in place,

and the Ancient of Days took his seat.

His clothing was as white as snow;

the hair of his head was white like wool.

His throne was flaming with fire,

and its wheels were all ablaze.

10A river of fire was flowing,

coming out from before him.

Thousands upon thousands attended him;

ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.

The court was seated,

and the books were opened.

11“Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12(The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

13“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

COMMENTARY

2–8 By recording his vision (v.1), Daniel invites the reader to be a spectator and observe the action as it unfolds before him. The shift to the first-person voice distinguishes the visions portion of the book from the court stories and gives one the impression that Daniel shares excerpts from his personal journal. Daniel is standing on a promontory over looking the Mediterranean Sea with a storm brewing upon the waters (v.2). The “four winds” are the winds from the four compass points: north, east, south, and west (cf. Jer 49:36; Eze 37:9). The “great sea” is no doubt the Mediterranean Sea (cf. Eze 47:10, 15). The emergence of “four beasts” (v.3), unnatural animal figures, from the churning waters brings an “other-worldly” dimension to the vision. As Goldingay, 184, notes, “the collocation of supernatural winds, agitated sea, and huge animals suggests more than an ordinary storm in the Mediterranean.”

The cosmic nature of Daniel’s vision is widely recognized, given the shift in scene back and forth from earth to heaven. Beyond this, numerous attempts have been made to link the imagery of Daniel’s vision with the mythological literature and iconography of the ancient Near East. For example, some commentators connect the animal imagery with Mesopotamian astrological geography (e.g., Lacocque, 157; Porteous, 122). Others associate the animal imagery of Daniel’s vision with Babylonian birth omens, since the creatures are “deformed” animals in some sense as hybrids of different types of animals (cf. the discussion in Lucas, 170–71). The picture of “beasts rising out of the sea” is typically connected with the Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish, in which the gods bring order out of chaos (cf. Seow, 102), or the Canaanite mythology that pits Baal against Yam (e.g., cf. the discussion in Lucas, 169–70). Likewise the background for the imagery of the throne scene in the vision has been tied to the Baal cycle of Ugaritic mythology (e.g., Lacocque, 129–30).

Hartman and Di Lella, 212, caution, however, that “there is no need to look for any direct borrowing from ancient mythological literature . . . our author could have easily derived his idea of monsters coming up out the sea from the Bible.” Furthermore, as Goldingay, 152–53, observes, tracing the development of the ideas or motifs of Daniel’s vision to ancient Near Eastern parallels “does not in itself explain their significance . . . the sea and animals stand here not for otherworldly cosmic or cosmogonic chaos forces but for historical ones.”

The first great animal is “like a lion” with the “wings of an eagle” (v.4). The winged-lion (v.4a) was a familiar motif in Babylonian art, and the lion and eagle as symbols of speed and strength are still widely recognized. According to Goldingay, 186, “the first animal represents a large, powerful, and expansionist nation, a mortal threat to smaller peoples.” The winged lion is widely recognized as a symbol for the Babylonian Empire, a parallel to the head of gold in the earlier statue dream of King Nebuchadnezzar (2:38; cf. Redditt, 120; Gowan, 106; Miller, 197). The removal of the lion’s wings and his human characteristics may be an allusion to God’s rebuke and subsequent restoration of King Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 4; cf. Seow, 103, on the reversal of imagery in the two passages [chs. 2 and 7] and the possible rescision of God’s decision to contain the arrogant Nebuchadnezzar). Given the obscure nature of some of the symbolic descriptions of the four beasts, Russell, 116, appropriately cautions that interpretation “should not be unduly pressed.” Futurist interpretations of the animal images in ch. 7 sometimes equate the winged lion, transformed into a two-legged creature endowed with a human heart, with the United Kingdom or the United States (assuming the “heart” symbolizes democracy in some fashion; v.4b; cf. Russell, 116, on the use of animal symbols for nations in modern times).

The second beast looks “like a bear,” although it is “raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth” (v.5). The creature is given permission to rise up and eat its fill (“Arise, devour much meat!” NASB). The bear is characterized by its voracious appetite and depicted as raised on one side, perhaps to pounce on its prey (so Baldwin, 139), or simply standing on its hind legs as a show of strength (so Hartman and Di Lella, 205). Goldingay, 186, observes that the bear is huge, ungainly, and fearsome—but normally not a predator. He concludes that since the creature is encouraged to gorge its appetite, “the greedy expansionism of nations can evidently have a place within the purpose of God.”

Daniel later learns that the beasts represent earthly kingdoms (v.17), and the bear is variously interpreted as the kingdom of Media (cf. Lacocque, 140; Seow, 103–4) or as the composite Medo-Persian Empire (cf. Young, 145; Wood, 182–83). Miller, 198, based on the vision of the ram with two horns (one larger than the other) in ch. 8, prefers to interpret the image of the bear as the composite empire of Medo-Persia. This explains why the bear is raised up on one side (representing two kingdoms, with the higher side symbolizing Persia, which rose to a position of dominance in the alliance). The three ribs in the mouth of the animal may simply represent “the insatiable nature of the beast” (Young, 145), the military prowess of the kingdom generally, or the three major conquests of the Medo-Persian Empire (Lydia 546 BC; Babylonia, 539 BC; Egypt, 525 BC; see Archer, 86). Futurist interpretations of the animal images in ch. 7 often equated the bear with the former Soviet Union and now equate it with the nation of Russia.

The third animal rising out of the churning sea looks like a leopard, but it has four wings and four heads (v.6). The temporal expression “after that” (v.6a) suggests the kingdoms represented by the beasts of Daniel’s vision do not arise simultaneously but follow each other in sequence. Goldingay, 186, describes the third creature as “another fearsome predator whose natural speed is enhanced by an unusual capacity to see and swoop in any direction.” Baldwin, 140, reminds us that “like the other two beasts it is subject to an unnamed higher power. It does not achieve dominion by its own abilities” (i.e., “it was given authority to rule”; v.6d). The symbol of the leopard is variously understood historically as a reference to the Persian Empire (Redditt, 121; Seow, 104) or the empire of Alexander the Great and Greece (Archer, 86; Miller, 199–200 [with the four heads understood as a reference to the Diadochi, the four generals who divided up Alexander’s empire upon his death]). Futurist interpretations of the animal images in ch. 7 sometimes equate the leopard with some type of coalition of modern-day nations (given the four heads), whether Asian, Arab, or European states.

The fourth beast rising out of the churning sea is an unnamed animal, and its only identifying features are “iron teeth” and “ten horns” (v.7). The animal is not compared with other known creatures, thus adding to the mystery about it and suggesting that “it is an even less earthly creature that its predecessors” (Lucas, 180). The defining feature of this creature is the fact that it is “different from all the former beasts” (v.7d). The first three beasts (the lion, bear, and leopard) are all dangerous predators, but more significantly they are all described as hybrid or mutant creatures. As such they represent evil, malignant human kingdoms, and the imagery was especially repulsive to Jewish sensibilities, given God’s unique and separate creation of animals according to their “kind” (cf. Ge 1:24–25) and the ritual impurity associated with the mixing of “kinds” in the Mosaic law (cf. Lev 11; see Longman, 183; Seow, 102).

The fourth beast, however, is especially characterized as “terrifying and frightening and very powerful” (v.7a). According to Seow, 105, this difference of species in the fourth animal of the vision makes it all the more terrifying, as “the beast is a new kind of terror—something for which there is no known analogy or antecedent.” Unlike the other three creatures, this beast seems to have asserted its independence from the Almighty as the source of dominion and power in its ability wantonly to “crush” and “devour” and “trample” its victims (v.7c).

The fourth beast or kingdom is described as having “ten horns” (v.7d), but even as Daniel watches the vision unfold, an eleventh horn, one “little horn,” arises and uproots three of the original ten horns (v.8a). Beyond this, the small horn is personified as one with human eyes and a boastful mouth (v.8b). The “horn” (Aram./Heb. qeren; GK 10641) is a metaphor for power and kingship in the OT (so Seow, 105; cf. M. L. Brown, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:990–92). Montgomery, 291, has noted that these human features of eyes and a mouth are the most expressive traits of the individual person, and they “interpret the little horn as an individual.” Lucas, 180–81, further observes that a person’s eyes and speech often reveal character (cf. the “haughty eyes” and “lying tongue” heading the list of the six things that the Lord hates; Pr 6:16–19). Although no particular bent of character is explicitly attributed to the small horn, the description seems to anticipate the arrogance, irreverence, and wickedness of this little horn (vv.23–25).

The historicist interpretation alternatively understands the fourth kingdom as the Macedonian Empire inaugurated by Alexander the Great (e.g., Towner, 95–96; Lucas, 188) or as the Roman Empire (e.g., Baldwin, 147). The reference to the “little horn” is considered an allusion to the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (e.g., Lacocque, 122–23; Wallace, 130). Those favoring this view appeal to the wider context of the book of Daniel for support, since the references to the “little horn” seem consistently to depict Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. Collins, Daniel, 299, 320–21; Redditt, 122–23). Those identifying the fourth kingdom as the Roman Empire contend the parallels to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue dream (ch. 2) are more appropriate to this interpretation since the first advent of Jesus the Messiah during the Roman Empire marks the inbreaking of God’s kingdom in human history (e.g., Archer, 47–48, 87; cf. 2:44). In addition, the vision of the ram and the goat in ch. 8 seems further to explain the identity of the second and third creatures of Daniel’s vision in ch. 7 (e.g., Baldwin, 161–62; cf. summary of the Roman period interpretation in J. H. Walton, “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel,” JETS 29 [1986]: 28).

The futurist interpretation equates the little horn with the Antichrist figure and considers the fourth beast symbolic of the Roman Empire (e.g., Wood, 188). Thus, the fourth beast or final kingdom of Daniel’s vision represents the empire of the Antichrist, a ten-nation federation emanating from the old Roman Empire (e.g., Miller, 202; cf. Longman’s critique of this view, 190, rejecting the identification of four specific evil empires and preferring instead to regard the four kingdoms as symbolic of the course of history from the Babylonian exile to the climax of history). See comments on vv.23–25.

9–10 As Daniel’s vision continues, the scene shifts from the monstrous beasts emerging from the churning sea to the heavenly realm (or “mythic space” for Collins [Daniel, 303]) and the throne room of God (vv.9–10; but Goldingay, 164, argues that the judgment scene takes place on earth; cf. Gowan, 106–7). The language and style of the account shifts as well, from prose to short phrases presented in poetic parallelism (cf. Lucas, 165, 181] on arguments for the originality of the section). Seow, 106, suggests that the shift from prose in the first scene of the vision to poetry in the second may be rhetorical, “reflecting a shift from the prosaic realities of earthly experience to the sublime encounter of the heavenly court.”

Much scholarly attention has been given to the multiple “thrones” in the heavenly court (v.9), since the Hebrews recognized only one deity—Yahweh (cf. the discussion in Collins, Daniel, 299–302). The context provides rationale for plural “thrones,” since God is seated on his throne (v.9a) and the “one like a son of man” (v.13) is given an everlasting kingdom—and presumably a throne (v.14). The NT reflects this understanding of the thrones in the heavenly court in the description of Jesus as the “Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One” (Mt 26:64; Mk 14:62; cf. Lk 22:69). Redditt, 125, observes that nothing is said about the occupants of the other thrones, and they may have remained empty; “or the writer may have employed a plural form though only one throne was intended.” In either case, Anderson’s comment is cogent, 82: “there was one throne of judgment and only one, as there was one Judge and only one.”

In the OT the divine title “Ancient of Days” for God is unique to Daniel 7 (7:9, 13, 22). Literally the epithet (Aram. ʿattîq yômîn) means “advanced with regard to days” (cf. Lacocque, 135, “The-One-Who-Endures”), and similar descriptions of God may be found in later intertestamental Jewish literature (cf. 1En 46:1–2; 47:3; 98:2). The expression is an idiom for the eternality of God and in context contrasts the eternal God and his eternal kingdom with all temporary earthly kingdoms.

The white garments (v.9b) symbolize both God’s splendor and his purity (so Gowan, 107; cf. Ps 51:7; Isa 1:18). The white hair like “wool” (v.9b) also speaks to God’s majesty and splendor as well as to his experience and “old age” (so Lacocque, 143; cf. Rev 1:14). Towner, 98, comments that the color white emphasized here depicts God as “a wise and honorable judge.” The origin of the “aged-deity” motif is typically traced to Ugarit and the descriptions of El as the “patriarch” of the Canaanite pantheon (e.g., BBCOT, 741; Collins, Daniel, 301–2; Seow, 107–8). One wonders to what extent such background informs Daniel’s imagery, since the larger context of the court stories and the visions of the book are Yahweh’s supremacy over the Babylonian pantheon and his sovereignty over all earthly kingdoms (cf. Smith-Christopher, 103).

Fire is commonly associated with theophanies in the OT (e.g., Moses at the burning bush [Ex 3:2] and the Israelites at Mount Sinai [19:18]). Daniel’s vision of the throne of flaming fire and its fiery wheels (v.9c) is reminiscent of Ezekiel’s vision of God’s throne resting atop a majestic carriage (Eze 1; cf. 1En 14:15–23). The reference to the “river of fire” (v.10a) is unique to Daniel in the OT and has it closest parallel in the fire that goes out before God and consumes his enemies (perhaps lightning? cf. Ps 97:3). Fire not only “represents an awe-inspiring supernatural force” (Gowan, 107) but is also a symbol of God’s judgment, destroying everything in its path (Isa 66:15–16; Jer 21:12; Eze 21:31; cf. Lucas, 182, who comments on the “dangerous splendor” of fire and its association with divine judgment). On occasion God’s fire is a symbol of his holiness, which purifies everything in its presence (cf. Isa 1:25; Jer 6:29; Mal 3:2).

The other (rare) OT visions of the heavenly court also feature angelic attendants around the divine throne (e.g., 1Ki 22:19–22; Job 1; Isa 6; cf. Collins [Daniel, 301, 303] on parallels to the divine-council motif). Daniel sees thousands upon thousands of (angelic) beings attending God (v.10b). Towner, 99, notes that the numbers multiplied by ten to the seventh power emphasize the cosmic nature of the scene and “present Yahweh in the grandest setting possible” (cf. Rev 5:11–12).

Some scholars contend that the “books” of the throne vision (v.10c) are analogous to the Babylonian Tablets of Fate (e.g., Lacocque, 144). Lucas, 182, rightly rejects the parallel and states, “more to the point is the practice of record-keeping in ANE courts” (e.g., Ezr 4:15; Est 6:1). What is clear is that although no trial is described and no judgment is pronounced, “the opened books are records that become the basis for judgment” (Gowan, 107). The “books” Daniel sees opened are no doubt akin to the scroll or book of remembrance mentioned in Malachi 3:16, a comprehensive divine ledger containing the names and ongoing accounts of the words and deeds of all humanity (cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 218). The records of such a book (or books) serve as the basis for God’s winnowing of the righteous and the wicked (cf. Mal 3:18).

11–12 The vision reverts back to the fourth terrible beast, as Daniel’s attention is drawn to the arrogant speech of the boastful “little horn” (v.11). Lucas, 183, observes that the return to prose and the lengthy introduction formula in v.11a serve to highlight the fate of the fourth kingdom. The immediate context suggests that the slaying and destruction of the fourth beast by fire is the sentence of judgment passed by the heavenly court. Miller, 206, is probably correct in assuming that Daniel is riveted to the actions of the fourth beast because he is shocked at its insolence and arrogance and is waiting to see what will happen to this creature described as “boastful” (Aram. mālal + rab; vv.9, 11). Presumably, the boastful speech deprecating the Ancient of Days is one of the reasons for the condemnation of the beast by the heavenly court.

The burning of a corpse in the OT was a punishment reserved for those guilty of particularly heinous crimes (cf. Lev 20:14; 21:9; Jos 7:25). Although two different words are used for “fire” in the section (Aram. nûr, v.9; ʾeššāʾ, v.11), the point is the utter destruction of the fourth beast or earthly kingdom and its arrogant ruler. (But some connect the fire of v.11c with the eternal torment of hell; e.g., Miller, 206.)

The parenthetical reference to the other three beasts or kingdoms is enigmatic (v.12). Though stripped of their authority or power to rule, they persist to exist in some form for a time. Miller, 206, suggests this may imply that these kingdoms continue to exert some cultural influence or perhaps regain some form of independence short of dominance. Porteous, 109–10, speculates that these kingdoms are among the nations who become vassals to the saints of the Most High. Lucas, 183, more appropriately calls attention to two theological truths set forth here: first, God’s judgment is just—since the fourth beast is “different” (v.7) from the others it receives the punishment it deserves; second, God has promised that Israel will rule over her former oppressors and the nations will serve her—as 7:14, 27 indicate (cf. Heaton, 181–82).

13–14 After the destruction of the fourth beast or kingdom, a humanlike figure appears in Daniel’s vision (v.13). The introductory formula (“in my vision at night I looked,” v.13a) echoes the formula introducing the vision (v.2a) and forms an envelope for the literary unit (vv.2–14). The construction serves to underscore the importance of the final scene as the climax of Daniel’s vision. The humanlike figure is described as one like “a son of man” (v.13b). The expression “son of man” (Aram. bar ʾenāš) is idiomatic for a human being (cf. the ninety-plus references to Ezekiel as “son of man” [Heb. ben ʾādām], denoting his prophetic role as representative Israelite and ultimately a human being; Eze 2:1, 3; etc.).

According to Baldwin, 142, “the effect of the idiom is to intensify the quality in question, so that ‘son of man’ lays stress on the humanity of the person (Ps 146:3).” Collins (Daniel, 305) states that “like a son of man” in v.13 “is best understood as indicating the mode of perception proper to a vision, so that ‘like a son of man’ means ‘a human figure seen in a vision,’ where the figure may or may not represent something other than a human being.” Baldwin, 143, further notes that “he is like a human being, just as the beasts were ‘like’ a lion or a bear . . . the one who comes with the clouds is like a human being in the sense that he is what every human being should be if he is true to type, that is, one who is made in the image of God.”

Clouds are frequently connected with theophanies in the OT (e.g., the Sinai event; Ex 16:10; 19:9; cf. Lev 16:2; Dt 1:33; 1Ki 8:10; Isa 19:1). Typically, the motif of God as “riding clouds” is discussed against its ancient Near Eastern background, especially descriptions of the Canaanite storm-god Baal as a “rider of clouds” (cf. Collins [Daniel, 286–94], who contends that Canaanite myths provide the most adequate background for understanding the motifs of Daniel 7). Lucas, 173–76, acknowledges possible connections between Canaanite mythology and the imagery of the throne scene in Daniel 7, yet he concludes, “it is used in Daniel to express a distinctively Jewish understanding of Yahweh’s rule and purposes.” One still wonders, especially in view of the second-century BC date assigned to Daniel by critical scholars, about the influence of Canaanite mythology on literature more than ten centuries removed from the fact. Beyond this, Gowan, 105, admits that no “son of man” tradition has been found outside Daniel 7, indicating a distinctiveness for the biblical record apart from Canaanite mythology.

Longman, 198, affirms that the “clouds” (v.13b) “signal the divine status of this human-like figure” (cf. Miller, 208). The “son of man” figure approaches the Ancient of Days and is led into his presence, presumably following the conventions of “entrance protocol” (v.13c). Daniel then witnesses the investiture of this one like a human being with absolute power and supreme authority as sovereign over all humanity (v.14). The Ancient of Days grants the “son of man” figure authority, glory, and sovereign power so that the nations worship him (v.14a). In contrast to the human kingdoms swept away by divine judgment, the “son of man” figure receives an eternal and indestructible kingdom (v.14b).

Daniel’s throne-scene vision affirms the truths set forth in the statue-dream of Nebuchadnezzar that God alone is sovereign and that he will establish an eternal kingdom (cf. 2:20–22). Seow, 109, draws parallels between the “rock cut . . . not by human hands” (2:34, 44–45) with the “son of man” figure, since both represent the “divine response to the threat of domination by pernicious earthly powers.” Longman, 188, summarizes that Daniel’s vision is more than a description of the realms of human evil and divine judgment, since “it also narrates a conflict between the two, with a certain and clear conclusion.”

Commentators are not content to leave the figure of “one like a human being” as merely a symbol of God’s rule breaking into human history. Following the interpretive analogy of the four beasts representing human kingdoms, it is assumed that the “son of man” figure must have some historical referent as well. This has led to numerous attempts to identify this figure. The list of potential candidates put forth by scholars includes a Davidic king, a priestly figure, the high priest, the angel Michael, the angel Gabriel, the nation of Israel, the righteous remnant of Israel, the angelic host, or even the Messiah (cf. Baldwin, 148–54; Redditt, 127). According to Lucas, 185, the earliest interpretations of the “son of man” figure were individualistic and messianic, but such is not the case today.

Since the NT associates the “son of man” figure with Jesus as “the Son of Man,” traditional Christian scholarship has determined that “only one person may be properly identified as the “son of man,” and that person is Jesus Christ” (Miller, 209; cf. Young, 293–94). Redditt, 127, remarks, however, that Daniel 7:14 does not use the “son of man” figure as the technical title “the Son of Man,” and NT Christology does not determine the meaning of the reference in Daniel (cf. Goldingay, 190–93). At the very least, the “son of man” in Daniel 7 “is not only king but God, though, as is characteristic of apocalyptic style, this is conveyed in veiled terms” (Baldwin, 154).

NOTE

12 Archer, 91, notes that the expression “for a period of time” combines two Aramaic words for time, (zeman; GK 10232) and (ʿiddān; GK 10530). The first refers to an appropriate time for something to happen or an appointed time (i.e., “event” time), while the latter refers to time as duration or as the interval between set points of measurement (i.e., “clock” time). The LXX’s rendering of Daniel 7:12 bears this out, employing καιρός (kairos; “time as opportunity for event”) for zeman and χρόνος (chronos; “time as the interval of time between two points of measurement”) for ʿiddān. According to Archer, as used here the expression “probably implies ‘up to the appointed length of time and to the appointed moment of time’ when the four beasts (or kingdoms) will have lived out their various periods of supremacy and come to the time appointed for their destruction” (cf. NASB’s “an appointed period of time”). Lucas, 162, however, explains the expression simply as a hendiadys.

3. Interpretation of the Dream (7:15–27)

15“I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this.

“So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17‘The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth. 18But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’

19“Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, 22until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

23“He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.

26“‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

COMMENTARY

15–18 The interpretation of Daniel’s dream is given in two parts. The first part (vv.15–18) reports Daniel’s distress over the experience of his vision (v.15) and his need for an interpreter of the strange images he has seen (v.16). The vision has scared Daniel both because he does not fully understand it (Redditt, 129) and because he is an empathetic visionary—“one who shares the terror of the world that is being judged” (Seow, 109). The same type of physical, psychological, and emotional reaction to the experience of divine revelation is recorded elsewhere in the book (e.g., 8:17; 9:20; 10:7, 15–16). Baldwin, 143, reminds us that “the personal cost of receiving divine revelation is never underestimated in the Old Testament.”

Daniel saw “thousands” of angelic attendants around the throne of God in his vision of the heavenly realm after witnessing the beasts rising out of the sea (v.10). Presumably, “one of those standing there” (v.16), whom Daniel approaches for help in understanding the meaning of his vision, is one of these angelic attendants (cf. Russell, 129). The prophet Zechariah received similar aid from an unnamed angelic interpreter (cf. Zec 1:9; 2:3). Later Daniel will receive help from an angel named Gabriel in the interpretation of another vision (8:16; 9:21), prompting Miller, 211, to speculate that Gabriel may be represented here as well.

The interpreting angel offers a simple summary of the entire vision: the beasts are kingdoms or human governments that will rise from the earth (v.17), but God will conquer all these kingdoms and his saints will receive an eternal kingdom (v.18). Although the conflict associated with the rise and fall of these human kingdoms is inescapable, the outcome is certain. The emphatic repetition of “forever—yes, for ever and ever” (v.18) is a superlative expression and indicates “continued possession” (Young, 158; cf. Redditt, 130). Smith-Christopher, 104, represents the critical view that contends Daniel’s interest in the fourth beast or kingdom is due to the fact that “it was the beast with which they are currently contending.” The traditional view, however, explains Daniel’s interest in the fourth beast (a kingdom yet to arise in the future) as justifiable concern for the implications of the rule of the terrible fourth beast for the people of Israel (cf. Wallace, 135; Baldwin, 145). Futurist interpreters of ch. 7 struggle to reconcile the “eternal kingdom” of v.18 with the “millennial kingdom” of the NT (Rev 20:1–6; cf. Wood, 197; Miller, 211).

19–27 Daniel has received a general explanation of the meaning of the four beasts from the interpreting angel, but he expresses further curiosity about the fourth beast, the most terrible of all the animal figures (vv.19–22). The repetition of the original vision (vv.19–20; cf. vv.7–8) has its parallel in the recitation of the contents of the dreams in chs. 2 and 4. Daniel’s recounting of the vision to the interpreting angel reveals additional details about the fourth terrible beast, including its “bronze claws” (v.19) and specific actions of the “little horn” (v.20). Beyond this, Daniel sees the “little horn” waging war against the saints and defeating them (v.21).

This scene continues until “the Ancient of Days” (see v.9) intervenes and pronounces judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High (v.22a). The success of the “little horn” against the saints ends abruptly, at which time they take possession of the kingdom (v.22b). Redditt, 131, observes that Daniel reports no battle, only the word of divine judgment by which the “little horn” is defeated and the saints are awarded the kingdom (v.22). According to Baldwin, 145, Daniel’s vision continues even while he queries the interpreting angel about the meaning of the fourth beast. The reference to the “little horn” prevailing over the saints (v.21) foreshadows the fuller account of the conflict presented in Daniel’s vision of the ram and the goat (8:24). The point of its brief mention here seems to be one of assurance for Daniel that the downfall of the saints of the Most High will be temporary.

23–25 At this point in Daniel’s vision, the interpreting angel proceeds to explain the meaning of the fourth terrible beast (vv.23–25). Like the other animals of Daniel’s vision, the fourth beast is an earthly kingdom that will arise (presumably after the other three kingdoms; v.23a). Emphasis is placed on two features of this kingdom: first, it is “different” from all the other kingdoms; second, it wreaks destruction over the whole earth. Gowan, 106, sees the “difference” between the fourth kingdom and the previous three as lying in its origin, since it (Greece) represents a European rather than an Asiatic empire. Goldingay, 186–87, links the “difference” between the fourth beast and the previous three to the immediate context and observes that the fourth kingdom is likened to no animal species; it is portrayed as explicitly fearsome and destructive—the chief difference being that this kingdom is “more bellicose” than its predecessors. Baldwin, 146, agrees, noting that the verbs “trampling” (Aram. dwš) and “crushing” (Aram. dqq; v.23) “imply wanton destruction.”

The ten horns on the head of the beast (vv.7, 20) represent ten kings who will rule over this kingdom or empire since it “devours” the whole earth (v.23). It is unclear whether these ten kings rule in succession, since three of the ten are subdued by an “eleventh” king (perhaps suggesting the three rule simultaneously, v.24b). The “little horn” (v.8) or “other horn” (v.20) represents an “eleventh” king (v.24), who is described as “different” from the previous kings and who will subdue three kings (v.24bc). This difference is explained by the following verse—the “eleventh” king is marked by his arrogance and godlessness (v.25).

The four characteristics marking the rule of this “eleventh” king are summarized by Baldwin, 146: speaking against or blaspheming the Most High (v.25a); oppressing the saints of the Most High or long, drawn-out persecution (“wear down the saints” or “wear out” like a garment, NASB; v.25b; cf. Miller, 214); attempting to change the “set times” or implement a new table of religious festivals (v.25c; cf. Redditt, 131, who identifies the “sacred seasons” [NRSV] as the Sabbath and annual festivals); and attempting to change the laws or impose a new morality (v.25d; this assumes that the word “laws” [NIV, though the Aram. dāt is singular] refers to the Mosaic code; cf. Goldingay, 146, n. 25.b-b, who understands “times and law” as a type of hendiadys meaning “times set by decree”).

The saints of the Most High will be handed over to this blasphemous king for a specified amount of time, namely, “a time, times, and half a time” (v.25e). The expression is generally taken to mean a period of three and a half years (so Collins, Daniel, 322; cf. Redditt, 131, who notes the word “time” [Aram. ʿiddān] can mean “year” on the basis of 8:14 and 9:27 but that word is less precise than the word šenâ, meaning “year”). Some commentators relate the three-and-a-half years to the period between the desecration of the temple by Anitochus IV Epiphanes (15 Chislev in year 145 of the Seleucid era, or December 6, 167 BC) and its purification by Judas Maccabeus (25 Chislev in year 148 of the Seleucid era, or December 14, 164 BC)—a time span of three years and eight days (e.g., Hartman and Di Lella, 215–16). Yet Lucas, 194, prefers to understand the numbers symbolically, since three “as half of the perfect number, seven . . . denotes a short period of evil.”

As discussed above, the fourth beast or kingdom of Daniel’s vision is variously interpreted as Macedonia or Greece (continued under the Ptolemies and Seleucids) or the Roman Empire. Those interpreting the fourth beast as the kingdom of Greece tend to agree that Antiochus IV, son of Antiochus III and brother of Seleucus IV, is the “little horn” who oppresses the people of God (vv.8, 20, 24–25). These scholars disagree, however, on the identification of the “ten horns” or “ten kings” associated with the fourth beast (vv.7, 20, 24). Hartman and Di Lella, 216–17, view the “ten kings” as contemporaries of Antiochus IV (cf. Lucas, 193, for alternative suggestions concerning the identity of the “ten kings”). Others identify the “ten kings” as ten successive rulers from Alexander the Great to Seleucus IV (e.g., Goldingay, 180).

The “three horns” that were uprooted (vv.8, 20, 24) are interpreted as Seleucus IV and his two sons (so Collins, Daniel, 321), though there is no direct historical evidence linking Antiochus IV to the assassination of Seleucus IV (cf. Lucas, 193). In this interpretation, the “eyes” of the “little horn” (v.20) allude to his covetousness for the Seleucid throne, and its arrogant mouth (vv.8, 20, 25) refers to “the infamous blasphemy of his self-designation as ‘God Manifest’ [i.e., Epiphanes]” (Seow, 111).

Those scholars interpreting the fourth beast of Daniel’s vision as the Roman Empire equate the “little horn” with an “antichrist” figure who will rule over some form of a “revived” Roman Empire (cf. Young, 160–62; Wood, 200–203; Miller, 213–16). The futurist interpretation recognizes that the kingdom of God did not come in its fullness after the death of Antiochus IV (unless one opts for the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty as a partial fulfillment of Da 7; cf. Gowan, 114–15). Likewise, the kingdom of God did not come in its fullness during the Roman Empire of the first century AD (although the first advent of Jesus the Messiah clearly inaugurated the kingdom of God; cf. Mk 1:14–15). Thus, the futurist interpretation contends, “since the Lord’s return puts an end to the rule of these horns (vv.13–14), the ten kings must reign at the end of the present age” (Miller, 213).

Typically, Daniel’s vision of the fourth beast, with its ten horns, is compared to the ten-horned confederacy led by a beast described in Revelation 13 and 17. The two groups of ten horns are understood to symbolize the same empire, and the little horn and the beast are regarded as merely “different figures for the same evil leader, the Antichrist” (Miller, 216). Longman, 190, 198, acknowledges that this approach has much to commend it “in the light of later, fuller biblical revelation.”

26–27 The dominion of the little horn ends almost as quickly as it began, as its power is taken away and it is completely destroyed (v.26). Goldingay, 181, reminds us that the death and destruction of the fourth creature (v.11) is directly linked to the vanquishing of the authority of the king symbolized by the beast’s small horn. The reference to the “court” (v.26) harkens back to the throne room scene (vv.9–11), in which God presides as the Judge of the earth (cf. Pss 82:8; 94:2; 96:13) and the heavenly court of angelic beings sits (or stands) before him (cf. 1Ki 22:19; Jer 23:18, 22).

The kingdom of God, the Most High, will take the place of the fourth creature or earthly kingdom destroyed by the judgment pronounced by the heavenly court (v.27a). This divine kingdom will be universal and eternal (v.27b). Human authorities and kingdoms will still exist in some form, but they will worship and obey God (v.27c; cf. Isa 60:6–9; Zec 14:16). Here Daniel’s vision of the four creatures and Nebuchadnezzar’s statue dream are in concord—after a series of earthly kingdoms God will demonstrate his absolute sovereignty by establishing an eternal and universal kingdom (cf. 2:44).

Baldwin, 146, correctly recognizes that v.27 is an interpretation of v.14 and that there is some relationship between “the saints, the people of the Most High” (v.27a; cf. NASB, “the people of the saints of the Highest One”) and the “son of man” (v.14). The word for “saints” (lit., “holy ones”; Aram. qaddîšîn; GK 10620) is unusual, and elsewhere in Daniel it refers to angelic beings (cf. 4:13, 17, 23). Three possible meanings of the expression have emerged in the scholarly debate: “holy ones” may refer to the company of celestial beings or angels; it may refer to the faithful element among the people of Israel as the people of God; or it may refer to both angels and human beings assimilated into a community of “saints” to whom God will give his kingdom (see the discussions in Russell, 130–32; Goldingay, 181–82).

Russell, 131, admits that the NT takes up the same theme “where there is no doubt about the identity of ‘the saints’: they are Christ’s people, the Church.” Goldingay, 182, eschews Daniel 7 as “messianic eschatology.” Yet in light of the NT it is difficult not to side with those interpreters who connect Daniel’s vision concerning the “son of man,” who receives a “kingdom” from the Most High (v.14) and who shares his dominion in some fashion with the “holy ones” (v.27), with Jesus the Messiah (cf. Wallace, 125–28; Miller, 216–17).

Finally, Smith-Christopher, 105–6, cautions against an overzealous reading of the “reversal of fortune motif” (i.e., the saints who were delivered over to persecution by the rulers of earthly kingdoms [v.25] are subsequently given the kingdom of God [v.27]) that results in a vengeful tone, lest we forget that God’s final rule will be one of peace and healing for the nations (cf. Eze 47:12; Rev 22:2). Note that Jesus inaugurated the kingdom by teaching peace and healing all manner of diseases (Mt 4:23; Jn 14:27; 16:33; cf. Lk 1:79; 2:14).

NOTES

18 The expression “the saints of the Most High” is difficult, since one would normally expect the singular form of the divine name, Aramaic (ʿelyôn, “Most High”), instead of the plural form (ʿelyônîn; cf. Lucas, 162–63). Montgomery, 308, explained the plural form as a “plural of majesty” and recognized the construction as a Hebraism in Aramaic (so Lacocque, 149). Collins (Daniel, 312) argues for the traditional translation of the construct chain as well, suggesting the plural is “a plural of manifestations” (cf. his discussion of “Holy Ones,” 313–17). Goldingay, 146, 177–78, considers the plural divine epithet a second plural form in the construct chain used when the entire expression is plural and indeterminate, and he renders the expression adjectivally or epexegetically as “holy ones on high,” in reference to celestial beings rather than earthly ones. See the discussion of the word “saints” (Aram. [qaddîšîn], in the comments on vv.26–27).

25 The combination of verbs (sbr, “to strive”) and (šnh, “to change”) in the clause “to change the set times and the laws” suggests that the king’s initiatives to implement these changes to the Hebrew calendar and law failed or were only partially successful (cf. Miller, 214). Baldwin, 146, reminds us that the passive form of the Aramaic verb (yhb (“be handed over”) indicates that one greater than this “little horn” is in control.

4. Conclusion (7:28)

28“This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself.”

COMMENTARY

28 The closing formula has parallels in Ecclesiastes 12:13 and Jeremiah 51:64. The expression closes the account of the vision in ch. 7 as the counterpart to the report of Daniel’s recording of the vision in v.1b (cf. Heaton, 190, who posited that the closing formula once marked the end of the book of Daniel). Smith-Christopher, 106, states that experiencing such a vision would naturally be exhausting, but he finds Daniel’s alarm puzzling since the vision is somewhat positive as far as God’s people are concerned. He wonders whether “the experience of seeing such a vision of holiness and power itself, though positive, gives rise to fearful awe.” Seow, 113, notes that Daniel is already disturbed and terrified by the visions while in his dream state (cf. v.15). He speculates that Daniel’s troubled spirit is due either to the enormity of the evil threat to God’s people presented by the images of the vision (especially the “little horn”; vv.7–8), or to there being no clear indication of when the oppression of the holy ones of the Most High will end (Seow, 113).

Most commentators agree with Lucas, 194, in understanding the report of Daniel’s perplexity over the vision as an encouragement to the audience (or reader) to expect more to come in order to clarify the meaning of the vision (cf. Porteous, 117; Lacocque, 155). Since Daniel has written down the vision (v.1), Seow suggests that he keeps the matter to himself (v.28c) in the sense “that he did not lose sight of it; he kept on pondering it.”

B. The Ram and the Goat (8:1–27)

OVERVIEW

The Aramaic section of Daniel opened and closed with a preview of world history, a series of four earthly kingdoms replaced by a fifth heavenly kingdom (2:4–49 and 7:1–28; see comments on 7:1). Daniel’s second vision (ch. 8) not only marks the resumption of the Hebrew portion of the book, but it also signals a narrowing of the focus of God’s revelation to his servant. In contrast to the earlier pattern of four distinct animals used to represent four realms or kingdoms, the vision of ch. 8 features only two animal figures symbolizing but two earthly empires. The setting of the vision shifts as well, presumably from Babylon (7:1) to Susa (8:2). The date formula (v.1) sets the vision during the third year of King Belshazzar (ca. 551 or 550 BC), which means the events of ch. 8 actually precede the events recorded in ch. 5 of the book.

Baldwin, 155, has observed that 550 BC was a significant year in ancient Mesopotamia, for in that year Cyrus broke free from his alliance to Astyages the Mede and established the joint kingdom of the Medes and Persians. This is the same Cyrus whom Isaiah the prophet identified as “the LORD’s anointed” (cf. Isa 45:1) and who would serve God’s purposes in restoring his captive people Israel to their homeland from Babylonian exile (Ezra 1:1–4). Daniel’s last vision occurred during the reign of Cyrus the Great, king of Persia (cf. 10:1).

The literary form of ch. 8 is symbolic vision report (Lucas, 208). In fact, the word “vision” occurs six times in the passage (vv.1, 2 [2x], 13, 15, 26). Similarly to ch. 7, ch. 8 employs several introductory formulas to mark transitions in the narrative, including the lengthy visionary formula used to introduce the ram and the goat (vv.3, 5), and the “I, Daniel” formula (i.e., the proper name reinforced by the first-person pronoun) found at the beginning of the vision (v.1), the beginning of the interpretation of the vision (v.15), and the end of the vision (v.27; cf. Goldingay, 204–5). The structure of ch. 8 is also similar to that of ch. 7, but here there is only a single interpretation of the vision instead of a two-stage explanation. A new feature is the formal introduction or the “epiphany” of the interpreter of the vision (vv.15–18). Both Goldingay, 205–6, and Lucas, 209–10, highlight repeated words and phrases that unify the different sections of the pericope and set the tone for the chapter—namely, “power and conflict.”

As a follow-up to the disturbing contents of Daniel’s previous vision (ch. 7, especially the persecution of the saints of the Most High, v.25), the vision of ch. 8 addresses the question of “how long” the rebellious “little horn” will oppress the people of God (vv.13–14). The contents of the vision may be outlined: introduction (vv.1–2), symbolic vision (vv.3–14), appearance of the interpreter (vv.15–19), message of the interpreter (vv.20–26), and conclusion (v.27).

1. Introduction (8:1–2)

1In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. 2In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal.

COMMENTARY

1 Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, who ruled Babylonia from ca. 556–539 BC. Belshazzar ruled as coregent or deputy for more than half of Nabonidus’s seventeen-year reign, given the latter’s ten-year hiatus in Tema in northwestern Arabia (see comments on 5:1–4.)

In the OT the word “vision” (Heb. ḥāzôn; GK 2606) is associated with receiving revelation from God (e.g., Isa 1:1; Na 1:1). The term refers both to the experience of the thing(s) seen (i.e., the images of the vision itself) and the effects of the vision on the seer (cf. the report in v.27 indicating Daniel was exhausted and ill after the vision). According to Redditt, 117, “the difference between dreams and visions is clear: dreams typically come while one is asleep, while visions come while one is in a state of altered consciousness.” It is also possible for the seer to be transported to another geographical location during the experience of a vision (as Daniel is transported from Babylon to Susa in Elam, v.2; cf. Eze 8:2–3). Lacocque, 158, understands the expression “a vision appeared” (Heb. ḥāzôn nir ʾâ) to signify both a visual and an auditory experience for the seer (cf. vv.13, 16).

The repetition of verbs of “seeing” (vv.1, 3–5, 7) “conveys something of the involvement of the seer’s consciousness as he oriented himself first to the fact that he was receiving a vision, then to his geographical surroundings, and finally to the particular image presented to his gaze” (Baldwin, 155). The expression “after the one that had already appeared to me” (v.1; i.e., the vision of ch. 7) indicates the sequencing of God’s revelation to Daniel, but no indication is given as to the time of day of Daniel’s vision—only that he is in a “deep sleep” (v.18).

2 The introduction further specifies that the setting for this vision is the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam in the proximity of the Ulai Canal (v.2). The city of Susa (Heb. šûšan, but called “Susa” by the Greeks) was situated some 220 miles east of Babylon and 150 miles north of the Persian Gulf. Susa was the capital of Elam at the time of Daniel’s vision and became a Persian royal city, used by Persian kings as a winter residence. King Darius I made Susa the administrative capital of the Persian Empire in 521 BC. The term “citadel” (Heb. bîrâ) may refer to a temple (e.g., 1Ch 29:1, 19), a fortress within a city (sometimes situated on an acropolis; cf. Ne 2:8), or a city itself as a “fortress-city.” Goldingay, 196, notes that the word is used in apposition to Susa, thus denoting Susa as a fortress-city (cf. Ne 1:1; Est 1:2).

The province of Elam, later known as Susiana, was the region northeast of the lower Tigris River (now located in modern-day Iran). The city of Susa bordered the Ulai Canal, an artificial river nearly a thousand feet wide, on the northeast. According to Baldwin, 156, the name was given later to the Abi-diz waterway to the east of Susa down which Alexander sailed his fleet.

2. Vision Report (8:3–14)

3I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. 4I watched the ram as he charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against him, and none could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great.

5As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

9Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. 10It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. 11It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. 12Because of rebellion, the host ⌞of the saints⌟ and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.

13Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?”

14He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”

COMMENTARY

3–4 The first image Daniel sees in his vision is a ram (v.3). Unlike the unclean hybrid animals that emerged from the sea in Daniel’s dream (ch. 7), the ram is considered a clean animal according to the Hebrew ritual purity laws (cf. Ex 29:1). The only unusual feature of the ram is the unevenness in the length of its horns. The ram’s power is irresistible, and it charges at will in three directions—west, north, and south (v.4a). Unrestrained, the ram does as it pleases and “became great” (v.4b). Goldingay, 209, notes that there is nothing inherently wrong with doing great things, but when “become great” (Heb. hîgdîl) is used of human beings “it tends to suggest arrogance . . . or at least achievement at someone else’s expense.” Since leaders are sometimes symbolized by animals in the OT (e.g., rams and goats; cf. Eze 34:17), there is already something ominous about this ram even before Daniel hears the vision’s interpretation.

5–8 The second image Daniel sees in his vision is that of a goat with a prominent horn between 8its eyes (v.5a). The goat appears suddenly from the west and is notable for its swift movement, “crossing the whole earth without touching the ground” (v.5b). The goat charges and attacks the ram as it stands by the canal, breaking off its two horns, knocking it to the ground, and then trampling over it (vv.6–7). The rage of the goat and the fury of the attack are details Daniel notes as he watches the action unfold before him. Even as there was no one to rescue the helpless from the power of the ram (v.4), so there is no one to rescue the ram from the power of the goat (v.7d). The goat becomes greater than the ram (Heb. hîgdîl ʿad meʾōd, “magnified himself exceedingly,” NASB), but at the zenith of its power the goat’s large horn is broken off (v.8a). As Daniel watches, four “prominent horns” grow up in its place and spread themselves toward the “four winds of heaven” or the four primary points of the compass (v.8b).

9–12 This is not the end of the vision, however, as another horn grows out of one of the four horns now on the goat (v.9a). This horn begins small but grows “in power,” encroaching to the south, to the east, and toward the “Beautiful Land” (Heb. haṣṣebî; v.9b). Ezekiel calls the land of Israel “the most beautiful of all lands” (Heb. ṣebî), “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Eze 20:6, 15). The horn continues to grow until it reaches the heavens, “and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them” (v.10).

The “starry host” is the panoply of stars in the heavens (Lucas, 215; cf. Dt 17:3). According to Baldwin, 157, “the little horn, in reaching for the stars, is claiming equality with God” (cf. Goldingay, 210); but she goes on to say that the reference to the stars could allude to rival earthly rulers whose kingdoms fall as the little horn grows in power. Miller, 226, understands the “starry host” as a symbolic representation of the Hebrews in Palestine who are persecuted by Antiochus IV. Collins (Daniel, 333) admits the expression is difficult but sees the “starry host” as a mythic-realistic symbol for the angels or their visual representations. What does seem clear is that the phrase “starry host” points in some fashion “to the transcendent dimension of the conflict between Antiochus and the Jews” (Lucas, 215).

This horn continues to exalt itself as though it is the “Prince of the host” (v.11a). The “Prince of the host” may refer to the high priest or the priesthood generally, since priests officiated at the daily sacrificial ritual in the Jerusalem temple (cf. Goldingay, 209–11). Most recent commentators, however, understand the “Prince of the host” to refer to God himself as “LORD of hosts” (cf. Lucas, 216). The horn has the power to halt the daily sacrifice at the Prince’s sanctuary; thus he “brings low” the sanctuary by interrupting the daily worship that takes place there (v.11b). The phrase “daily sacrifices” (Heb. hattāmîd, “regular sacrifice,” NASB) is a technical expression for the daily morning and evening sacrifices prescribed in the Mosaic law (Ex 29:38–42), and by this “one word the whole sacrificial system is implied” (Baldwin, 157).

The opening phrase of v.12, “because of rebellion” (“on account of transgression,” NASB), is obscure (cf. Miller, 226; Lucas, 206). The word “rebellion” or “transgression” (Heb. pāšaʿ) suggests that the horn’s tyrannical rule over God’s people is divine retribution for Israel’s (unspecified) sin. If so, it helps explain the placement of Daniel’s prayer of confession immediately after the vision of the ram and the goat (although the date formula places the event a dozen years or so after the vision; cf. 9:1).

No doubt disturbing for Daniel is the idea that the horn “prospered in everything it did” (v.12b). But as Seow, 124, reminds us, the passive verb in the clause “[the host . . . and the daily sacrifice] were given” (v.12a; Heb. ntn [niphal]) “is a circumlocution for divine agency.” As in the case with the passive verbal construction seen previously in 7:25, someone greater than the “little horn” is in control (cf. Baldwin, 146). Daniel also learns that during the trampling of the Beautiful Land by the renegade horn, “truth was thrown to the ground” (“it will fling truth to the ground,” NASB; v.12c)—probably a reference to the Torah, the law of Moses (cf. Lucas, 217).

13–14 Lucas, 217, notes that these verses provide a “heavenly” perspective on the events described in the vision, much like throne room scene in the previous vision (cf. 7:9–10). Daniel overhears (presumably) the end of a conversation between two heavenly beings (v.13). The “holy one” (Heb. qādôš) is an angelic being similar to the “holy one” (Aram. qaddîš) in 4:13, 23 (cf. Collins, Daniel, 335; see also Notes on 4:13). The prophet Zechariah has a similar experience of listening in on an angelic conversation (cf. Zec 2:3–8). Lacocque, 163, understands the expression as an “angelized Saint,” erroneously equating the “holy one” with the “host” (Heb. ṣābāʾ) or army of Israel in v.12.

The question posed by the heavenly messenger is not “why?” but “how long?” This question is a feature of the lament psalm and is echoed at times in the OT prophets (e.g., Isa 6:11; Jer 12:4; Zec 1:12; cf. Collins, Daniel, 326). Lucas, 218, finds a parallel between the question in Daniel 8:13 and Zechariah 1:12, since both are a call for God’s mercy on Jerusalem (cf. Porteous, 126). Baldwin, 158, interprets the angelic conversation as a word of encouragement, for it “presupposes that God is limiting the triumph of evil.” The remainder of v.13 summarizes the preceding account of the events associated with the “small horn” (vv.9–12), though as Baldwin, 158, observes, the “trampling of the host and the sanctuary” (v.13b) adds further detail to the narrative.

Curiously, the angel answers directly to Daniel (“He said to me”; v.14). Logic might expect the answer to be directed to the other angelic being (cf. the ancient versions, “He said to him”; see Montgomery, 342; Collins, Daniel, 326). Either “the seer is asking the same question” as the other angelic being, or the answering angel anticipates a similar query from Daniel (Baldwin, 158).

The answer to the question of “how long?” is given in relationship to the termination of the daily sacrifices mentioned previously (v.11). The “2300 evenings and mornings” (v.14) compute to 1150 days when the total number is divided by the twice-daily sacrifices, offered each evening and morning. (The evening to morning rhythm of time for the Hebrews is based on the creation account pattern of “evening and morning” constituting a “day” [Ge 1:5].) The length of time indicated for the “prospering” of the small horn of the vision is just shy of three and a half years (thirty-eight months and ten days, though the Greek and Latin versions calculate the “evening–morning” idiom as two thousand three hundred days). The verbal form rendered “reconsecrated” is unique to v.14 (Heb. ṣdq [Niphal]). Collins (Daniel, 336) translates it “set right,” and “the versions give the clearer paraphrase, ‘cleansed.’” Goldingay, 210, summarizes the vision by commenting that the “army, sanctuary, and truth are all portrayed as victims of the goat’s charging and butting.”

NOTE

11–12 Montgomery, 335, comments that vv.11–12 “constitute crescendo the most difficult short passage of the book.” Heaton, 194, describes the same two verses as “the most puzzling of the whole book.” Lucas, 216, goes on to note, “there are problems with gender concord, verbal tenses and general syntax . . . not to mention debate about the intended referents” (see his discussion, 206; cf. Goldingay, 197–98, notes 11.a–11.d-d and 12.a-a–12.b-b).

3. Interpretation of the Vision (8:15–26)

a. Appearance of the interpreting angel (8:15–18)

15While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. 16And I heard a man’s voice from the Ulai calling, “Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision.”

17As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.”

18While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet.

COMMENTARY

15–18 It is unclear whether Daniel has returned to a state of consciousness after the vision of the ram and the goat. The first-person report suggests that the seer has awakened, since the narrative indicates he is in the process of reflecting on the vision and “trying to understand it” (v.15a). Either way, Baldwin, 158, states, “he was soon back in a visionary state and saw before him a man-like figure.” The figure who interrupts Daniel’s thought process is described as “one who looked like a man” (v.15b). The term “man” (Heb. geber) may mean “young man” or “strong man,” “a rather macho word for a male . . . but comes to denote a man who is strong in and because of his relationship to God” (Goldingay, 214). Miller, 231, says the word “describes a ‘mighty’ being in human form,” but he misconstrues the figure as God himself rather than an angelic being.

The human voice that speaks to Daniel from the waters (or above the waters) of the Ulai Canal (cf. v.2; see Miller, 231, on “from the Ulai”) is usually identified as the voice of God introducing the angel Gabriel to the seer (v.16a; cf. Goldingay, 214; Lucas, 219). Collins (Daniel, 336), however, contends that the “human voice” (Heb. qôl-ʾādām) represents an “angelic voice” (cf. Redditt, 141: “the speaker is either God or one of the two holy ones”). The intervention of the celestial being anticipates Daniel’s as-yet unasked question, “What does the vision mean?” (v.16b).

Commentators acknowledge the clear wordplay between the phrase for the figure who “looks like a man” (Heb. kemar ʾēh-gāber) and the name “Gabriel” (Heb. gabrî ʾēl). The name Gabriel is usually understood to mean “man of God” (e.g., Hartman and Di Lella, 227), but Collins (Daniel, 336) prefers the meaning “God is my hero/warrior.” Only in Daniel in the OT are angels named (Gabriel in 8:16; 9:21; Michael in 10:13, 21; 12:1). Both names are attested in the list of archangels in the Jewish pseudepigraphical book of 1 Enoch—another reason critical scholars date the book of Daniel to the later intertestamental period of Judaism.

Daniel’s response to the approach of the interpreting angel is one of terror and change of posture, from standing erect to prostration (v.17a). Such a reaction is not atypical of angelic epiphanies and theophanies in recognition of other-worldly majesty (e.g., Jos 5:14; Eze 1:28). The angel Gabriel addresses Daniel as “son of man” (Heb. ben-ʾādām; v.17b). The phrase means “a mere mortal” and “emphasizes Daniel’s weakness and mortality” (Miller, 231; cf. Redditt, 142). Daniel’s prostration at the theophany and his address as a “son of man” link his experience with that of the prophet Ezekiel (cf. Eze 1:28; 2:1, 3; 3:23). Goldingay, 216, recognizes that the phrase “the time of the end” (v.17b) “is a more allusive expression.” Certainly the expression refers to the end of the persecution of Israel by the “small horn” of the vision in answer to the question posed earlier in v.13 (cf. Baldwin, 159; Seow, 127). Beyond this, Goldingay, 216, suggests that the phrase also hints at “the End . . . the end of an era . . . the closing scene of this history of Israel and the nations . . . and the moment of final judgment.”

Daniel’s prostration before the interpreting angel produces the effect of a “deep sleep” (v.18). The verb (Heb. rdm; GK 8101) depicts a trancelike state of unconsciousness, or “a coma-like state of deep sleep brought about by supernatural agency” (Goldingay, 214–15; cf. Ge 2:21; 15:12). Ezekiel is empowered by “the spirit” to stand and receive his divine commission after falling prostrate during his experience of a theophany (Eze 2:2). Here, the angelic touch produces a similar effect. Lacocque, 169, describes this as a “miraculous touch” and notes that it is repeated in Daniel 10:10, 16, 18. Redditt, 142, comments, “the point is either that he [i.e., the interpreting angel] brought Daniel out of his trance, or that he simply stood Daniel on his feet to hear what Gabriel had to say.” In either case, the seer has been readied to receive the interpretation of the vision.

b. Message of the interpreting angel (8:19–26)

19He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. 20The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

23“In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. 25He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

26“The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.”

COMMENTARY

19 Gabriel, the interpreting angel, begins his message to Daniel by setting the interpretation of the vision in the context of two somewhat ambiguous temporal references. The first, “later in the time of wrath” (Heb. beʾaḥarît hazzāʿam) specifies when the events of the vision will occur. This expression is a time span of unspecified duration. The word “wrath” (Heb. z ʿm) means “indignation” (cf. NASB’s “the final period of the indignation”). According to Lacocque, 170, the term, with the exception of its use in Hosea 7:16, “always designates the wrath of God.” For Baldwin, 159, “the indignation is the sentence of God, which must eventually fall on those who rebel against him and fail to repent” (including his own people, the Hebrews).

The “time of wrath” likely refers to the period of Hebrew history from the Babylonian exile onward, that era covered by the rise and fall of the four kingdoms described in the statue dream of ch. 2 and the vision of animals arising out of the sea in ch. 7 (cf. Lucas, 220). The qualifier “later” refers to the Seleucid persecution of the Hebrews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes as indicated in the interpretation of the vision of the shaggy goat in vv.23–25 (see below).

The second temporal expression, “the appointed time of the end” (Heb. lemô ʿēd qēṣ) is parallel to the phrase “the time of the end” used earlier by the interpreting angel (v.17; see the commentary above). The idea behind the phrase “the end” (Heb. qēṣ; GK 7891) is a punctiliar moment in time, the end of the kingdom of Anitiochus IV and hence his persecution of the Hebrews, and the reconsecration of the Jerusalem temple (v.14). The fact that this is “the appointed time of the end” emphasizes that “the ‘time’ has been set . . . by the Lord of history” (Miller, 233), underscoring God’s sovereignty over the historical process. “The important point scored in this talk of the wrath of God is that God is still in charge, not human powers, despite signs to the contrary” (Seow, 128–29).

Lucas, 219–20, correctly ties Daniel’s vision of the ram and goat to the teaching of the visions of Zechariah (especially the first three visions; cf. Zec 1:7–2:13) that indicate “the ‘ongoing’ [divine] wrath is not seen as a continuing, deserved punishment for Israel’s sins, but rather as the harsh treatment of Israel by the nations into whose power God has delivered her.” The import of Daniel’s vision of the ram and the goat for a later generation of Hebrews suffering at the hands of the Seleucid “madman” Antiochus IV is twofold: first, God is indeed in control of the historical situation in which his people find themselves; second, not all suffering and persecution experienced by the people of God is retributive.

20–22 Unlike the previous vision (ch. 7), the interpreting angel explicitly identifies the referents of the animal symbols. Daniel is told that the ram with two horns represents the kings of the one Medo-Persian Empire (v.20). Animals are sometimes used to symbolize leaders in the OT (e.g., “rams and goats” depict people of power and influence who were oppressing the poor in Judah; Eze 34:17). The ram and the goat were both “clean” animals according to the OT food laws, in contrast to the “unclean” hybrid animals used to portray “predator nations” in ch. 7 (cf. Dt 14:3–6). Goldingay, 208, notes that the ram was readily identifiable as a symbol for Persia, since in the zodiac Persia was under Aries, the ram.

Daniel learns that the “shaggy goat” (v.21) with one large horn “between its eyes” (or on “the front of its head”; so Baldwin, 159) represents the first king of Greece. Alexander the Great is universally identified as this Greek ruler. The four horns that sprout from the broken horn are four lesser kingdoms that emerge from the short-lived Greek Empire (v.22). These four kingdoms are widely recognized as “mini-empires” carved out of Alexander’s empire by his four generals: Macedonia and Greece ruled by Cassander; Thrace and Asia Minor ruled by Lysimachus; northern Syria, Mesopotamia, and the other eastern regions ruled by Seleucus; and southern Syria, Palestine, and Egypt ruled by Ptolemy.

23–25 This passage is the core of the vision and the purpose for the revelation given to Daniel. Conservative scholars view this historical summary interpreting Daniel’s vision as necessary disclosure enabling the Hebrews to prepare for a future crisis—a time of severe persecution (cf. Miller, 234). Mainline scholars consider the vision of ch. 8 an ex eventu prophecy,20 writing of the account to 167–165 BC (Redditt, 135; cf. Collins [Daniel, 343], who places the writing of ch. 8 to shortly after the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus). In either case, commentators agree that the vision refers to the later Seleucid king known as Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Antiochus rose to power in 175 BC and died in 163 BC. He wrested Palestine from the Ptolemies in 167 BC and desecrated the Jerusalem temple (cf. 1 Macc 1), thus prompting the Maccabean revolt and the eventual reconsecration and dedication of the Jewish temple in 164 BC (cf. 1 Macc 2, 4). The “latter part of their reign” (v.23a) refers to a period near the end of the era of the four kings who succeed Alexander the Great and carve up his empire into quadrants (cf. v.22). Baldwin, 160, notes that this telescoping of history is common to apocalyptic literature, since the focus is on “what is significant.”

Antiochus is described as a “stern-faced” king (NIV; v.23c). The expression (Heb. ʿaz pānîm) may be better rendered “defiant, shameless” or “insolent” (so NASB), though Baldwin, 160, is content to recognize that this king is both “hard” and “insolent.” Russell, 159, comments, “he is a man with an insolent face (‘of bold countenance’), the kind of face that one associates with a brazen prostitute (cf. Pr 7:13).” He is also depicted as a “master of intrigue” (Heb. mēbîn ḥîdôt, lit., “an interpreter of riddles”; v.23d). Goldingay, 218, equates the expression with “problem solving” as a necessary attribute for a king (cf. 1Ki 10:1). In this context the expression is better understood as “a man given to double-talk and double-dealing” (Russell, 159; cf. Porteous, 129). Seow, 131, cautions that these formulaic descriptions of character traits are sufficiently vague so as to refer to Antiochus or any foreign ruler.

This insolent and treacherous king increases in strength by means of military conquest (cf. v.9, “the horn g rew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land”). This may refer to the campaigns of Antiochus against Egypt in 169–68 BC, Parthia in 166 BC, and Israel in 165 BC (cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 235–36). The explanatory clause “but not by his own power” (v.24a) indicates that this king “succeeds only by the permission of God” (Collins, Daniel, 340; cf. Lacocque, 165, 171), though some suggest Antiochus was empowered by Satan (e.g., Miller, 234).

The destructive power of this king is aimed at “the mighty men” and “the holy people” (v.24c). The “mighty men” (Heb. ʿaṣûmîm) are probably other rivals to the Seleucid throne whom Antiochus “liquidated” along the way on his rise to power (cf. Russell, 160; Seow, 131; though Miller, 235, applies the term to the kings, nobles, and champion warriors of other nations killed by Antiochus and his armies). The title “holy people” (Heb. ʿam-qedōšîm, “people of the saints”) refers to Israel, the people of God (cf. Baldwin, 160; Miller, 235).

Porteous, 129, aptly interprets the difficult expression “he will cause deceit to prosper” to mean “that the king’s mind is always busy hatching plots which he carries through to a great measure of success.” The reference to this king’s destruction of many “when they feel secure” (v.25b) adds the traits of cunning and treachery to his despicable character profile (cf. Russell, 160; Miller, 235, who connect the verse to the deceitful attack of Jerusalem in 167 BC by Apollonius, Antiochus’s tribute collector; see 1 Macc 1:29–32). Antiochus’s delusions of grandeur will include equating himself with the gods (or God), as evidenced by his self-proclaimed title, “Epiphanes,” or “god-manifest.” His arrogance drives him to stand against “the Prince of princes,” no doubt a reference to God himself (cf. Goldingay, 218).

Specifically, Antiochus did indeed take his stand against God when he exalted himself as a god, abolished the worship of Yahweh in the Jerusalem temple, plundered the temple of its treasures, set up a statue of Zeus on the temple altar, and offered profane sacrifices there (cf. Hartman and Di Lella, 236). Antiochus will meet the same fate as all those “kings of the earth” who set themselves up against “the One enthroned in heaven” (Ps 2:2, 4). Finally, the angelic interpreter reveals to Daniel that this insolent and imperialistic king will himself be destroyed, “but not by human power” (v.25c). According to conflicting historical traditions, Antiochus did not die from an act of violence; rather, he “self-destructed” either as a result of some hideous disease, a fit of insanity, or a bout of depression resulting from his defeat at Elymais in Persia (cf. Russell, 160; Miller, 236).

26 The interpreting angel’s final words to Daniel confirm the veracity of the vision. The angel refers to Daniel’s entire visionary experience as “the vision of the evenings and mornings” (v.26a). Presumably this feature of the vision is singled out because “it told the exact length of the persecution period, information that would be of great interest to those suffering this ordeal” (Miller, 236).

The command to “seal up” the vision (v.26b) is due to the fact that “it concerns the distant future” (v.26c) and implies that the vision has been written down (cf. 7:1). The verb “to seal” (Heb. stm; GK 6258) may simply mean to close up in the sense of preserving and keeping it safe until the time when it is needed (cf. Goldingay, 218). The term may also denote keeping the interpretation of the vision “secret” (so NASB), given its relevance to the distant rather than the immediate future (cf. Collins, Daniel, 341–42). The verb “close up” (Heb. stm) is coupled with the verb “seal up” (Heb. ḥtm; GK 3159) in 12:4, 9 in the sense that Daniel is instructed to “close up and seal” the scroll or book of his visions both for the purposes of safeguarding them for the future and keeping them secret until the time of the generation for whom they were intended. Lucas, 221, notes here that on at least one occasion Ezekiel’s contemporaries dismissed what he said because his vision concerned “the distant future” (Eze 12:27).

For critical scholars the angel’s instruction to “seal up” the vision is simply a literary convention of pseudepigraphy, declaring the “secrecy of the book” for the intervening period after the fact to emphasize the point that “something foretold long ago seems to be coming to fulfillment” (Collins, Daniel, 342; cf. Goldingay, 218–19). Scholars adhering to the traditional or face-value reading of the passage counter that the angelic affirmation of the “truth” of the prophecy rings hollow for the audience receiving a “prophetic” message about persecution while already in the midst of the persecution (cf. Miller, 236).

NOTES

24 The phrase “not by his own power” is omitted from the LXX and other ancient versions and is treated by many commentators as a gloss (a later scribal insertion) in the MT (e.g., Smith-Christopher, 116; Collins [Daniel, 340], who explains the phrase as a corruption from v.22). Goldingay, 195, 199, note 24.a-a, acknowledges the phrase as a gloss (either accidental or intentional as a negative evaluation of Antiochus) but understands it to refer back to v.22 in the sense that this kingdom will have strength, “but without its strength” in reference to the strength of its predecessor (i.e., Alexander’s empire).

Others identify “the holy people” with the angelic host, “since it builds the crescendo toward the confrontation with the prince of the host and is in accordance with the references to the holy ones (v.13) and to the heavenly host (v.10) earlier in this chapter” (Collins, Daniel, 341). Seow, 131, understands the expression “holy people” to include both the angelic host and the Jews. Gowan, 122, equates the expression “the people of the holy ones,” along with the terms “the mighty” (v.24) and “the many” (v.25), with the Jews. Hartman and Di Lella, 223, transpose the phrase “the holy people” from the end of v.24 to the beginning of v.25 (“His cunning will be against the holy people”).

26 According to Baldwin, 160–61, the Hebrew verb (stm, “to stop up, hide”; GK 6258) has the idea “of making unrecognizable to the enemy access-points and wells; applied to a book it is not strictly ‘seal’ but rather ‘guard from use’ and therefore from misuse.”

4. Conclusion (8:27)

27I, Daniel, was exhausted and lay ill for several days. Then I got up and went about the king’s business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding.

COMMENTARY

27 The conclusion reports the physiological and psychological effects of the vision on Daniel. The experience has left him exhausted, precipitating an unspecified illness. The fact that Daniel is “quite old” at this time (cf. Miller, 236) only partially explains the vision’s effect on him. Goldingay, 222, comments that “awareness of where history is going puts you in a complicated position . . . you may . . . be awed and troubled, by having been put in touch with heavenly realities.”

Such is Daniel’s case, and he admits as much when he states, “I was appalled by the vision” (v.27c). The verb “appalled” or “astounded” (NASB; Heb. šmm) is rendered “dismayed” in the NRSV (cf. Collins, Daniel, 328). Despite the fact that Daniel receives an interpretation of the vision (vv.20–26), it is still “beyond understanding” (v.27d). Part of Daniel’s astonishment or dismay is due to the fact that the vision has spoken to the “distant future” and that he is required to “seal up the vision” (v.26; see comments on vv.15–26). As Seow, 132, notes, “to be instructed that human actions on earth can have consequences beyond the mundane world—that violence on earth can somehow be violence against heaven—is frightening and sobering.”

Perhaps more disconcerting, however, is the implication of the vision for the Hebrew people. Both the dream of the creatures rising out of the sea and the vision of the ram and goat bode ill for God’s people (v.24; cf. 7:21, 25). Similar to the dream of the creatures rising out of the sea (ch. 7), questions related to the enormity of the threat to the Hebrews, and its duration no doubt troubles Daniel (cf. Seow, 113). The two experiences leave a similar mark on the seer (cf. 7:28) and anticipate Daniel’s prayer for his people in ch. 9.

NOTE

27 The word translated “exhausted” (Heb. , nihyêtî) is problematic and is typically understood as a passive form of the verbal root (hyh, “to be”), meaning “stricken” (Lucas, 203), “overcome” (NRSV), or even “pass out, faint” (Lacocque, 167). Goldingay, 195, 200, renders the Heb. construction (niḥyêtî weneḥelêtî) idiomatically: “fell ill.” Collins (Daniel, 328), however, relates the form to the Hebrew root (hwh, “to come to ruin”) and reads, “I, Daniel, was undone and sick for many days.”

C. The Seventy Years and Seventy “Sevens” (9:1–27)

OVERVIEW

Daniel 9 begins with a date formula or a chronological notice, as in 1:1; 2:1; 7:1; 8:1; and 10:1. The date formula, “the first year of Darius,” places the events of ch. 9 between 539 and 538 BC—some eleven or twelve years after the vision of ch. 8. The historical setting of ch. 9 is the first year of the Persian Empire established by Cyrus the Great, as Mesopotamia transitioned from Babylonian to Persian rule. It is assumed the name Darius is a title or alternative name for Cyrus the Mede (5:31), but both the names “Darius” and “Xerxes” in the date formula pose problems (see comments on v.1).

The literary setting of ch. 9 is the visions or “apocalyptic” section of Daniel (ch. 7–12). The “visions” half of the book denotes a change in genre and point-of-view from “report” in the third-person voice to that of “diary” or “personal journal” in the first-person voice. This chapter stands out from the rest of Daniel for several reasons. First, as Seow, 135–36, notes, the point of departure for the account is neither a threat posed by an oppressive regime (as in chs. 1, 3, 6) nor a dream or vision by one of the main characters of the narrative (as in chs. 2, 4–5, 7–8, 10–12). Rather, “the story begins with reflections on what is ‘in the books,’ a reference to certain prophecies of the prophet Jeremiah” (cf. Collins, Daniel, 347). The chapter is also distinctive because of the recitation of Daniel’s lengthy prayer of confession and supplication (vv.4–19). In addition, Baldwin, 162, observes that this is the first time in the book that Daniel’s initiative occasions an event of divine revelation.

Collins (Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 91) identifies three main genres in ch. 9: prayer (vv.3–19), (angelic) epiphany (v.21b), and angelic discourse (vv.22–27). Goldingay, 231, rather clumsily identifies the literary form of ch. 9 as a report of an angelically mediated revelation to a seer (akin to those of ancient Near Eastern oracular dreams). Both Collins and Goldingay agree that the angelic discourse is a type of expository or exegetical “midrash” based on the precursor text of Jeremiah 25:11–12 (cf. v.2). Miller, 239, somewhat simplistically equates Daniel’s “vision” (Heb. mar ʾeh; v.23) with “prophetic revelation” after the manner of the “visions” (Heb. ḥāzôn) of Obadiah (Ob 1), Nahum (Nah 1:1), and Habakkuk (Hab 2:2). Towner, 127, calls this chapter a “meditation,” since “it revolves around a ‘perception’ which Daniel experienced (v.2) about the meaning of the seventy years” of exile forecast by Jeremiah (Jer 25:11–14).

Lucas’s designation, 231, of “epiphany vision” (in contrast to “symbolic vision”) is more helpful. He identifies a six-part form for an epiphany vision and notes that it is unique to Daniel in the OT (ch. 9, 10–12). The form of the epiphany vision may be outlined as follows (see Lucas, 35):

  1. 1. Circumstances (vv.1–2)
  2. 2. Supplication (vv.3–19)
  3. 3. Appearance of nessenger (vv.20–21)
  4. 4. Word of assurance (vv.22–23)
  5. 5. Revelation (vv.24–27)
  6. 6. Charge to seer (omitted; cf. 12:4)

The basic structure of ch. 9 is marked by the narrative framework: first in the date formula and occasion of the revelatory event (vv.1–2); second, in the introduction to the prayer of confession (vv.3–4a); and finally in the narrative introducing the occasion of the angel Gabriel’s revelation to Daniel (vv.20–21a). Broadly understood, the chapter may be outlined in three units: the historical introduction (vv.1–2), Daniel’s prayer of confession (vv.3–19), the revelation given to Daniel by the angel Gabriel (vv.20–27).

The immediate purpose of ch. 9 is to assure the persecuted Hebrews of the Babylonian Diaspora that the time of exile is almost over; the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy are about to be fulfilled (v.2). Beyond this, ch. 9 serves as further commentary on the question posed in the vision of ch. 8: “how long” will the rebellious “little horn” oppress the people of God (8:13)? Daniel’s epiphany vision assures the Hebrews that the future time of trial and persecution has definite chronological boundaries by locating “the time of wrath” (8:19) within an overview of history (cf. Collins, Daniel: with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, 93).

1. Introduction (9:1–2)

1In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom—2in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.

COMMENTARY

1 The reference to “Darius son of Xerxes” is problematic. Previously Daniel has equated “Darius the Mede” with Cyrus II (the Great) as the first king of the Medo-Persian Empire and successor to the Babylonian hegemony (6:1 [5:31]; cf. 6:28). Critical scholars contend that the mention of Darius is a historical blunder, since Xerxes was the son Darius I, not his father (e.g., Davies, 27; Anderson, 64–65). As such, the verse is offered as further evidence in support of the idea that “Darius the Mede” is an invented personage, simply a literary fiction (e.g., Hartman and Di Lella, 240; Collins, Daniel, 348). Lacocque, 109–10, suggests that the biblical writer confounded the two seizures of Babylon, the one by Cyrus in 539 BC and the other by Darius in 529 BC, and then created a third ruler (i.e., Darius the Mede) out of the confusion to solve the dilemma. He thus categorizes the biblical author with the Greek historians who “constantly confused Persian and Median names and events” (Lacocque, 110).

Conservative scholars recognize that the name “Xerxes/Ahasuerus” (Heb. ʾahašwērôš) is generally regarded as the Hebrew transliteration of the Persian name khashavārshā, understood by the Greeks as Xerxes. The only Darius known from the time period is Darius I, the son of Cyrus II the Great and the father of Xerxes, king of Persia from 486–465 BC. Earlier in the court stories, Daniel apparently equated Darius the Mede with Cyrus II (the Great; cf. 6:1, 28). Cyrus the Great was of Median descent in that his mother was Mandane, daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes (cf. Wiseman, Notes on Some Problems, 13). Cyrus the Great was the son of Cambyses I, king of Anshan, and historical records indicate he would have been about sixty-two years of age in 539–538 BC (ibid., 14–15). As a result, Wiseman considers the name Xerxes (or Ahasuerus) an Achaemenid royal title or dynastic throne name applied to Cyrus II the Great. Following Lucas, 235, if one is looking for a historical rather than a literary explanation of the name Xerxes (or Ahasuerus) in Daniel 9:1, “Wiseman’s seems the more plausible suggestion” (see comments on 6:1, 28).

Quite apart from the identification of the enigmatic “Darius the Mede,” the first year of the king’s overseeing of the Medo-Persian Empire after the conquest of the Babylonians is dated to 539–538 BC.

2 Many critical scholars consider the phrase “in the first year of his reign” (v.2a) a secondary addition—“a gloss to explain, in shorter form, the preceding cumbersome expression” (Hartman and Di Lella, 241; cf. Collins, Daniel, 344). Yet Lucas, 235, regards the repetition as original and even essential to the context, since it places emphasis on “the fact that this was an appropriate time for Jewish exiles to take note of Jeremiah’s words” concerning the seventy years of exile (cf. Anderson, 104–5; Redditt, 152, who also consider the repetition as “noteworthy”). It is possible that Daniel (or the narrator of his visions) understands Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the defeat of the Babylonians by “kings of the Medes” (Jer 51:28) to now be fulfilled, perhaps paving the way for the return of the Hebrew exiles (cf. Gowan, 128). At the very least, the transition from the Babylonian Empire to the Persian Empire affords an opportunity for reflection on the seventy years of exile predicted by Jeremiah (so Seow, 138; cf. Jer 25:11–12; 29:10).

The expression “the Scriptures” (v.2b) is interpretive. The phrase (Heb. bassepārîm) means literally “the scrolls” or “the books” (NASB). Baldwin, 164, among others, considered the expression a technical term from some portion of the OT Scriptures (i.e., the books of the Prophets, the second segment of the later Hebrew canon), recognized as an authoritative collection of religious writings by the Hebrews (cf. Lucas, 235). Naturally the reference to the book or scroll of Jeremiah indicates that this document was among the prophetic books considered “canonical” at the time of Daniel (cf. Anderson, 105; Collins, Daniel, 348). It is possible, however, that the reference to “the writings” refers more specifically to the two letters (Heb. sēper) Jeremiah sent to the Hebrew exiles in Babylonia that mention the seventy years of captivity (Jer 29:1, 10, 25; cf. G. H. Wilson, “The Prayer in Daniel 9: Reflection on Jeremiah 29,” JSOT 48 [1990]: 93; Redditt, 152; Seow, 138–39).

The “seventy years” of Jerusalem’s “desolation” (v.2c) may be a round number used symbolically to represent a normal human life span, a lifetime (so Lucas, 235; cf. Ps 90:10; Isa 23:15). Attempts to interpret Jeremiah’s seventy years of exile (cf. Jer 25:12; 29:10) in a strictly chronological fashion must reckon from set dates determined to begin the captivity (whether Judah’s submission to Babylonia in 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Jerusalem in 597 BC, or the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC) and to end it (whether the fall of Babylonia in 539 BC, the initial wave of Jewish repatriation of Judah in 538 BC, or the dedication of the second temple in 517 BC).

The third set of dates, tied to the destruction and rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple, span an exact seventy-year time period. The context of Daniel’s prayer in ch. 9 (as well as the context of Jer 25:12) suggests that the fall of Babylon marks the end of the Hebrew exile. This means the seventy-year captivity is a round number for the sixty-six years counted from the submission of Judah to Babylonia (and Daniel’s own captivity, 605 BC) to the fall of Babylonia and the decree of Cyrus (539 BC; cf. the discussions in Goldingay, 239; Lucas, 235–36).

NOTES

1 The passive expression “was made ruler” is the only example of the Hophal form of the verb , mlk, in the OT. While others emend the text and read a Hiphil form of the verb (e.g., Montgomery, 360–61; Lacocque, 175), Wood, 232, comments that “the passive form of the verb fits the history involved” (though he incorrectly understood that Darius was made ruler by Cyrus). If Darius is a throne-name applied to Cyrus (II) the Great (see comment on v.1), then the passive form of the verb does indeed fit the history, but it calls attention to God’s rule of human history in setting up kings and deposing them (2:21; see discussion in Lucas, 227).

2 The word , bînōtî, is an anomalous form for the Qal stem of the verbal root , byn, prompting some commentators to regard the term as a shortened form of the Hiphil stem (e.g., Hartman and Di Lella, 241; Goldingay, 226) and translate it “considered” rather than “understood” (so NIV). The Qal form of the MT is preferred, and the word expresses the idea of observing (“observed,” NASB; cf. Collins, Daniel, 344) or perceiving (“perceived,” NRSV; cf. Wood, 232)—something as a result of reading or study.

2. Daniel’s Prayer (9:3–19)

3So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes.

4I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed:

“O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, 5we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. 6We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

7“Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. 8O LORD, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you. 9The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; 10we have not obeyed the LORD our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. 11All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you.

“Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. 12You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. 13Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth. 14The LORD did not hesitate to bring the disaster upon us, for the LORD our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him.

15“Now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of Egypt with a mighty hand and who made for yourself a name that endures to this day, we have sinned, we have done wrong. 16O Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill. Our sins and the iniquities of our fathers have made Jerusalem and your people an object of scorn to all those around us.

17“Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, O Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. 18Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. 19O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name.”

COMMENTARY

3–4a Daniel’s preparations for prayer demonstrate both his humility and the depth of his pathos for the people of Israel. Daniel turns to Lord God (v.3a; lit., “gave his face” in prayer; NASB, “gave my attention”). The idiom alludes to the practice of facing Jerusalem when a Hebrew prays (see comments on 6:10; cf. 1Ki 8:35). The idiom may also imply that Daniel is determined “to look to God in prayer until the Lord gave him an answer” (Miller, 242; cf. Wood, 234).

Next we learn that Daniel “pleaded with [God] in prayer and petition” (v.3b). The verb “pleaded” (Heb. bqš; GK 1335) more literally means “to seek” (so NASB), and some commentators suggest that Daniel is seeking divine revelation (e.g., Montgomery, 361; Heaton, 205). More generally, this word in the OT prophets means to turn to God in humility and repentance as a demonstration of dependence and covenantal loyalty (cf. C. Chhetri, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:724–25). Lucas, 236, has noted that the verb bqš in 9:3 echoes the call to “seek” God with a whole heart in Jeremiah 29:13, the very passage Daniel reflects upon with regard to Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the seventy years of exile (cf. Jer 29:10–14). Porteous, 136, grants the possibility that the construction “seek to pray” (Heb. bqš + tepillâ) conveys the idea of “praying earnestly.” The word for “prayer” (Heb. tepillâ) means “intercession,” and the term translated “petition” (Heb. taḥanûnîm; “supplications,” NASB) means “entreaty for mercy” (cf. Wood, 234).

The combined ritual acts of fasting and donning sackcloth and ashes (v.3c) were a sign of mourning and repentance in the OT (cf. Ne 9:1; Est 4:1–4; Jnh 3:6). The discipline of fasting is sometimes a part of the preparation process for receiving revelation from God (cf. Ex 34:28; Dt 9:9). Here the two acts of mourning and seeking revelation merge as Daniel prays “to comprehend God’s purpose in the destruction of Jerusalem” (Lucas, 236). According to Wood, 234, all three actions (fasting, wearing a coarse sackcloth garment, and sprinkling ashes on one’s head) demonstrate the degree of the burden Daniel carries for his people and are “customary for the day when genuine contriteness of heart was felt.”

The object or recipient of Daniel’s prayer is “the Lord God” (v.3a). The divine name “Lord” (Heb. ʾadōnāy) means “master, overlord,” indicating Daniel’s subservience to his God. The name “God” (Heb. ʾelōhîm) is a reference to God in the abstract, conveying the idea of God’s majesty and power as Creator and the universal God. Daniel actually addresses God by his personal and covenantal name “LORD” or “Yahweh” (Heb. yhwh; v.4a) as he begins his prayer. This name serves to remind one of Daniel’s role as a member of the Hebrew covenantal community and calls attention to God’s obligations to his people Israel as covenant-maker. Finally, Daniel understands his prayer as a “confession” (Heb. ydh, Hithpael) in that he readily identifies with his Hebrew people, penitently acknowledges his guilt, and confesses his sins against Yahweh along with theirs.

4b–19 Many commentators consider Daniel’s prayer of confession a secondary insertion since it seems to interrupt the logical flow of thought and action from Daniel’s preparation for prayer (vv.1–4a) and the divine revelation he receives while praying (vv.20–27; e.g., Hartman and Di Lella, 245–46). Redditt, 153, observes that since the rituals of self-abnegation were appropriate both to seeking divine revelation and demonstrating contrition, it afforded the author an “opportunity to insert the prayer.”

Others, however, defend the authenticity of the prayer and the literary unity of ch. 9 by suggesting the author incorporates some form of a preexisting prayer of confession, “a set prayer—a liturgical prayer” into the narrative (so Seow, 141; cf.; Collins, Daniel, 347; Lucas, 233–34). Still others contend that the prayer has been composed by the author of ch. 9 (e.g., Porteous, 135–37; Goldingay, 236–37). In any case, this helps explain why the language of the prayer flows smoothly, is full of “traditional phrases,” and lacks the Aramaisms of the rest of the chapter (cf. Collins, Daniel, 347). Smith-Christopher, 122, offers an interesting perspective on the importance of the prayer in the structure of the chapter by suggesting a direct relationship between the prayer and the appearance of the angelic figure. According to him, fasting is an essential aspect of communal prayers of deliverance, and “these prayers are part of an exilic tradition of calling God to spiritual warfare.”

The literary form of the prayer is usually identified as that of communal confession (note the use of the first-person plural pronouns; vv.5–7, etc.), perhaps an adaptation of the community lament (cf. Goldingay, 234–35). The prayer develops the theme of Israel’s sin and breach of Yahweh’s covenant in a somewhat chiastic structure around the affirmation of God’s mercy—the principal point of the prayer (for other structural features of the prayer, including the use of the word “now [Heb. ʿattâ; v.15] to mark the transition from confession to an appeal for mercy, see Lucas, 231–32).

Towner, 129, describes Daniel’s prayer (and the entire chapter) as “a meditation of Scripture upon earlier Scripture” (since more than eighty-five percent of the texts falls “within quotation marks”). According to Montgomery, 361–68, the bulk of Daniel’s prayer consists of language found in other liturgical prayers (especially 1Ki 8; Ezr 9; Ne 1; 9; Jer 26; 32; 44; note that his analysis assumes a critical understanding of the date of Daniel, whereas traditional scholarship considers Ezr 9 and Ne 1 and 9 dependent on Da 9). As a result, Heaton, 206, considers the prayer (especially vv.4–14) “a splendid catena of Old Testament fragments.”

The prayer reflects the theology of Deuteronomy, a theology rooted in the covenantal relationship established by Yahweh with the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai (cf. Ex 19–24; Longman, 219, 231–34). Yahweh’s covenant with Israel was regulated by stipulations designed to instill holiness in God’s people in imitation of his own holy character. Blessings or curses were applied to Israel as Yahweh’s vassal contingent on their obedience to the stipulations of his covenant. The prayer begins with an ascription of praise to God (v.4b), followed by a confession of sin (vv.5–10) that is expanded into an acknowledgment of God’s just punishment (vv.11–14), and finally a concluding plea for God’s mercy (vv.15–19).

4b Daniel addresses his prayer to the “Lord” (Heb. ʾadōnāy), a return to the divine name utilized previously in v.3 (see comments on vv.3–4a). The invocation praising “the great and awesome God” is a typical characterization of the Hebrew deity in the OT (cf. Dt 7:21; Ne 1:5). Seow, 142, comments that “the prayer begins by assuming God’s power to deliver and God’s sovereignty over the whole universe. The ‘great and awesome God’ is at once an immanent God who saves and a transcendent God who rules the cosmos.”

Daniel also declares that God is one who “keeps his covenant of love” (lit., “the covenant”; Heb. berît; GK 1382) and “the lovingkindness” (Heb. ḥesed; GK 2876; cf. NASB, “his covenant and lovingkindness”). The term “covenant” signifies a ritually ratified agreement or treaty that establishes a relationship between two parties (cf. G. J. Mcconville, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:747–48). The use of the definite article (“the covenant”) may mean Daniel has in mind the Abrahamic covenant, since it included the promise of the land to Abraham’s descendants (so Miller, 244; cf. Ge 12:1–3). Yet Wood, 235, correctly recognizes that the use of the word “covenant” in the context of Daniel’s situation may be used as an umbrella term for Yahweh’s covenantal tradition with Israel (i.e., the covenants with Abraham, Israel at Mount Sinai, and David).

The word “love” or “lovingkindness” (NASB) is used as an expression of “a relationship of mutual loyalty and faithfulness” between the parties bound by a covenant (Lucas, 237). Daniel affirms that God has fulfilled his covenantal obligations. But Yahweh’s ḥesed or covenantal love is contingent on Israel’s loving obedience in response to his commands (Heb. miṣwôt), since they express his will for his people. The final clause of v.4b echoes the Decalogue, in which Yahweh promises to show “love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Ex 20:6; Dt 5:10). The context both in the Pentateuch and Daniel’s prayer “makes clear that what is called for is not so much an emotional as a moral commitment” (Lucas, 237).

5–11a Daniel’s confession begins with an admission of corporate guilt, piling up five synonymous terms for sin in “liturgical style” (i.e., “sinned . . . done wrong . . . been wicked . . . rebelled . . . turned away”; cf. Towner, 131). Seow, 143, observes that these general expressions for sin are repeated throughout the prayer (vv.9–11, 13–16; see Lucas, 237, for a discussion of the five Hebrew terms used for sin in the prayer). The language (i.e., the repetition of the first three terms for sin) and setting (i.e., foreign captivity) of v.5 have parallels to Solomon’s temple-dedication prayer (cf. 1Ki 8:47).

The acknowledgment that Israel has not listened to God’s prophets echoes Jeremiah’s indictment of the people prior to the Babylonian exile (cf. Jer 25:4; 29:19, the very passages alluded to in v.2). The emphasis placed on the role of the prophets (v.6a) means that people were without excuse—God had provided ample warning and time for repentance (cf. Jer 29:19; cf. Ne 9:26, 34). The reference to “our kings, our princes and our fathers, and . . . all the people” (v.6b) indicates all strata of Hebrew society have been equally guilty of breaking Yahweh’s covenant (so Porteous, 137).

The stark contrast between the covenantal faithfulness of God and the covenantal betrayal of Israel is manifest in the foils of the personal pronouns used in vv.7–8 (“you” [God] vs. “us” [Israel]) and the terms “righteous” (Heb. ṣedāqâ; GK 7407) and “shame” (Heb. bōšet; GK 1425) applied to God and Israel respectively. Both Goldingay, 241–42, and Lucas, 238, agree on the forensic connotations of the word “righteous” in this context; if the setting were a court of law, God “is in the right” (so Goldingay) and “justice is on his side” (so Lucas). Consequently, Israel’s shame or disgrace is deserved. The reason for Israel’s shame and scattering is explained by their “unfaithfulness” (Heb. maʿal; GK 5085/5086; v.7b)—a form of treachery linked “with encroachment on the holy by violating an oath” (Lucas, 238). The clause “all the countries where you have scattered us” (v.7b) repeats Jeremiah 16:15; 23:3; 32:37, further connecting Daniel’s meditation and prayer with the prophet Jeremiah (cf. v.2).

Daniel concludes the formal confession of sin by testifying that God is “merciful and forgiving” (v.9). The words for “merciful” (Heb. raḥamîm; “compassion,” NASB) and “forgiving” (Heb. seliḥôt) are both plural. These plurals are intensive and have the effect of “emphasizing God’s great and manifold ‘mercies’ and his abundant forgiveness” (Miller, 246). Yahweh remains who he is, the faithful, merciful, and forgiving God of Israel’s covenant. By contrast, Israel has rebelled (Heb. mārad) against God, perhaps an allusion to the Hebrews’ postexodus wilderness experience (cf. Nu 14:9) and tragically the all-too-characteristic posture of his people (cf. Dt 31:27; Ps 78:8; Jer 5:23). As Seow, 143, summarizes, “hope, if any, can come only on account of God’s steadfast love” (cf. La 3:22). The repetition of Israel’s disobedience (vv.10–11a) completes the chiasmus with v.4b in this section of the prayer.

11b–14 Daniel’s prayer moves from communal confession to theological reflection on God’s justice (vv.11b–14). The “curses and sworn judgments” (v.11b) are the covenantal curses recorded in Leviticus 26:27–45 and Deuteronomy 28:15–68. Miller, 247, notes that the words for “curses” and “sworn judgments” are singular and may even be translated “the curse, even the sworn judgment,” indicating the particular curse for breach of the Sinaitic covenant (Dt 28:20; cf. Towner, 133). This is confirmed by references to the documentation of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel found in the “Law of Moses” (vv.11b, 13).

The twofold appeal to the “written . . . Law of Moses” (v.11b, 13) also implies “that the experience of judgment had confirmed the authority of the Mosaic writings because their words had come to pass” (Baldwin, 166). The verb “poured out” (Heb. ntk; GK 5988) is equated with God’s wrath (cf. 2Ch 12:7; Jer 7:20; Eze 22:22) and depicts Yahweh as “the guarantor of the covenant, and the pouring out of the curse is described more personally as his keeping his verbal undertaking” (Lucas, 239).

Daniel affirms that God is faithful to the word of his covenant, whether for blessing or cursing, and that his punishment of Israel is just (v.12). The expression “the words spoken against us” (v.12a) alludes to the ministry of the prophets mentioned previously (vv.6, 10). The assumption is that “the prophets teach orally what Moses teaches in writing” (Goldingay, 245). The prophets of Yahweh did not cause the exile, but heeding their warnings may have prevented it (cf. Towner, 133–34). All Israel, people and rulers alike, were guilty before God (v.12a).

The “great disaster” (v.12b) brought by God against Israel was the destruction of Jerusalem and the subsequent Babylonian captivity (though critical scholars understand that the historical experience of the exile has been “recontextualized” for the Jews of the second century BC suffering at the hands of Antiochus IV Epiphanes; e.g., Seow, 142–43). Surely other cities and temples had been razed and other nations had been taken into exile, but “the destruction of Jerusalem was in a category apart from the destruction of any other city because in no other had the Lord deigned to dwell” (Baldwin, 166).

This makes the failure of God’s people to turn to him in repentance and renewed obedience all the more remarkable (v.13). The expression “did not hesitate” (Heb. šqd; v.14a) means “to watch over” in the sense that God “had kept the disaster ready . . . in case Israel did not repent” (Miller, 248; cf. NASB’s “the LORD has kept the calamity in store”). A summary of Daniel’s earlier prayer of confession frames his meditation on God’s justice, as he recognizes the “great disaster” that befell Israel was a result of their sin (v.11b) and disobedience (v.14c).

15–19 The adverb “now” (Heb. ʿattâ) marks the transition from confession to supplication or petition in Daniel’s prayer (v.15). Daniel invokes God by the name “Lord” six times in the passage (vv.15, 16, 17, 19 [3x]; see comments on vv.3–4a). The name means “master, overlord,” indicating Daniel’s (and Israel’s) subservience to God as the suzerain of the Sinaitic covenant (since the context is the exodus from Egypt). Daniel appeals to the God who acted on behalf of Israel to deliver them from slavery in Egypt and thus to fulfill covenantal promises made earlier to Abraham (cf. Ge 12:1–3).

That act of redemption, a demonstration of divine grace that revealed aspects of Yahweh’s character, left an indelible imprint on the collective memory of Israel (cf. Porteous, 138). The renown that God gained in delivering Israel from Egypt becomes the basis for Daniel’s petition for the Lord to act in behalf of Israel again for the sake of his reputation (vv.17, 19). The pronouns “our God” and “your people” (v.15a) emphasize the relationship God still has with his covenantal people. Lucas, 239, has noted the lexical parallels between v.15a and Deuteronomy 6:21 and 9:26, and between v.15b and Jeremiah 32:20 and Nehemiah 9:10.

Daniel’s plea to the Lord divides neatly into two sections. First, he asks God to “turn away” his anger and wrath (v.16) and to “look with favor” upon his ruined temple (v.17). The expression “turn away” (Heb. šwb; GK 8740) is used in the sense of relenting from or revoking his punishment of Israel for their sin. The call for God to “look with favor” or let his “face shine” (so NASB) on his desolate sanctuary echoes the Aaronic blessing (Nu 6:25).

Next, Daniel begs God to take note of “the desolation of the city” that bears his name (v.18) and to hear his prayer and act quickly to remedy the situation (v.19). The reference to Jerusalem as “the city that bears your [God’s] name” (v.18) denotes the city as that one place of worship where God established his name (Dt 12:5)—the “joy of the whole earth” (Ps 48:2). The phrase “your servant” (v.17) is an expression of humility and submission, “appropriate before ‘the great and awesome God’ for whose mercy Daniel was appealing” (Miller, 249). The suppliant’s summons to God to “give ear . . . hear; open your eyes” echoes a similar plea in Solomon’s temple-dedication prayer (cf. 1Ki 8:28–29).

Daniel’s appeal is also grounded in two essential spiritual realities. The first is the character of the Lord himself, a God known for his “righteous acts” (v.16a) and “great mercy” (v.18). Yahweh revealed himself as “the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love” from the earliest days of the exodus from Egypt (Ex 34:6).

The second basis is God’s reputation before “all those” who surround Israel (v.16) because Daniel reminds the Lord that his people, his temple, and his city are now the objects of scorn (vv.16b, 18). Much like Moses before him, Daniel pleads with God not to afford the surrounding nations any opportunity to doubt the power or goodness of Israel’s God because of their sin (cf. Ex 32:9–14). Here Baldwin, 167, comments, “The fact that God’s name has been dishonoured by the disciplinary measures his people have forced Him to take make the appeal to Him to vindicate His righteousness a powerful plea.” Porteous, 139, summarizes that Daniel’s “final appeal is based, not on anything of merit in the lives of those who pray, but solely on God’s great mercy.” For this reason, he and others (e.g., Montgomery, 368; Heaton, 209) agree that the prayer is aptly described as the OT kyrie eleison—“Lord, have mercy.”

NOTES

15 The “mighty hand” motif echoes the narrative of the exodus from Egypt (cf. Ex 15:6), a victory image borrowed from Egyptian pharonic iconography and applied to Yahweh by the Hebrews since he was the victor in the cosmic battle against the gods of the Egyptians (Ex 12:12; 18:11; cf. BBCOT, 90–91).

18 Miller, 249, notes that the Hebrew expression “give ear” (, nṭh, + , ʾōzen, lit., “turn the ear” or “bend the ear”) is a word picture of “a person bending the ear in order to hear more clearly.”

3. The Revelation (9:20–27)

20While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill—21while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the message and understand the vision:

24“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

25“Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing ⌞of the temple⌟ he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

COMMENTARY

20–23 The answer to Daniel’s prayer comes while he is still in the act of praying (v.20), and the repetition of that fact emphasizes God’s grace in the timing of his response to Daniel’s supplication (v.21). The opening verse (v.20) serves as a summary of Daniel’s supplication and connects the revelation he receives with the prayer of penitence by repeating the words for “praying” (Heb. pll) and “confessing” (Heb. ydh) used earlier (cf. v.4). Daniel’s reference to “my sin and the sin of my people” (v.20) indicates that he both considers himself a guilty party before Yahweh and a representative for the people. The repeated reference to God’s “holy hill” (v.20; cf. v.16) suggests Daniel’s primary concern is the “desolate sanctuary” of Yahweh in Jerusalem (cf. v.17).

Gabriel (v.21a) was the interpreting angel in Daniel’s earlier vision of the ram and the goat (see comments on 8:16). Lucas, 240, is probably correct to identify the unnamed interpreter of Daniel’s vision of strange creatures rising out of the sea with Gabriel as well (cf. 7:16). The phrase “in swift flight” is difficult (v.21c). The word rendered “flight” may be connected to the verbal root ʿwp (“to fly”; so NIV, NRSV) but is more logically associated with the verbal root y ʿp, meaning “to be weary, faint” (cf. NASB’s “in my extreme weariness”). The latter understanding better fits the context since Daniel has been engaged in an extended period of prayer and fasting, quite apart from the description of Gabriel in the form of a man (v.21b; cf. the discussions in Collins, Daniel, 351–52; Miller, 250–51). The “evening sacrifice” (v.21d) was offered in the late afternoon, perhaps at twilight (cf. Ex 29:39), and was probably the appointed time for Daniel’s evening of prayer (cf. 6:10). Later, Ezra offered his prayer of confession to God at the time of the evening sacrifice (Ezr 9:4–5).

As in the case of the vision of the ram and the goat (8:16), Gabriel is sent to “instruct” Daniel, in the sense of imparting “insight and understanding.” “Insight” (Heb. śākal; GK 8505) and “understanding” (Heb. bînâ; GK 1069) were divine gifts (see comments on 1:17), and they place Daniel among the company of the wise who instruct those suffering persecution (11:33) and who will “enjoy the brightness of the coming resurrection victory (12:3)” (Towner, 141). Baldwin, 167, has observed, “one of the most important contributions of the book of Daniel is its new insistence on the link between faith and intelligence.” Lucas’s comment, 241, is helpful here as he notes that “the point was not that Daniel did not understand the meaning of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but that it had a reference beyond its most obvious reference to the ending of the Babylonian exile.” Daniel learns that God’s answer to his prayer was granted as soon as he began to pray (v.23a), not because his prayer was superfluous (so B. W. Jones, “The Prayer in Daniel IX,” VT 18 [1968]: 493) but because “God is eager to respond to his servants when they come to him on behalf of his people in need” (Goldingay, 255).

Daniel is “highly esteemed” (v.23b; cf. 10:19) or “greatly beloved” (NRSV), presumably because he is a man of humble faith and contrition and is given to prayer (cf. Ps 51:17; Isa 57:15). This notice provides the rationale for “the high favor bestowed on Daniel in being selected to receive this important information” (Wood, 246). Gabriel charges Daniel to “consider the message and understand the vision” (v.23c). Goldingay (228, n. 23.d-d) understands the expression as a double hendiadys (“give careful heed to the revelatory word”; cf. Collins, Daniel, 352). Wood, 246–47, however, relates the word “vision” (Heb. mar ʾeh) to the appearance of Gabriel and paraphrases: “Consider the word I am about to give you and understand all concerned in connection with my appearance to you.”

24 Baldwin, 163, considers Daniel 9:24–27 “the most difficult text in the book,” and Miller, 252, regards this next section as “four of the most controversial verses in the Bible.” Such comments only serve to lend support to the often-quoted remark of Montgomery, 400, that “the history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks of Daniel is the Dismal Swamp of O.T. criticism.”

Daniel learns from the angelic messenger Gabriel that “seventy sevens” are decreed for the people of Israel and their holy city, Jerusalem (v.24a), since Daniel has prayed both for the people and the city of God. It is generally understood that the “seventy sevens” represent seventy weeks or heptads of years by analogy to the “seven weeks of years” associated with the Year of Jubilee (cf. Lev 25:8). The verb “are decreed” (Heb. ḥtk; GK 3155; Niphal, lit., “to cut off” in the sense of “determine, ordain”) is unique to Daniel 9:24 in the OT and “the thought is that God had cut off these 490 years from the rest of history through which to accomplish the deliverances needed for Israel” (Wood, 248).

Six distinct purposes or goals are outlined for accomplishment during this extended period of time: “to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy” (v.24b). Baldwin, 168, has observed that the six verbs divide neatly into two sets of three: the first three address (negatively) the grounds on which God forgives human sin (in response to Daniel’s prayer), and the second three focus (positively) on the fulfillment of God’s righteous purposes in human history.

The first objective achieved during the heptad of years is to “finish transgression” (Heb. pešaʿ; v.24a). The historicist interpreter notes that the word for “transgression” is definite and that previously “the transgression” was associated with the attack on Jerusalem and desecration of the temple by Antiochus IV in 167 BC (cf. 8:13; e.g., Seow, 147). Others equate “the transgression” with Israel’s rebellion against God and subsequent exile in Babylonia, finally ending with the overthrow of Antiochus (cf. Russell, 184). Futurist interpreters understand the reference to “transgression” as a term for “sin in general” (so Baldwin, 168) that will not end until the second coming and eternal reign of Jesus Christ (so Miller, 260).

Similarly, historicist interpretation ties the second objective of the heptad of years (“to put an end to sin”; v.24b) to the desecration of the Jerusalem temple, since that is the context for the use of the expression, “to put an end” (Heb. ḥātēm), in the only other place it occurs in Daniel (cf. 8:23). By contrast, futurist interpretation connects putting an end to sin with God’s kingdom and the end of human history (e.g., Baldwin, 168; Miller, 260).

The third objective of the heptad of years is “to atone for wickedness” (v.24c). The verb “atone” (Heb. kpr; GK 4105) is used for making atonement or reconciliation, especially by the blood sacrifices of animals offered by Levitical priests (cf. Lev 1; 3–4). The word is “associated with the removal, and so the forgiveness of sin” (Lucas, 241). The word for “wickedness” or “iniquity” (so NASB; Heb. ʿāwôn; GK 6411) is a comprehensive term for wrongdoing in the OT (often understood as an umbrella term for “rebellion” [Heb. pš ʿ] and “sin” [Heb. hṭ ʾ]; cf. A. Luc, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:351). The context of Daniel’s prayer, including the verbal links between the prayer and the divine response in vv.20–27, suggest the object of the atonement is Israel’s wickedness.

Although Collins (Daniel, 354) and Goldingay, 259, understand the referent to be the sinful acts of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Porteous, 141, correctly recognizes that the writer intends to imply that both the wickedness of Antiochus and of Israel are at issue. More generally, Baldwin, 169, comments that God is announcing that he has “found a way of forgiving sin without being untrue to His own righteousness. This assurance was what the prayer [i.e., Daniel’s prayer in ch. 9] had been feeling after; it was the great longing expressed in the Old Testament as a whole.” Miller, 260, sees the definitive fulfillment of the atonement for humanity’s wickedness in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.

The fourth of goal of the heptad of years is “to bring in everlasting righteousness” (v.24d). The word “righteousness” (Heb. ṣdq; GK 7406) means “justice, correctness, rightness, vindication,” and bringing in righteousness suggests “causing right to be acknowledged” (Goldingay, 259; see also comments on ṣdq at vv.5–11a). The objective echoes references to the righteousness or justice of God in Daniel’s prayer (vv.7, 14, 16, 18). Baldwin, 169, acknowledges that righteousness is the attribute of God alone and that theologically “it is a short step to justification by faith (Rom 3:25, 26), a truth grasped also by Zechariah (Zech 3:4).” The historicist applies this righteousness to “the restoration of the temple’s rightness—its legitimacy—after the transgression” (Seow, 147). Heaton, 212, summarizes for the futurists that “everlasting righteousness . . . is a compendious and unique description of the nature of the coming Kingdom.”

The fifth objective of the heptad of years is to “seal up vision and prophecy” (v.24e). The “sealing” of the prophetic vision (Heb. ḥtm) involves formally closing a document for preservation by rolling up the scroll and affixing a personal stamp or seal to the bundle. More important, to “seal” a document in the ancient world was to authenticate it with one’s own engraved stamp, a type of signature (cf. Baldwin, 169; Lucas, 242). Alternatively, Towner, 141, argues that “sealing vision and prophecy refers to the fictional setting of Daniel. When the supposedly long-hidden message is found, taken out of its time capsule, as it were, the seal is broken and the text is found to be extraordinarily descriptive of the present moment.”

The last objective of the heptad of years is “to anoint the most holy” (v.24f). The verb “anoint” (Heb. mšḥ indicates the smearing or pouring of oil over a person or object as an act of consecration for religious purposes (cf. J. N. Oswalt, “,” NIDOTTE, 2:1123–25). The immediate reference of the final clause is most likely the rededication of the Jerusalem temple, the “Most Holy Place” (Heb. qōdeš qādāšîm) for the Hebrews of Daniel’s day (so Lucas, 242; cf. Montgomery, 376; Wood, 250). Numerous other interpretations of this anointing have been suggested, such as the ministry of Jesus Christ as Messiah (e.g., Young, 201; cf. Isa 61:1), the church as God’s spiritual temple (e.g., K&D, 349), and the inner sanctuary of Ezekiel’s “millennial temple” (e.g., Archer, 113; Miller, 262). Baldwin’s, 169, comment on the contextual ambiguity of the expression “to anoint the most holy” is pertinent: “In 539 BC concern was centered on the holy place in Jerusalem, and the rededication of the Temple was not excluded, but the Lord’s anointed was ultimately to be a man . . . the subject of ‘vision and prophet.’”

25–27 In the verses that follow, the angel Gabriel proceeds to outline more specifically how and when these six objectives (v.24) will be accomplished. He does this by addressing figures and events associated with three distinct time periods within the seventy sevens or weeks of years (i.e., 490 years) decreed for Israel and the city of Jerusalem: a period of seven sevens (or forty-nine years), a period of sixty-two sevens (or 434 years), and a final one-week period (or seven years). The first two periods are tied closely to two main events: the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the appearance of an unnamed “anointed” one (v.25a). Daniel also learns from the angelic messenger that the city of Jerusalem will be rebuilt, including “streets and a trench,” but during troubled times (v.25b).

We are not told how Daniel himself understood all this (cf. 8:27), but the initial statement of Gabriel’s revelation poses several problems for the modern interpreter. For instance, to which “decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (v.25a) does the angel refer? Lucas, 242–43, notes seven possibilities: Jeremiah’s prophecy about the seventy years of Babylonian exile (Jer 25:12; 605 BC), Jeremiah’s prophecies of Israel’s restoration (Jer 30:18–22; 31:38–40; 587 BC), Gabriel’s words to Daniel (Da 9:24–27; 539 BC), the decree of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1–4; 539 BC), the decree of Darius (Ezr 6:1–12; 521 BC), the decree of Artaxerxes I to Ezra (Ezr 7:12–26; 458 BC), and the charge of Artaxerxes I given to Nehemiah (Ne 2:7–9; 445 BC). According to some scholars the referent of the “decree” (Heb. dābār, “word”) is more logically associated with the words of Jeremiah’s oracles (note the similarities between Jer 29:10 and Da 9:25; cf. Collins, Daniel, 354–55).

Beyond this, the decrees of Cyrus and Darius refer only to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra does not mention any rebuilding initiatives. In fact, apart from Jeremiah’s promises of restoration for Jerusalem after the exile, only the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah makes reference to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The identity of the “Anointed One” who is predicted to come is a mystery, since that figure is unnamed (v.25a). The meaning of the terms “Anointed One” (Heb. māšîaḥ) and “ruler” (Heb. nāgîd) applied to this unnamed figure also raise questions. Finally, what is meant by the unique OT word “trench” or “moat” (so NASB; Heb. ḥārûṣ) around the city of Jerusalem, whether a literal trench designed to increase the exterior height of the city walls (e.g., Hartman and Di Lella, 244), or a “wall” of some sort (e.g. A. Jeffery, “The Book of Daniel, Introduction and Exegesis,” IB, 6:496)?

Gabriel’s message to Daniel concerning the seventy weeks further specifies that “after the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed One will be cut off” (v.26a). Moreover, the city of Jerusalem and its temple will be destroyed by “the people of the ruler who will come” (v.26b). Finally, the “end will come like a flood,” and it will include war and desolation (v.26c).

Again, the angel’s cryptic revelation raises numerous questions for the biblical interpreter. First, what is the extent of the time lapse indicated by the adverb “after” (Heb. ʾaḥarê), and how is the period of sixty-two sevens related to the first period of seven sevens (i.e., are they each sequential from a common terminus a quo or sequential with respect to each other)?

Next, is the “Anointed One” of v.26 to be equated with the “Anointed One” of v.25, and what does it mean for an “Anointed One” to be “cut off” (cf. Lucas, 244)? The verb “cut off” (Heb. krt) is generally understood to mean “killed” (so NLT) or “put to death” (so NJB; cf. E. Carpenter, “,” NIDOTTE, 2:729–30; Baldwin, 171), but in reference to whom—the postexilic leader Zerubbabel (an option listed but rejected by Porteous, 142), the Hellenistic era priest Onias III (e.g., Collins, Daniel, 356), or Jesus the Messiah based on NT teaching (e.g., Miller, 268)?

Third, who are “the people of the ruler who will come” (v.26b)—the Seleucids under Antiochus IV (e.g., Lucas, 244), the Romans under Titus (e.g., Baldwin, 171), or the future “antichrist” figure (e.g., Miller, 268–69)?

Last of all, what is meant by the repeated formula “the end” (v.26c)—the end of the sixty-two sevens, or the sixty-nine sevens, or the seventy sevens, or even the end of the age?

The final installment of Gabriel’s message to Daniel concerning the seventy sevens makes reference to a “covenant with many for one seven” (v.27) made by the ruler who is to come (v.26). Midway through this last seven—the third and final period of the seventy sevens—the ruler will “put an end to sacrifice and offering,” presumably in reference to the Jerusalem temple (v.27b). Further, “he will set up an abomination that causes desolation” on one wing of the temple (v.27c) until “a complete destruction . . . is poured out on the one who makes desolate” (NASB; v.27d).

Regrettably, the end of Gabriel’s message to Daniel brings no end to the interpretive difficulties associated with the passage. For example, “historicist” interpreters tend to equate the “covenant” (Heb. berît) confirmed with many with the alliance made between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Hellenizing Jews of Jerusalem (e.g., Collins, Daniel, 357; cf. 1 Macc 1:11). But Goldingay, 262, cautions that this covenant could refer to the covenant between God and Israel mentioned in Daniel 9:4; 11:22, 28, 30, 32. By contrast, “futurist” interpreters understand the “one seven” (v.27a) to refer to the last years of human history prior to the second coming of Jesus the Messiah and associate the “firm covenant” (NASB) with policies established by the antichrist figure (e.g., Miller, 269–70).

Additional questions arise, especially concerning the identity of “the many” (Heb. rabbîm) with whom the covenant is made and the relationship between this alliance and the cessation of temple sacrifices (whether the Hellenized and apostate Jews [so Heaton, 215] or the believing Jews [so Archer, 111]). The word “abomination” (Heb. šiqqûṣ; GK 9199) is frequently used of idolatry and “implies something filthy and loathsome of which people should be ashamed” (Baldwin, 172; cf. 1Ki 11:7; Jer 4:1; 7:30; 13:27). Goldingay, 262, summarizes that “the worship prescribed by the Torah will cease and be replaced by a repellent alternative.” The question of the exact nature of this desolating abomination still remains, as well as its correlation to the “abomination that causes desolation” cited in Daniel 11:31; 12:11.

Finally, one thing is certain: Quite apart from the identity of the ruler who brings war, desolation, and sacrilege to the Jews and Jerusalem, his doom is sure, since it has been decreed by God (v.27d). War and desolation (v.26) will overwhelm Jerusalem in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (cf. Isa 10:22–23), but only for a God-ordained, limited period of time. The desolation “is determined, not endless . . . within the gloom are gleams of light” (Goldingay, 263).

NOTES

24 Lucas, 232, has noted that two prophetic surveys of history found in 1 Enoch have some affinity with Daniel 9:24–27 in that they also divide history into distinct “weeks” or periods of time (though he finds no evidence of any literary dependence between 1 Enoch and the book of Daniel; cf. “The Animal Apocalypse” in 1 Enoch 85–90 and “The Apocalypse of Weeks” in 1 Enoch 91:11–17; 93:1–10).

26 The NASB’s “its end” more correctly represents the MT’s (qiṣṣô; cf. NIV’s “the end”). The logical antecedent is the city of Jerusalem and its temple (cf. Wood, 256), though Collins (Daniel, 346) translates “his end” and associates the construction with the eventual downfall of the coming ruler who will destroy Jerusalem and its temple.

27 Baldwin, 171, calls attention to the expression “make a firm covenant” (NASB) since the Hebrew verb (gbr, Hiphil, “be strong”) is unusual and “has the implication of forcing an agreement by means of superior strength.”

The phrase “on a wing of the temple” is difficult, and the NIV follows the Old Greek and Latin readings (cf. NASB’s “on the wing of abominations”). The MT is not unintelligible, and Wood’s, 261, rendering is as plausible as any: “even unto the overspreading of abominations of desolation” (see the discussions in Goldingay, 230; Lucas, 230).

REFLECTION

Several views of Daniel’s “seventy sevens” (v.24a), or seventy weeks of years, have emerged in Jewish and Christian interpretation of the book of Daniel. (See the helpful distillations of these views in Montgomery, 390–401; Baldwin, 172–78; Miller, 252–57; Lucas, 245–48.) Lucas, 244, conveniently sorts the Christian interpretations into two categories: the “messianic” approach, which understands the seventy weeks of years as fulfilled in the life and ministry of Jesus the Messiah (based on the NT interpretation of Daniel’s message; cf. Baldwin, 174–75); and the “Antiochene” approach, which relates the message of Daniel exclusively to the known history of the Hebrew Babylonian captivity, the restoration of Jerusalem during the Persian period, and the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes during the Hellenistic era. This approach emphasizes “the absence of any clear interest in a messianic figure elsewhere in Daniel” (Lucas, 246; cf. Porteous, 141–42). Beyond this, the interpretive approach of each camp may be further subdivided into those adhering to a literal chronological understanding of Daniel’s “seventy weeks” of years and those espousing a schematic or symbolic approach to the numbers and time periods of the revelation given to Daniel by the angel Gabriel.

The messianic interpretation of 9:24–27 has a long tradition in the church, first appearing in Christian exegesis toward the end of the second century AD (cf. Collins, Daniel, 355). The messianic approach may be summarized as follows (recognizing that both so-called “premillennial” and “amillennial” interpreters may be included under this umbrella rubric):

(1) The 490 years are understood literally and extend from the command to rebuild Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile to the second advent of Jesus the Messiah at the end of human history as we know it. Typically this command to rebuild Jerusalem is connected to either of two decrees made by the Persian king Artaxerxes I (i.e., to Ezra in 458 BC or Nehemiah in 445 BC). The end of the first set of seven weeks, or forty-nine years, coincides with the completion of the work of Ezra and Nehemiah in restoring Jerusalem (either 409 BC or 396 BC). The next set of sevens, the sixty-two sevens or 434 years, extends sequentially from the end of the set of seven sevens to the first advent of Jesus the Messiah (either his baptism about AD 26 or his triumphal entry into Jerusalem before his passion in AD 32 or 33).

For some, the final week of years, or the seventieth seven, is fulfilled in the first Jewish war (AD 67–73), when the Roman general Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish temple “mid-week” in AD 70 (cf. v.27). For others, the final week of seven years is associated with events connected to the second advent of Jesus the Messiah based on Daniel 11:36–45 and NT teaching found in Matthew 24 and Revelation 6–18. Thus a great gulf of time intervenes between the end of the sixty-ninth week and the beginning (or middle) of the seventieth week (depending on the interpreter’s understanding of the length of the “great tribulation” [whether three and one-half years (so Miller, 271–72) or seven years (so Wood, 260; cf. Da 12:7; Rev 12:14; 13:5). The final seven-year period will conclude with the second coming of Jesus the Messiah, thus bringing about the deliverance of modern-day Israel, the destruction of the Antichrist, and the inauguration of the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 24; Rev 18–19; see the discussions in Wood, 255–63; Baldwin, 176–77; Miller, 257; Lucas, 246).

(2) It is frequently noted that the number “seven” in the OT is often symbolically associated with ideas of completeness, totality, and perfection (cf. P. P. Jenson, “,” NIDOTTE, 4:34). Likewise, the number six is sometimes used to represent the antithesis of perfection (cf. P. P. Jenson, “,” NIDOTTE, 4:258). Thus “a span of seventy weeks represents a complete period [of time], the one needed to bring in the perfect kingdom” (Lucas, 248). Young, 201, represents those messianic interpreters who regard Daniel’s “seventy sevens” as symbolic periods of time culminating in the advent of Jesus the Messiah in the first century AD during the Roman occupation of Palestine.

Keil and Delitzsch, 399–401, and Baldwin, 176–78, are among those messianic interpreters who understand the numbers of Daniel’s “seventy sevens” symbolically rather than as literal chronology, in reference to the second advent of Jesus the Messiah. Keil and Delitzsch, 400, view the entire “seventy sevens” of Daniel’s message as a “symbolical measure of time” that culminates in the second coming of Jesus the Messiah at the end of the eschaton. Baldwin, 177, however, considers the first sixty-nine sevens of Daniel’s message to have commenced with the decree of Cyrus (538 BC) and concluded with the first advent of Jesus the Messiah. For her, Daniel’s final seven, or seventieth week of years, spans the interval between the first and second advents of Jesus the Messiah.

The Antiochene interpretation (or the “historical interpretation” for Baldwin, 172–73) may be summarized as follows:

(1) The 490 years are understood literally and extend from 605 BC to the rededication of the Jerusalem temple (164 BC; so Montgomery, 394) or the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (163 BC; so Hartman and Di Lella, 250). The terminus a quo of 605 BC is determined by interpreting “the issuing of the decree to restore Jerusalem” (v.25) as an allusion to Jeremiah’s prophecy delivered in 605 BC concerning the seventy years of Babylonian captivity for the Hebrews (Jer 25:1, 11; cf. Towner, 143, who admits Jeremiah’s oracle does not speak directly to the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem). The interval between 605 BC and 163 BC considers only about 440 years of Hebrew history, leaving fifty years unaccounted for. The discrepancy is typically attributed to “a chronological miscalculation on the part of the writer” (so Montgomery, 393), since “the historical memory which the Jews retained of the period in question was very dim as regards facts” (so Porteous, 141; cf. Towner, 142; Lacocque, 178).

Specifically, the three sets of weeks of years are interpreted as follows. The first set of “seven sevens,” or forty-nine years, refers to the interval of time between the fall of Jerusalem (587 BC) and the decree of the Persian King Cyrus to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (538 BC). The second set of weeks of years (i.e., the sixty-two sevens, or 434 years) is usually understood to extend from the installation of Joshua as high priest or Zerubbabel as governor in the Jerusalem restoration community in 538 BC (in fulfillment of the coming of the “Anointed One”; v.25) to the death of the High Priest Onias III in 171 BC (in fulfillment of the “cutting off” of the Anointed One; v.26). This calculation falls short of accounting for the duration of the sixty-two sevens (434 years) by sixty-five years (cf. Lacocque, 178, who traces the terminus a quo for the time period of the sixty-two sevens (434 years) to the “decree” of Jeremiah 25:11 pronounced in 605 BC). The third set of years, the final week of (seven) years, is ascribed to the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV from 170–163 BC (see Russell, 187–92).

(2) Goldingay, 257–58, is among those Antiochene interpreters affirming the 490 years of Daniel’s “seventy sevens” not chronologically but symbolically as chronography—“a stylized scheme of history used to interpret historical data rather than arising from them” (257).

Quite apart from the interpretive details of Gabriel’s message to Daniel concerning the “seventy sevens” (vv.24–27), one thing is certain: the NT indicates that the message of seventy weeks of years had significance for times well beyond the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (cf. Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14; Rev 11:2; 13:5). Wallace, 166, correctly observes that in Daniel 9:24–27 “we think of Jesus” because “within the sphere of salvation history, coming events cast their shadow before. In the shape of earlier and smaller events, we can discern patterns that are going to be manifested in the final events.”

Furthermore, whether the 490 years of Daniel’s seventy weeks are understood literally or symbolically, and whether or not they represent an “apocalyptic report” of current events related to the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes or the prognostication of the advent(s) of Jesus the Messiah, the message of ch. 9 is consistent with the theological teaching of the book of Daniel. First, prayer is vital to the life of faith in God for the Hebrews of the “Diaspora” (cf. Russell, 171–74). Second, God is the sovereign ruler of human history (cf. Wallace, 162–65). Third, repentance is the essential prerequisite for reconciliation with God (cf. Longman, 239–43). Fourth, God is faithful to his covenantal promises to deliver and restore his people (Goldingay, 234).

The natural and logical response by the people of faith to the God who orchestrates the redemption of fallen creation and humanity through the historical process is worship. Biblical commentators, however, seem more concerned with solving the puzzle of Daniel’s “seventy sevens” than calling the people of faith to worship the God who revealed this remarkable message through Gabriel.