commentary on daniel :: chapter 7 (7.1-28)

Chapter 7:Beauty And The Beasts

7.1-28: Text and translation

My translation of ch. 7 seeks (albeit imperfectly) to retain the text’s‘dream-like’ metre. In the Aramaic, descriptions tumble forth, one af-ter the other, as different features of ch. 7’s vision impose themselves onDaniel. “Behold”, we read, “another one, like a leopard, with four wings,[as] of a bird, on its back” (7.6). We then read of the Ancient of Days,who is described by means of a similar list of attributes: “his attire, likewhite snow; the hair of his head, like pure wool; his throne, flashes offire; its wheels, a burning fire” (7.9). The text reflects the nature of adream. As images flash before Daniel’s eyes, he hurriedly notes eachone down, and then moves on to the next, which I have sought to reflectin my translation.

Shorter translational notes are footnoted. Where a ‘+’ sign appears, fur-ther translational notes can be found below (“7.1-28: Further transla-tional notes”).

7.1 מל� לבלאש°צר חד´ה בש נ®תו�חז�ו¦י חז³ה Mחל ד´נ¢י¦אל בבל

N¢באד¯י עלÊמש כבה ר§אש¨האמר;! Nמלי ר§אש Çתב חלמא

In the 1st year of Belshazzar (King of Babylon),1

Daniel saw a dream—even [a series of] visions in hismind—as [he lay] on his bed. Afterwards, he wrotethe dream down. The ‘head’+ of the matters states,2

1. The absence of the word ‘reign’ in 7.1 does not appear to be significant (9.1-2).

2. alt., ‘he related the head of the matters’

1

2 7.1-28: TEXT AND TRANSLATION

7.2 הו¦ית חז¦ה ו�אמר ד´נ¢י¦אל ענ¦האר�בע ו®ארו עÊMלילי³א בחז�ו¢י

ר¯בא;! לי®מא Nמג¢יח ש מי³א רוחי

in Daniel’s words,3 ‘As I watched in my vision atnight,4 behold: [I saw] the four winds of theheavens,+ stirring up the Great Sea,

7.3 Nסלק Nר¯בר�ב N³חיו ו�אר�בעמÊNד´א;! ד´א N³נ�יµש מÊNי®מא

and four great beasts arose from the Sea, each onedifferent from the other.

7.4 ד£יÊנ�ש°ר Nו�ג®פי Çאר�י¦ה קד�מי�תאד£יÊמר£יטו עד הו¦ית חז¦ה לה

מÊNאר�עא ונ�טילת ג®פיהולבב הקימת כאÉש N¢ר¯ג�ליÊו�על

לה;! י�היב אÉש

The first was like a lion, but had [the] wings of aneagle. I watched5 until its wings were plucked off; itwas then6 lifted up from the earth, caused to stand7

on two feet like a man, and given the heart of a man.

7.5 ד´מי³ה תנ�יÉ³ה אחר£י חיו³ה ו®ארוותלת הקמת ו�לש טרÊחד לדבש¤נ®ה כ| ש¤נ®י®ה Nבי בפuמה Nעלעיאכuלי קומי לה Nאמר£י Nו�כ ק

ש°ג¢יא;! בש°ר

And behold: another beast, a second one,resembling a bear, and it was caused to stand on oneside,8 and three ribs were in its mouth, between itsteeth, and it was [given] the following command:9

‘Stand up! Consume much flesh!’.

7.6 ו®ארו הו¦ית חז¦ה ד�Éה באתראר�בע Nג®פי ו�לה כנ�מר אחר£יק ג®בה כ| עלÊג®בי®ה PעוÊד£י

Nלטµו�ש לחיו�תא Nר§אש¤י ו�אר�בעהלה;! י�היב

After this, as I continued to watch, behold: another[beast], like a leopard, with four wings, as of a bird,on its back, and the beast had four heads, and it wasgiven rulership.

3. lit., ‘Daniel answered and said...’, the main purpose of which seems to be to introduce what follows it asthe ‘head’ of Daniel’s vision, and to introduce Daniel as the narrator

4. a different construction from ‘vision[s] of the night’ in 2.19, 7.7, and 7.9

5. alt., ‘looked [on]’

6. The lifting up of the beast from the ground seems to presuppose its fall (after the clipping of its wings),hence the word “then”.

7. The vocalisation of hqmt differs by MS. Some have haqimat (an act. form), which is hard to make senseof in the context of 7.5a; others have heqimat, which (with Bevan 1892:121) is not a form I recognise;and others have hoqimat, which is the easiest of the three to parse, and which I take to be original. Asfor the precise details of the form hoqimat, its initial (short) vowel is reminiscent of a pass. (Hoph.) form,while its unreduced ‘glide’ vowel is reminiscent of an act. form (cf. the C- and Cp-conjugations of the‘hollow verb’ in Heb.). Montgomery takes it to be a remnant of “the ancient pass[ive]” of the C-stem,akin to the Arab. form cuk. îmat (1927:294), which seems plausible.

8. In place of st.r, some MSS have st.r (a cog. with the same sense, attested in Syr.), while others have št.r(‘to write’).

9. alt., ‘they spoke to it’, in which case the ‘they’ could have in mind ch. 4’s ‘watchers’, but, in 3.4 and 4.31,the same verbal form ( comrîn) seems best translated as ‘it is commanded’

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 3

7.7 בחז�ו¦י הו¦ית חז¦ה ד�Éה באתרכ| ר�ביעי³ה חיו³ה ו®ארו לילי³או�אימתנ¢י ד�חילה ק ר�ביעאה

ד£יÊפר�זªל N¢ו�ש¤נ®י י®תיר´א ו�תקיפאומד¿קה אÇלה Nר¯בר�ב לה

ק בר¯ג�לה כ| בר¯ג�לי®ה וש אר´אמש°נ�י³ה ו�היא ר´פסה

קד´מיה ד£י מÊNכלÊחיו³תאלה;! עש°ר N¢ו�קר�נ®י

After this, as I continued to watch in the visions ofthe night, behold: a fourth beast, fearful anddreadful and excessively strong, and it had twogreat iron rows of teeth;10 it consumed and broke inpieces, and, with its feet, it trampled down theremnant.11 As for [the beast] itself, it was differentfrom the beasts before it and had ten horns.

7.8 ו®אלו בקר�נ®י³א הו¦ית מש תכלסלקת ז�עיר´ה אחר£י N«קר

ותלת ק Nבינ¦יה כ| Nבינ¦יהוכ| אתעקרו קד�מי³תא מÊNקר�נ®י³א

כ| מÊNקÅד´מי®ה ק אתעקר´הכעי�נ¦י Nעי�נ¢י ו®אלו ק קÅד´מה

ממלל Muופ בקר�ÉאÊד´א אÉשµא!;Nר¯בר�ב

As I reflected upon12 the horns, behold: anotherhorn—a less developed one13—arose from theirmidst, and three of the former horns were uprootedbefore it. And behold: in this horn [were] eyes likethe eyes of a man and a mouth proclaiming14 great[things].

10. lit., ‘and its two rows of teeth of iron [were] great’. rabreban could theoretically be a subst., but not veryplausibly. Since rabreban is a fem. plur., its subject would have to be ch. 7’s “beasts” (7.3), in which casean emph. form (rabrebata c) would be expected.

11. These verbs are all ptc. forms. As such, they could reflect progressive actions (the beast continuallydestroys, consumes, etc.) or habitual actions (the beast’s modus operandi is to destroy, to consume, etc.).Given the beast’s identity as a usurper and an Anti-God, the latter may be preferable (John 10.10, 2 Pet.2.1-3, etc.).

12. In the Dt-stem, the vb. «SKL» (alt., «SKL») generally means ‘to look at’ or ‘to reflect upon’, esp. when itsobject has a bêt prefix (CAL «SKL» 2015:vb., JDTT sekal). Since «SKL» is closely connected with ‘insight’in Daniel’s Heb. (e.g., 1.4, 9.13), I have opted for ‘reflected upon’.

13. ze cêr can signify either ‘smallness’ or ‘youth’ (CAL 2015:adj.), as can the cog. noun zcyrw (CAL 2015:n.f.).The same is true of the Akk. vb. s.eh

˘eru and its cognates, while the Heb. cognates s. a cîr, s. e cîrâh, and mis.

cîrâh cover a similar semantic field, although they tend to emphasise ‘youth’ as opposed to ‘smallness’(GHCL s. a cîr, s. e cîrâh). The (Heb.) s. e cîrâh is in fact employed to describe ch. 8’s horn (trad., ‘little horn’:8.9). In 7.8, ze cêr could plausibly, therefore, refer either to ‘smallness’ or ‘youth’, or even both. The hornis clearly younger than its peers, since it only rises to power after them (7.8), so it must have also been‘smaller’ than them at some point (8.9-10 cf. 8.3).

14. for «MLL»(D) as ‘to proclaim’, see 6.21


7.9 ר�מיו N³ר�סוÈ ד£י עד הו¦ית חז¦הכתלג לבוש¨ה י�תב Nיומי ו�עתיקנ�קא כעמר ר§אש¨ה וש ער חו³ר

ג®לג¢לוהי ד£יÊנור Nש ביבי כר�סי¦הד´לק;! נור

I watched15 until thrones were set out16 and [one]ancient in days17 took his seat: his attire, like whitesnow; the hair of his head, like pure wool;18 histhrone, flashes19 of fire; [and] its wheels, a burningfire.20

7.10 ו�Éפק Éג¦ד ד£יÊנור נ�הרכ| M¢אלפי Pאל מÊNקÅד´מוהי

N³ר¯בו ו�ר£בו י�ש°משונ¦ה ק NאלפיNי�קומו קד´מוהי ק Nר£בב כ|פתיחו;! Nו�ספר£י י�תב ד£יÉא

A river of fire flowed continually forth from beforehim.21 Thousand of thousands are [present] toserve him, and myriads of myriads stand inattendance22 before him. The court then sat, andbooks were opened.23

15. alt., ‘looked [on]’

16. lit., ‘cast’

17. ‘Ancient in days’ is indef., but later is put in the emph. state (7.13, 7.22). While, therefore, 7.9 simplyrefers to a man who happens to be ‘advanced in days’, the description later becomes an epithet, as perthe Theod.’s treatment of the text.

18. Sokoloff suggests “pure wool” (1976:277-279), but, given the syntax of 4.33, a phrase like ר§אש¨ה ש ער!N³כנ�קו might then be expected, though 7.8 provides a possible counterexample.

19. lit., ‘sparks’

20. Some translations insert ‘like’ (i.e., ‘his throne was like fiery flames’), but the phrase seems perfectlyintelligible as it is, and mirrors phrases such as, “He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him”(Psa. 18.11), “He makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire” (Psa. 104.4), etc.

21. 7.10 contains three pairs of verbs, each of which employs a different tense. First we have two ptc. forms(flowed forth and went forth: «NGD» and «NPQ»), then two impf. forms (ministered to him and stoodbefore him: «ŠMŠ» and «QWM»), and then two pfct. forms (the court sat and books were opened: «YTB»and «PTH. »). As such, 7.10a-b’s verbal forms stand in contrast to 7.10c’s. The text of 7.10a-b has adetached and almost timeless feel to it. As for the spec. details of 7.10a, its syntax is reminiscent of Heb.constructions such as hôlek-waw-so cer (‘the sea was becoming increasingly stormy’: Jon. 1.13 NASB),hôlek-waw-gadel (‘he continued to grow’: 1 Sam. 2.26, 2 Chr. 17.12), hôlek-waw-h. azeq (‘the sound grewlouder and louder’: Exod. 19.19 NASB), etc. I therefore take 7.10a to describe a continual flow of fire.

22. To ‘stand’ in the presence of a king is not simply to be present, but to be ready to serve and minister tothem (1.4, Gen. 41.46, 1 Kgs. 1.2, 12.6, 17.1, Jer. 52.12)

23. lit., ‘the judgment sat’. The context of 7.10 is clearly judicial. The vs. mentions a judge, a judgment seat,and official records; and, in light of 7.10’s activities, the beast is brought to justice (7.11). The noundîn therefore seems best understood as an abbreviation for byt dyn (‘court’). The NET has “the courtconvened”, while the CEB suggests “the court sat in session”.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 5

7.11 מלי³א מÊNקל N¢באד¯י הו¦ית חז¦הממללה קר�Éא ד£י ר¯בר�בתא

קטילת ד£י עד הו¦ית חז¦הו¢יהיבת ג¢ש מה ו�הובד חיו�תא

אµ�א;! ליקד¯ת

At that point, I looked [away] because24 of thesound of the great words the horn wasproclaiming,+ and I continued to watch until thebeast was slain, her body was destroyed,25 and she26

was given over to the fire to be burnt.27

7.12 Nלטנ�הוµש העד£יו חיו³תא וש ארNלהו י�היבת Nבחי¢י ו�אר�Èה

!;N´ו�עד Nז�מÊעד

As for the remnants of the beasts, their rule28 wascaused to pass away, and an extension of their liveswas given to them for an appointed season.29

7.13 ו®ארו לילי³א בחז�ו¦י הו¦ית חז¦האתה אÉש כבר ש מי³א עÊMעÉנ¦י

מטה יומי³א ו�עדÊעתיק הו³ההקר�בוהי;! וקד´מוהי

As I continued to watch in the visions of the night,behold: with the clouds of the heavens, one like ason of man was coming, and he came to the Ancientof Days, and was presented before him.

7.14 ומלכו ו¢יקר Nלטµש י�היב ו�להלה ו�לµ�נ®י³א אuמי³א עממי³א ו�כל

Mעל Nלטµש שµלטנ¦ה Nי¢פלחוד£יÊלא ומלכותה יªעד§ה ד£יÊלא

תתחבל;!

And [it was] he30 to whom rule and glory and akingdom were given, and all tribes, nations, andtongues will serve him. “His rule is an age-steadfastrule which will never pass away, and his kingdom isone which will never be harmed!”.31

7.15 ד´נ¢י¦אל אÉה רוחי אתכר£י®תר§אש¤י ו�חז�ו¦י נ¢ד�נªה בגוא

י�בהלuנ®נ¢י;!

As for me, Daniel, my innermost spirit was grieved,32

and the visions of my mind left me troubled.33

24. min can be either ‘because’ (XXX) or ‘from that time on’ (as per 4.26, 6.10, Ezra 4.15, 4.19, 5.12, 5.16).But ‘from that time on’ does not really fit the context of 7.11, since the prep. be cdayin (‘then’) locatesthe vs. in a fresh timeframe. We would end up with, ‘At that point [i.e., after the books were opened],I watched the horn from the moment it began to speak’ (so the CEB), which does not make sense, sincethe horn begins to speak long before the books are opened (7.8). Better, then, to view the vs. as follows.Daniel’s breath has been taken away by the sight of God’s throneroom, as his vision has been transportedaway from the earth and into the heavens (7.9-10), but, suddenly, the words of the beast then intrudeon his consciousness again and jolt him back to reality. Consequently, the vision of heaven’s throneroomfades away and the arrogance of the beast comes back into view.

25. alt., ‘caused to perish’ if the root of hûbad is taken to be «YBD» as opposed to «PBD»

26. The fem. pron. is intended to identify the beast as the subject of the verb “given”. The vb. ‘give’ refersback to “the beast” as opposed to the beast’s body (masc.).

27. lit., ‘to the burning of fire’

28. še car (strictly, a sing. form) is here treated as a plural. Compare the (reconstructed) Aram. phrase wš crh. yl czy prs wmdy cmy czlw (CAL š cr 2015:n.m., TAD C2.1 7.40) and Heb. texts such as Neh. 11.1, Isa.10.19, etc.

29. lit., ‘for a set-time and a season’, here treated as a hend. (spec., a dissimilar couplet)

30. leh normally follows its verb (e.g., 2.16, 2.24, 2.25, 2.46, 4.16, 4.35, 5.19, 6.6, 6.10, 6.16, 6.20, 7.4, 7.5,7.6). Its position in 7.14 therefore places emphasis on the words ‘to whom’.

31. 7.14’s final clause interrupts the flow of the vision slightly. It is an assertion (in the pres. tense) ratherthan a detail of ch. 7’s prophetic vision. It is also a carbon-copy of Nebuchadnezzar’s words of praise in4.34b. Given these considerations, I take 7.14b to be a peel of praise put on the lips of heaven’s hosts asthe Son of Man is crowned.

32. lit., ‘my spirit was grieved in the midst of the sheath’

33. 4.5’s trans. notes. ‘Left me troubled’ is intended to reflect the verb’s ongoing nature (as also in 4.19).


7.16 מÊNקאמי³א עלÊחד קר�בתאבעאÊמנ¦ה ו�י®ציבא

ופש°ר ו®אמרÊלי עלÊכלÊד�Éהי�הוד�ענ®נ¢י;! מלי³א

I approached one of those who stood inattendance,34 and I began to seek [answers] fromhim as to the certainty35 of all these things,36 and hespoke to me and began to make known to me thesignificance of the [relevant] matters.37

7.17 Nאנ¢י ד£י ר¯בר�בתא חיו³תא NאליNי�קומו Nמלכי אר�בעה אר�בע

מÊNאר�עא;!

‘These great beasts, which are four [in number], arefour kings. They will stand up from the earth.

7.18 קד£יש¨י מלכותא Nו¢יקבלומלכותא Nו�י®חסנו Nעליונ¢י

עלמי³א;! Mעל ו�עד עדÊעלמא

But the saints38 of the high places+ will receive thekingdom and will maintain possession of thekingdom for the age [to come]—even for ever’.39

7.19 עלÊחיו�תא לי®צבא צבית N¢אד¯ישµנ�י³ה ד£יÊהו³ת ר�ביעי�תא

ד�חילה ק Nכלהי כ| NכלהוÊNמד£יÊפר�זªל ק ש¤נ®ה כ| ש¤נ®י®ה י®תיר´המדÂקה אÇלה ד£יÊנ�חש ו�טפר¯יה

ר´פסה;! בר¯ג�ליה וש אר´א

I then sought40 greater clarity+ concerning thefourth beast—[the one] which was different from allthe others: extraordinarily fearful, iron-toothed andbronze-clawed, consuming, breaking [its victims] inpieces, and, with its feet, trampling down theremnant—,

7.20 בר§אש°ה ד£י עש°ר ו�עלÊקר�נ®י³אכ| ונ�פלו סלקת ד£י ו�אחר£י

קÅד´מה כ| מÊNקÅד´מי®ה ק ונ�פלהלה Nו�עי�נ¢י Nד£כ ו�קר�Éא תלת קר¯ב ו�חז�ו®ה Nר¯בר�ב ממלל Muו�פ

מÊNחבר´תה;!

and [likewise] concerning the ten horns on its headand the other [one] which arose before which three[others] fell—[concerning] that horn in particular41

because42 it had eyes and a mouth proclaiming greatthings and appeared to be greater than its peers.

7.21 עבד´ה Nד£כ ו�קר�Éא הו¦ית חז¦ה!;Nלהו ו�יÇ³לה Nקד£יש¤יÊMע קר´ב

As I continued to watch, that horn made war withthe saints, and it prevailed against them

7.22 ו�ד£יÉא יומי³א עתיק ד£יÊאתה עדו�ז¢מÉא Nעליונ¢י לקד£יש¨י י�הב

!;Nקד£יש¤י החסנו ומלכותא מטה

until the Ancient of Days came and judgment waspassed [in favour of] the saints43 of the high places,for44 the appointed time had come, and the saintstook possession of the kingdom.

34. as in 7.10

35. As in 2.8 and 6.12, I take yas.îb to describe a thing’s ‘certainty’ or ‘inevitability’ (see our comm.)

36. lit., ‘all this’

37. lit., ‘the interpretation of the things’, as in 5.26a

38. lit., ‘holy ones’, which term associates the ‘saints’ with ch. 4’s ‘holy watcher’ and also, thereby, with ‘theheavens’, but, since the NT term hagiois (lit., ‘holy ones’) is routinely rendered as ‘saints’, I have followedsuit here

39. lit., ‘even until the age of ages’, i.e., ‘for ever’, as in Eph. 3.21 (tou aionos ton aionon)

40. lit., ‘desired’

41. where the waw is assumed to be epexegetical, e.g., 1 Sam. 17.40

42. where the waw has a causal sense, as also in 7.22 (HCSB), 10.13 (NASB), Gen. 14.12, 24.56, 39.11, etc.

43. lit., ‘judgment was given to the saints’

44. as per the waw in 7.20

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 7

7.23 ר�ביעי�תא חיו�תא אמר Nכק ר�ביעאה כ| ר�ביעי³א מלכו

תש נ¦א ד£י באר�עא תהו¦או�תאכuל מÊNכלÊמלÇו³תא

ו�תד�קנ®ה;! ותדוש¤נ®ה כלÊאר�עא

He spoke as follows: ‘The fourth beast will be afourth kingdom on the earth, which will differ fromall the [other] kingdoms, and will consume thewhole earth, tread it [down],45 and break it intosmall pieces.

7.24 מלכותה מנ®ה עש°ר ו�קר�נ®י³אN´ו�אחר Nמוuי�ק Nמלכי עש ר´הי¢ש נ¦א ו�הוא Nאחר§יהו Mי�קוNמלכי ותלתה מÊNקד�מי¦א

י�הש פל;!

As for the ten horns, ten kings will stand up fromthat kingdom, and another [king] will stand up afterthem, and he will be different from those beforehim, and will lay low three kings.

7.25 ק עלאה כ| עלי³א לצד Nומליי�בלא Nעליונ¢י ולקד£יש¨י י�מלל

ו�ד´ת Nז¢מנ¢י להש Éי³ה ו�י¢סברNו�עד´נ¢י N´עדÊעד ביד§ה Nו�י¢תי®הבו

!;N´עד ופלג

He will make a proclamation against46 the MostHigh, and will wear out the saints of the high places;and he will plan to effect a change in the timesappointed by law,47 and they will be delivered48 intohis hand for a season, [two] seasons, and half aseason.49

7.26 Nי�העדו ו�שµלטנ¦ה י¢תב ו�ד£יÉאעדÊסופא;! ולהובד´ה להש מד´ה

But, when the court sits, his rule will be caused topass away, to be annihilated and destroyed until theend-point,50

45. ‘to «DWŠ»’ is ‘to trample underfoot’, as per its Heb. cog. (Deut. 25.4, Job 39.15). It is often associatedwith agriculture and threshing (JDTT dayiš, Targ. Onq. Lev. 26.5, etc., or, for Heb. parallels, 2 Kgs. 13.7,1 Chr. 21.20, Hos. 10.11), esp. when coupled with «DQQ»(C) (Heb. Isa. 28.28, 41.15, Mic. 4.13), as is thecase here. ‘To tread out’ therefore seems an appropriate translation, esp. given the harvest-time allusionsin 2.35 and the mention of the beast’s feet in 7.7b.

46. lit., ‘he will proclaim words against’

47. zimnîn-we-dat, lit., ‘the set-times and a law’, here treated as a hend. (spec., a dissimilar couplet). Fora hend. to comprise a plur. and a sing. noun is not common, but nor is it unprecedented (e.g., ‘gifts asreward’ in 2.6). Either way, it draws attention the sing. nature of the noun dat (‘law’), which makes itlikely to be a ref. to the tôrâh.

48. ‘Delivered’ is a Gt-stem conj. «YHB». Throughout ch. 7, Daniel employs the Gp form of «YHB» (a ‘divinepassive’) to reflect God’s direction of the course of history. Nebuchadnezzar is “given” (by God) theheart of a man (7.4), Greece is “given” dominion over the Near East (7.6), the beast is “given” over tothe flames (7.11), and so on. But, in 7.25b, Daniel employs a Gt-stem in place of the customary Gp. Theexact distinction between these conjugations is not clear to me. The Gt-stem may mean ‘to hand overfrom one person to another’ as opposed to simply ‘to give over’ (cf. 4Q212), as per the Old Gr. (paradidomicf. Matt. 5.25, 10.4, 10.17, 17.22, etc.), hence my trans. ‘delivered’.

49. While pelag (trad, ‘half’) can simply refer to a ‘part’ or ‘portion’ of a larger whole, ‘half’ it the morestandardly sense of the word (CAL plg 2015:n.m.), hence plgw (‘half’), plgh dywm c(‘noon’), plgh dlyly c

(‘midnight’), etc.

50. Goldingay suggests ‘completely and permanently destroyed’, but a verbal form of sôp would then beexpected, as per 2.44. For instances of act. infs. which acquire a pass. sense when prefixed by a lamed,see WOC 603.

8 7.1-28: FURTHER TRANSLATIONAL NOTES

7.27 ד£י ור�בותא ו�שµלטÉא ומלכותהי�היבת כלÊש מי³א תחות מלÇו³ת

מלכותה Nעליונ¢י קד£יש¨י Mלעלה שµלטנ®י³א ו�כל Mעל מלכות

!;Nו�י¢ש תמעו Nי¢פלחו

at which point51 the realm,52 rule, and greatness ofthe kingdoms under all of heaven will have beengiven to the people, the saints of the high places.“Their53 kingdom is an age-steadfast kingdom, andall rulerships will serve and obey them!”,

7.28 אÉה ד£יÊמלתא סופא עדÊכהי�בהלuנ®נ¢י ר¯עיונ®י ש°ג¢יא ד´נ¢י¦אל

בלבי ומלתא עלי Nי¢ש תנו ו�ז¢יו®י!;P נ¢טר§ת

which concludes the ‘bottom line’ of the matter.54 Asfor me, Daniel, my thoughts left me extremelytroubled, and my brightness of face began to fade.Nevertheless, I kept the matter in my heart’.

7.1-28: Further translational notes

7.1b the head[re cš] of the matters Like its Heb. cog., re cš covers a wide semanticfield—most notably, the ‘top’ of a tall object (Targ. Onq. Gen. 8.5, 11.4), the‘head’ of a body (2.38, 7.6, 7.20), the ‘beginning’ of an era (Num. 28.11,Prov. 8.23), the ‘source’ of a river (Pesh. Gen. 2.10), and the ‘summation’ ofa collection of objects/people (Exod. 30.12, Num. 1.2, Psa. 139.17).55 Butnone of these senses fit the context of 7.1 particularly well. On balance, recš seems best identified as a ref. to a particular subsection of ch. 7 (so CEB,

Goldingay 1989:144), for reasons I will now set out.

First, at the end of ch. 7, we come to ‘the sôp of the matter’ (7.28), whichsuggests ch. 7 has been divided up (by its editor) into a re cš and a sôp, as isfrequently done in Talmudic literature.56 (Of course, the Talmudsubstantially postdates Daniel, but its writings may nevertheless reflect anearly tradition, or even an earlier view of Dan. 7.) Second, for Daniel, a‘dream’ consists of a series of visions (2.28, 4.13, 7.1, 7.7), yet Danieldescribes what he sees in 7.2-6 as a single vision (7.2). Ch. 7 couldplausibly, therefore, transition from the re cš to the sôp of Daniel’s account atsome point after 7.7. Daniel’s mention of a re cš (‘head’) may even subtlyallude to the “head” of ch. 2’s colossus (i.e., Babylon). If so, ch. 7’s re cšcould envisage the vision’s present application (to Daniel and his readers),while its sôp could envisage its application to later generations (us), whichmight explain why Daniel is not told to ‘seal up’ ch. 7’s vision.

51. as implied by the future pfct. ‘will have been given’

52. lit., ‘kingdom’

53. alt., ‘his’

54. lit., ‘up to here is the sûp of the matter’. For the sense of cad-kâh, consider Jer. 51.64 or the Heb. cog. c

ad-koh in Gen. 22.5 or Exod. 7.16.

55. and hence, by extension, the ‘main point’ of a narrative, as per the Gr. kephalaion (Heb. 8.1)

56. Passages in the Talmud are commonly divided into a re cš and a sôp; hence, for instance, P. t. Qid. 80.b.2603 is prefaced by the statement, ‘the r cš deals with an orphan; the swp with one who has a father’ (cf.אב! לה בסיס וסופה ביתומה (ראסה and Bab. t. Meg. 9b.39 is prefaced by, ‘the ryš is [for?] the Rabbis; the syp

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 9

7.2 the four winds[rûh. ôt] of the heavens The “four winds of the heavens” arereferred to in both Daniel’s Aram. and Heb. chiasmuses (7.2, 8.8, 11.4).When coupled with the number ‘four’, the noun rûah. (sing. of rûh. ôt) canfunction in one of two ways. First, it can describe a ‘quarter’ of a particulararea.57 Hence, the four rûh. ôt of a given area of space would envisage its‘four quarters’, i.e., its northern, southern, eastern, and westernquadrants.58 Meanwhile, the four rûh. ôt of the heavens would envisage thenorth, south, east, and west in general. These same claims hold good in thecontext of the Heb. language. Like its Aram. cog., the Heb. vb. «RWH. »

means ‘to be spacious’ or ‘to have room’,59 and its cog. nouns can refer to a‘side’ (rûah. : Jer. 52.23, Ezek. 42.16) or a ‘space’ or ‘area’ (rewah. : Gen.32.16, Est. 4.14). Hence, the four rûh. ôt of a given area of space envisage its‘four quarters’ (1 Chr. 9.24), while the four rûh. ôt of the heavens envisagethe four points of the compass (Jer. 49.32-36, Ezek. 37.9).60

Second, the noun rûah. can refer to a ‘wind’. The vb. «RWH. » does not onlymean ‘to be spacious’, but ‘to breathe’, or (in the D-stem) ‘to possess’.Consequently, the noun rûah. can refer to a ‘wind’ or a ‘spirit’ or a ‘breath’,which, again, is also true of the Heb. noun rûah. .61 That the noun rûah. (inthe phrase carba crûh. ôt) can refer to either a ‘direction’ or a ‘wind’ shouldnot surprise us. To talk of winds in terms of different directions is a naturalthing to do, since winds generally arise from particular directions; hence,one can talk about ‘a north wind’, ‘an east wind’, etc.

is [for] [a certain named person]’ (ryš crbnn syp cr. m cyr). For further references, see CAL r cš 2015:n.m.and swp 2015:n.m.

57. The vb. «RWH. » can have the sense ‘to be spacious’. Accordingly, the noun rwh. can refer to an ‘openspace’ or a given ‘area’ (CAL rwh. 2015:v.n.), as can the noun mrwh. (CAL mrwh. 2015:n.m.). The Akk.vb. napašu spans a similar semantic field. By extension, then, the phrase ‘the four rwh. n’ envisages anexpanse of space divided into four ‘quarters’.

58. We might consider, by analogy, the Aram. phrase, ‘he attacked them in the night from from every side’,lit., ‘from their four rûh. ôt’ ().

59. GHCL rawah. .

60. Gesenius defines rûah. carba cas “a quarter of heaven” (GHCL rûah. [rûah. carba c]). He considers, by wayof analogy, expressions such as rûah. haqqadîm (‘the east side’) and rûah. has.s. apôn (‘the north side’) inEzek. 42.16-17.

61. In at least two verses, rûah. refers to both ‘wind’ and a ‘quarter’. The first is found in Jer. 49.36, where weread, “I, [the LORD], will bring upon Elam the four winds [rûh. ôt], from the four quarters [rûh. ôt] of theheavens, and I will scatter [the Elamites] to all those quarters [rûh. ôt], so there will be no nation to whichthose driven out of Elam will not come” (Jer. 49.36†). The second is found in Ezek. 37.9, where we read,“Come, O Spirit [rûah. ], from the four quarters [rûh. ôt], and breathe on these slain” (Ezek. 37.9†).


So, how are we meant to tell which of these two senses of rûah. is in mind inany given text? More spec., how are meant to know whether 7.2’s ref. to arûah. refers to a ‘point of the compass’ (a direction) or a ‘wind’ (an activeforce)? The answer is by recourse to its context. In 7.2, the ‘four rûh. ôt ofthe heavens’ are the subject of a verb: they are said to ‘stir up’ the GreatSea beneath them. They clearly, therefore, refer to ‘winds’ or ‘spirits’. Byway of contrast, in 8.8 and 11.4, the ‘four rûh. ôt of the heavens’ arepreceded by the preposition ‘to’ or ‘towards’ (four horns grow up towardsthem, and Alexander’s kingdom is scattered towards them), so they verylikely refer to ‘the four quarters of the heavens’, i.e., the north, south, east,and west. We could, therefore, translate le carba crûh. ôt haššamayim as ‘tothe far-flung corners of the globe’ or ‘in every direction’.62

7.18a the high places[celyônîn] celyônîn refers to ‘high things’ or, if treated as a plur.of majesty, ‘the highest thing’. It could theoretically, therefore, refer to YHWH

himself. But, when Daniel employs ‘the highest’ as a circumlocution forYHWH, he invariably employs the sing. cillay as opposed to the plur. celyônîn(3.26, 4.2, 4.17, etc.). With the DBY, I therefore take qaddîšê celyônîn toenvisage not a highly-exalted person, but, rather, a highly-exalted place,namely the heavenly realms.63 (The plurality of the term ‘the high places’then resonates with the plurality of the term ‘the heavens’.) Goldingayargues for “on high” as opposed to “of the high places”, but the sense of thephrase is not thereby changed much.64

62. We can consider, by analogy, the expression ‘the four wings of the earth’ (Isa. 11.12, Ezek. 7.2), or theNT expression “from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt. 24.31).

63. Gesenius tends towards the same conclusion. “May not [the plur. adj. celyônîn]”, he asks, “be equivalentto hupsista [i.e., the neut. of hupsistos, which often translates merômîm in the LXX] in the New Test. [e.g.,en tois hupsistois in Matt. 21.9], highest places?” (GHCL celyôn).

64. Goldingay 1989:XXX.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 11

7.18a saints of the high places[qaddîšê celyônîn] *qaddîšîm (a plur. adj.) envisages acollection of ‘holy things’. It could theoretically, therefore, refer to, say, holyplaces or days or vessels (Exod. 28.38, 29.31, Lev. 5.15, 6.9, 6.19, Neh.8.10-11, Isa. 57.15), but, in the context of ch. 7, it clearly envisages holypeople, since the *qaddîšîm in question are destined to rule the world (7.18,7.21-22, 7.27).65 Daniel also refers to a “holy people” in Heb. in 12.7, asalso (in my view) in 8.14. The exact identity of the *qaddîšîm is not speltout, but the implications of the term *qaddîšîm are clear. As mentionedpreviously, the primary sense of “holy” (an adj. employed in pagan as wellas Judeo-Christian circles) in Daniel is ‘otherworldly’ and ‘unearthly’ and‘from a different realm to ours’. As such, Nebuchadnezzar refers to the‘watcher’ who descends from the heavenly realms as “holy” (4.13’s comm.),and the Queen-mother refers to God (or “the gods”) as “holy” (5.11’s trans.notes). Daniel’s ref. to the *qaddîšîm has the same general sense: itdescribes a group of people entirely distinct from the beasts of theearth—unworldly, heavenly-minded, servants of the God of the heavens asopposed to the power-hungry despots of the nations.

I therefore, with Bevan and others,66 take the ch. 7’s *qaddîšîm to refer tothe God of heaven’s earthly people, i.e., Israel, the people whom YHWH choseout from the nations to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod.19.6), “a people holy to the LORD,...a people for his treasured possession,out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth” (Deut. 7.6). I alsotake ch. 7’s statements about the *qaddîšîm to apply tangentially to theChurch since Paul applies the epithet ‘holy ones’[hagiois] to the members ofthe Messiah’s ekklesia—a point we will take up again later (Rom. 1.7, 1 Cor.1.2, etc.).

65. unless one takes ‘people’ to be a cstr. form, in which case 7.27 would read, ‘[the] kingdom...will be givento the people of the saints of the high places’, though the sense of the vs. would then be quite obscure

66. “[Ch. 7’s] author has selected the phrase [qaddîšê celyônîn]”, Bevan writes, “to express the heavenlycharacter of Israel as contrasted with the nations of the earth” (1892:125). That the *qaddîšîm are anangelic host is, I suppose, a possibility, but it would seem an odd identification to make, since Daniel’sinterest in ch. 7 is not the destiny of God’s angels (a fact nowhere discussed in Scripture) but, rather, thedestiny of Israel (9.24, 10.14, 12.1, 12.7).


7.19 I then sought greater clarity[YS.B (D)], trad., ‘sought to know the truth’.Derivatives of «YS.B» are commonly associated with the concept of ‘certainty’(e.g., ys.wb), as in 2.8 and 6.12 (ys.yb). Accordingly, the CAL defines [YS.B (D)] as‘to validate’, or, in the case of Dan. 7.19, ‘to make certain/clear’ (2015:vb.).My inclination is to render the vb. as ‘to clarify’, as is consistent with earlytranslations of Dan.,67 and as is suggested by Bevan.68 In my view, then,7.19 concerns a different kind of ‘certainty’ to 7.16’s. In 7.16, asks aboutthe objective certainty of the beast’s arrival, i.e., whether its arrival is certainto come to pass (7.16), while, in 7.19, Daniel seeks to acquire a moresubjective kind of certainty. If the beast’s arrival cannot be avoided, theDaniel wants to find out as much as he can about it. He wants to be certainhe has correctly understood its agenda, and to clarify its exact role.

7.27b their/his kingdom 7.27b’s pronouns can be understood in one of twoways: i] as references to God’s people (7.27a), or ii] as references to 7.13’s“one like a son of man” (given the parallels between 7.27b and 7.14b). Theformer strikes me as preferable for at least a couple of reasons, as also theCEB, NRSV, ESV,69 etc. First, because of its contextual merit. We have justread about how “the kingdoms” have been given to God’s saints. Whatbetter way, then, to announce their rule than for heaven’s earlierproclamation (7.14) now to be echoed on the earth? “Their kingdom is anage-steadfast kingdom!”. The authority bestowed on the Son of Man inheaven is inherited by the saints on the earth. For the sense, we mightcompare Isa. 49.22-2370 or Rev. 5.9-10, 20.1-6. Second, it (potentially)explains Daniel’s introduction of the title “the people”. The title “the people,saints of the Most High” allows the saints to be referenced by means of asing. pron., and hence allows the phrase employed in 7.14b to be repeatedin 7.27, but with a different implied referent, which gives the chapter a nicesymmetry and poetry (cf. “7.1-28: Its literary structure” below).

67. ‘to diligently learn’ (volui diligenter discere: Vulg.), ‘to investigate thoroughly’ («QQB»(D): Pesh.)

68. “I desired to have certain knowledge” (1892:125)

69. in some versions

70. Thus says [the Lord YHWH], ‘Behold, I will lift up my hand to the nations, and set up my standard tothe peoples; and they will bring your sons in their bosom, and your daughters will be carried on theirshoulders. Kings will be your guardians, and their princesses your nurses. They will bow down to youwith their faces to the earth, and lick the dust of your feet, and you will know that I am the LORD; thosewho hopefully wait for me will not be put to shame”’ (NASB).

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 13

7.1-28: An overview

Thus far in Daniel’s writings, Daniel has served solely as an interpreter.He has interpreted two dreams for Nebuchadnezzar and a series of let-ters (mn cmn ctqlwprsyn) for Belshazzar. These three divine communiquéshave been addressed to Babylon’s kings, and have contained an impor-tant for them. As such, the events of ch. 7 mark an important departurefrom the pattern of chs. 1-6. In ch. 7, God speaks directly to Daniel him-self. Moreover, God speaks to Daniel not about the future of Babylon perse but about the future of his own people.

Daniel’s vision revolves around four wild beasts and a human heavenlyking. The beasts crawl up from a raging sea onto dry land. They emergeone at a time. Each one overthrows its predecessor, gains dominion overthe Near East (and ipso facto over Israel), and then proceeds to scatterGod’s people throughout the earth. The beasts can be enumerated asfollows: i] a lion with eagle’s wings, which is later given the heart ofa man; ii] a lop-sided bear, i.e., a bear “raised up” on one side; iii] afour-headed leopard with four wings on its back; and iv] a beast, whichis entirely unlike its predecessors and has ten horns on its head.

Like the four sections of the Colossus, Daniel’s four beasts depict bothkings and kingdoms (7.17, 7.23). They in fact depict the same kingdomsdepicted in the Colossus (the gold, silver, bronze, and iron). As such, ch.7’s vision spans the entire Time of the Gentiles. It begins with the riseof Nebuchadnezzar and concludes with the return of Christ. The firstthree beasts depict the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greecerespectively. Meanwhile, the fourth is a very different kind of entity. Itis a spiritual kingdom—the conclusion and culmination of the first threebeasts’ wantonness and brutality. It depicts the worldwide empire ofSatan.

The fourth beast constitutes the focal-point of ch. 7. While Daniel de-votes only four verses to the reign of the first three beasts, he devoteseleven to the reign of the fourth. The fourth beast is described in graphicdetail. Suffice to say, it is an awful sight to behold. It has ten horns,

14 7.1-28: AN OVERVIEW

iron teeth, and a mouth from which blasphemous claims proceed. It isentirely destructive in nature, and a large part of its aggression seems tobe focused on God’s people. As Daniel watches, the beast then spawnsan eleventh horn, which depicts the Gentiles’ final king. Like the beastitself, the horn-cum-king is a hideous sight. It has the heart (we mayassume) of a beast, but the eyes and mouth of a man. As such, it com-bines elements of manhood and elements of animal aggression. It risesto power in war-like circumstances (it overthrows three of its peers), andproceeds to wage war against God himself. It is an Anti-God through andthrough.

With the advent of 7.9, a dramatic change of scene takes place in Daniel’svision. Daniel finds himself in the midst of heaven’s throneroom, wherea trial is about to begin. First, a number of thrones are set out. Oncethe ‘lesser thrones’ in place, an enormous fire-enshrouded throne is thenwheeled out into the centre of heaven’s court. At the same time, heaven’shosts begin to take their place. Finally, the Ancient of Days arrives andtakes his seat, at which point the courtroom-attendants do likewise. Thetrial of the earth’s beasts is now ready to begin. The fourth of Daniel’sbeasts is the first to be judged. The charge brought against it is blas-phemy, and the beast is found to be guilty as charged. Even as the ver-dict is announced, Daniel hears words of blasphemy floating up fromthe earth. He looks down towards the Great Sea and the land of Is-rael, where he sees the beast come to a fiery end. The earth is therebypurged of the fourth beast’s influence. Meanwhile, the first three beastsare stripped of their power and dominion, but are allowed to live on ina ‘tamed’ state.

In 7.13-14, a second dramatic change of scene takes place. The beastfades from view, and heaven’s throneroom comes into focus again. Asbefore, Daniel sees the hosts of heaven assembled around God’s throne.But they have assembled for a very different reason. They have a humanbeing at their head, and they have gathered, not to witness a trial, but towitness a coronation. As Daniel watches, a son of man approaches God’sthrone, where he is crowned as Creation’s king. The glorified son of manis everything the beasts are not. He is a true human being; he is obedient

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 15

to God’s will; and his authority over Creation is one of right rather thanusurpation. Like the rest of the rulers in ch. 7, the Son of Man depictsnot just a single king but an entire kingdom. The Son of Man’s kingdomis the world as a whole, and his people—whose victory he secures—are“the saints of the high places” (7.26-27).

In 7.15-16, Daniel’s visions come to a halt. Daniel, however, is still inHeaven’s throneroom. There, he approaches one of the angels in heavenand asks him about what he has just seen. In 7.17-27, the angel providesDaniel with further insight into his vision. According to the angel, thefourth beast will prevail over God’s people for “a season, [two] seasons,and half a season”. At the end of these seasons, the Ancient of Days willdescend to the earth, and will destroy the empire of the fourth beast.Heaven’s reign will thereby be inaugurated on the earth, and all Cre-ation will become subject to God’s headship. By extension, the world’skingdoms will become the possession of God’s suffering people.

As can be seen, then, the details of ch. 7’s vision are quite involved, buttheir general thrust is clear. It can be summarised as follows. Beforethe kingdom of heaven is fully established, four earthly kingdoms mustrise and fall on the earth. The reigns of these kingdoms begin badly, andget worse. A series of arrogant, boastful, and even blasphemous kingsrise to power over the nations and oppress God’s people. Their reign isassociated with the ‘night’. But, despite appearances to the contrary, thebeasts’ reign only brings God’s sovereign purposes to pass. God employsthe reign of the beasts to purge and purify his people. And God has as-signed strict bounds to the beasts’ freedom. As soon as their behaviour‘crosses the line’, God will bring the beasts’ kingdom to an end and com-pletes the establishment his heavenly kingdom in its place. (The sameidea underlies ch. 4. Once Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom comes into con-tact with the clouds of the heavens, God reduces it to nothing: 4.11-14.)The beasts’ apparent freedom is merely, therefore, rope for them to hangthemselves with. Contrary to first impressions, it is God’s holy peoplewho will emerge triumphant in the end. These long-suffering saints willshare in the victory of their Messiah and come to inherit a kingdom which

16 7.1-28: THE PARALLELS BETWEEN CH. 2 AND CH. 7’S DREAMS

will never pass away. The text of Psa. 49 provides a perfect commentaryon these events:

Man in his pomp will not remain;he is like the beasts which perish...Like sheep, they are appointed for Sheol;death will be their shepherd,and the upright will rule over them in the morning...Meanwhile, God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol,for he will receive me. Selah.Be not afraid when a man becomes rich,when the glory of his house increases.For when he dies he will take nothing with him;his glory will not go down after him.

(Psa. 49.12-17)

Of course, all these points require careful justification, which we willprovide in our verse-by-verse comments. First, however, we must ‘take astep back’ and consider the big picture, since many of ch. 7’s only becomeclear when we consider the chapter as a whole.

7.1-28: The parallels between ch. 2 and ch. 7’s dreams

Ch. 7’s dream parallels ch. 2’s in a number of important ways, as thearrangement of Daniel’s Aramaic chiasmus would lead us to expect.71 Ilist the most obvious below.

(1) Both dreams begin their depiction of world history at the samepoint in time, i.e., with the rise of Nebuchadnezzar. In Nebuchadnez-zar’s dream, Nebuchadnezzar is the “head of gold”; in Daniel’s, he is thehigh-flier who is brought back down to earth with a bang. (2) Bothdreams end their depiction of world history at the same point in time,i.e., with the overthrow of the world’s last king and the return of God’spromised king. In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, God’s king is portrayed as aonce-rejected Cornerstone; in Daniel’s, he is portrayed as a heavenly sonof man. (3) Both dreams revolve around a series of Gentile kingdoms.

71. See “Daniel’s literary structure” in our Preface.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 17

Accordingly, both dreams begin with the accession of Nebuchadnezzar(the king who wrested Jerusalem from the Jewish people’s hands) andconclude with the rise of Israel’s Messiah (who will return Jerusalem toits rightful owners). (4) Both dreams depict the world’s final kingdomas an entity with enormous destructive potential. In both cases, the king-dom is associated with the strength of “iron” and is said to “crush” and“grind” its rivals to powder. (5) Both dreams depict the course of worldhistory in terms of a dilution of power and unity. Both begin with thereign of a single monarch and conclude with the fall of an empire runby ten “kings” (“toes” in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, “horns” in Daniel’s).The meta-narrative of both dreams therefore revolves around degrada-tion and deterioration. The Colossus begins with gold and ends in iron-and-clay. Meanwhile, the beasts begin with a lion (the most majestic ofanimals) and end with a hideous monster. (6) Both dreams depict theworld’s fourth kingdom in terms of a lack of cohesion. The Colossus’sfourth kingdom is an attempt to mix two unmixable substances (clayand iron), which undermines the entire Colossus. Meanwhile, Daniel’sfourth beast is an attempt to mix the human and the inhuman;72 plungesthe world into a war both against itself and against God, and therebyincurs God’s judgment.

In sum, then, there are a number of clear parallels between Nebuchad-nezzar’s and Daniel’s dreams. But, for all these parallels, there are anumber of clear differences between the two dreams.

(1) The two dreams differ in their depiction of the character of the Gen-tiles’ rule. Nebuchadnezzar depicts the Gentile kingdoms as a series oflustrous and precious metals—an attractive and glorious prospect (2.31).Daniel, on the other hand, depicts these kingdoms as a pack of brutebeasts—a depraved and untamed influence on the world. Daniel’s dreamis also set against the backdrop of “the night”, which has negative andapocalyptic connotations (Luke 22.52-53). (2) The two dreams differin their depiction of the status of the Gentiles’ reign. Nebuchadnezzar’skingdoms form a human figure. As such, they are portrayed as God’s

72. Daniel’s fourth beast is a combination of animal instinct and human intelligence; it is beastly in nature,yet has the eyes and mouth of a man.

18 7.1-28: THE PARALLELS BETWEEN CH. 2 AND CH. 7’S DREAMS

earthly representatives. They have the right to reign (Psa. 8.5-8). Byway of contrast, Daniel’s beasts are usurpers. They have exceeded theirGod-given authority, and hijacked man’s role in God’s Creation. Danieltherefore sees the Times of the Gentiles as a departure from God’s au-thority. (3) The two dreams differ in their depiction of Israel’s Messiah.Nebuchadnezzar’s dream has little to say about the Messiah, and whatit does say does not speak highly of him. In contrast to the splendourof the Gentile kings, the Messiah is portrayed as a “stone”—a substanceof low value and little lustre. Daniel’s dream, on the other hand, speaksvery highly of the Messiah. Unlike the beasts, the Messiah is portrayedas a just and worthy ruler. He is subject to God’s authority, and is a truehuman being. (4) The two dreams differ in their depiction of the Mes-sianic kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar sees the Messiah as the king who dealsthe Colossus its death-blow. He thereby brings the Gentiles’ momentof glory to an end. Daniel, however, sees the Messiah as the king whorestores a fallen world to its former glory and vindicates God’s people.Daniel also sees further afield than Nebuchadnezzar. He describes therole of the Gentile nations after the Messiah has returned (7.12, 7.26).Nebuchadnezzar’s dream therefore concludes with a simplified versionof ch. 7’s conclusion. What Nebuchadnezzar sees as a single (earth-shattering) event, Daniel sees in distinct stages. But the two visions areby no means incompatible. Indeed, insofar as Nebuchadnezzar’s visionsdescribes a period when the Colossus’s chaff is ‘winnowed’, it seems toanticipate the establishment of the fifth kingdom as a gradual process. Itmay even hint at the existence of an aspect of the Colossus which is notcarried away by the wind—a winnowed-out remnant of man’s kingdom(the ‘good part’ of the grain crop) which corresponds to “the remnantsof the beasts” (7.12). Either way, in both visions, the Gentiles’ power isultimately broken, never again to acquire dominion over the earth.

In sum, then, while Nebuchadnezzar is interested in the power, extent,and outward appearance of the Gentile kings, Daniel is interested inthe Gentile kings’ moral character, their treatment of God’s people, andtheir submission (or lack thereof) to God’s authority. The table belowsummarises our analysis to date:

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 19

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (ch. 2)... Daniel’s dream (ch. 7)...

revolves around a four-part colossus revolves around a sequence of fourbeasts

begins with the accession ofNebuchadnezzar, the head of gold

begins with the accession ofNebuchadnezzar, the ‘high-flying’ lion

spans the entire duration of theGentiles’ reign over the Near East

spans the entire duration of theGentiles’ reign over the Near East

depicts the world’s fourth kingdom interrifying terms

depicts the world’s fourth kingdom asa hideous monster

depicts a gradual dilution of powerand unity

depicts a gradual departure fromGod’s authority

depicts the fourth kingdom as anattempt to mix two unmixablesubstances

depicts the fourth kingdom as anattempt to combine twouncombinable aspects of God’sCreation

depicts the Gentiles’ reign in majesticand attractive terms

depicts the Gentiles’ reign in beastlyand unattractive terms

depicts the Gentile-kingdoms asworthy of their position

depicts the Gentile-kingdoms asusurpers

has little to say about Israel’s Messiah has much to say about Israel’sMessiah

depicts the Messiah’s arrival as theend of world history

depicts the Messiah’s arrival as a newbeginning

What, then, can we glean from these similarities and differences? Whatdo they tell us about the scope and nature of ch. 2 and ch. 7’s dreams?My best guess is as follows. Nebuchadnezzar’s and Daniel’s visions aredepictions of the same sequence of events, but are viewed from differ-ent perspectives. To be more precise, both visions depict the Times ofthe Gentiles, but are depicted from the perspectives of their seers. Neb-uchadnezzar sees the Gentiles’ reign from the perspective of a Gentileking. As a result, he is impressed by the power, size, and outward splen-dour of the Gentile kingdoms, and he views the arrival of the Messiah asan unwelcome intrusion—the moment when the Gentiles’ great dreamsare shattered. Daniel, however, sees the Gentiles’ reign from the per-spective of a Jewish prophet. He is able to see the moral and spiritual

20 7.1-28: ITS LITERARY STRUCTURE

corruption of the Gentiles’ reign, and he sees the Messiah’s arrival asthe time when the earth’s fallen state is put right—when the beasts as-sume their rightful place and give glory to the God of Israel. Ch. 2 andch. 7’s dreams are therefore inherently related to the worldviews of theirdreamers—which should not surprise us. Our dreams are invariably con-nected to our conscious experiences in some way, and things are not sodifferent when it comes to prophetic dreams. Of course, to relate ch. 2’sdream to Nebuchadnezzar’s perspective on life is in no way to cast doubton its accuracy. What Nebuchadnezzar sees in his dream is a perfectlyaccurate depiction of history as far as it goes. The Gentile kingdoms doindeed have a certain glory and power to them, for God himself has madethem glorious and powerful (2.37-38, 5.19). To depict the Gentile agesin terms of lustrous metals like gold and silver is not, therefore, wrong.But, as Daniel rightly perceives, behind the Gentile-kingdoms’ grand exte-rior lies a spirit of power-lust and moral depravity—a fallen nature whichopposes the God of Heaven. Indeed, Daniel has witnessed such fallen-ness at close quarters. He has seen the madness of Nebuchadnezzar,the depravity of Belshazzar, the brutality of Babylon’s armies, and plentymore besides. He knows exactly what the earth’s kings are like withoutGod’s restraining grace. He has seen Nebuchadnezzar practically becomea beast, which no doubt lies behind his depiction of the Gentile kings inch. 7’s vision.

7.1-28: Its literary structure

Ch. 7 has been arranged in the form of a double-chiasmus. As such, itsstructure parallels that of the Book of Daniel as a whole. Interestingly,the centre-points of the double-chiasmus describe the intervention of theAncient of Days.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 21

The first chiasmus can be tabulated as follows:

Ref. Sec. Description

7.1 A: Belshazzar is crowned as Babylon’s vice-regent

7.3 » B: Four beasts emerge in the earth from a tumultuous sea

7.4 »» C: The first three beasts acquire dominion over Judah

7.7 »»» D: The unearthly fourth beast emerges

7.9 »»»» E: The Ancient of Days announces the fourth beast’s judgment

7.11 »»» D’: The fourth beast is judged

7.12 »» C’: The first three beasts are tamed

7.13 » B’: The Son of Man emerges in heaven from the earth

7.14 A’: The Son of Man is crowned as the earth’s vice-regent

Ch. 7’s second chiasmus can be represented as follows:

Ref. Sec. Description

7.15 A: Daniel is troubled; the angel’s interpretation begins

7.17 » B: The angel announces the saints’ triumph

7.19 »» C: The angel announces the persecution of the saints

7.22 »»» D: The Ancient of Days vindicates his people

7.23 »» C’: The angel expands on the persecution of the saints

7.26 » B’: The angel expands on the saints’ triumph

7.28 A’: The interpretation concludes; Daniel is left troubled

These two chiasmuses divide ch. 7 into two halves: i] the details ofDaniel’s vision (7.1-14), ii] the interpretation of Daniel’s vision (7.15-28). These two halves parallel one another in a number of importantways—in particular, they open in similar ways (7.1-3, 7.15-18), have asimilar flow and feel, and conclude with an identical pinion of praise(7.14, 7.27). Below, I have set out the chiasmuses side-by-side:


The vision’s context The interpretation’s context

7.1 In the 1st year of Belshazzar(King of Babylon), Daniel saw adream—even [a series of] visionsin his mind—as [he lay] on hisbed. At the same time, he wrotethe dream down. The ‘head’ ofthe matters states,

7.15 As for me, Daniel, my innermostspirit was grieved, and the visionsof my mind left me troubled.

The vision’s subject matter The interpretation’s subjectmatter

7.2 in Daniel’s words, ‘As I watchedin my vision at night, behold: [Isaw] the four winds of theheavens, stirring up the GreatSea,

7.16 I approached one of those whostood in attendance, and I beganto seek [answers] from him as tothe certainty of all these things,and he spoke to me and began tomake known to me thesignificance of the [relevant]matters.

7.3 and four great beasts arose fromthe Sea, each one different fromthe other.

7.17 ‘These great beasts, which are four[in number], are four kings. Theywill stand up from the earth.

7.18 But the saints of the high placeswill receive the kingdom and willmaintain possession of thekingdom for the age [tocome]—even for ever’.

The first three beasts The first three beasts

7.4 The first was like a lion, but had[the] wings of an eagle. Iwatched until its wings wereplucked off; it was then lifted upfrom the earth, caused to standon two feet like a man, and giventhe heart of a man.

7.5 And behold: another beast, asecond one, resembling a bear,and it was caused to stand onone side, and three ribs were inits mouth, between its teeth, andit was [given] the followingcommand: ‘Stand up! Consumemuch flesh!’.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 23

7.6 After this, as I continued towatch, behold: another [beast],like a leopard, with four wings,as of a bird, on its back, and thebeast had four heads, and it wasgiven rulership.

The fourth beast’s reign The fourth beast’s reign

7.7a After this, as I continued to watchin the visions of the night,behold: a fourth beast, fearfuland dreadful and excessivelystrong, and it had two great ironrows of teeth; it consumed andbroke in pieces, and, with its feet,it trampled down the remnant.

7.19 I then sought greater clarityconcerning the fourth beast—[theone] which was different from allthe others: extraordinarily fearful,iron-toothed and bronze-clawed,consuming, breaking [its victims]in pieces, and, with its feet,trampling down the remnant—,

7.7b As for [the beast] itself, it wasdifferent from the beasts before itand had ten horns. As I reflectedupon the horns, behold: anotherhorn—a less developedone—arose from their midst, andthree of the former horns wereuprooted before it. And behold:in this horn [were] eyes like theeyes of a man and a mouthproclaiming great [things].

7.20 and [likewise] concerning the tenhorns on its head and the other[one] which arose before whichthree [others] fell—[concerning]that horn in particular because ithad eyes and a mouth proclaiminggreat things and appeared to begreater than its peers.

7.21 As I continued to watch, that hornmade war with the saints, and itprevailed against them

The fourth beast’s judgment The fourth beast’s judgment

7.9 I watched until thrones were setout and [one] ancient in daystook his seat: his attire, likewhite snow; the hair of his head,like pure wool; his throne, flashesof fire; [and] its wheels, aburning fire.

7.22 until the Ancient of Days cameand judgment was passed [infavour of] the saints of the highplaces, for the appointed time hadcome, and the saints tookpossession of the kingdom.

7.10 A river of fire flowed continuallyforth from before him. Thousandof thousands are continually[present] to serve him, andmyriads of myriads stand inattendance before him. Thecourt then sat, and books wereopened.


A parenthetical interpretation

7.23 He spoke as follows: ‘The fourthbeast will be a fourth kingdom onthe earth, which will differ fromall the [other] kingdoms, and willconsume the whole earth, tread it[down], and break it into smallpieces.

7.24 As for the ten horns, ten kings willstand up from that kingdom, andanother [king] will stand up afterthem, and he will be differentfrom those before him, and willlay low three kings.

7.25 He will make a proclamationagainst the Most High, and willwear out the saints of the highplaces; and he will plan to effect achange in the times appointed bylaw, and they will be deliveredinto his hand for a season, [two]seasons, and half a season.

The judgment continues The judgment continues

7.11 At that point, I looked [away]because of the sound of the greatwords the horn was proclaiming,and I continued to watch untilthe beast was slain, her body wasdestroyed, and she was givenover to the fire to be burnt.

7.26 But, when the court sits, his rulewill be caused to pass away, to beannihilated and destroyed untilthe end-point,

7.12 As for the remnants of the beasts,their rule was caused to passaway, and an extension of theirlives was given to them for anappointed season.

A parenthetical vision

7.13 As I continued to watch in thevisions of the night, behold: withthe clouds of the heavens, onelike a son of man was coming,and he came to the Ancient ofDays, and was presented beforehim.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 25

The conclusion of the vision The conclusion of theinterpretation

7.14a And [it was] he to whom ruleand glory and a kingdom weregiven, and all tribes, nations, andtongues will serve him.

7.27a at which point the realm, rule, andgreatness of the kingdoms underall of heaven will have been givento the people, the saints of thehigh places.

7.14b “His rule is an age-steadfast rulewhich will never pass away, andhis kingdom is one which willnever be harmed!”.

7.27b “Their kingdom is an age-steadfastkingdom, and all rulerships willserve and obey them!”,

Set out as such, a number of features of ch. 7’s vision and interpretationbecome apparent.

(1) The angel’s interpretation of Daniel’s vision makes no mention atall of the first three beasts. Perhaps Daniel saw their reigns as self-explanatory. Or perhaps he was simply less worried by them. Eitherway, the fourth beast takes centre-stage in 7.15-27 (‘the sôp of the mat-ter’). (2) In Daniel’s vision, the beasts arise from the “sea”, while, inthe angel’s interpretation, the beasts arise from the “earth”. The angel’sinterpretation thereby brings out an important feature of ch. 7’s vision.Ch. 7’s vision does not merely describe a conflict between the sea andthe land (i.e., between the Gentile nations and the Jewish people). Itdescribes a conflict between the earth and the heavens. That, in fact,is the central battle portrayed in Daniel’s writings. The same conflict isbrought out in 7.23-27. The beast is said to consume “the whole earth”,while the saints are said to inherit “the kingdoms under the whole ofheaven”. (3) The judgment of the beast is associated with the interven-tion of the Ancient of Days (7.11, 7.22). In 7.11, the Ancient of Dayspresides over a trial in heaven’s courtroom. In 7.22, he “comes” to theearth in order to deliver and effect his verdict. (4) Daniel’s initial vision(7.1-14) makes no mention of God’s people at all (“the saints of the highplaces”), but its interpretation (7.15-27) provides us with some impor-tant information about them: a] the saints are connected with “the highplaces” (heaven’s throneroom) as opposed to the lower earthly realms;b] the saints end up on the winning side of the battle between heavenand earth (7.18); c] the saints are only mentioned in the context of the

26 7.1-28: ITS OVERALL INTERPRETATION

fourth beast’s reign and are the unique object of the beast’s hatred andanimosity (7.21, 7.25); and d] the saints are closely connected to 7.13’sheavenly “son of man”; indeed, what is said of Daniel’s son of man in7.13 is said of the saints in 7.27.

We can therefore conclude the following things about the saints. Theyare a heavenly people. They may be a suffering people, but they areultimately triumphant. In temporal terms, they are closely connectedwith the fourth beast’s reign. And they are on the side of the heavenlyson of man as opposed to the earthly beasts.

7.1-28: Its overall interpretation

Ch. 7’s vision has been interpreted in a variety of ways over the years. Assuch, it has been a source of contention and confusion. It has even ledsome Christians to question the value of the entire field of prophecy. Butmuch of the confusion which surrounds Daniel’s vision is quite unnec-essary. Indeed, we can dispense with a great many of ch. 7’s profferedinterpretations at a stroke since they simply do not square with the text.Consider, for instance, the end-point of Daniel’s vision:

[At that point], the kingdom, rule, and greatness of the king-doms under all of heaven will have been given to the peo-ple, the saints of the high places. “Their kingdom is anage-steadfast kingdom, and all rulerships will serve and obeythem!”.

(Dan 7.27)

We presently live in a world where God’s name is blasphemed, God’sword is ridiculed, God’s laws are flouted, and God’s people are subjectedto disdain, persecution, and slaughter. One thing at least should there-fore be clear. We do not live in a world where mankind “serves” and“obeys” God and his people. If ch. 7’s vision can depict today’s acts ofviolence and ungodliness as acts of ‘service and obedience’ to God, thenprophecy seems bound to remain a complete mystery to us. Whatever,therefore, we make of ch. 7’s specific details, Daniel’s vision cannot have

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 27

been entirely fulfilled as yet. Its events must still be in progress. Thesame point emerges from a consideration of the run-up to the ch. 7’send-point:

7.26 But, when the court sits, his rule will be caused to pass away, to beannihilated and destroyed until the end-point,

7.27 at which point the realm, rule, and greatness of the kingdoms under all ofheaven will have been given to the people, the saints of the high places.

As can be seen, 7.26 describes the event which results in the state of af-fairs described in 7.27. In other words, 7.26 describes the event whichprecedes—and ushers in—Christ’s return, namely the judgment and de-struction of the beast’s eleventh horn. The judgment of the horn alsosignals the judgment of the beast as a whole—hence Daniel’s statement,“[I heard] the great words the horn proclaimed, and I watched until thebeast was slain, her body was destroyed” (7.11). The final events of thepresent age can therefore be summarised as follows: the beast is judgedand thrown to the flames, and the kingdom becomes the possession ofthe saints. It is game, set, and match. Consequently, the judgment of thebeast clearly cannot be associated with the events of 70 AD. True—theevents of 70 AD marked an important watershed in world history. But thebeast was not judged in 70 AD,73 nor did the saints receive the kingdomin 70 AD, even in a spiritual sense (believers are seated in heavenly placesin Christ as soon as they are raised to spiritual life: Eph. 2.4-7), nor didthe nations become obedient to the saints’ reign in 70 AD (the martyrsslain by Domitian in 90 AD would not have rejoiced in the nations’ obe-dience to them). To identify the beast’s destruction with the events of70 AD is, therefore, to flatly contradict the text of 7.26-27. Whatever itsexact nature, ‘the beast’ must still be in existence, and its eleventh kingmust still be waiting in the wings.74

73. unless we take ‘the beast’ to be the Jewish nation, which seems unlikely since the beasts are Gentileworld-powers; besides, the Jews nation did not subsume Greece, nor did they terrify the then-knownworld (7.7-8)

74. The ongoing character of the fourth beast’s reign is hinted at by ch. 7’s grammar. Whereas Danielnarrates the first three beasts’ reigns solely by means of pfct. verbal forms, he narrates the fourth beast’sreign solely by means of ptc. forms (‘consuming’, ‘breaking to pieces’, trampling down the remnant’).The fourth beast is not, therefore, ‘just another kingdom’—the next in line to conquer the Near East.Rather, it is an entity whose existence has a stubborn and persistent character. Only the Ancient of Dayscan bring an end to its reign.

28 7.1-28: ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN

In light of these considerations, we can quickly, I believe, reject any inter-pretation of ch. 7 which takes Daniel’s vision to have been completely (orprimarily) fulfilled in the events of 70 AD. That may, of course, seem avery brash assertion, since scholars far more knowledgable than me iden-tify Daniel’s vision with the events of 70 AD. But then I can only expoundthe text of Daniel as I see it. And, to my mind, ‘historic interpretations’of ch. 7 simply do not square with ch. 7’s text. As such, they must be dis-missed, no matter how brilliant or well-informed their proponents. Themore possibilities we have to juggle in our minds as we consider the textof ch. 7, the more difficult the task of exegesis is. It is as well, therefore,to dispense with inadequate interpretations as quickly as we can. Thatthe exaltation of ch. 7’s saints stands behind—and is partially fulfilledby—the Pauline doctrine of the Church’s exaltation need not be doubted(Eph. 2.4-7, Rom. 8.29-30, Col. 3.1-4). But that the present state of theChurch represents the full and final fulfilment of ch. 7’s vision is almostcertainly incorrect. Indeed, Paul’s question to the Corinthians (‘Do younot know the saints will judge the world?’) seems heavily predicated onch. 7’s vision, and apparently takes it to depict a yet-future reality (1 Cor.6.2).

7.1-28: One like a son of man

We now move on to discuss a figure who enters heaven’s courtroom mid-way through Daniel’s vision, namely “one like a son of man”. The textof ch. 7 tells us a number of important things about Daniel’s son of man,which the NT allows us to contextualise. We can summarise the rele-vant information as follows. (1) In the NT, Jesus identifies himself withDaniel’s son of man on at least two separate occasions: i] when he deliv-ers his Olivet discourse, saying, “the sign of the Son of Man [will appear]in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will then mourn and will see theSon of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”(Matt. 24.30†), and ii] when he speaks to his accusers at his trial, say-ing, “From now on, you will see the Son of Man seated at the right handof power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26.64†). TheseScriptures must have been at least partially fulfilled in the 1st centuryAD, since Jesus says to his accusers “from now on, you will see the Son of

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 29

Man...”.75 Given Jesus’ adoption of the term “son of man”, I will oftenemploy it as an epithet (‘the Son of Man’). (2) 7.13-14 describes the mo-ment at which the Son of Man receives “rule and glory and a kingdom”.His coronation ceremony takes place in heaven’s throneroom (7.9-14).(3) According to the NT, Jesus was crowned with power and glory whenhe ascended into heaven. After his resurrection, Jesus therefore said tohis disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”(Matt. 28.18). Paul later wrote, “[God has] raised [Jesus] from the deadand seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all ruleand authority and power and dominion,...and he [has] put all things un-der his feet” (Eph. 1.20-22).76 (4) 7.13-14 does not explicitly refer to ason of man; it refers to a figure like a son of man. Daniel’s Son of Manmust therefore symbolise a deeper reality. But what? Since each of thefour beasts in ch. 7’s vision depict both a king and a kingdom—and sincethe “saints of the high places” are evidently the Son of Man’s people—,the Son of Man in 7.13-14 likewise depicts both a king and a kingdom.

How, then, are we meant to make sense of all these details? My ownsuggestion is as follows. 7.13-14 should be seen as a depiction of: a]Jesus’ ascension into heaven, and b] the subsequent—and still ongo-ing—gathering of Jesus’ people into heaven’s courts. As a whole, then,ch. 7’s vision depicts the following events: i] the rise and fall of Babylon,Medo-Persia, and Greece (7.4-6); ii] the reign of Satan’s earthly-mindedempire and the simultaneous ingathering of God’s people, as depicted bythe Son of Man (7.7-8, 7.13-14, 7.21-25); iii] the judgment of Satan’sempire (7.9-10, 7.26); and iv] the return of Christ and the establishmentof God’s heavenly reign on the earth (7.22, 7.27). Whether or not thetext bears out these claims, you, the reader, must be the judge.

7.1-28: The identity of the beasts

The identify of Daniel’s four beasts is a hotly contested topic, but it doesnot need not be. Only the fourth beast is difficult to identify. The otherthree beasts can be identified by means of simple deduction. Daniel’s

75. Consider also Mark 14.62: “This generation will not pass away until all these things [i.e., the eventsprophesied in Mark 14] take place” (Mark 14.62).

76. See also Acts 2.33-36, 7.55-56, Phil. 2.8-11.

30 7.1-28: THE IDENTITY OF THE BEASTS

four beasts depict the following four kingdoms: i] the kingdom ofBabylon, ii] the kingdom of Medo-Persia, iii] the kingdom of Greece,and iv] the kingdom of Satan. Daniel’s beasts can therefore be alignedwith the kingdoms depicted in Nebuchadnezzar’s Colossus as outlinedin the schema below:

Identity In ch. 2 In ch. 7

1. Babylon A single gold head A single lion

2. Medo-Persia A two-armed silver torso A two-sided bear

3. Greece A ‘core’ of bronze A four-headed leopard

4. Satan’s empire Two legs ending in ten toes An unearthly ten-horned beast

As mentioned previously, many—perhaps even most—modern-day com-mentators reject the above schema. They instead view the Book of Danielas a 2nd cent. composition which (retrospectively) describes the rise of:i] the kingdom of Babylon, ii] the (sole) kingdom of Media, iii] the (sole)kingdom of Persia, and iv] the kingdom of Greece. In App. 7F, we setout a full assessment of the Late-Daters’ four-kingdom-schema. In themeantime, let us note some positive reasons to affirm a more Traditionalview of ch. 7.

(1) The first beast is the kingdom of Babylon That Daniel’s first beastis the kingdom of Babylon is almost universally accepted. Nebuchadnez-zar is the Colossus’s “head of gold” (2.37-38), and the Colossus’s fourbody-sections correspond directly to Daniel’s four beasts.77 Ch. 7’s firstbeast must therefore depict Nebuchadnezzar and, by extension, Babylonas a whole.78

(2) The second beast is the kingdom of Medo-Persia That Daniel’ssecond beast is Medo-Persia is clear on the basis of the following con-siderations. First, Daniel’s beasts provide us with a continuous view of

77. See “7.1-28: The parallels between ch. 2 and ch. 7’s dreams”.

78. That Daniel’s first beast is Babylon is easy to accept since it provides us with a striking depiction ofNebuchadnezzar’s fall and restoration. A high-flier comes crashing down but is later restored and givena human heart (7.4).

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 31

history. Each empire overthrows its predecessor and takes over its man-tle. Daniel’s second kingdom must therefore be identical with whicheverkingdom overthrew Babylon. As such, it can only be Medo-Persia. TheNabonidus Chronicle clearly describes the conquest of Babylon at thehands of a Medo-Persian alliance,79 as does Daniel himself (5.28). Sec-ond, Daniel’s second beast is characterised by an imbalance of powerinsofar as it is raised up on one side (7.5). Only one other empire isdescribed in such a way in Daniel’s writings, namely Medo-Persia. TheMedo-Persian ram (depicted in ch. 8) is said to have two horns, one ofwhich ends up much higher than the other (8.3, 8.20), which is pre-cisely what happened in the context of Medo-Persia. As time went, theMedo-Persian alliance came to be dominated by one of its two ‘horns’(the Persians).

(3) The third beast is the kingdom of Greece That Daniel’s third beastis Greece is clear on the basis of the following considerations. First,Daniel’s third kingdom must therefore be identical with whichever king-dom overthrew Medo-Persia. As such, it can only be Greece. That theGreeks conquered Medo-Persia is testified by both secular history,80 theBook of Maccabees,81 and Daniel himself (8.21). Second, Daniel’s thirdbeast has four centres of power (7.6), as did the (sub-divided) Greekkingdom.82 Third, both ch. 8’s he-goat and ch. 7’s third beast consistof four distinct sub-kingdoms, and both of them are said to advance ontheir prey with such rapidity as to make them ‘airborne’ (7.6, 8.5, 8.8).It therefore seems natural to identify Daniel’s third beast with ch. 8’she-goat, which Daniel explicitly identifies as Greece (8.21).

(4) The fourth beast is the kingdom of Satan That Daniel’s fourthbeast is the kingdom is Satan is not entirely clear to me, and a full discus-sion of it must await our consideration of 7.7-8. In the meantime, let us

79. A Median commander named Ugbaru leads Cyrus’s troops into battle against the Babylonians (ABC7.3.XXX, XXX).

80. XXX. Prior to his invasion of Medo-Persia, Alexander the Great announced, “Our enemies are Medes andPersians” (XXX).

81. The Book of Maccabees opens with the statement, “Alexander of Macedon son of Philip had come fromthe land of Kittim and defeated Darius king of the Persians and Medes, whom he succeeded as ruler” (1Macc. 1.1 GNT).

82. See “8.XXX: XXX”.

32 7.1-28: ITS MAIN MESSAGE

at least note the fourth beast’s salient features in order to prepare us forwhat is to come: i] the fourth kingdom takes over the reins from Greece(7.6-7); ii] the fourth kingdom is described in horrific terms (7.7-8); iii]unlike its predecessors, the fourth kingdom is not explicitly identified byDaniel; iv] the fourth kingdom passes out of existence only when thefifth kingdom is established, i.e., when “the kingdom...[is] given to...thesaints of the high places” (7.27); v] the fourth kingdom is a present re-ality (see “7.1-28: Its overall interpretation” above); and vi] the fourthkingdom is completely opposed to God and his people (7.7-8, 7.23-25).This much, then, is clear: Daniel’s fourth beast is a nameless, mysteri-ous, and hideous fourth kingdom, and it presently holds sway over theNear East.

7.1-28: Its main message

As can be seen, our exegesis of ch. 7’s vision is beginning to take shape.But, before we begin our verse-by-verse, it remains for us to consider thechapter’s main message. My own proposal is as follows:

The world is not as it seems. Man’s kingdoms may seem to bemajestic and victorious and may look like thorns in God’s side.But the truth of the matter is very different. Man’s kingdomsare corrupt and destined for destruction; they are mere pawns inGod’s sovereign plans. Despite the beasts’ apparent dominance,God’s people will end up on the winning side. God is in the processof amassing a heavenly people for himself—a people destined torule the world under the headship of God’s chosen Messiah. And,once man’s sin reaches a pre-determined point, their reign willbegin. As believers, then, our pain and frustration will end in joyand glory. The future God has in store for us will be well worththe wait!

The following considerations point in the direction of my proposal:

(A) Ch. 7 marks a move from ‘outer revelation’ to ‘inner revelation’. Theprophecies contained in chs. 2-6 are publicly declared and interpreted,and ch. 2’s prophecy clearly portray the outward splendour of the Gentile

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 33

world. By way of contrast, ch. 7’s vision is a private and personal affair.It is revealed to Daniel in private and, even after its interpretation, is notpublicly proclaimed (7.28). Moreover, while the vision has a great dealto say about the Gentile kingdoms, it looks beneath the surface of theGentiles’ exterior and, unlike ch. 2, tells us about the Gentiles’ impacton “the saints”. Towner puts the point as follows: “[With the advent ofch. 7], a noticeable shift in point-of-view takes place. [Chs.] 1-6...[tellus] about the [Book’s] hero, [Daniel], and his external history. [But, inch. 7], Daniel turns [his attention]...from public demonstrations of thepower of the God of Israel in a strange land to the private reception ofvisions of the future destiny of God’s chosen ones”.83

(B) Ch. 7’s cast consists of seven distinct entities. Four of them arebeasts (the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the fourth beast). The otherthree are men (the man described as “ancient in days”, the one “likea son of man”, and the “saints”).84 As such, ch. 7’s vision describes aconflict between the reign of the world’s beasts and the reign of man. Atthe outset of the vision, chaos reigns supreme. The sea is in turmoil (andthe ‘wind’ is at work on its surface, as in Gen. 1.1-2), and the beasts seemfree to run roughshod over God’s creation. But, by the end of the vision,Creation’s rightful order is restored. Creation is once again subject tothe rule of a man appointed by God.

(C) Ch. 7 hints at the present ‘overlap’ between the heavens and theearth. The beasts are connected with the earth (7.17, 7.23). Theyare earthly-minded creatures—fallen and depraved. By way of contrast,God’s people are connected with the heavens. The Son of Man ascends(we may assume) into God’s throneroom on the “clouds of heaven”. AndGod’s people—although present on earth—are nevertheless referred toas the saints of the high places (7.18, 7.22, etc.). As such, ch. 7’s visiongives us a glimpse into the complex relationship between the heavensand the earth.

83. Towner 1986:91.

84. The fourth beast is really a hybrid—part-beast part-man. Ch. 7’s cast can therefore be viewed in termsof two groups of 31/2—a division which is highly significant in the Book of Daniel.


(D) Ch. 7 tells a story of delayed justice. Throughout ch. 7’s vision,God’s people appear to be on the verge of defeat. But they end up as his-tory’s winners, and the kingdom—so long the object of the beasts’ power-lust—becomes their undivided possession. Meanwhile, the beasts turnout to be history’s losers. They use their freedom wastefully, foolishly,and wickedly.

(E) Like ch. 2, ch. 7 depicts the Gentiles’ reign as a fundamentallyself-destructive phenomenon. Once the fourth beast ‘crosses the line’ interms of the freedom it has been given, it brings judgment on the Gentileworld. As such, the beasts bring about their own downfall.

(F) Ch. 7’s vision contains a number of allusions to Ezekiel’s ministry.Such allusions are not surprising. Ezekiel ministered in Judah and Baby-lon from roughly 590 to 570 BC, twenty years prior to ch. 7’s vision. Itwould not, therefore, seem implausible for Ezekiel’s writings to have ex-erted a great influence on Daniel’s thought-life and prayer-life. Ch. 7’sallusions to Ezekiel include: i] the agency of “four beasts” (Ezek. 1),85

ii] the mention of “four winds” (7.2, Ezek. 37.9), iii] a vision of a fire-enshrouded mobile “throne” (7.9, 7.13, Ezek. 1.4, 1.13, 10.6), and iv]the use of the term “son of man” (the term “son of man” occurs about100 times in the OT, over 90 of which are found in Ezekiel). The min-istry of Ezekiel therefore seems to stand behind much of ch. 7’s vision.The connection between Ezekiel’s and Daniel’s ministry comes out veryclearly when we consider the ‘big picture’ of the Book of Ezekiel.

Ezekiel’s message is as follows. Judah has defiled herself and compro-mised God’s holiness, and, in response, God has given her over to thenations (Ezek. 16, 23, etc.). God, however, remains in complete controlof Judah’s future. His throne is a mobile throne (Ezek. 1, 10-11), and heis as sovereign over his people’s existence in Babylon as when they werein Israel. He will be present with his people throughout their time ofexile, and he will restore their fortunes in a day to come when he regath-ers a purified remnant back to Israel (Ezek. 37), judges their enemies

85. Of course, Ezekiel’s and Daniel’s beasts have very different functions. Ezekiel’s beasts surround God’sthrone with the aim of preserving God’s holiness, while Daniel’s seek to defile God’s name. Ch. 7 couldtherefore be thought of as a ‘battle of the beasts’, i.e., Ezekiel’s versus Daniel’s.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 35

(Ezek. 38-39), restores Israel’s worship (Ezek. 40-48), and sanctifies hisname in the eyes of the nations (Ezek. 36.23, 36.36, 37.28). As such,Daniel’s visions narrate a very similar ‘story’ to Ezekiel’s. Like Ezekiel,Daniel depicts the dispersal of Judah throughout the nations; and, likeEzekiel, Daniel’s vision culminates in the emergence of a purified rem-nant. In Ezekiel’s case, the remnant are water-sprinkled returning exiles(Ezek. 11.16-20, 36.23-26), and, in Daniel’s case, they are “saints of thehigh places” (7.26, Rev. 7.9-14), but, in both cases, the beasts themselvescontribute to the saints’ purification. Just as Nebuchadnezzar (God’s ser-vant) and Cyrus (God’s anointed one) bring about God’s purposes, so dothe rest of the beasts. The same point is brought out in ch. 11, whereAntiochus’s persecution of the Jewish people leads to their purificationand revival.

That Daniel’s beasts play an active role in accomplishing God’s purposesis an important point for us to appreciate. In his discussion of ch. 7,Towner asks the question, ‘Why does the beasts’ reign proceed as it does,and how does it relate to the judgment which follows it?’. To put thequestion another way, ‘What is the relationship between the God’s plans,world history, and the world’s final state?’. Towner proffers three pos-sible answers. First, the events of world history are entirely “predeter-mined”. History unfolds “according to God’s [predetermined] decree”and the role of man’s ‘free will’ is ultimately illusory.86 Second, “theevents of history trigger the Great Day of Judgment”. Once human sin“reaches the required level,...[God] springs into action like a celestialrobot”.87 Third, the events of world history are “totally separate” fromthe culmination of world history. History ticks along on its own steam“and...ends when God chooses to end it, [with] neither a plan nor a trig-gering of a punitive reaction on the part of God”.88 Towner finds thethird of these views the most satisfactory. But I doubt whether Danielwould have been attracted to Towner’s view, much less found it to be‘satisfactory’. The best way to process the events of ch. 7’s vision is, atleast in my view, to affirm aspects of all three of Towner’s suggestions.

86. Towner 1986:110.

87. Ibid. 1986:111.

88. Ibid. 1986:111.


History does indeed tick along “on its [own] course” insofar as God doesnot coerce men to act as they do. But history also proceeds according to“God’s [predetermined] decree”. Hence, the events of world history—farfrom unrelated to the eschaton—actually bring about God’s eschaton, asdiscussed above. The purification of the saints and the destruction ofman’s reign is (in part) the result of the four beasts’ reign. The self-destructive nature of man’s ways of philosophies is an inherent part ofthe way in which God will bring man’s reign to an end. My answer toTowner’s question would, therefore, be, ‘All of the above’.

My proposal as to ch. 7’s main message is an attempt to draw all theseconsiderations together:

The world is not as it seems. Man’s kingdoms may seem to bemajestic and victorious and may look like thorns in God’s side.But the truth of the matter is very different. Man’s kingdomsare corrupt and destined for destruction; they are mere pawns inGod’s sovereign plans. Despite the beasts’ apparent dominance,God’s people will end up on the winning side. God is in the processof amassing a heavenly people for himself—a people destined torule the world under the headship of God’s chosen Messiah. And,once man’s sin reaches a pre-determined point, their reign willbegin. As believers, then, our pain and frustration will end in joyand glory. The future God has in store for us will be well worththe wait!

With these things in mind, then, let us begin our verse-by-verse consid-eration of the chapter.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 37

7.1: The earthly circumstances of Daniel’s dream

7.1 In the 1st year of Belshazzar (King of Babylon), Daniel saw a dream—even[a series of] visions in his mind—as [he lay] on his bed. Afterwards, hewrote the dream down. The ‘head’ of the matters states...

In the 1st year of Belshazzar (King of Babylon) (7.1a). Ch. 7 is setin the 1st year of Belshazzar’s vice-regency. Daniel’s dream is likely tohave been related to his conscious thought-life, as most dreams tend tobe, and as Nebuchadnezzar’s was (2.29-30). Daniel would have knownwhat kind of a man Belshazzar was. So, he would have been worriedabout the implications of Belshazzar’s coronation for the Jewish people.In answer to these concerns, God gives Daniel a dream.

Daniel saw a dream as [he lay] on his bed—[a series of] visions inhis mind (7.1b). Daniel is shown a series of “visions” which togetherconstitute a single “dream”.89 Immediately afterwards, he records whathe has seen. We can consider, as an analogy, how John records his visionsas they unfold, and does not add anything to them afterwards (Rev. 1.19,10.4, 14.13, 19.9, 21.5, 22.18-19).

7.2: Daniel’s dream begins

7.2 in Daniel’s words, ‘As I watched in my vision at night, behold: [I saw] thefour winds of the heavens, stirring up the Great Sea,

As I watched in my vision at night (7.2). Daniel is said to ‘watch’ ina ‘night vision’ in three distinct places: in 7.2, in 7.7, and in 7.13. Atface value, these comments seem superfluous. We already know ch. 7records a “dream”, which consists of various “visions” (7.1). I thereforetake Daniel’s statements in 7.2, 7.7, and 7.13 to be ‘marker-points’, thepurpose of which is to divide his dream into three distinct sections: i] a“vision” of the rise and fall of Daniel’s first three beasts (7.2-6), ii] a “vi-sion” where a number of different scenes and images flash before Daniel’seyes, namely the rise of the fourth beast, the assembly of Heaven’s court-

89. Consider, analogously, how Nebuchadnezzar’s “dream” (sing.) is equated with a plurality of “visions” in2.28, and is referred to by means of a sing. pron. (denâh) and copula (hû c).

38 7.2: DANIEL’S DREAM BEGINS

room, and the judgment of the fourth beast (7.7-12), and iii] a “vision” inwhich Daniel sees the heavenly coronation of the Son of Man (7.13-14).

As I watched in my vision at night, behold: [I saw] the four windsof the heavens, stirring up the Great Sea (7.2b). 7.2b sets the stagefor what is to come in ch. 7. It is the canvas on which Daniel’s vision willbe painted. While it is a comparatively short verse, 7.2 provides us witha wealth of information about ch. 7’s context and content. Below, we setout six of its ‘data-points’ and what can be gleaned from them:90

(A) The outset of Daniel’s vision describes the activity of the wind[rûah. ]

above a great expanse of water, and is set against a backdrop of dark-ness (“night”). As such, it resonates strongly with Genesis’s creationnarrative (Gen. 1.1-2). But, unlike the waters in Genesis, Daniel’s wa-ters are choppy. Ch. 7 therefore combines the concepts of the ultimacyof God and the freedom he allows mankind. As Newsom writes, “[Ch.7’s] imagery can only be grasped if one hears both elements—sovereigncreation and conflict—in play at the same time”.91

(B) Daniel’s beasts emerge from the sea. In the context of OT prophecy,the sea is connected with the earth’s restless nations and their propensityto wage war against God’s people. Isaiah sees the sea as a wild anduntamed expanse of water—a tumultuous mass of water, churning upmire and dirt (Isa. 57.20). Consequently, Isaiah depicts the troops of theGentile nations as an oncoming sea crashing against Israel’s shoreline.He also likens the roaring of Israel’s enemies to the “roar” of the sea(Isa. 5.30, 17.12-13). Jeremiah and Ezekiel employ similar imagery (Jer.

90. The issue of ch. 7’s backdrop is a subject of much debate. Some commentators see the influence of theEnuma Elish in ch. 7; others see the influence of Canaanite myths; and others see yet other influences.But whether all these methods of analysis contribute much to our comprehension of the text is doubtful.Suppose, for instance, we take Daniel to have been influenced by the Enuma Elish; and suppose wethen interpret ch. 7’s vision against the backdrop the Enuma Elish. Have we thereby enhanced ourcomprehension of the text? Not if Daniel intended ch. 7 to be a counterpoint to the Enuma rather thana parallel to it. Indeed, while in the Enuma the winds keep the seas and their monsters at bay, Daniel’swinds stir up the sea’s inhabitants. To interpret Daniel’s vision in light of the Enuma may, therefore, beexactly what Daniel does not want us to do. (Similar points can be made in relation to other possibilities.)On balance, then, it seems wisest to interpret ch. 7 in light of its Scriptural backdrop. To what extentDaniel was influenced by—and actually intended his visions to be interpreted in light of—certain paganmyths is unknown. What we do know is this: God intended his word to be read and interpreted as acoherent whole, and Daniel was an avid student of Scripture (9.1-2).

91. Newsom 2014:221.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 39

6.23, Ezek. 26.3).92 From a prophetic perspective, then, the sea depictsthe nations’ armies and the constant threat of war in Israel. It is a powernormally kept at bay by God’s mercy, but, left to its own devices, it has thepotential to engulf and overwhelm Israel, just as the waters overwhelmedthe earth in the days of Noah. As a result, the Book of Revelation depictsthe new Creation as a world without a sea (Rev. 21.1). Daniel’s fourbeasts therefore depict kings who emerge from the Gentile nations.

(C) The particular sea from which Daniel’s four beasts emerge is theGreat Sea. In the context of the OT, the “Great Sea” almost invariablyrefers to the Mediterranean (Num. 34.6-7, Josh. 1.4, 9.1, 15.12, etc).The focal-point of Daniel’s vision—and the arena in which the beastsreign—is therefore the Mediterranean world, i.e., the Near East.

(D) The Great Sea is said to be ‘stirred up’ by the winds of “the heav-ens”.93 Scripturally, “the heavens” are the realm in which God’s throne-room is located. The earth, on the other hand, is God’s “footstool” (Isa.66.1). The “winds of the heavens” therefore depict the hand of God inworld history. The link between the heavens and earth consists of a num-ber of steps. A command is issued in God’s throneroom, which causes aseries of winds to sweep across the face of the sea. These winds then stirup the nations of the Near East, which in turn causes a series of kings toarise from their midst and to march against Israel. That God’s activity inworld history is likened to “wind” underlines the indirect (and mysteri-ous) manner in which God works in world history. We might consider, byway of analogy, Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus: “The wind blows whereit wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comesfrom or where it goes” (John 3.8). The mention of “wind” may also al-lude to the wind which disperses the power of man’s kingdoms in ch. 2’svision. If so, it hints at a nice symmetry to the events of chs. 2 and 7.Just as a divine wind caused the Gentile nations to take possession of

92. According to Bevan, the vb. «GYH. » is commonly employed in the context of war in the Targums (Bevan1892:120).

93. In Scripture, the term “heaven” can refer either to the ‘skies’ or to the ‘heavens’ above the skies. It onlyever appears in the plural. English readers need not, therefore, concern themselves with the distinctionbetween “heaven” and “the heavens”.


Israel in the first place, so a divine wind will carry them away from Israelat the end of the age.

(E) Four winds[rûh. ôt] are said to ‘stir up’ or ‘break forth upon’ the GreatSea. In the context of 7.2, the rûh. ôt are “winds”.94 But rûh. ôt can alsorefer to ‘the four points of the compass’, i.e., the north, south, east, andwest. As such, 7.2 may contain an allusion to Israel’s geographical neigh-bours, i.e., the nations round about her. The term “four winds” may alsobe meant to connect 7.2 to other prophetic texts in the OT. In Scripture,the mention of “four winds” is often connected with the dispersal of apeople-group. God says, for instance, in reference to Elam’s fall: “I willbring upon Elam the four winds from the four quarters of the heavens,and I will scatter them to all those quarters” (Jer. 49.36†). God speaksthrough Zechariah in much the same way, saying to the exiles, “Up! Up!Flee from the land of the north,...for I have spread you abroad like thefour winds of the heavens!” (Zech. 2.6†). In Ezekiel, God then calls theexiles to return from “the four winds” (Ezek. 37.9), as he also does inMatt. 24.31 and Mark 13.27.95

In the context of 7.2, we can draw these threads together as follows.God will stir up the Gentile world. Nations from far and wide will marchagainst Israel, and, as a result, Israel will be scattered to the four cor-ners of the globe—or, as Nehemiah puts it, “the ends of the heavens”(Neh. 1.8-9).96 We could even go so far as to associate each of the fourwinds-cum-compass-points with a specific beast. If so, we could see theBabylonian empire as the wind which comes from the north (Jer. 1.9-19), the Medo-Persian empire as the wind which comes from the east(8.4, Isa. 41.2, 45.1, 46.11), and the Greek empire as the wind whichcomes from the west (8.5). We would then have two options in terms of

94. For further details, see 7.2’s trans. notes.

95. Isa. 11.11-12 is similar, but refers to the “four corners” of the earth as opposed to the “four winds”.

96. As a simple matter of history, Daniel’s four beasts have in fact played a major part in the dispersion ofthe Jewish people throughout the earth (9.26). At the outset of Babylon’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar sackedJerusalem and carried off many of the Jews to Babylon; in 345 BC, Artaxerxes III raided Jerusalem andcarried off many of the Jews to the shores of the Caspian Sea, in modern-day Iran; throughout the 3rd

cent. BC, the dominance of the Greeks enabled many Jews to resettle in places like Rhodes and Athens;and, in 70 AD, Vespasians’ invasion of Jerusalem caused the Jews to be scattered throughout the knownworld, where many of them still remain to the present day.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 41

Satan’s empire. Since the Anti-God’s final onslaught against Jerusalemcomes from the south (11.40-45), we could see Satan’s empire as the‘southern wind’. Alternatively, we could see Satan’s empire as a windwhich comes from all four quarters of the globe. Daniel’s fourth beastswould therefore, in a sense, embody all of its predecessors, just as it doesin ch. 2.

(F) Daniel’s vision came to him at night. Daniel’s vision is part ofa “dream”. That it arrived at “night” is hardly, therefore, surprising.Daniel’s repeated mentions of the word “night” must be intended to tellus something. I personally take the word “night” to reflect the contextof the events depicted in ch. 7. Prophetically, the ‘night-time’ depicts aperiod of darkness, danger, and misery.97 Meanwhile, the dawn of a newday depicts a change in fortunes or the dawn of a new era.98 Particularlyrelevant in terms of Daniel’s vision are the following passages:

You, [O Lord], appoint darkness and it becomes night,[when] the beasts of the forest prowl about.The young lions roar after their prey,[But], when the sun rises, they withdrawand lie down in their dens.

(Psa. 104.20-22 NASB)

Alas, the uproar of many peopleswho roar like the roaring of the seas,and the rumbling of nationswho rush on like the rumbling of mighty waters!...[The Lord] will rebuke them...At evening time [they rush in],[and] behold, there is terror![But] before morning they are no more.Such will be the portion

of those who plunder [God’s people].(Isa. 17.12-14 NASB)

97. Isa. 8.22, Joel 2.1-2, Mic. 3.6, Amos 5.18, Zeph. 1.15.

98. Isa. 9.1-2, 17.14, 60.2, Zech. 14.7, Mal. 4.2.


We are therefore, I believe, to see Daniel’s vision as a dark and dangerousperiod in Israel’s history—a period which will end only when Christ, theSun of Righteousness, rises with healing in his wings. God’s people willthen emerge from their period of suffering and step into God’s gloriouslight (Isa. 60.2-20, Mal. 4.2).

In light of the points outlined above, 7.2-8’s events can be summarisedas follows. As an ungodly vice-regent accedes to the throne of Babylon,God gives Daniel a vision. Daniel finds himself in the midst of heaven’sthroneroom, though he only later becomes aware of his surroundings.At first, Daniel looks downwards, towards the earth. There, he sees avast expanse of water (the Mediterranean Sea). As he watches, fourwinds go forth from heaven’s throneroom and sweep across the face ofthe sea, churning up its waters. In answer, four great beasts emerge fromthe sea’s depths and crawl up onto Israel’s shore, one at a time. In realworld-terms, the sea depicts the Gentile nations; the land depicts Judah;the four winds depict God’s agency among the Gentiles; and the beastsdepict four kings whom God raises up. Accordingly, each beast’s emer-gence onto the dry land depicts its conquest of the Near East and henceJudah. Each beast treads on ‘holy ground’ and continues the devasta-tion begun by its predecessors. As a result, God’s people are scatteredfar and wide.99 They are initially scattered throughout Babylon (Zech.2.6-7), then (via the rise of Cyrus and his successors) throughout theMedo-Persian empire, then (via the rise of Alexander and his successors)throughout the Greek empire, and finally (via the rise of the kingdom ofSatan) to the “uttermost parts of the heavens” (Deut. 28.64, Neh. 1.8-9), where they must remain until the Time of the Gentiles is complete(7.25-26). The defining feature of ch. 7’s era is therefore the subjuga-tion of Judah to the Gentiles—a state of affairs which began in 587 BC

and still continues today, and which Jesus referred to as ‘the Times of theGentiles’, saying,

99. Ch. 7’s vision has a particular emphasis on the welfare of God’s people. Indeed, while God’s people donot feature at all in the counterpart of ch. 7’s vision (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar’s), they are a major focal-pointof ch. 7’s (7.13-14, 7.18, 7.21-27). Moreover, ch. 7’s references to a remnant[še car] in Judah make mostsense when the text of 7.2-8 is understood in terms of the people as opposed to the land.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 43

[The time will come when the Jews] will fall by the edge of thesword and will be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalemwill be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the Times[alt., Seasons] of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

(Luke 21.24†)

7.3: Daniel’s beasts begin to emerge

7.3 and four great beasts arose from the Sea, each one different from the other.

four great beasts (7.3). As Daniel looks down at the tumultuous sea,he sees four great beasts emerge from its depths. The beasts are clearly‘one of a kind’ insofar as they are all “beasts” and are part of the samedream. But the beasts are just as clearly individuals. They depict four“different” eras of Gentile rule over Jerusalem, each of which has its ownunique characteristics.

7.4: Daniel’s first beast emerges

7.4 The first was like a lion, but had [the] wings of an eagle. I watched untilits wings were plucked off; it was then lifted up from the earth, caused tostand on two feet like a man, and given the heart of a man.

The first (7.4a). 7.4 describes the first of Daniel’s beasts. In 7.17, thebeasts are described as “four kings”, while, in 7.23, they are describedas entire “kingdoms”. The beasts are therefore both kings and king-doms. The same identification of kings and kingdoms is apparent inch. 2’s vision, where the Colossus’s “head of gold” is said to depict bothNebuchadnezzar and Babylon (2.38-39). Like the head of gold, then,Daniel’s first beast is both Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, which makessense from a historical perspective. Nebuchadnezzar is the ruler whoestablished the Babylonians as Judah’s overlord and who set the tone fortheir reign over the Near East. As such, Nebuchadnezzar’s immediatesuccessors (such as Evil-Merodach and Nergalsharezer) are an extensionof his reign and included in the figure of his kingship. Nebuchadnezzaris Babylon’s figurehead.

44 7.4: DANIEL’S FIRST BEAST EMERGES

The first was like a lion, but had [the] wings of an eagle (7.4a). Baby-lon is depicted as “a lion” and has the wings of an “eagle”. Archeologistshave unearthed a number of statues of mythical creatures in Babylon.Interestingly, they found a statue of a large winged beast directly outsideBabylon’s main gates.100 Its significance to the Babylonians is unclear(it may have been a national emblem of sorts), but Daniel’s depictionof Babylon as a winged beast would certainly have resonated with hisreaders. In modern-day terms, it is like depicting China as a dragon, orAmerica as an eagle.101

I watched until its wings were plucked off (7.4b). Daniel watchesthe beast for some time. It appears to be ‘flying high’. But, sooner orlater, its wings are “plucked off” from its back, at which point the beast(presumably) comes crashing to the ground. The beast portrays a king-dom which begins its reign over the Near East in grand style. But itsking then begins to get ideas above its station—or, to put the point inthe language of Icarus, the king flies ‘too close to the sun’. The king’swings must therefore be clipped, which God duly does. The great beastis thereby humbled.

It was then lifted up from the earth, caused to stand on two feetlike a man, and given the heart of a man (7.4b). After its fall, thebeast is raised to its feet. It is also given the mind of a man. The beastthereby acquires the posture and rational capacity of a human being.The significance of 7.4’s imagery is clear: 7.4’s events depict the fall andsubsequent restoration of Nebuchadnezzar. At the outset of ch. 4, Neb-uchadnezzar is on top of the world. He is a powerful and successful kingwho has risen to great heights in life (4.4, 4.10-12). But his route to thetop has entailed many casualties (4.29), and with his power has comepride. Nebuchadnezzar must therefore be cut down in size. Accord-ingly, God brings Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship crashing down. Seven longtimes later, Nebuchadnezzar looks to the heavens for help, at which point

100. XXX.

101. The combination of features from two different animals would have been seen as contrary to God’screated order, where animals bring forth ‘after their kind’ (Gen. 1). The concept of ‘kinds’ also seems tounderlie Israel’s dietary laws (Lev. 11, Deut. 14). As a result, Daniel would have viewed an animal withhybrid features as decidedly ‘unclean’. The ‘unclean’ nature of the first and third beasts may allude tothe defilement of the temple-vessels which took place in Belshazzar and Antiochus’s days respectively.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 45

his greatness is restored to him with interest (4.36). The text of 7.4 hasin mind precisely these events. The ‘high-flier’ depicts Nebuchadnezzarin his prime; the removal of the beast’s wings depicts Nebuchadnezzar’sepic fall; and the moment when the beast is raised to its feet and ‘hu-manised’ depicts the moment of Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion. Insofaras he ends his life as a ‘man’, Nebuchadnezzar ends his life on the side ofthe Son of Man.

7.4: Some comments on Daniel’s general method

That Daniel does not tell us how many wings the lion has is significant.Throughout Daniel’s visions, the number associated with a given king-dom is a measure of its unity. The third beast, for instance, has fourwings, which depicts the fourfold division of the Greek empire. Thefourth beast has ten horns, which depicts a reign of ten co-regents. Andso on. The absence of numbers in 7.4 is therefore indicative of Neb-uchadnezzar’s unrivalled sovereignty of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar didnot share his reign with anyone. He was a law unto himself (5.19).

The selective nature of Daniel’s depiction of Babylon is also significant.Daniel does not seek to depict Babylon’s entire history, from Nebuchad-nezzar through to Belshazzar. Nor does he do so when he deals withthe other three kingdoms. That must await chs. 8-12. Instead, Danielprovides a single snapshot of (what he takes to be) the single most im-portant feature of each empire. 7.4 only depicts Nebuchadnezzar; it tellsus nothing about later rulers like Nabonidus and Belshazzar. 7.5 only de-picts Medo-Persia’s rise to power; it tells us nothing about Medo-Persia’slater decline or Haman’s wickedness. 7.6 only depicts Greece’s ‘four-pronged’ phase; it tells us nothing about Alexander’s monumental riseor Antiochus’s emergence. And 7.7-8 only depicts the final phase of thepresent age; it tells us nothing about the prior expansion of Satan’s em-pire. Daniel thereby creates a sequence of images which work togetheras a whole, i.e., which tell a story. Daniel moves from a lion which isable to stand upright (like a man), to a bear which seems uneasy on itshind legs, to a leopard which is confined to all-fours, and so on. He alsomoves from a united empire, to a lop-sided empire, to a fourfold empire,

46 7.5: DANIEL’S SECOND BEAST EMERGES

and so on. We will take up these points later in “7.4-8: The four beastsas a whole”. For now, let us simply note the care with which Daniel’s vi-sion has been constructed. While Daniel’s vision is an accurate portrayalof history, Daniel is not interested in history for its own sake. He is aprophet. He wants to give us insight into the world’s events—to revealto us the overarching pattern and progression of world history, to teachus what connects the history to the future and what to expect in the daysto come.

7.5: Daniel’s second beast emerges

7.5 And behold: another beast, a second one, resembling a bear, and it wascaused to stand on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth, between itsteeth, and it was [given] the following command: ‘Stand up! Consumemuch flesh!’.

another beast, a second one (7.5a). The second beast to arise fromthe Great Sea is Medo-Persia. It can alternatively be thought of as the al-liance of Darius (the Mede) and Cyrus (the Persian). Like Nebuchadnez-zar, Cyrus and Darius are to be seen as corporate figureheads. They in-clude within them their successors, i.e., later Median and Persian rulers.The second beast began to arise in 550 BC when Media and Persia be-came an allied force, headed up by Darius.102

resembling a bear (7.5a). The Medo-Persian army was immense in size.It was completely unparalleled. According to Herodotus, Xerxes I led anarmy of 2.6 million soldiers against Greece in the “Battle of Thermopy-lae”.103 Many historians regard Herodotus’s figures as an exaggeration,which may well be the case. Either way, however, the Medo-Persianswere clearly renowned for their enormous armies. That the “bear” is thebiggest and most cumbersome of Daniel’s beasts may, therefore, reflectthe Medo-Persians’ military size and style.

it was caused to stand on one side (7.5a). According to 7.5a, thebear is caused to stand on only one of its “sides”. The passive voice al-

102. See App. 5C.

103. Hist. 7.186.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 47

ludes to the agency of God, as it does in 5.26-28, 7.4, and elsewhere.104

Meanwhile, the bear’s ‘lop-sided-ness’ depicts an empire with an imbal-anced power-structure, i.e., an alliance where one side calls the shots.The same point comes out in ch. 8’s vision, where the second ‘horn’ ofthe ram outgrows the first horn (8.3). Chs. 7 and 8’s visions therefore al-lude to a common feature of the Medo-Persian alliance, namely the dom-inance of the Persians. The Medes were already a major power in Elamwhen Cyrus—the second horn—formed an alliance with them. Cyrus ul-timately, however, turned out to be far more influential than Darius. Hewas always the aggressor in the Medo-Persian relationship—the morehungry for victory and the more ruthless in battle. He was also the manwho led Medo-Persia’s army to victory against the Phrygians, Cappado-cians, and Arabians en route to his victory against Babylon in 539 BC,soon after which Darius passed away.105 7.5a therefore alludes to theway in which God raised Medo-Persia to greatness by means of Cyrus’saggression and military prowess. In particular, it refers to Cyrus’s cam-paigns prior to 539 BC as the Medo-Persian army gathered steam. It alsodepicts the fulfilment and effects of Isaiah’s prophecy, where God refersto Cyrus as “[my] anointed one, whose right hand I have grasped to sub-due nations...[and] to loosen the loins of kings” (Isa. 45.1†), which isprecisely what Cyrus did (5.6!). God thereby caused the Medo-Persianbear to arise by bestowing particular power on one of its “sides”, namelyCyrus.

It was [given] the following command: ‘Stand up! Consume muchflesh!’ (7.5b). In 7.5b, the bear is commanded to “stand”. The owner ofthe voice is not identified, but, given the parallels between the Aramaicof 7.5b and 4.31, the voice may belong to one of God’s watchers. Itmay even be the same voice Nebuchadnezzar heard as he stood on hispalace roof. In the context of ch. 7, to ‘stand’ is to rise to power over theNear East in general and Israel in particular (7.3, 7.17). As mentionedelsewhere, Daniel’s interest is not history per se but, rather, Israel’s rolein world history. Meanwhile, to ‘consume’ a people-group is to ‘conquer’

104. Macholz 1990:247-253.

105. See App. 5C.

48 7.5: DANIEL’S SECOND BEAST EMERGES

them.106 As such, the call for the bear to “stand up” and to “consumemuch flesh” is a call for Medo-Persia to rise up against Babylon and tosubsume the nations of the Near East. Babylon’s rulers were not willingto return the exiles to Judah. God therefore put a different man (Cyrus)in charge of the Near East—a man who fulfilled God’s commands to theletter (Isa. 44.23-28, Ezra 1).

three ribs were in its mouth, between its teeth (7.5b). Given theimagery employed in 7.5b—i.e., the bear’s ‘consumption’ of other na-tions—, the ribs seem likely to depict the remnants of prior conquests.Their number is no doubt significant. (If four beasts depict four empiresand four horns depict four sub-kingdoms, then three ribs must depictthree conquests.) If so, the ribs may depict the way in which the Medo-Persians swallowed up the Phrygians, Cappadocians, and Arabians priorto the events of 539 BC. Cyrus conquered these people-groups and en-rolled them into his army en route to Babylon; in other words, he utilisedtheir resources to fuel his assault on Babylon.107 Medo-Persia can there-fore be seen as a bear with three ribs in its teeth when, in 539 BC, it istold to arise and conquer Babylon (7.5b).

ribs (7.5b). Why the bear’s past conquests are depicted as “ribs” is notentirely clear to me. Why not simply ‘bones’? The text of 7.5a depictsthe Persians as a particular ‘side’ of the Medo-Persian alliance, which isclosely connected to the concept of a rib.108 The image of a rib may,therefore, be intended to bring to mind kings or world-powers of con-siderable importance. Those who exerted a significant influence on theNear East are now subsumed by Medo-Persia, as their power becomespart of the Medo-Persian bear. Ultimately, however, I do not really knowwhy 7.5b’s singles out “ribs” in particular, and may as well admit it.109

106. 7.7, Isa. 9.12, Jer. 50.17, 51.34, Ezek. 34.5, etc.

107. According to Xenophon, “[While] Cyrus was marching to Babylon,...he subdued the Phrygians...and theCappadocians and [also] reduced the Arabians to subjection. These successes enabled him to increasehis Persian cavalry [until] it was not far short of forty thousand men” (cf. Cyr. XXX).

108. The Heb. word for rib [s. lc] is regularly translated as “side”, e.g., in Exod. 25.12, 1 Kgs. 6.8, etc., as is theAkk. cog. s. elu (CAD).

109. James Jordan sees the ribs as (Eve-like) ‘helpmeets’ who exert a positive influence on the Medo-Persians’rule. He identifies the ribs with “Daniel, Mordecai, and Nehemiah” in particular (2005:377). Jordan’sinterpretation of the ribs is attractive insofar as it is apposite to ch. 7’s subject matter, namely the ex-istence of God’s people amid the reign of the beasts. But Jordan’s suggestion is also problematic in a

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 49

7.6: Daniel’s third beast emerges

7.6 After this, as I continued to watch, behold: another [beast], like a leopard,with four wings, as of a bird, on its back, and the beast had four heads,and it was given rulership.

behold: another [beast] (7.6). The third beast to arise from the GreatSea is the Greek empire—or, alternatively, Alexander the Great’s four suc-cessors.110 Throughout the days of the Medo-Persians, the Greeks grewsteadily in power. At God’s appointed time, Alexander then arose fromtheir midst and led them to battle against Medo-Persia’s last king (Dar-ius III). Alexander soon subdued the entire Near East, Israel included.Daniel’s third beast thereby arose from the Sea.

like a leopard, with four wings, as of a bird, on its back (7.6). Daniellikens the third beast to a leopard, but it is certainly not a normal leop-ard, since it is said to be ‘winged’. In Scripture, leopards are associatedwith speed, surprise, and ferocity. They suddenly appear, descend ontheir prey, and tear it to pieces (Hab. 1.8, Hos. 13.7). The mention of“wings” further emphasises the beast’s speed (Psa. 18.10, Prov. 23.5).The wings also alludes to the beast’s supremacy over its rivals (7.4).(That the leopard has four wings is discussed later.) Daniel’s third beastis therefore depicted as a fast-moving and lethal predator. As such, therise of Daniel’s third beast is a strikingly accurate depiction of the riseof Greece. Alexander’s conquest of the Near East was unparalleled interms of its speed and completeness. Within the space of ten years, herouted the Medo-Persian armies in Turkey, Babylon, Susa, Syria, Israel,and Egypt, and made significant inroads into India. Nothing like it hasever been known.

number of ways. First, the identification of only Daniel, Mordecai, and Nehemiah as “ribs” is slightlyarbitrary. Why not also Esther? Second, in Daniel’s writings, to be ‘consumed’ or ‘devoured’ is to be‘slandered’; in other words, it is not a good thing (3.8, 6.24, 7.7, etc.). Why, then, should we invest thenotion of ‘consumption’ with a positive significance in 7.5 alone? (To “stand” is not necessarily a goodthing either: 7.17.) Third, the connection between a ‘rib’ and a ‘helper’ is somewhat vague. True—Eveis both a “rib” and a “helper”, but then Eve is taken from Adam’s side so as to become a helper. She isnot, therefore, a helper insofar as she is a rib, since a rib in a rib-cage does not exert any influence on itsowner, nor does a rib in a bear’s mouth. She is a helper insofar as she is removed from Adam’s side andis thereby enabled to function as a helper.

110. For further details on the rise and fall of Alexander, see “8.XXX: XXX”.

50 7.6: DANIEL’S THIRD BEAST EMERGES

the beast had four heads (7.6). The third beast has “four heads”.These heads describe centres of power and authority. Just as the Colos-sus’s “head of gold” portray Nebuchadnezzar as a single centre of power(Babylon’s unrivalled ruler), so the leopard’s “four heads” portray Greeceas a divided kingdom—in particular, a kingdom whose power is jointlyshared by four rulers. The four heads are a further development of the‘division’ implicit in the Medo-Persian bear. Medo-Persia may have beenlop-sided, but it was not ‘two-headed’. It was a genuine alliance insofaras the Medes and Persians functioned as a team. By way of contrast, thefour-headed leopard has no single ‘head’ or authority-figure in chargeof it. It is not an alliance at all. It depicts four sub-kingdoms whicharise from a united kingdom but ultimately become independent andautonomous.

Needless to say, the four-headed-ness of the third beast is a strikingly ac-curate depiction of Greece in the aftermath of Alexander’s fall. As sud-denly as he came, Alexander passed away, leaving his empire in a stateof disarray. Chaos and civil war ensued for many years, until four sta-ble power-blocs slowly emerged, each headed up by one of Alexander’sgenerals. The leopard’s four heads therefore depict Greece’s four ‘sub-kingdoms’. They belong to the same beast insofar as they are all Greekin origin, but they are individual insofar as they operate autonomously ofone another. They can be loosely defined as follows:111 i] the Seleucidempire to the north and east of Israel (encompassing Syria and Babylo-nia), ii] the Ptolemite empire (i.e., the kingdom of Egypt) to the south ofIsrael, iii] the Pergamonian empire (modern-day Turkey) to the north ofIsrael, beyond Seleucia, and iv] Macedon (mainland Greece) to the westof Israel, from where ch. 8’s he-goat arises (8.5). As a matter of histori-cal fact, these sub-kingdoms were genuinely autonomous. They was noreal alliance between them. Indeed, two of them spent a considerableamount of time at war with one another, as we will discover in ch. 11.

and it was given rulership. Just as it is said of the kingdom of bronzein the Colossus “[it] will rule over all the earth”, so it is said of the leop-ard “it was given rulership”. Daniel clearly, therefore, wants to draw

111. Waterfield XXX.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 51

our attention to the extent and nature of the Greeks’ rule. Why he doesso is not entirely clear to me. Perhaps it is significant in some specialway? The Greeks’ rule was certainly important insofar as it paved theway for the NT (as well as Greek translations of the OT) to be dissem-inated throughout the Near East, Europe, and beyond—an accomplish-ment which could not have been achieved with a Hebrew OT and NT.Daniel’s comment about the Greeks’ rulership may, therefore, look for-ward to the spread of the Scriptures. But ultimately I am not sure.

7.7: Daniel’s fourth beast emerges

7.7a After this, as I continued to watch in the visions of the night, behold: afourth beast, fearful and dreadful and excessively strong, and it had twogreat iron rows of teeth;

7.7b it consumed and broke in pieces, and, with its feet, it trampled down theremnant. As for [the beast] itself, it was different from the beasts before itand had ten horns.

After this, as I continued to watch in the visions of the night (7.7a).Daniel’s fourth and final beast now emerges from the sea. Its appearanceis connected with the “night”. It is dark, dangerous, and mysterious.Daniel does not liken the fourth beast to any particular animal, such asa lion or a bear. He has never seen anything like it. (The beast, we arelater told, also has “iron teeth” and “bronze claws”, which would make itdecidedly out of place in the natural world: 7.7b, 7.19.) Instead, Daniel’sdeals in general characteristics. He describes the beast as “fearful anddreadful and excessively strong”. The beast’s hideous appearance andmonstrous power clearly make its reign a horrific prospect. The beast’spower is also, like Nebuchadnezzar’s, said to be “excessive” in nature.The beast’s reign is simply ‘too much’; it represents a concentration ofpower and influence God is not prepared to tolerate. As such, the Anti-God is the king who ‘crosses the line’, and who brings God’s judgmentdown on the entire world system.112

It had two great iron rows of teeth; it consumed and broke in pieces,and, with its feet, it trampled down the remnant (7.7b). Daniel now

112. See our “Main message” sections for both ch. 3 and ch. 7.

52 7.7: DANIEL’S FOURTH BEAST EMERGES

looks on in horror as the fourth beast goes about its awful business. Itconsumes some of its victims, breaks others in pieces, and then trampleson whatever remains. The way in which it breaks in pieces and then at-tacks what remains is similar to the kingdom of iron’s behaviour, whichis said to break in pieces and then to “hammer” or to “pound” what re-mains (2.40). The precise nature of the beast’s activities (‘consuming’,‘breaking up’, and ‘trampling’) is not immediately apparent. But the ac-tivities in question strike me as highly applicable to the persecution ofthe Jewish people for the following reasons.

First, the vb. ‘consume’ is employed in chs. 3 and 6 to describe the slan-der of the Jews in exile. In those chapters, the Jews’ opponents are saidto ‘rip them to shreds’, or, more literally, ‘to consume their pieces’.113

Second, the object of the beast’s actions is identified as “the remnant”.But the ‘remnant’ of what exactly? What is the beast attempting to con-sume and grind to powder? And what could ‘remain’ in the aftermathof the beast’s assault? Land-masses do not diminish over time, so onlya small amount of them remains. 7.7b therefore seems likely to referto the remnant of a given people-group, in which case the Jewish peopleare surely the most likely candidate. Indeed, the Jewish people are fre-quently referred to as the “remnant” in Scripture,114 and the dispersionof the Jewish people is one of the central themes of ch. 7’s vision.115 Itherefore take 7.7’s “remnant” to depict those Jews who have survivedthe reign of the first three beasts’ reign as well as the onslaught of thefourth beast. Third, the desire of the fourth beast is to completely anni-hilate the object of its hatred (‘to consume, break in pieces, and trampleon any survivors’). For a conqueror to want to annihilate a conqueredpeople-group is comparatively uncommon. But, sadly, the desire to an-nihilate the Jewish people over the years has not been so uncommon. Aman named Haman sought to annihilate the Jews in the days of Esther

113. Jeremiah employs the Heb. cog. cakal in a similar way in Jer. 10.25.

114. See, for instance, Gen. 45.7, Lev. 26.36-39, Deut. 2.34, 2 Sam. 14.7, 2 Kgs. 19.4, Ezra 9.14, Neh. 1.2-3,1.8-10, Hag. 1.14, Zech. 8.6. Note, however, the scope of the word “remnant”. The “remnant” does notonly refer to those who live in Israel. It refers to all those who ‘remain’ alive—hence, for instance, Isaiahspeaks of a day when a Jewish “remnant” will be gathered from lands such as Assyria, Egypt, Pathros,Cush, and so on (Isa. 11.11; see also Lev. 26.36, Deut. 4.27, Jer. 8.3, Ezra 1.4).

115. See “7.2: Daniel’s dream begins”.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 53

(Est. 3.13), as others in history have done,116 and as Satan himself does,the ‘mastermind’ behind the fourth beast’s actions (Rev. 12.9-17). In-deed, I can think of few if any people-groups who have endured as muchracial hatred and extermination-attempts as the Jews.

In sum, then, I take 7.7’s mention of “the remnant” to refer to the Jewishpeople, and I take the fourth beast’s activities to relate very closely toSatan’s persecution of the Jewish people.117 I also take them, by exten-sion, to relate to the persecution of God’s people more generally. Satan’shatred of God is not only manifested in his hatred of the Jewish peo-ple. Satan hates all those who have a share in God’s glory and purposesand desires to see them defamed, defiled, and destroyed.118 With thesethings in mind, then, let us consider 7.7b’s activities in further detail.

It had two great iron rows of teeth (7.7b). As with the Medo-Persiabear, the teeth of the fourth beast depict its offensive weaponry, i.e., themeans by which it conquers and subsumes its enemies.119 The teeth’scomposition alludes to the iron in Nebuchadnezzar’s Colossus, whichsymbolises great ‘strength’ (2.40-42). As a whole, then, the beast’s

116. Hitler is a well-known example. Similar examples include the members of Islamic organisations suchas Hamas and the PLO. Hamas’s official charter makes the following claims: “The Islamic ResistanceMovement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way oflife is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine”. “Israel will exist andwill continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it”. “The Day ofJudgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews)” (THC). Meanwhile, thePLO’s official charter states, “The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israelare entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time” (TPLOC 19). “The liberation of Palestine, from anArab viewpoint, is a national [qawmi] duty. [The PLO] attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialistaggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism [lit., the liquidation ofthe Zionist presence] in Palestine” (TPLOC 15). “Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement,and geographical base for world imperialism, placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homelandto combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant sourceof threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine willdestroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in theMiddle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces andurge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid andsupport in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland” (TPLOC 22). “Armed struggle is theonly way to liberate Palestine” (TPLOC 9).

117. As mentioned previously, when I refer to ‘the reign of the Gentiles’ or ‘the reign of man’, I have in mindGentile man insofar as he is depicted in Daniel’s beasts, i.e., the line of Gentile rulers whose reign originatedin the Near East in 587 BC and who have since—by means of man’s enslavement to Satan—come toenvelope the entire world (7.23).

118. Job 1.9-11, Luke 8.12, 1 Pet. 5.8.

119. For references to teeth as an animal’s offensive weapons, see Job 4.10, 16.9, 29.17, Psa. 35.16, 57.4,58.6, 124.6, etc.


“teeth” depict Satan’s desire to conquer and subsume the entire earthand to bend its rulers to his will, which, we later learn, is precisely whatthe fourth beast does (7.23).

it consumed and broke in pieces (7.7b). As mentioned above, thebeast’s ‘consumption’ of its enemies depicts the employment of slanderand propaganda campaigns.120 Satan is a master of deception and ma-nipulation. He loves to twist God’s word and to give God’s people a badreputation, and he does so by means of propaganda and dissimulationand manipulation of the world’s media. 7.7b also highlights a second ac-tivity, namely Satan’s attempts to ‘shatter’[DQQ] his enemies’ strength. Thesame vb.[DQQ] is employed in 2.34-35 and 2.44, where it describes theway in which God will one day purge the world of Satan’s influence, aswell as in 6.24, where Darius’s lions purge Babylon of the satraps’ influ-ence (by ‘grinding’ their bones to powder). The vb. has a similar sense in7.7b. Satan wants to remove God’s power and influence from the world.He wants to remove God’s people from positions of power and influenceand to remove God’s word from the public square. He wants the worldfor himself.

and, with its feet, it trampled down the remnant (7.7b). Satan willnot be content with a partial victory over God’s people. He wants tostamp them out completely—particular when it comes to the Jewish peo-ple (Rev. 12.9-17). Just as God does not want any ‘trace’ of Satan’s king-dom to remain when he comes to establish his kingdom on the earth,so Satan does not want any ‘trace’ of God’s purposes and influence toremain in the present age (2.35).

So much, then, for the general scope and nature of 7.7b’s activities. Whatabout their historical fulfilment? In historical terms, 7.7b’s activities be-gan with such events as the rise of Rome (in the 1st cent. BC), the Ro-mans’ destruction of Jerusalem (in 70 AD and 135 AD), and the subse-quent dispersion of the Jewish people throughout the Roman empire.But 7.7b’s activities extend well beyond these things. As we learn in

120. The bear’s ‘consumption’ of its enemies may also hint at the existence of a propaganda campaign (App.5C).

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 55

7.23, the fourth beast’s reign is not limited to the Near East. The beastacquires worldwide dominion. Its activities therefore include the per-secution of God’s people throughout the entire world. These activitieshave been perpetrated by all manner of different powers and principali-ties, Christendom included, and are not destined to come to an end anytime soon. According to the Prophets, a day will come when all mankindwill unite against the Jewish people—a day when Satan will stir up thenations en masse and lead them against the Jewish people in Judah.121

As such, 7.7 describes the final fulfilment of Moses’s words to the peopleof Israel:

Whereas you were as numerous as the stars of the heavens, youwill be left few in number, because you did not obey the voiceof the LORD your God,...and the LORD will scatter you among allpeoples, from one end of the earth to the other. ...And amongthese nations you will find no respite and [have] no restingplace for the sole of your foot. Instead, the LORD will give youthere a trembling heart and failing eyes and a languishing soul.Your life will hang in doubt before you. Night and day you willbe in dread and have no assurance of your life. In the morningyou will say, ‘If only it were evening!’ and at evening you willsay, ‘If only it were morning!’ because of the dread your heartwill feel, and the sights your eyes will see.

(Deut. 28.62-68†)

7.7b’s activities find further fulfilment in such activities as Satan’s per-secution and corruption of the Church and Satan’s defamation of God’sword—points we will expand on later.

As for [the beast] itself, it was different from the beasts before it andhad ten horns (7.7b). Daniel’s fourth beast is said to be completely“different” from its predecessors. Of course, all of Daniel’s beasts are“different” from one another (7.3). But the fourth beast does not differfrom its predecessors in the same way as, say, a leopard differs from alion or a bear. The fourth beast is a different kind of entity altogether.

121. Joel 3.1-3, Joel 3.9-21, Zeph. 3.8-10, Zech. 12.1-13.1, Zech. 14.1-16.


It is not a physical kingdom but a spiritual kingdom—a kingdom whosefigurehead is not a man like Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus but Satan himselfas personified in the figure of the Anti-God. Again, we will expand onthese points later.

and it had ten horns (7.7b). Daniel associates the number “ten” withthe fourth beast. Like the numbers employed elsewhere in ch. 7, thenumber “ten” is significant. Five is the number of God’s covenant. It isthe number of books in the Pentateuch, and the number of the Messianickingdom in Daniel’s dreams. Insofar as the beast’s horns intensify thenumber five, they depict a world which has exalted itself above God’scovenant and kingship. We might consider, by way of illustration, the“great words” uttered by the beast, as well as Daniel’s ten-fold repetitionsof the words “beast” and “horn” in ch. 7.122 But the ten horns do notonly reflect the fourth beast’s ungodliness. They also reflect its dividednature. In ch. 7, we are shown a single Babylonian beast, a two-sidedbear, a four-headed leopard, and then a ten-horned monstrosity. Likethe Colossus, then, Daniel’s beasts depict a dividing and disintegratingworld. While the beast is united in its stand against God, it is internallydivided. It is an empire at war with itself—the final expression of man’stendency to divide, disintegrate, and self-destruct (7.8).

While the more abstract symbolism of the beast’s ten horns is notewor-thy, we also need to consider their specific symbolism. This, however, isa matter of no little dispute. To my mind, the dispute is largely unneces-sary. The horns simply depict ten co-regnant kings, who correspond tothe ten iron-and-clay toe-kings of Nebuchadnezzar’s Colossus (2.44).123

This, as far as I can tell, has been the view of the majority of evangelicalcommentators over the years (from men like Hippolytus and Jerome124

122. XXX.

123. The number ten can be used as a synonym for “many”—hence, for instance, Nebuchadnezzar’s claim thatDaniel was “ten times” wiser than Babylon’s wisest men (1.20). It is quite possible, therefore, to take thebeast’s ten kings as a picture of a world ruled by a multiplicity of rulers (7.23-24). If so, we might wantto view the eleventh king as ‘one king too many’—the king who pushes the world’s government ‘over theedge’. But unless and until a king arrives who fits the description of Daniel’s eleventh king, I cannot seeany reason to interpretation 7.7-8 in such a metaphorical way.

124. Both Hippolytus and Jerome consider the three kings whom the eleventh king uproots to be the kings ofEgypt, Libya, and Ethiopia (Expl. Dan. 7.8).

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 57

through to men like Calvin, Newton, and Keil125), and is still the viewof many commentators today.126 A number of commentators, however,have sought to identify the ten horn-kings with a line of ten successiveRoman emperors127—a view we will refer to as ‘the Successive view’. Butthe Successive view is problematic on a number of levels:

(A) Elsewhere in Daniel’s writings, horns invariably depict co-regents.The two horns of the ram depict the allied kings of Media and Persia(8.3, 8.20),128 and the four horns of the he-goat depict the four coexten-sive kingships of the Seleucids, Ptolemies, Pergamonians, and Macedo-nians (8.23).129 The beast’s ten kings should also, therefore, be seen ascoextensive rather than successive kingships. (B) Daniel’s ten-hornedbeast is also mentioned in the Book of Revelation, where it is linked with“[ten kings, who] receive authority as kings for one hour, together withthe [Anti-God]”, and who are seen as a yet-future reality even in John’sday (Rev. 17.8-12). It is very hard, therefore, to see these kings as any-thing but co-regents. (C) In 7.8, the beast’s eleventh horn is said touproot three of the beast’s existing horns. But, unless the horns depictco-regents, how could such an event transpire? Why, when it uprootedthe eighth horn, did the eleventh horn not become the ninth horn? Howcould one king uproot three successive rulers? (D) The beast’s ten hornsare identical with the Colossus’s ten toes, which clearly depict ten co-regent kings.130

125. CC Dan. 7.7, NOOD VI, KAD Dan. 7.7-8.

126. XXX.

127. e.g., Jordan 2005:381-382, Evans 2004:147-51

128. True—Persia rises to greatness after Media does, but the ram’s horns nevertheless depict coextensivekingships.

129. James Jordan takes the goat’s four horns to depict successive kingdoms (2005:422-424), but his sugges-tion strikes me as problematic for a number of reasons. First, if Daniel meant the image of horns todepict successive kingships, then why would he depict Greece as a goat with a single great horn (Alexan-der) which, once broken, is replaced by four lesser horns? Why not just depict Greece as a goat withfive horns? Second, according to Daniel, the goat’s four horns arise ‘in place of’ Alexander’s kingdom(8.8), which makes sense if the horns are co-regents, but not if they are a line of successive rulers. Howcould a kingdom which arose centuries after Alexander’s (e.g., Herod’s) plausibly be said to ‘replace’ it?It would be a replacement of its immediate precursor, not of Alexander’s kingdom. Third, the goat’s fourhorns grow up “towards the four winds of the heavens”, which makes the horns sound like coextensivekingdoms (in different geographical regions) as opposed to successive kingdoms (7.2’s trans. notes).Jordan argues otherwise (2005:365-366). He identifies the phrase “the four winds of the heavens” with“the [dispersed OT] saints”. But Jordan is unlikely to be right here (see XXX).

130. App. 7B.

58 7.8: THE ANTI-GOD ARISES

In sum, then, 7.7 depicts a kingdom ruled by ten distinct co-regents.Three of these co-regents are then overthrown when a particularly ar-rogant eleventh king arrives (7.8).131 Since such a situation does notyet appear to have transpired in world history, I take 7.7 (like 2.41-44)to depict a yet-future stage in the Near East’s governance, which seemsappropriate insofar as the events of 7.7 rapidly lead on to the end of thepresent age (7.9-12).

7.8: The Anti-God arises

7.8a As I reflected upon the horns, behold: another horn—a less developedone—arose from their midst, and three of the former horns were uprootedbefore it.

7.8b And behold: in this horn [were] eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouthproclaiming great [things].

As I reflected upon the horns. As Daniel ponders the fourth beast’shorns, he sees an eleventh horn arises from their midst. The eleventhhorn depicts the emergence onto world history of a mysterious and un-godly king. As will be recalled, Daniel’s beasts depict both kings andkingdoms. That is to say, they depict kings who function as ‘figureheads’for their entire kingdoms (7.17). Given its prominence in ch. 7’s vision,the eleventh horn-king is clearly the figurehead of the beast as a whole.Just as Nebuchadnezzar sums up Babylon (2.38), Cyrus sums up Medo-Persia (8.3), and Alexander the Great sums up Medo-Persia (8.5), so theeleventh king sums up the kingdom of Satan. The eleventh king is there-fore a figure of great evil. As the final king of the final beast, he is theculmination of man’s hatred against God. He is none other than ‘theAnti-God’—a concept we discuss in more detail later.132

According to 7.8a, the eleventh king rises to power at the expense ofthree existing kings. The ruthless nature of eleventh king is thereby con-trasted with the godliness of Daniel. When Daniel rose to prominence,he raised up three of his friends along with him (2.48-29). When the

131. Some readers may find my arguments for the horns’ status as co-regents rather assiduous, but, since somany commentators identify the horn-cum-kings with a line of successive rulers, it seems necessary tospell out the point in detail.

132. For background, see “3.7-12: A note on the world’s Anti-Gods”.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 59

Anti-God rises to power, he will dethrone three of his peers. The kingsin question are said to be ‘uprooted’[QQR (Gt)] before the Anti-God. The vb.‘uproot’ should probably be seen as a ‘divine passive’. When God broughtNebuchadnezzar low, he left the King’s “root” in the ground; that is to say,he preserved the King’s throne in his absence. But God will completelyuproot the three kings mentioned in 7.8a in order to make room for theAnti-God.133

in this horn [were] eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth pro-claiming great [things] (7.8b). The beast’s eleventh king has eyes “likethe eyes of a man”. In the context of ch. 7, to be human is to submit tothe reign of God. It is to be a true bearer of God’s image; hence, follow-ing his conversion, Nebuchadnezzar is depicted as a beast with the heartof a man (7.4). By way of contrast, the eleventh king is not said to havea human heart. He merely has “eyes” like a man’s eyes. He has the out-ward appearance of a man but the heart of a beast.134 That the eleventhking is a beast at heart is underlined by the “great things”[rabreban] whichproceed from his mouth. In the OT, the Heb. eqvt. of “great things”[higdil]

is invariably associated with either God or a pretender to God’s throne.135

That the eleventh king utters great things therefore underlines his statusas an Anti-God. The ‘great things’ are explicitly revealed to be words ofblasphemy in 7.25.

In sum, then, the eleventh king is a man who wears two masks. He mayseem to be one of God’s elect, but his speech betrays his real identity. Wemight consider, by way of analogy, John’s vision of a sinister eschatologi-

133. James Jordan translates «QQR»(Gt) as ‘reduce to stumps’. “The only other...form of [«QQR»]”, Jor-dan writes, “is [found] in [ch. 4], [and] refers to the stump to which Nebuchadnezzar was reduced”(2005:422-424). But the noun «QQR» (4.15 etc.) does not actually refer to a stump at all. It refers toa ‘root’ (CAL cqr 2015:n.m.). And, even if did refer to a stump, we could not, on that basis, import thenotion of a ‘stump’ into all other forms of «QQR». (Would we want to translate cqr crš [‘a man whoremoves teeth’] as ‘a man who reduces teeth to stumps’?) To render «QQR» as ‘to reduce to a stump’ issimply incorrect. To «QQR» is in fact precisely not ‘to reduce to a stump’. It is ‘to pull out by the roots’or ‘to destroy without a trace’, both in Aram. and Heb. (CAL cqr 2015:vb., Eccl. 3.2, Zeph. 2.3). We canconsider, by way of comparison, the relationship between the (Aram./Heb.) noun šrš (‘root’) and the vb.«ŠRŠ»(D) (‘to uproot’).

134. The king’s ‘human eyes’ may at the same time reflect his uncommonly perceptive insight. If so, Danielwants us to see the eleventh king as a man with a dangerous combination of attributes: the strengthand cruelty of a beast together with the insight and intelligence of a man. We might consider, by wayof analogy, Daniel’s description of Antiochus, i.e., a “strong-willed” man with a Daniel-esque ability to“understand riddles” (5.12, 8.23).

135. 1 Sam. 12.24, 2 Kgs. 8.4, Job 5.9, 37.5, Psa. 71.19, etc.

60 7.8: SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE ANTI-GOD

cal king with “horns like a lamb” but a voice “like a dragon” (Rev. 13.11).We can also consider Jesus’ words: “Out of the abundance of the heart,[the] mouth speaks” (Luke 6.45).

7.8: Some further thoughts on the Anti-God

We have now made a number references to the concept of ‘the Anti-God’. It may, therefore, be helpful to treat the topic in slightly moredetail before going any further.

Each of Daniel’s visions in chs. 7-12 culminate in the rise of a wickedGentile ruler. Two NT prophecies follow suit. These Scriptures (with theexception of ch. 8’s vision, which Daniel locates in the days of the Greeks)portray the ruler in question in very similar terms, as shown below:

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 61

The

11th

Kin

gT

heC

omin

gPr

ince

The

Fin

alK

ing

Of

The

Nor

th

The

Man

Of

Law

less

nes

s(2

The

s.)

The

Bea

st(R

ev.)

Aun

godl

yru

ler

ofgr

eat

pow

erw

illar

ise

inth

eda

ysto

com

e7.

7,7.

209.

2711

.36-

392.

413

.3-4

He

will

aris

eat

the

end

ofth

eag

e,an

dhi

sfa

llw

illus

her

inth

een

d.7.

11,7

.26

9.24

,9.2

711

.40,

12.1

2.3

19.1

7-21

He

will

blas

phem

eG

od’s

holy

nam

e7.

8,7.

2511

.36

2.4

13.5

He

will

erec

tan

idol

atro

usim

age

9.27

13.1

4-15

He

will

seek

tobe

wor

ship

ped

11.3

72.

413

.15,

17.1

1-17

His

min

istr

yw

illbe

acco

mpa

nied

bysu

pern

atur

alsi

gns

2.9

13.1

3

He

will

beem

pow

ered

bySa

tan

7.7-

82.

913

.4

He

will

beco

nnec

ted

wit

ha

peri

odof

31/2

year

s/ti

mes

7.25

9.27

12.1

,12.

713

.5

He

will

pers

ecut

eG

od’s

peop

le7.

2111

.41

13.7

He

will

bede

stro

yed

byC

hris

ton

Chr

ist’s

retu

rn7.

11,7

.26

9.27

2.8

19.2

He

will

beco

nnec

ted

wit

hJe

rusa

lem

’ste

mpl

e9.

272.

411

.1,1

1.7-

9

62 7.4-8: THE FOUR BEASTS AS A WHOLE

Given these commonalities, one thing seems abundantly clear: whenthe Scriptures look ahead to the days to come, they see a horrificallyungodly Gentile figure on the horizon. That figure is known by differenttitles and portrayed in different ways, but he is one the same person. Heis the eleventh king, the ‘prince to come’, the final ‘king of the north’,the ‘man of lawlessness’, and ‘the beast’. In the present commentary, werefer to him as ‘the Anti-God’.

Given our exegesis of ch. 7, we can now reveal slightly more about theAnti-God’s role in world history. The Anti-God is Satan’s man—the Sa-tanic counterpart to the Messiah. As such, he represents Satan’s finalattempt to gain control of God’s Creation. Just as God has a vice-regent,so too Satan has a vice-regent. These two vice-regents are superficiallysimilar. They are both, for instance, depicted as humans, and they bothperform signs and wonders and accept worship. But, in reality, the twomen could not be more different. The Anti-God is not truly human atall, since no remnant of God’s image remains in him. He is the culmi-nation and personification of all that is evil and ungodly in our fallenworld—the one who “opposes and exalts himself against every so-calledgod or object of worship” (2 Thes. 2.3-4).

7.4-8: The four beasts as a whole

We have now considered the actions and traits of Daniel’s beasts as indi-viduals. Let us therefore pause for a moment to consider Daniel’s beastsas a ‘pack’.

Daniel’s beasts have an important feature in common. They are preda-tors by nature. Moreover, they are fearsome predators (Hos. 13.7-8).As such, Daniel’s vision reflects the warlike nature of the kings of theNear East. The Near East has been a hotbed of violence and unrest overthe centuries. Even today, it continues to spawn many of the world’sfiercest dictators, as can be seen by considering the recent rulers whohave arisen in nations like Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, andso forth. Daniel’s vision may also be intended to reflect the externalpressures which affect the kings of the Near East. Insofar as they are

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 63

predators, Daniel’s beasts are subject to ‘the law of the jungle’, i.e., sur-vival of the fittest. They need to eat other animals (i.e., to subsume othernations) in order to survive. Their existence is therefore shaped by ex-ternal pressures, which may explain the ‘decline’ which is evident in ch.7’s vision.

While Daniel’s beasts are alike insofar as they are predators, they alsodiffer from one another in important ways (7.3). Indeed, Daniel hasordered ch. 7’s sequence of beasts in such a way as to spell out two clear‘trends’ or ‘vectors of progress’.

(1) Over time, Daniel’s beasts become progressively more divided. TheBabylonian empire is depicted as a unified entity. The Medo-Persian em-pire is depicted as a lop-sided bear (with two distinct centres of power).The Greek empire is depicted as a leopard with four centres of power(heads). And Satan’s empire is depicted as a ten-horned monstros-ity—an empire at war with itself. Like the Colossus, then, Daniel’s visionportrays the evolution of the Near East’s empires in terms of division anddisintegration—a trend still evident in the present day. Indeed, as thingsstand, the Near East is more divided than ever.

(2) Over time, Daniel’s beasts become progressively more ‘beastly’; thatis to say, Daniel’s beasts become less human and less able to stand up-right. We might consider, by way of analogy, the ‘downward spiral’ de-picted by the apostle Paul: “man and birds and animals and creepingthings” (Rom. 1.23). The Babylonian empire is a lion which God causesto “stand on two feet like a man”. The Medo-Persian empire is a bear—acreature which is able to stand on its hind-legs, but does not naturallydoes so. The Greek empire is a leopard—a creature which must remainon all-fours. (Since it has four wings, the leopard would land on all-fours too.) Meanwhile, Satan’s empire is associated with crawling, if notin Daniel’s vision then certainly in the Creation Story, where ‘the serpent’is consigned to crawl on its belly (Gen. 3.14). Interestingly, we can di-rectly link Satan’s empire to a serpent-like form via NT revelation, sincethe apostle John’s ten-horned beast is described as a “serpent” (Rev. 12.9-14). The same increase in ‘beastliness’ is illustrated in the respective


‘majesty’ of Daniel’s beasts. The lion and the eagle are the most kinglyand majestic. The bear (as portrayed in Scripture) plays ‘second-fiddle’to the lion and, as such, occupies a lower rank in the animal kingdom.136

The leopard is less regal than both the lion and the bear. Meanwhile, theserpent is the least regal of all the beasts.

In sum, then, Daniel’s first beast depicts a ruler in sync with God’s mindand authority—a majestic and man-like ruler (7.4). The rest of thebeasts then depict a steady and significant fall from the mind and au-thority of the Most High God. Put another way, the beasts begin witha creature of lion-like prowess—able to stand on its feet and investedwith elements of humanity—, but they ultimately culminate in the emer-gence of a hideous serpent-like creature—inhumane, able only to crawlon its belly, and enraged by the things of God. As such, Daniel’s em-ployment of imagery builds on an important Biblical tradition. The OT

regularly depicts the Gentiles’ hatred of God’s people in terms of the rageand animosity of a wild beast. The Chronicler likens Sennacherib to amarauding beast who is ultimately tamed by the might of YHWH (2 Kgs.19.28). Isaiah depicts Israel as a vineyard destined to be trampled downby Gentile beasts (Isa. 5.5). And Ezekiel depicts the Babylonians as apack of “wild beasts” whom God sends through the land of Israel (Ezek.5.17).137 Of course, Babylon’s rule was not exactly a model of obedience.Babylon’s very rise depicts a departure from God’s original intentions in-sofar as it marks the end of the Jews’ rule over Jerusalem. But Babylonwith the converted Nebuchadnezzar’s at the helm nevertheless mark thehigh-point of the Gentiles’ reign. Thereafter, the Gentiles’ reign goes onlydownhill. It becomes progressively more beastly.138

What, then, is the significance and real-world interpretation of thesetrends? Well, we have already discussed the first trend (i.e., the trendof ‘division’ in man’s kingdoms) in our treatment of Nebuchadnezzar’sColossus. Over the years, man’s empires have continually expanded,

136. 1 Sam. 17.34-37, Prov. 28.15, Amos 5.9.

137. For similar imagery, see Jer. 12.7-13, Ezek. 34.5, Hos. 2.12, etc.

138. That only Daniel’s first two beasts are able to “stand” on their feet may be a significant detail. As faras we know, out of the rulers of the ancient Near East, only Nebuchadnezzar and Darius were believers.Only, therefore, the first and second beasts “stood” in any significant sense of the word—and the secondbeast only momentarily.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 65

and, as they have done so, they have become increasingly divided anddisintegrated. As a result, man’s governments are now shot through witha combination of both strength and weakness.139 They boast enormousmilitaries and possess enormous destructive potential, yet they are ren-dered impotent by their disintegrated nature. They are ruled not bya monarch’s decisions but by a collection of democratic processes, andtheir people are too divided to reach agreement on the majority of im-portant issues.

So, what about the second trend exhibited by the four beasts, namelytheir gradual departure from—and growing hostility towards—God’swill? The beasts’ antipathy to God’s will has manifested itself in worldhistory in two important ways:

(A) In terms of the world’s animosity towards God’s people, i.e., towardsthe people whom God has destined to govern his Creation (7.26-27).The world’s animosity consists of two distinct (but related) aspects toit. The first is anti-Semitism. Babylon’s kings were a fearsome line ofrulers, but they were not, as far as we know, endemically anti-Semitic.True—Nebuchadnezzar treated the three Hebrews fairly brutally, but hewas equally brutal to Babylon’s own people (e.g., 2.5, 3.29), and Bels-hazzar treated YHWH with great disrespect, but, if Cyrus’s Cylinder is tobe believed, Nabonidus treated Babylon’s local deities just as disrespect-fully.140 The Babylonian empire was not, therefore, an endemically anti-Semitic entity. Courtesy of Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion, the Jews en-joyed a significant amount of religious freedom in Babylon (4.34-37).Nebuchadnezzar’s successor (Evil-Merodach) even went so far as to re-lease Yehoiachin from exile (2 Kgs. 25.27, Jer. 52.31).

After the Babylonians came the Medo-Persians. Like the Babylonians,the Medo-Persians were not endemically anti-Semitic. Cyrus was verygracious to the Jewish people. But the Medo-Persian empire was nev-

139. As mentioned previously, when I refer to ‘the reign of the Gentiles’ or ‘the reign of man’, I have in mindGentile man insofar as he is depicted in Daniel’s beasts, i.e., the line of Gentile rulers whose reign originatedin the Near East in 587 BC and who have since—by means of man’s enslavement to Satan—come toenvelope the entire world.

140. XXX 1-10.


ertheless plagued by an undercurrent of anti-Semitism, and, on at leasttwo occasions, it reared its head—once in the guise of Babylon’s satrapsand once in the guise of Mordecai’s adversary, Haman. As such, theMedo-Persian empire was a more beastly empire than Babylon.

After the Medo-Persians came the Greeks. Initially, the Jews fared wellunder Greek rule, but, with the rise of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, thatchanged. In 171 BC, Antiochus began to stir up trouble in Judah, until,in 167 BC, he unleashed an attack of unprecedented fury and devastationagainst the Judeans. According to the Maccabean Chronicler, he set outfrom Egypt “raging like a wild animal”, and, on arriving in Jerusalem, hewrought unimaginable horror.141 He slew thousands of Jewish soldiers;he publicly tortured many women and children; he burnt every copy ofthe Jewish Scriptures he could lay his hands on; and he forbade the prac-tice of Judaism. It was an outbreak of pure and unbridled hatred againstthe Jewish people. To her shame, then, Daniel’s third beast raised theGentile world’s beastliness to new ‘heights’.

After the fall of the Greek empire came the Romans. Their rise to powermarked the inauguration of Satan’s reign over the Near East (discussedlater). Roman rule was not an entirely bad thing for the Israelites. Butthe Romans certainly did not have any great love for the Jewish peo-ple. In 63 BC, Pompey invaded Jerusalem and defiled the Holy of Holies,which marked the beginning of a grievous period for the Jewish people.In 19 AD, Tiberius expelled the Jews from Rome; in 38 AD, Flaccus Avil-lius slaughtered thousands of Jews in Alexandria; and, over the next fewdecades, Nero and Claudius persecuted the Jews all throughout the Ro-man empire. In 70 AD, Vespasian then marched against Jerusalem (notwithout provocation) and razed it to the ground, scattering the Jews farand wide. Things continued in much the same vein over the next twocenturies or so. From the 4th century onwards, the ‘church’ then tookup the mantle of persecuting the Jewish people. Constantine in par-ticular sought to drive a wedge between Christianity and Judaism. Heforbade marriage between Christians and Jews, and made conversionto Judaism a criminal offence. And, over the centuries, such seeds of

141. 2 Macc. 5.11.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 67

hatred grew, until they gave rise to the Crusades of the 11th to 14th cen-turies—crusades which resulted in the slaughter of thousands of Jewsand Arabs. In the aftermath of the Crusades, the persecution of theJewish people underwent a brief lull. But man’s inherently anti-Semitictendencies did not disappear, as is evident from the existence of suchatrocities as the Papal States’ Jewish-ghettos and the Russian pogroms.Anti-Semitism could even be found in the writings of theologians likeLuther and Calvin.142 A few centuries later (in 1939), one of the mostviolently anti-Semitic characters known to history then arose, namelyAdolf Hitler. Hitler’s actions are well-known and well-documented, andneed not be repeated here. Suffice to say, the holocaust was a clear signof the world’s increasing beastliness. Against all expectations, Hitler’spersecution of the Jewish people eventually led to the relocation of theJews in their homeland in 1948. But the Jews’ existence in their home-land has not been one free of persecution by any means. Indeed, theJews now live in the midst of a group of nations whose stated ambitionis the eradication of Israel from the world map. That ambition becameparticularly evident in 1967, when a number of Arab nations went to waragainst Israel. The leaders involved made their intentions clear:

Our aim is the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinianpeople,...the destruction of the State of Israel,...the eradicationof Israel.143

The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified.[The Six-Day War] is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominywhich has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear: to wipeIsrael off the map.144

D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years [i.e.,since 1948] and will not flinch from the war of liberation.145

142. XXX.

143. Commander Nasser of Egypt, November 18, 1965 (Mazur 2012:141).

144. Commander Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq, 31 May 1967 (Tessler 1994:393).

145. Ahmed Shukairy, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, 27 May 1967 (Harkabi 1979:47-48).


To quote such statements is often seen as ‘politically correct’, but the factremains: the intention of the Arab nations involved in the 1967 war wasto eliminate Israel—i.e., to ‘consume’ her and to ‘grind’ her to powder—,and if the mindset of these nations has since changed, then I have yet tohear any of their leaders say so and to decry their nation’s involvementin the 1967 war.

In sum, then, the world has grown increasingly hostile towards the Jew-ish people over the years. True—the trajectory has not been a linearone. That is to say, the nations have not become unremittingly more anti-Semitic over the years. Rather, their anti-Semitic tendencies have under-gone peaks and troughs. Nevertheless, when we step back and considerthe big picture, we see an increase in anti-Semitism. We might conceiveof it as a series of waves crashing in on Israel’s shoreline. Haman wasone such wave, Antiochus was another, Constantine a third, Hitler a morerecent wave, and so forth; and, beneath these waves lies a continual un-dercurrent of anti-Semitic sentiment, fuelled by political and theologicalideologies. Tragically, such waves of anti-Semitism are getting higher.And, according to Daniel, a final wave is gathering on the horizon—awave far worse than its precursors, a wave which will usher in “a timeof distress such as [has] never occurred since there was a nation” in theNear East (12.1). We will discuss the practical application of these factslater. For the moment, suffice it to say: as Christians, we need to be onour knees in prayer for the Jewish people. Our Saviour longed to see theJewish people’s salvation, and he wept at the thought of their tribulation(Luke 19.41-42). May we, therefore, be moved to do likewise.

The second (and related) aspect of the world’s animosity towards God’speople revolves around specifically anti-Christian sentiment. The drivingforce behind the hatred of the Jewish people is not simply ‘bad luck’. Itis Satanic. And Satan’s hatred of the Jewish people is not arbitrary. Sa-tan hates the Jewish people because God—the ultimate object of Satan’shatred—has linked his plans and his glory to their existence.146 Satan’shatred of the Jewish people has therefore spilled over to the Church,

146. Jer. 31.35-37, Ezek. 36.22-23, Matt 23.38-39, Rom. 11.15, 1 Cor. 2.7-8.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 69

since she too is connected with God’s plans and God’s glory.147 As a re-sult, the Jews and Christians have suffered at the hands of the selfsameenemy, namely Satan. That fact is alluded to by Daniel’s choice of ter-minology in ch. 7. Throughout ch. 7, Daniel refers to God’s people indeliberately generic terms. He does not refer to them as “his people”(as in 9.24 and 12.1) but, rather, as “the saints”.148 Furthermore, Danielonly ever refers to the “saints” in the context of the world’s fourth beast,which, as we have noted, is not merely a Near Eastern geographical em-pire but an all-consuming spiritual principality. The beast’s persecutionof “the remnant” therefore includes not only the physical seed of Abra-ham but also the spiritual seed of Abraham, i.e., the Church (Gal. 3.6-9).As Jacob Prasch notes,

Anti-Semitism and persecution of the believing Churchare...two sides of the same coin. We can distinguish betweenthe two, but we cannot separate them.149

I therefore view the growing persecution of believers (e.g., in places likeNorth Africa and Syria) as a further aspect of the world’s animosity toGod’s people.

(B) The ‘beastliness’ of Daniel’s four empires has manifested itself inworld history in a further way. Insofar as the world’s governments havebecome increasingly removed from God’s will, they have become increas-ingly rebellious, self-willed, and out-of-control.

The moral decline which characterises world history is not immediatelyapparent. The world actually seems to have made a certain amount ofmoral progress over the years. Just as man’s understanding of the physi-cal world has improved over the years, so has man’s understanding of theworld’s moral truths. Accordingly, many countries have seen a markeddecrease in evils such as slavery and racism and sexism and so on. Yet, inmany respects, man’s improvement in moral perception makes his rebel-

147. Rom. 15.8-9, 2 Thes. 1.10, Rev. 5.9-14.

148. See 7.18’s trans. notes.

149. Jacob Prasch’s Midrash: Jesus In The Garden.

70 7.7-8: THE IDENTITY OF DANIEL’S FOURTH BEAST

lion against God all the more grievous, for it leaves him entirely “withoutexcuse” before his Maker. Indeed, according to Paul, the nations were ina state of darkness prior to the spread of the Gospel, as a result of whichGod “overlooked” their sins (Acts 14.16, 17.30). But we now live in avery different age. We live in an age in which the light of the Gospel hasdawned and all mankind are therefore called to repent (Acts 17.31). Assuch, we commit our sin ‘with a high hand’ (Num. 15.30). Consider, byway of illustration, modern-day England. Most people see modern-dayEngland as a more moral place than medieval England. But God may notshare our opinion. Over recent centuries, we have enjoyed times of greatspiritual and material blessing in England—times when God’s Word hasbeen publicly proclaimed, reverenced, and obeyed, and when men’s liveshave been changed as a result. Yet, in our ‘enlightened’ state, we haveoutgrown the Word of God and moved on to higher moral climes—or atleast so we think. We have become a ‘post-Gospel’ generation. We blas-pheme God’s name on a daily basis, we sanction divinely-forbidden sex-ual practices, we profit from immoral industries and practices, we showlittle mercy to the poor, we trample God’s Word underfoot—branding itoutdated, untrue, and worse besides—, and we label all those who ac-cuse us of immorality as narrow-minded bigots. As such, we are partof a very conscious and deliberate rebellion against God; and, of course,we are not alone in our actions. Might not God, therefore, see today’sleaders as more ‘beastly’ than the Nebuchadnezzars and Alexanders oftimes past? Might what the world regards as ‘moral progress’ be the op-posite in God’s eyes? Might man—for whatever moral progress he mayhave made—be more rebellious in his attitude towards God than everbefore? Only God himself is ultimately in a position to decide, and, onthe basis of Daniel’s vision, I take God’s answer to be ‘Yes’. The purposeof prophecy is not to depict the obvious or to tell us what we could eas-ily deduce by other means. It is to give us God’s perspective on worldevents.

7.7-8: The identity of Daniel’s fourth beast

It is now high time we discuss my proposed identification of Daniel’sfourth beast in detail—a proposal we will hereafter refer to as ‘the Apoc-

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 71

alyptic hypothesis’. Daniel’s fourth beast is, in my view, the worldwideempire of Satan—an empire which first rose to power at the time of theMessiah’s earthly ministry (i.e., in the days of the Romans) and whichwill ultimately be destroyed only upon the Messiah’s return. But whatexactly is Satan’s empire? Which kingdoms and people-groups does itinclude? I personally take Satan’s empire to be the same entity whichthe NT refers to as ‘the world’, ‘the powers of darkness’, and other relatedterms. The precise nature of Satan’s empire can only, therefore, be de-termined by considering the key tenets of the NT doctrine of “the world”,which I have sought to set out below:

(1) “The world” is presently in Satan’s control. The NT views Satan asa powerful and active force in the present age. Satan is said to haveestablished his “throne” on the earth and to hold “the power of death” inhis hands (Heb. 2.14, Rev. 2.13). He is also a master deceiver. He is “thefather of lies”, and, even now, he is “at work in the sons of disobedience”(John 8.44-45, Eph. 2.1-3, 2 Cor. 4.4). Indeed, he has “the whole world”in his grip (1 John 5.19, Rev. 12.9) and can rightly be called “the god ofthe present age” (2 Cor. 4.4).

(2) “The world” is destined to be judged and destroyed. The presentform of our world is “passing away” (1 Cor. 7.31). “[God] has appointeda day when he will judge the earth in righteousness by a man whom hehas appointed”, namely Christ Jesus (Acts 17.31†). On that day, Jesuswill be “revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire,inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those whodo not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thes. 1.7-9). Those whohave been faithful to Jesus will be richly rewarded. Those who have notwill hear those awful words, “Depart from me, you accursed ones, intothe eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25.41†).

(3) “The world” is characterised by an ignorance of the things of God,i.e., by darkness as opposed to light. Jesus is “the true light” of our world.But “the world” has not recognised the light of Christ (John 1.9-10†). Asa result, the world is in “darkness” (John 8.12). Indeed, when men areborn, they are born into a kingdom of “darkness” (Col 1.13, Eph. 6.12).

72 7.7-8: THE IDENTITY OF DANIEL’S FOURTH BEAST

The Gospel therefore calls men to “turn from darkness to light and fromthe power of Satan to God” (Acts 26.18†).

(4) Those who have been united with Christ are not a part of “theworld”. Believers have been saved out of the present world (Gal. 1.4).They are “children of light,...not of the night or of the darkness” (1 Thes.5.1-5†). They no longer walk ‘according to its course’, since they are nowseated in heavenly places, in Christ (Eph. 2.1-3, 2.4-6). And their salva-tion is evident from their behaviour. “Those who practice sin are slavesto sin. ...[Their] father [is] the devil, and [their] will is to do [their] fa-ther’s desires” (John 8.35-44†). “It is evident, [therefore], as to who arethe children of God and who are the children of the devil. Whoever doesnot practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not lovehis brother” (1 John 3.10†).

(5) “The world” is utterly divorced from—and opposed to—the mind ofGod. The world has no love for God or his truth (John 3.20, 8.44-45,14.16-19). It hated Jesus, because he exposed its immoral ways (John7.7), and it now hates Jesus’ followers for the same reason (John 15.18-19). “Friendship with the world” is “enmity with God”, and vice-versa(Jas. 4.4). God and “the world” are opposite ends of a spectrum (John8.23). Light has nothing in common with darkness (2 Cor. 6.14-16).

We can summarise these five points as follows: Satan’s kingdom is manas opposed to God, light as opposed to darkness, and wheat as opposedto tares; and it is ultimately destined to perish. The general nature ofSatan’s kingdom is therefore clear. But the question nevertheless re-mains, What exactly does Satan’s empire consist of? Are men like BarackObama and David Cameron members of Satan’s kingdom? Or is Satan’skingdom made up of countries as opposed to people? And, if so, whichones? And how exactly does Satan influence them? Since these ques-tions are closely connected, we will address them together.

Satan interacts with the physical world by influencing men’s passions,plans, and actions. Satan is thereby able to influence the world in manydifferent ways. He is able to occupy men with shallow entertainment

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 73

and superficial ambitions and hence to divert their attention from life’smost important questions. He is able to propagate lies and half-truthsand hence to blind man to the truth of their condition. He is able tosaturate the world with ungodly ideologies and hence to distort man’smoral perception. He is able to inflame man’s hatred for his fellow manand hence to bring about war and unrest. He is able to pervert man’ssexual desires and hence to encourage sin and disease and exploitation.He is able to inflame man’s greed and love of money and hence to inspireman’s mistreatment of the poor. He is able to promote ungodly lawsand hence to oppress God’s people. He is able to fill the church withimmoral leaders, to promote heretical doctrine, and to publicly slanderGod’s word and hence to give mankind a false impression of the Christianfaith. In these and many other ways, Satan is able to exert great powerand influence over the world. Our battle is not, therefore, “against bloodand flesh” but “against principalities, against authorities, and against thecosmic powers [which underlie the present] darkness” (Eph. 6.12†).

Defined as such, the kingdom of Satan is a very fluid entity. When a kingdecides to rise up against God’s people, he acts as a servant of the king-dom of Satan. And, when he repents and restores peace to the earth,he acts as a servant of the kingdom of God. Whether, therefore, a givenking is serving the kingdom of God or Satan is not a matter which canbe decided by his race or religion or geographical location; it can be de-cided only by his behaviour. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once remarked,“The thin line between good and evil does not run within [particular]governments or ideologies but through the heart of every man and ev-ery woman”.150 As per the parable of the wheat and tares, then, thekingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan are inseparably intertwined.

As for the historical fulfilment of the Apocalyptic hypothesis, we canthink of it, I suggest, in the following terms. Soon after the fall ofthe Greek empire, a dramatic change took place in world history. Je-sus Christ, the Son of God, stepped into his Creation by being born to aJewish peasant named Miriam. Jesus offered the Jewish people a newkind of kingdom—a kingdom which would revolutionise the world, not

150. XXX.

74 7.7-8: JUSTIFICATION FOR THE APOCALYPTIC HYPOTHESIS

by military force, but by changing men’s hearts, a kingdom which was‘not from this world’ (Luke 17.20-21, John 18.36). But the Jewish peo-ple rejected Jesus (their Messiah) and handed him over to the rulers ofthe fourth beast to be crucified (1 Cor. 2.8), and, forty years later (in 70AD), God’s judgment fell on the Jewish people. At about the same time,a new era dawned in history—an era characterised by a battle betweentwo conflicting spiritual kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the king-dom of Satan.151 The destruction of the fourth beast will then mean theremoval and purging of Satan’s influence from the world’s nations. TheAncient of Days will descend to the earth, at which point the final ‘show-down’ of the present age will ensue and Satan will be banished from theearth for a thousand years (Rev. 19.11-21, Rev. 20.1-5). On that day, thenations subsumed within Satan’s kingdom will be freed from his reignand subsumed within God’s eternal kingdom. The world will then be asit should be, with its King reigning over the earth from the very city inwhich he was once rejected, namely Jerusalem, the centre of the nations(Isa. 2.1-11, Ezek. 5.5, Matt. 5.35).

7.7-8: Justification for the Apocalyptic hypothesis

All well and good, one might say. But what reason do we have toaffirm the Apocalyptic hypothesis as true? Below, I have set out astep-my-step argument for the Apocalyptic hypothesis. I have done soin a fairly formal manner. My intention is not to proffer my hypothesisas a product of logical necessity. I simply want to set out—in as cleara manner as possible—the thought-process which has led me to affirmthe Apocalyptic hypothesis and to allow those who disagree with me seewhere and for what reason. On to the argument then:

151. The ‘inauguration’ of Satan’s reign (in the 1st century AD) did not, therefore, coincide precisely with thefall of Greece, but then the text of ch. 7 does not really require it to. Ch. 7 depicts the rise and fall ofthree earthly kingdoms, the last of which gives way to a new kind of reign altogether (a spiritual reignspanning a long line of earthly kingdoms) and a new phase of world history.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 75

1. (Premise) Any plausible suggestion as to the identity of Daniel’sfourth beast must be consistent with the facts of ch. 7’svision.

2. (Premise) Either Daniel’s fourth beast is a physical empire or it is aspiritual empire.

3. (Premise) What Daniel tells us about the fourth beast is not true ofany earthly empire.

4. (From 1, 2, 3) Daniel’s fourth beast must depict a spiritual empire.

5. (Premise) There are only two spiritual empires presently inexistence: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan.

6. (Premise) Daniel’s fourth beast is not identical with the kingdom ofGod.

7. (From 1, 5, 6) As long as it is consistent with the facts of Daniel’s vision,we should identify Daniel’s fourth beast with the kingdomof Satan.

8. (Premise) What Daniel tells us about the fourth beast is true of thekingdom of Satan.

9. (From 7, 8) We should identify Daniel’s fourth beast with the kingdomof Satan.

We will now consider each of these steps in turn.

(1) Any plausible suggestion as to the identity of Daniel’s fourth beast mustbe consistent with the facts of ch. 7’s vision. Step (1), I hope, requireslittle defence. Unless we are willing to affirm step (1), we may as wellabandon our exegesis of the Book of Daniel right now, since Daniel’svisions can ultimately mean whatever we want them to mean.

(2) Either Daniel’s fourth beast is a physical empire or it is a spiritualempire. Step (2) is, I hope, similarly non-controversial. Daniel’s fourthbeast clearly depicts an empire of some kind; and if the empire in questionis not a physical empire, then it must be a non-physical empire, i.e., aspiritual empire.

(3) What Daniel tells us about the fourth beast is not true of any earthlyempire. Step (3) requires more careful consideration than (1) and (2).


The first question we need to ask ourselves is, What exactly does Danieltells us about the fourth beast? As a minimum, I would suggest thefollowing.

Daniel’s fourth beast rises to power “after” the third beast(Greece) has fallen from power (7.7). It is identical withthe kingdom of iron-and-clay depicted in Nebuchadnezzar’sColossus.152 Its unique distinctive is its ungodliness, and itis markedly “different” from its three predecessors (7.7, 7.19,7.23-24). The Anti-God speaks words of blasphemy, tramplesdown the Jewish people, wages war against the saints, andwears them out—attributes not predicated of any of ch. 7’skings (7.7-8, 7.21, 7.25).

At the time of Christ’s return, Daniel’s fourth beast will havedominion over the Near East. According to 7.21-22 and 7.25-27, the beast’s fall ushers in the return of Christ. With thefall of the fourth beast, the saints’ suffering comes to an endand the kingdoms of the world become subject to the reign ofthe Son of Man and his people (7.9-10, 7.13-14, 7.26-27). AtChrist’s return—when the fourth beast is judged—, the lives ofDaniel’s first three beasts are “prolonged” (7.12). Their king-doms then become coextensive with that of the Son of Man(7.13-14, 7.26-27).

In light of these statements, it is hard to see how any earthly empire canbe said to fit the facts of Daniel’s vision. The most commonly-proffered‘earthly candidate’ for Daniel’s fourth beast is the Roman empire—a hy-pothesis we will refer to as ‘the Roman Hypothesis’. The appeal of the Ro-man Hypothesis is clear. In 160 BC (or thereabouts), the Romans wrestedcontrol of the Near East from the Greeks. The Roman Hypothesis there-fore makes good and immediate sense of the fourth beast’s position (asthe fourth in a line of empires) in Daniel’s vision. Unfortunately, it makeslittle sense of almost every other detail of the vision. In particular, it suf-fers from the following drawbacks:

152. See “7.1-28: XXX”.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 77

(i) Daniel repeatedly stresses how “different” the fourth beast is fromits predecessors,153 yet the Roman empire was not in fact so differentto the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Greek empires. It may have beenbigger and stronger and more stable than them, but it was not a radi-cally different kind of entity. It was merely the next in the Near East’sconquerors.

(ii) Daniel repeatedly emphasises the terrifying nature of the fourthbeast’s reign, yet the Romans’ reign was not a uniquely terrifying phe-nomenon. True—the Romans were hugely powerful, and brutalisedmany Christians. But, unlike their predecessors, the Romans were com-mitted to law and order, which made their reign more tolerable. Besides,the Romans’ predecessors were hardly meek and mild. Few things in his-tory have been more brutal than the Babylonians’ practice of dashing theheads of their enemies’ children against the rocks (Psa. 137.8-9).

(iii) Daniel explicitly identifies the first three beasts (2.38, 8.20-21),yet he leaves the fourth beast unidentified. That fact is awkward if thefourth beast is ‘merely another empire’—the next in a long line of Gen-tile world powers.154 But, on the Apocalyptic hypothesis, it makes goodsense. The fourth beast is a mysterious entity whose nature and identityis unveiled very gradually in Scripture. Daniel sees it as a shadowy andterrifying worldpower looming on the horizon; Jesus reveals its identifymore explicitly; Paul furthers Jesus’ teaching; and John draws all thesethreads together in his apocalyptic visions.

(iv) At the close of Daniel’s vision, only the fourth beast is judged; therest of the beasts (Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece) are allowed tolive on. If, therefore, the fourth beast is Rome, then the conclusion ofDaniel’s vision seems rather odd. Why should God judge and overthrowonly the Romans? Does God not also plan to conquer the rest of theworld’s empires? If, on the other hand, the fourth beast is Satan’s empire,

153. The fourth empire’s uniqueness is emphasised in 7.3, 7.19, and 7.23, as well as by the way in which7.7 marks the beginning of another vision. That the fourth beast cannot be identified with any knowncreature further underlines the point.

154. True—the ‘Roman empire’ (as we know it) did not exist in Daniel’s day, but then the same can be said ofthe Greek empire. Besides, the Prophets often refer to regions by names which have become outdatedby the time their prophecies are fulfilled, e.g., “Shinar”, “Elam”, etc.


then the conclusion of Daniel’s vision makes perfect sense. God willsubdue the entire world to his reign. At the end of the age, he willconsign Satan’s empire to the flames, and make the rest of the beasts(‘the nations’) subject to his reign.

(v) Daniel portrays the fourth beast as a ‘usurper’—a kingdom with nogenuine right to reign. As Daniel writes, God has already given Babylondominion (2.38). In the course of ch. 7’s vision, God then commandsMedo-Persia to arise (7.5), and gives Greece the “rule” over the NearEast. But nothing along these lines is said to the fourth beast. The reignof the fourth beast is therefore portrayed as illegitimate in some way—afact which makes perfect sense if the fourth beast depicts Satan’s empirebut is otherwise awkward.

(vi) If Daniel’s fourth beast is Rome, then at least one of the followingstatements must be true: a] since Rome is no more, the saints presentlyrule the nations (7.26-27), b] Daniel’s vision jumps straight on froma ‘near’ event (Rome’s decline) to a ‘far’ event (Christ’s return), or c]the Roman empire will be re-established in the days to come. None ofthese options strike me as very plausible. Option ‘a’ is clearly a no-go.True—Jesus is now exalted in the heavens, and we, as his people, areseated alongside him. Nevertheless, ours is not a world where the king-doms of man “serve”, much less “obey”, the Son of Man and his people.On the contrary, it is a world where God’s law is flouted, God’s nameis blasphemed, God’s word is slandered, God’s people are persecuted,and God’s gospel is rejected. Option ‘b’ is little better. True enough—OT

prophecies do often switch their gaze from near to far events. We needonly consider the transition between 11.21-35 and 11.36-45. But, ac-cording to 7.21-22, the Anti-God continues to make war with the saintsuntil the Ancient of Days arrives. One cannot reasonably, therefore, in-sert a long gap between the Anti-God’s fall and the Son of Man’s re-turn—much less a gap of well over a thousand years. Besides, thosewho affirm the Roman Hypothesis are generally opposed to the ‘inser-tion of gaps’ into OT prophecy. Option ‘c’ might seem attractive at firstblush. Who knows whether or not Rome will arise again the days tocome? But, on closer consideration, it is hard to see how Daniel’s vi-

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 79

sion could accommodate a Roman revival in the days to come, sinceDaniel depicts the reign of the Near East from 587 BC to the end of theage in terms of only four empire. If, therefore, Daniel’s third beast isGreece, then Daniel’s fourth empire—whatever its exact identity—mustbe in charge of the Near East even now, which can hardly be said of Rome.So, whether or not the Roman empire revives is ultimately irrelevant. Ifthe fourth empire is Rome, then four empires have already come andgone.155

For these six reasons (and others besides),156 the Roman Hypothesismust be rejected. And, if Daniel’s fourth beast does not depict the Romanempire, then it is hard to see how it can depict any other earthly empire.After all, how many other empires were at large in the Near East whenGreece fell? In sum, then, we have good reason to affirm step (3).

(4) Daniel’s fourth beast must depict a spiritual empire. Step (4) is, Itrust, fairly uncontroversial. If steps (1), (2), and (3) are true, then step(4) follows as a matter of logical necessity. Daniel’s fourth beast musteither be a physical or a spiritual empire; so, if it is not a physical empire,it must be a spiritual empire.

(5) There are only two spiritual empires presently in existence: the king-dom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Step (5) is similarly uncontrover-sial. A spiritual battle is currently in progress. That battle concerns tworival kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Jesustherefore likens the present age to a field containing a mixture of goodand bad seed, saying, “The field is the world,...the good seed is the sonsof the kingdom [of heaven], the weeds are the sons of the evil one, andthe enemy who sowed them is the devil” (Matt. 13.38-39). The apostlePaul paints a similar picture. “We all once lived in the passions of ourflesh”, Paul tells us, “and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest

155. Besides, such a phenomenon would give rise to all sorts of other questions, such as: i] why wouldDaniel’s vision gloss over a fact as dramatic as the decline and revival of the world’s fourth beast? ii] whywould Daniel’s vision gloss over the many empires which have arisen since the decline of Rome (e.g., theMuslim Dynasties, the Crusaders, the Mamluks, the Ottomans, the British Empire, etc.)?, and iii] howcould the revival of the Roman empire justify Daniel’s depiction of the fourth beast as an ongoing entity?If the Medo-Persian empire is reborn midway through the 21st cent., must we regard the days of Daniel’ssecond beast as still in progress?

156. For more details, see “7.XXX: XXX”.


of mankind, [following the prince of the power of the air]” (Eph. 2.2-3).Every man and woman alive is therefore a member of one of two king-doms: the kingdom of God or the kingdom of Satan. There is no middleground.

(6) Daniel’s fourth beast is not identical with the kingdom of God. Step(6) requires little justification. If one thing is clear in Daniel’s vision, itis the distinction between the fourth beast and the kingdom of the Sonof Man. The kingdom which tramples down God’s people and is laterconsigned to the flames cannot itself be the kingdom of God.

(7) As long as it is consistent with the facts of Daniel’s vision, we shouldidentify Daniel’s fourth beast with the kingdom of Satan. Step (7) followsfrom steps (5) and (6) as a matter of logical necessity. If Daniel’s fourthbeast depicts either the kingdom of God or the kingdom of Satan—and ifDaniel’s fourth beast does not depict the kingdom of God—, then Daniel’sfourth beast must depict the kingdom of Satan.

(8) What Daniel tells us about the fourth beast is true of the kingdom ofSatan. We now come to the most controversial and important step inthe argument. Is the Apocalyptic hypothesis consistent with the facts ofDaniel’s vision or not? In my view, the Apocalyptic hypothesis has onepotential sticking-point and a number of clear merits. We will begin ourconsideration of it with its potential sticking-point.

Given the Apocalyptic hypothesis, Satan’s empire rises to power only af-ter the fall of Greece. That claim seems slightly awkward. Hasn’t theworld always been influenced by Satan? Weren’t Babylon, Medo-Persia,and Greece every bit as Satanically-inspired as Rome? Why, then, wouldDaniel picture Satan’s empire as following on from Greece in particular?Or, to put the question another way, why should Satan’s empire appearfourth in a sequence of empires? Why shouldn’t it appear first? Baby-lon, Medo-Persia, and Greece could then be seen as its various ‘manifes-tations’ or ‘offshoots’.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 81

The answer to these questions becomes clear when we consider thenature of the Apocalyptic hypothesis and of Daniel’s prophecies as awhole. First, whatever else one says about the prophet Daniel, he isclearly a man who is concerned with the symbolism and significanceof numbers—hence, for instance, the progression from one to two tofour to tenfold kingdoms, the 2,300 days, the seventy ‘sevens’, and soon. Given, then, the number four’s connection with fulness and ‘world-totality’, it is not hard to see why Daniel might have wanted Satan’sworldwide kingdom to appear fourth in a sequence of world empires.Second, throughout his writings, Daniel is very careful not to attributeGreece’s fall to the rise of the Near East’s fourth empire. In chs. 5 and 6,Daniel attributes Babylon’s fall to the Medo-Persians (5.28, 5.31, 6.28),and, in ch. 8, Daniel attributes Medo-Persia’s fall to the Greeks (8.5-7),but Daniel nowhere attributes Greece’s fall to the rise of the fourth em-pire.157 Daniel therefore portrays the rise of the fourth empire in delib-erately ambiguous terms. Whatever its exact identity, the fourth empiredoes not simply topple Greece and then begin its reign, and the fourthempire alone is said to subsume the Near East’s previous kingdom, as ifit ‘spans’ them in some way (2.40). Third, in the days of the Romans,a sequence of events took place which dramatically and permanently al-tered the course of world history. The rise of Rome therefore markedthe dawn of a new era. We can summarise these events as follows. In3n/2n BC, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, was born to a Jewishpeasant named Miriam. Thirty years later, Jesus began his public min-istry and was greeted by a surge of activity in the demonic realm. Jesuspreached to the Jewish people about a coming kingdom—a kingdomwhich would encompass not only the nation of Israel but all the na-tions of the world. He called his people to take up their cross, to followhim, and to embrace his kingdom agenda (Matt. 3.9-10, 12.50, 13.31-32, 20.1-16, 21.31-32, etc.). According to Jesus, his kingdom would notchange the world by force or power; it would do so by changing men’shearts. Put another way, Jesus’ kingdom would not spring forth “fromthe earth”; it would spring forth from a different realm altogether (Luke17.20-21, John 18.36). Tragically, however, the Jewish people rejectedJesus’ kingship (Matt. 23.29-39). They did not want a man like Jesus to

157. In 2.40, Daniel has mind Satan’s subsumption of the entire world. For further details, see 2.45’s comm.


reign over them (Luke 19.14). As his ministry drew to its climax, Jesusthen saw a vision of Satan falling from heaven (Luke 10.18). His vi-sion clearly envisages (among other things) a shift in the focus of Satan’sactivities—a shift from a heavenly to an earthly agenda (Rev. 12.7-12).Soon afterwards, Jesus was crucified on Calvary’s cross. He describedthe event as one which would cause him to be “lifted up from the earth”and cause the “prince of the world” to be cast out (of heaven?) (cf John12.31-32). Accordingly, after he offered his life as a sacrifice for sins, Je-sus was raised to a position of heavenly authority, at which point he senthis apostles to the nations to preach ‘the Gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt.28.18-20). Jesus’ apostles called men to enter the kingdom of God, notby means of circumcision or ritual, but by means of repentance and faith(Acts 15, Rom. 4, Gal. 3). Forty years later, the Romans then marchedagainst Jerusalem and razed its temple to the ground and the Jewishpeople were (gradually) scattered throughout the earth.

Taken together, these events mark the inauguration of a new age inworld history. Its inauguration is then reflected in the NT in a varietyof ways, such as: (a) The NT depicts the world in primarily spiritualas opposed to geographical terms. The world’s battles are not a matterof Jew-versus-Gentile but of heaven-versus-earth (Matt. 13.36-43, Col.3.1-6, Eph. 6.12). (b) In the NT era, ‘conversion’ is not about joiningoneself to a theocratic nation. It is about joining oneself to God’s heav-enly people by means of faith in Christ (Rom. 4.11-13, Gal. 3.5-9). (c)The NT depicts God’s reign over the earth in primarily heavenly as op-posed to earthly terms (7.13-14, 1 Cor. 15.24-25, Rev. 1.4-7, in light ofPsa. 110.1). (d) In the NT era, Satan is depicted as a angel whom hasfallen to the earth, and the nations are depicted as a part of his empire(1 John 5.19, Rev. 12.7-12). (e) The NT refers to Satan as the god of“the present age” (2 Cor. 4.4†). Satan possesses a power in the NT erawhich he did not previously possess and which he will soon no longerpossess. (f) In the Book of Rev., Satan’s throne is depicted in the midstof the Roman empire (Rev. 2.13). (g) Throughout the NT, the blessingspromised to God’s people are primarily spiritual in nature (Eph. 1.3).(h) In the NT, the wars of God’s people do not concern “flesh and blood”but, rather, “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (John 18.35-

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 83

36, Eph. 6.12). We can consider, by way of contrast, Israel’s wars, whichdid indeed concern ‘flesh and blood’ enemies, such as the Philistines, theMoabites, and so on. (i) In the NT, God’s people are called to pray, notfor power over the nations, but for the soon return of their Messiah.158

In sum, then, a radical change therefore took place in the 1st cent. AD.Christ began to reign in the heavenly realms, while Satan was cast downto earth. At the same time, the Gospel was taken forth to the nations andthe Spirit of God began to indwell his people. The world thereby entereda new and more spiritually-oriented phase of its existence. It does not,therefore, seem unreasonable for Daniel’s visions to look on from the fallof Greece to the rise of a new spiritual empire, as the Apocalyptic hypoth-esis does. The same point can be put in a slightly differently way. Withthe events of 167-160 BC, Daniel’s visions of the future abruptly ‘breakoff’. The rise of the Hasmoneans and Rome’s emperors, the sacrilege ofPompey, the behaviour of the Herodians: Daniel does not so much asmention these things. The rise and fall of Antiochus acts as a kind of‘event horizon’—or, more precisely, a ‘wormhole’. Ch. 8’s vision ‘dropsout’ entirely with the fall of Antiochus; ch. 9’s spans the gulf between theOT and NT via an undescribed period of sixty-two weeks; and ch. 11’s vi-sion looks straight on from the fall of Antiochus in 164 BC to the rise of a‘greater than Antiochus’ in a day to come (i.e., in the world’s final week).Daniel passes straight over the events of the 1st cent. and instead lookson to a spiritual era which lies beyond it, namely the Apocalyptic era,known by the NT as ‘the last times’ (Acts 2.16-18, Heb. 1.2, 9.26, 1 Pet.1.20, etc.). That is the next event in God’s prophetic timetable, and thatis therefore the next event in Daniel’s visions. As such, the appearanceof Antiochus can be likened to a mountain peak. The events which takeplace in its aftermath are hidden from Daniel’s vision, which is insteaddrawn to a second peak beyond it. Hence, just as ch. 11’s vision movesfrom the fall of Antiochus in 11.35 to the rise of a greater Anti-God in11.36-45, so the visions of the Colossus and the four beasts move from aSatanically-orchestrated campaign in the last days of the Seleucids to therise of a Satanically-controlled empire in the world’s last days, when aMessiah arises and an Anti-God named Herod seeks to slaughter him in

158. 7.25, Matt. 6.10, John 16.33, Acts 14.22, Eph. 1.10, 1 Pet. 4.12-13, Rev. 21.1-2.


decidedly Pharaoh-esque fashion. Daniel’s visions therefore follow thecourse of events a reader would encounter if he was to read straight onfrom the end of the OT to the start of the NT. We might compare, byway of analogy, the ‘bypassed centuries’ in ch. 8’s and ch. 11’s visions,i.e., the move from the rise of Alexander’s successors (in 8.8) to the riseof Antiochus (in 8.9) and from the rise of Xerxes (in 11.2) to the riseof Alexander (in 11.3). Rome’s rule is significant in Daniel’s prophecies,but only insofar as it marks the dawn of the NT era, and ch. 7’s vision isconstructed accordingly. It may seem to represent a continuous periodof history, since it describes a divinely-ordained plan which steadily andinexorably converges towards its goal, but it does not. It reflects howGod views world history, not how a disinterested observer might view it.

The potential sticking-point of the Apocalyptic hypothesis may not,therefore, be such a problem after all. So, let us now turn our attentionto the merits of the Apocalyptic hypothesis. In my view, the Apocalyptichypothesis is able to make sense of a number of otherwise very puzzlingfeatures of Daniel’s vision.

(a) According to the text of ch. 7, the fourth beast will continue to rulethe earth until the Ancient of Days descends to the earth and establisheshis reign over the nations (7.21-22, 7.26-27). As such, the Apocalyptichypothesis makes good sense. Satan will indeed continue to hold swayover the earth until the moment of Christ’s return. By way of contrast,Rome’s day in the sun has been and gone.

(b) According to the text of ch. 7, Daniel’s fourth beast is radically “dif-ferent” from its predecessors. As before, then, the Apocalyptic hypothesisfares very well. Satan’s empire is indeed radically different from Neb-uchadnezzar’s, Cyrus’s, and Alexander’s. It is a spiritual as opposed to aphysical empire—a kingdom without a human king, a visible presence,a geographical head-quarters, and so forth. The Romans, however, werenot so different from their predecessors. They had their distinctives, butthen so did all the other beasts.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 85

(c) Daniel explicitly identifies the first three beasts in his vision, buthe nowhere identifies the fourth; he leaves it nameless and enshroudedin mystery. Given the Apocalyptic hypothesis, Daniel’s treatment of thefourth beast is as we would expect. Satan’s kingdom is a fundamentallymysterious entity, and Satan’s role in history is hinted at only rarely andambiguously in the OT. Its full details are filled out in the NT. It is a“mystery” in the truest sense of the word (2 Thes. 2.7, Rev. 17.7).

(d) Daniel hints at the ongoing character of the fourth beast by means ofthe verbal forms he employs. Whereas he narrates the first three beasts’reigns solely by means of pfct. verbal forms, he narrates the fourth beast’sreign solely by means of ptc. forms (‘consuming’, ‘breaking to pieces’,trampling down the remnant’). The fourth beast is not, therefore, por-trayed as ‘just another kingdom’—the next in line to conquer the NearEast. Rather, the fourth kingdom is an entity whose existence has a stub-born and persistent character. Only the Ancient of Days himself can bringan end to its reign.

(e) Throughout ch. 7, Daniel’s fourth beast is distinguished by how“fearful” it is. That fact makes good sense in light of the Apocalyptichypothesis. The reign of Satan is indeed a fearful prospect. As thingsstand, Satan’s influence on the world is restrained. But a world whereSatan has free reign does not bear thinking about (Rev. 13). The Ro-man Hypothesis, by way of contrast, seems to stretch the text of ch. 7 tobreaking-point. True—some of the Roman emperors were monsters, butmen like Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus were hardly pussy-cats.

(f) According to the text of ch. 7, Daniel’s fourth beast is unreservedlyevil—the most beastly of all history’s empires, a snarling, monstrous, andhideous entity. For Satan’s empire to be depicted in such terms shouldnot surprise us. Satan’s intentions are unreservedly evil. Satan is hell-bent on the destruction of God’s people and the defilement of God’s glory.But can the same really be said for the Roman emperors? The Romanempire was not unreservedly evil towards the Jewish people, nor was itunreservedly evil towards the early Christians.


(g) Daniel’s fourth beast is said to be destroyed on Christ’s return, whilethe first three beasts are allowed to live on. Given the Apocalyptic hy-pothesis, these details are as we would expect. On Christ’s return, Satanwill be banished from the earth and the nations will become subject toChrist’s reign (7.27, Rev. 20.1-3). “The LORD will arise upon [Israel], andhis glory will be seen upon [her], and nations shall come to [her] light,and kings to the brightness of [her] rising” (Isa. 60.2-3).

(h) In Daniel’s vision, each beast is summed up by the figure of a particu-lar king (7.17). These four kings serve as ‘figureheads’ of their respectivekingdoms. They represent their kingdoms at their most powerful anddefine its hallmarks. Consider, for instance, the unconverted Nebuchad-nezzar—proud, powerful, brash, and entirely sovereign: the epitome ofBabylon’s rule. Who, then, is the fourth empire’s king, and in what waydoes he epitomise the fourth kingdom? The Apocalyptic hypothesis hasa very obvious candidate to proffer. The fourth king is the Anti-God. Assuch, he is the epitome of Satan’s kingdom. He represents the full capac-ity of man’s evil, and he seeks to subdue the entire world to Satan’s yoke.On the Roman Hypothesis, the fourth beast’s king is hard to identify. Heis clearly Rome’s final king, since his fall constitutes the fall of the entirekingdom. But who was he? Rome’s final emperor was a fairly unremark-able character. And, as mentioned previously, attempts to anchor ch. 7’sclimax in 70 AD soon run into serious problems. In any case, Vespasiandid not exactly epitomise Roman rule.

In sum, then, the Apocalyptic hypothesis makes sense of the text ofDaniel’s vision precisely where its alternatives are unable to do so. Ittakes the text of Daniel’s vision seriously, and it makes sense of the worldaround us.

(9) We should identify Daniel’s fourth beast with the kingdom of Satan. Wefinally, therefore, come to the conclusion of our argument, which, givensteps (1) to (8), follows by logical necessity. Let us therefore summariseits key assertion. Three empires rise and fall in the Near East, whichultimately give way to a fourth all-encompassing spiritual empire. Thatempire soon comes to overshadow the entire earth, as the kingdom of

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 87

God strives to do likewise. In the present age, the kingdoms of Satanand of God therefore co-exist. Each vies for dominion over the other,and each continues to do so until the Son of Man returns and establisheshis reign in power and glory.

We can now, therefore, return to our verse-by-verse commentary on thetext.

7.9-14: An overview of Daniel’s vision of Heaven’s courts

At the outset of 7.9, Daniel lifts his eyes and takes stock of his surround-ings. As he does so, he finds himself standing in heaven’s throneroom-cum-courtroom, where he has (presumably) been since the vision began.He may, therefore, have been looking down on the Sea from above whenhe saw the beasts emerge from it. The imagery employed in 7.9-14 hasa decidedly ‘legal’ feel to it. We have a divine judge (7.9), angelic jurors(7.10b), a legal document (7.10c), and a verdict (7.11). Reading be-tween the lines of the text, we can piece together the following sequenceof events.

Stretching out before Daniel is a vast open court. It is a magnificentsight, bathed in fire, white light, and golden adornments. As Danielwatches, a number of events begin to take place. First a circle of thronesis set out, on which heaven’s jurors will sit. Then a great fire-enshroudedthrone is wheeled out into the midst of the thrones, at which point thou-sands of heaven’s hosts begin to gather round. Daniel is (apparently)caught up in their midst. Heaven’s hosts have evidently been orderedto attend the trial of the earth’s beasts, and Daniel has (effectively) beensummoned along with them. Once the hosts have assembled, an ancientfigure enters the throneroom and takes his seat. The occupants of thelesser thrones then do likewise, at which point the courtroom is deemedquorat and the trial of the beasts is ready to begin (7.10c). The Ancientof Days is, of course, YHWH. Needless to say, Daniel is awed by the sightof his God and Creator. There, before his eyes, sits the ‘man’ who is thelocus of all power and authority, both in heaven and on earth. Daniel isat the ‘epicentre’ of all Creation.

88 7.9-14: AN OVERVIEW OF DANIEL’S VISION OF HEAVEN’S COURTS

As Daniel watches, the Ancient of Days opens heaven’s ledgers, whichapparently contain a record of the actions of the world’s inhabitants. Outof the four beasts, the fourth is the first to be tried. Given the contentsof heaven’s ledgers, it is found guilty and is sentenced to destruction(7.11). Even as God’s verdict is pronounced, Daniel hears the beast’sblasphemous voice floating up from the earth beneath him. He thenlooks downwards, where he sees the beast slain and given over to thefire. Next, the time comes for the other beasts to be tried. Unlike thefourth beast, they are not completely destroyed. They are allowed tolive on in the ‘age to come’, but their dominion must be taken from them(7.12).

With the advent of 7.13-14, a separate vision begins. Daniel finds himselfin the same heavenly courtroom as before, but the scene before him isa very different one. (As we will see, Daniel has been brought back intime to view an event which takes place in heaven while the fourth beastis on the earth.) Daniel is about to witness the coronation of the Son ofMan. As Daniel watches, a figure emerges from the distance. The figureis unmistakably human. He may even be the first human to have set footwithin heaven’s courts. (Daniel is present only ‘in vision’.) But, as wewill see, the figure is not merely a son of man. He is Israel’s Messiah, theSon of Man, and in his train are thousands upon thousands of other sonsof men. Just as Daniel’s beasts depict both kings and kingdoms, so toodoes the Son of Man. As Daniel watches, the Son of Man makes his waythrough the multitudes around God’s throne, who joyfully usher him intoGod’s presence. On reaching God’s throne, the Son of Man is crownedas king of all Creation to the praise of heaven’s hosts (7.14). The sceneis one of triumph, honour, and glory.

With these thoughts in mind, we can summarise the events of 7.2-14 asfollows.159

159. As mentioned previously, I take each of Daniel’s mentions of a “night vision” to constitute a new ‘mini-vision’ in his series of visions (7.1).

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 89

1. As I watched in my vision at night (7.2-6)

Daniel sees three kings-and-kingdoms emerge from the Gentile nations.Each kingdom arises from the sea, and each rises to power over the NearEast: first Babylon, then Medo-Persia, then Greece.

2. After this, as I continued to watch in the visions of the night (7.7-12)

Daniel sees a fourth king-and-kingdom arise—a dark, spiritual, and Satanicentity. It soon comes to overshadow the entire earth. While the first threekingdoms are ushered in by their kings-cum-figureheads, the fourthkingdom ushers in its own king, namely the Anti-God—a figure of greatpower, mystery, and blasphemy. There then comes a complete change ofscene. Daniel finds himself standing amidst heaven’s courts, where he seesthe Ancient of Days calling heaven’s court to order. The court’s task is tojudge the reign of the earth’s beasts, which it duly does. The beasts arefound guilty. The fourth is consigned to the flames, while the first three arestripped of their power and dominion.

3. As I continued to watch in the visions of the night (7.13-14)

With the outset of 7.13, Daniel is brought back in time to the days of thefourth beast (see later). Visions 2 and 3 therefore overlap. From hisvantage-point in heaven’s courts, Daniel sees a human figure approachingGod’s throne with “clouds” of witnesses in his train. To be precise, he seethe Son of Man’s triumphant return to heaven with his people at his heels(Eph. 4.8). Ch. 7 therefore provides us with two different views of theevents of the present age—a technique also employed in the Book ofRevelation. As the fourth beast seeks to take control of the earth and totrample down God’s people, the Son of Man stands exalted in heaven, fromwhence he draws fallen men and women out of the present world and intohis heavenly kingdom (Eph. 2.1-6, Jude 1.21-24, Rev.5.9-10, 7.9-16).

7.9-10: The trial of the earth’s beasts

7.9 I watched until thrones were set out

and [one] ancient in days took his seat:

90 7.9-10: THE TRIAL OF THE EARTH’S BEASTS

hisat-

tire,like

whitesnow;

thehair

of hishead,

likepure

wool;

histhrone,flashes

offire;

[and]its

wheels,a

burn-ing

fire.

7.10 A river of fire flowed continually forth from before him,

thousandof

thou-sands

are[present]

toservehim,

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 91

andmyri-

adsof

myri-ads

standin at-

ten-dance

be-forehim.

Thecourtthensat,and

bookswereopened.

I watched until thrones were set out (7.9a). The time now comes forthe beasts to be called to account—hence the assembly of a law-courtin heaven. According to 7.9s, Daniel observes the reign of the fourthbeast (in horror no doubt) until a certain event comes to pass. Godtherefore seems to allow the fourth beast a certain amount of ‘latitude’until the time comes for its reign to be judged. Put another way, Godrestrains his anger against the fourth beast until its “times” have run theircourse and accomplished God’s intended purposes. We might consider,by way of analogy, the way in which Daniel watches the Babylonian beast(Nebuchadnezzar) flying high until the time comes for God to clip itswings (7.4). We can also consider 7.21-22.160 Every event which takesplace in ch. 7’s vision takes place at God’s appointed time.

thrones were set out[RMY] (7.9a). A plurality of thrones are set out inGod’s presence. God has apparently summoned heaven’s hosts to appearbefore him, just as Nebuchadnezzar summoned his officials to assemblebefore him on the Plain of Dura. We might consider, by way of analogy,

160. The Aramaic of 7.4, 7.9, and 7.21-22 is identical.


the opening scene of the Book of Job, where God’s angels are requiredto “present themselves” before his heavenly throne, or Micaiah’s vision,where Micaiah sees YHWH “sitting on his throne” and “all the host of theheavens standing beside him, on his right hand and on his left” (Job 1.6,1 Kgs. 22.19). The implication of 7.9a’s events is clear. Events of greatsignificance are about to unfold. God is about to judge the world’s beastsand to inaugurate his kingdom on earth, and he wants all heaven to bearwitness to his actions.

The order of, and connection between, 7.9-10’s events is not spelt ex-plicitly out in the text. My ‘reconstruction of events’ (outlined above)may not, therefore, be 100% accurate in all its details, but its overalltenor is, I trust, true to Daniel’s intentions. A courtroom is convened,where the Ancient of Days assumes the role of the judge (Gen. 18.25).At the same time, a number of other “thrones” are set out. They are,presumably, the thrones on which heaven’s jurors ‘sit’ when the courtis brought to order (7.10c).161 The concept of a throne surrounded bylesser thrones is an unusual one, but it is not unprecedented. We canconsider, for instance, the layout of Jerusalem’s palace, about which thePsalmist says, “There, thrones for judgment were set [out], [namely] thethrones of the house of David” (Psa. 122.5).162 We can also considerBabylon’s throneroom. According to the Book of Kings, Evil-Merodach(Nebuchadnezzar’s son) showed Yehoiachin great favour by seating himon a throne “above the throne of the [other] kings with him in Babylon”(2 Kgs. 25.28†). Evil-Merodach therefore seems to have held the positionof “king of kings”, just as his father did (2.37, Ezek. 26.7). The “kings”of the nations sat on lesser thrones before him. Given these considera-tions, I take the “thrones” mentioned in 7.9a to signify the presence of

161. The imagery of 7.9-10 may underlie John’s vision of a circle of twenty-four elders seated on twenty-four thrones around the throne of God. It may even have influenced Paul’s description of believers“seated in heavenly places”. But it does not seem right (to me) to read such theology back into the OT.When we exegete OT prophecy, we should begin where its authors began. That is to say, we should firstconsider what a vision meant to its original seer and his original audience. Only then can we legitimatelyincorporate NT revelation into the picture. The NT apostles did not treat the OT as a collection of data-points which they were free to utilise in a haphazard and decontextualised manner. The NT apostles sawthe OT as the word of God, and they treated it as such. The NT therefore expands on the OT in a logicaland contextually sensitive manner.

162. Jesus may even have Jerusalem’s palace in mind when he says, “In the new world, when the Son of Manwill sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging thetwelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19.28).

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 93

‘the nations’. Their occupants are (presumably) angelic creatures, likethe other participants in 7.9-12’s vision. If so, they may have in mindthe ‘watchers’ or ‘angelic guardians’ whom God has assigned to differentnations (4.13, 4.17, 10.13, 12.1). Either way, in the context of 7.9-12,the thrones seem to signify the presence of ‘jurors’. They also serve toportray the Ancient of Days as the One who is exalted ‘above the nations’,high above the circle of the earth (Psa. 2.1-4, 47.8-9, Isa. 40.22). YHWH

operates in a sphere of his own.163

[one] ancient in days took his seat (7.9b). Daniel now sees heaven’scentral throne—the ‘throne of thrones’. The experience must have beenunforgettable. Daniel is at the very epicentre of the universe. Before himstands the throne from which decrees affecting the entire universe aresent forth—the throne before which every event in world history mustappear in order to find ‘divine approval’. Daniel can also see, throughthe flames and fire, the ‘man’ who sits on heaven’s throne—the Ancientof Days, the One who has for so long been the sole object of Daniel’s wor-ship and affections. To stand in the presence of such might and holinessmust have been utterly overwhelming, even ‘in vision’.

Daniel’s description of the Ancient of Days is highly reminiscent of John’svision of Jesus (Rev. 1.14). Some commentators have therefore takenDaniel’s vision to be a vision of Jesus as opposed to the Father. But it doesnot strike me as necessary to draw a distinction between the membersof the Trinity here in Daniel. Besides, it would be odd for a vision ofheaven’s throneroom to fail to make any mention of God the Father.164

163. Mesopotamian coronation ceremonies share a number of similarites with the events described in 7.9-14. One such ceremony is centred around an enormous structure known as a ‘throne dais’, i.e., a royalplatform mounted on a number of thrones. On the platform are various royal insignia (e.g., crowns,sceptres, etc.), which symbolise the presence of one of Sumer’s gods. At the start of the ceremony, thekingdom’s dignitaries and priests escort the king-to-be to the dais, where they award him the relevantinsignia (i.e., the crown, the sceptre, etc.). His receipt of them symbolises his receipt of power from ‘thedivine platform’ on high. At that point, the prince is given a new name, and the priests pay homage tohim. The ceremony is then pronounced complete—a situation which resembles the climax of Joseph’sceremony in Gen. 41.40-45 (Frankfort 1948:317-320). If the aforementioned ceremony is a reasonablereflection of life in Neo-Babylonian times, then Daniel’s vision would have seemed very ‘current’ to him,since precisely such a coronation took place earlier that year, namely the coronation of Belshazzar (7.1).

164. According to NT doctrine, God is a ‘triune’ deity who revealed himself as YHWH in the days of OT—i.e.,as Israel’s Husband Redeemer and as the mightiest of ‘the gods of the nations’—and has since revealedhimself more fully and explicitly in the person of Jesus Christ. God has at the same time unveiled histriune nature. Unlike us, God is not a ‘simple’ creature. He possess three distinct centres of personhoodand hence consists of three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We


[one] ancient in days (7.9b). Here, God is referred to as an ancientof days, i.e., a man of great age.165 Its purpose is to depict God as ajudge invested with dignity, wisdom, and authority. The ‘wool-like’ na-ture of God’s hair underscores the point. Elsewhere in Scripture, theimage of “wool” clearly suggests whiteness and hence age (Psa. 147.16,Rev. 1.14).166

ancient...the hair of his head, like pure wool (7.9b). The elderlyare not always afforded with respect in today’s society. But, in ancientsocieties, the elderly were assumed to have acquired a great deal ofworldly wisdom and know-how. As such, they were afforded great re-spect. Pharaoh, for instance, treated Jacob with great respect becauseof his age, and cities were commonly governed by groups of “elders”.167

In the Book of Proverbs, “grey hair” is even seen as “the splendour ofold men” and their “crown of glory”.168 Given these considerations, thetitle “Ancient of Days” portrays God as a ruler who is wise and worthyof respect—one worthy to govern and to judge the world. It also re-flects God’s great experience. While the sight of four beasts may haveshocked Daniel, it has not shocked God. Indeed, God has ‘seen it all be-fore’. God was present when men first established an empire in Shinar,just as he was present when that empire fell. God was present whenthe Israelites first settled in Canaan, just as he was present when theywere carried away. And God was present when Nebuchadnezzar revivedShinar’s ancient empire, just as he will be present when its alter ego(Babylon the Great) finally falls (Rev. 17-18). In contrast, therefore, tothe young Belshazzar (7.1), God has ‘been there, done it, and bought the

should not, therefore, be surprised if OT visions of YHWH resemble NT visions of the glorified Christ.They are revelations of the selfsame God after all.

165. As Driver states, “The expression [cattîq yômîn] does not mean what [its] English [translations] imply,[i.e.], one who [has] existed from the days of eternity; it means...‘an aged man’. ...The same expressionoccurs in the Syriac version of Wisd. [2.10] for an ‘old man”’ (1900:85). We can consider, as an analogy,the phrase ba cbayyamîm (‘advanced in days’) in Gen. 24.1. Keil therefore writes, “What Daniel seesis not the eternal God himself, but an aged man, in whose dignified and impressive form God revealshimself”, but I do not see why we must accept Keil’s conclusion. The phrase ‘ancient of days’ couldsimply be intended to describe one particular aspect of God’s person, namely his great age. Daniel latermakes the description ‘an ancient of days’ into a def. title (‘the Ancient of Days’) in order to portray Godas one who is uniquely distinguished by his age and experiences. One could legitimately translate cattîqyômayya cin 7.13 and 7.22 as ‘the Most Ancient in Days’.

166. The term translated “pure wool” may even refer to lamb’s wool, which would make its whiteness explicit.

167. Gen. 47.7-10, 50.7, Exod. 3.16, Ruth 4.2, etc.

168. Prov. 16.31, 20.29.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 95

T-shirt’. Nothing will ever surprise him. While, therefore, the beasts mayseem a fearsome sight to God’s people, they need not worry since Godis not worried. God has seen such beasts come and go before in history.He has heard their proud boasts and seen them come to nothing (Psa.2). Indeed, he has personally brought them to nothing. The concept of‘the Ancient of Days’ also portrays God as the one true God. The pagandeities whom the Israelites encounter on their travels are “new gods”(Deut. 32.17, Judg. 5.8). But the Ancient of Days has been present sincetime began. “From everlasting to everlasting”, he is God (Psa. 90.1).

his attire, like white snow (7.9b). God is clothed in pure white—theinvariable colour of heaven’s clothes.169 Isaiah contrasts the purity of“white[ness]” and of “snow” with the (scarlet) stain of “sin” (Isa. 1.18).God’s white attire therefore reflects his unsullied holiness and moral pu-rity.170 God may be in control of the ‘night of the beasts’ below, but heis entirely distinct from them. He inhabits another realm entirely, wherehe is surrounded by countless multitudes of ‘holy ones’.

his throne, flashes of fire (7.9b). God’s heavenly throne is a mass offlames. If the mention of “white attire” in 7.9b reflects God’s inner purity,then the mention of “fire” depicts the potential effects of God’s holinesson those who seek to approach him. God is an all-consuming fire. It isno more possible for sinful creature to enter his presence than for a dryleaf to approach the centre of a furnace.171 That the Son of Man is latersaid to “approach” the Ancient of Days is therefore testimony to the Sonof Man’s unparalleled purity and holiness (7.13-14). No other membersof heaven’s hosts are said to do such a thing.

its wheels, a burning fire (7.9b). God’s throne is a ‘wheeled’ throne.As such, it is mobile. It can be moved from place to place. The conceptof a mobile throne may sound unusual to us. But, in ancient times,mobile thrones were commonplace (at least among kings). Kings wereto be honoured and respected, even when they were on the move (1 Kgs.

169. Matt. 28.3, Mark 9.3, Rev. 4.4, 19.14.

170. 11.35, 12.10, Psa. 51.7, Lam. 4.7.

171. Deut. 9.3, Psa. 50.3, 97.3, Isa. 66.15.


22.10). They travelled around with a royal entourage and dwelt in vastpalatial tents, complete with thrones and courts and so forth. Alexanderthe Great’s tent is said to have consisted of an enormous finely-wovencanopy supported by fifty golden pillars, in the middle of which stooda magnificent throne.172 According to 11.45, the Anti-God will travelaround in similar luxury.

The concept of a fiery throne equipped with “wheels” may allude toEzekiel’s visions, since they describe a similar throne on various occa-sions (e.g., Ezek. 1.15-28, 10.1-19, etc.). Ezekiel was a contemporaryof Daniel’s in Babylon. He first put pen to paper in the aftermath ofNebuchadnezzar’s first deportation of Judeans (in 597 BC). His messagewas not a pleasant one. According to Ezekiel, while the Judeans hadalready undergone a terrible invasion, worse was still to come (Ezek. 9).God himself was raising up a northern army—a herd of “wild beasts” tobe precise—, which would scatter the Jews far and wide (Ezek. 5, 14).But Ezekiel’s message contained an element of comfort for the faithful.The deportation would not remove the Israelites from God’s sphere ofinfluence. God was not merely the God of Israel. He was the God ofall Creation. His throne was a mobile one. God would therefore remainin control of his people, wherever they ended up. The text of 7.9 hasa similar implication. Even when the worst of kings are on Babylon’sthrone (7.1), God is in control of—and present with—his people, just ashe was present with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego amid Babylon’sfurnace (Psa. 46.1).

A river of fire flowed continually forth from before him (7.10a).Flowing forth from God’s throne is a lava-like “river of fire”. The fireexpands on the concept of the “flames” which constitute God’s throne.While the flames depict the potential effects of God’s holiness on thosewho approach him, the “river” depicts the ‘going forth’ of God’s holi-ness—the exercise of his judgment. As such, it depicts God’s destructivepotential. Indeed, it is a fire which will soon be turned on the earth’sfourth beast (7.11). The Book of Revelation contains an instructive coun-terpoint to Daniel’s vision. In his final vision, John is shown a “river

172. PSOW 4.3.24.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 97

of...water” which flows forth from God’s throne—a river which bringslife and healing to a scorched earth in the aftermath of God’s judgment(Rev. 22.1). 7.10b’s “river of fire” is quite the opposite. It has to do withdestruction and obliteration. It will devastate the earth and purge it ofSatan’s wickedness, after which time a season of restoration will begin.

thousand of thousands are [present] to serve him, and myriads ofmyriads stand in attendance before him (7.10b-c). As Daniel exam-ines his surroundings, he becomes aware of a crowd of heavenly atten-dants around God’s throne. He is presumably among their number. InScripture, God is often said to be surrounded by large numbers of heav-enly hosts. Moses, for instance, describes God’s preparation to descendto Mount Sinai as follows: “The LORD...rose up...from the midst of tenthousand holy ones” (Deut. 33.2173). Daniel describes a similar scene.Around God’s throne stand myriads of heavenly beings, ready to executeGod’s every command. 7.10b’s Aramaic seems to detach it from its im-mediate context.174 It is as if 7.10b is intended to describe a ‘timeless’state of affairs—a state far removed from the chaos depicted in 7.3-8.While Satan may be in a rush, God is not (Rev. 12.12). As Montgomerywrites, “In contrast [to] the chaos of [the] Great Ocean—its hurricanesand portentous monsters—appears the august vision of God [and his]judgment”.175 In contrast to the beasts’ frenzied behaviour on the earth,life is perfectly calm in heaven’s courts; and, in contrast to the beasts’rebellion against their Creator, heaven’s hosts stand ready to serve (Psa.103.19-21). The “hosts” in question are presumably angels. They standin a continual state of readiness. Their sole concern is the service of theMost High.

The court then sat, and books were opened (7.10b). The Ancient ofDays now calls the heavenly court to order. The “court” primarily refersto those creatures for whom the “thrones” have been set out, but it alsono doubt refers to the assembled multitudes (7.9a). As such, heaven’scourtroom is comprised of three distinct tiers: i] the judge, i.e., the Most

173. See also 2 Kgs. 6.16-17, Psa. 68.17.

174. See “7.1-28: Further trans. notes”.

175. Montgomery, XXX, 1927:296.

98 7.11: THE FOURTH BEAST IS CONSUMED BY FIRE

High God, seated on his fiery throne, ii] the jury, i.e., the Watchers, seatedon lesser thrones, representing the various nations of the earth, and iii]the gallery, i.e., the countless angels who have gathered to witness thetrial of the beasts.

With the court convened, heaven’s record-books are opened. The bookscontain the angels’ record of what has been taking place on the earthduring the beasts’ reign (4.17). We might consider, as an analogy, the‘horses’ sent out (in Zechariah’s vision) to “patrol” the earth and to re-port back to the angel of the LORD (Zech. 1.10-11, 6.7-8). The beastsmay regard themselves as ‘free agents’, accountable to no-one but them-selves. But they are about to discover otherwise. Their wild and un-godly actions have not gone unnoticed. That the court reaches a verdictis not stated explicitly, but it is strongly implied. As Goldingay remarks,“we move...from the horn’s words to the creature’s execution. ...The lo-quacity of the little horn [is] judged by the mute language of the heav-enly books”.176 The brevity of the text actually serves to underscoreheaven’s sovereignty over the horn. No battle or struggle takes place be-tween God and the beast. The matter is simply decided in heaven, andthen comes to pass on the earth without any further ado.

7.11: The fourth beast is consumed by fire

7.11 At that point, I looked [away] because of the sound of the great words thehorn was proclaiming, and I continued to watch until the beast was slain,her body was destroyed, and she was given over to the fire to be burnt.

I looked [away] because of the sound of the great words the hornwas proclaiming (7.11a). Daniel has been completely taken awayby the sight of heaven’s throneroom. But now, as heaven’s books areopened, he hears a voice floating up from the earth below. He imme-diately directs his gaze earthwards, where he sees the beast’s eleventhhorn running riot. The “great words” the beast is uttering will turn outto its last—and they are not pleasant ones. They are words of blasphemyagainst the Most High God.177

176. Goldingay 1989:189, who cites XXX.

177. See our comments on 7.8.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 99

I watched until the beast was slain (7.11b). Even as Daniel watches,the time comes for the fourth beast to be brought to account. As notedin our comments on 7.8, the eleventh horn is the figurehead of Satan’sempire. Its relationship to Satan’s empire is the same as Nebuchadnez-zar’s relationship to Babylon, Cyrus’s to Medo-Persia, and Alexander’s toGreece (7.17). The destruction of the eleventh horn therefore depictsthe destruction of the beast as a whole.

According to 7.11b, the beast is “slain” and its body is “destroyed”. Pre-cisely what these activities refer to is not clear to me. On balance, Itake the slaughter of the beast to depict the slaughter of Satan’s people,i.e., those people who have chosen to side with the Anti-God as opposedto God. I then take the destruction of the beast’s “body” to depict thedestruction of Satan’s works, e.g., the cities devoted to his cause, theweapons of war he has turned on God’s people, and so on (Isa. 2.4,Ezek. 39.9). As a whole, then, 7.11b depicts God’s removal of Satan’sinfluence from the earth—the time when God will shake the heavensand the earth and “[only] those things which cannot be shaken [will]remain” (Heb. 12.26-27†). After its destruction, the beast is given overto “the burning fire” for ‘cremation’. The same event may be in mind inIsaiah’s vision of “the new heavens and the new earth”, of which he says,

From new moon to new moon,and from Sabbath to Sabbath,all flesh will come to worship before [the LORD]...And they will go out and look on the dead bodiesof the men who have rebelled against [him],for their worm will not die,their fire will not be quenched,and they will be an abhorrence to all flesh.

(Isa. 66.22-24†)

According to Isaiah, then, God’s new creation will not begin with a blankslate. Rather, it will (at least at first) contain a memory of God’s past actsof judgment. The nations will go up to Jerusalem in order to observe thefeasts of YHWH (Isa. 2.2-4, Zech. 14.16). As they return, they will pass by

100 7.12: THE THREE BEASTS LIVE ON

the Valley of Gehenna,178 where they will see the smouldering remains ofGod’s enemies. Needless to say, it is not a pretty picture, nor is it meantto be. It is to us a warning—and to the inhabitants of the new earth asober reminder—of the fate of those who oppose the God of Israel. Thetext of 7.11 may allude to a similar idea. Indeed, Daniel refers to theburning fire, so he seems to have a known location or judgment, whichcould plausibly be Gehenna. One way or the other, the remains of theeleventh king and his armies will be gathered up and burnt. Satan’speople will go up in flames, and their smoke will rise to the heavens, justas God’s prophets foretold (Isa. 34.10, Rev. 14.11). Jesus envisages asimilar scene in the parables of the wheat and the tares, saying,

Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will itbe at the end of the age: the Son of Man will send [forth] hisangels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sinand all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace.

(Matt. 13.40-42)

7.12: The three beasts live on

7.12 As for the remnants of the beasts, their rule was caused to pass away, andan extension of their lives was given to them for an appointed season.

With the fourth beast’s fate clearly set out, Daniel now moves on to de-scribe the fate of the first three beasts. Many commentators take 7.12 tobe a ‘throwback’ to an earlier moment in time. But the text seems to de-scribe an event which occurs after the fourth beast’s judgment. Indeed,7.2-12 describes a strict chronological sequence of events, as shown be-low:

As I watched in my vision at night, behold:[I saw]...four great beasts arising...

The first was like a lion...

And behold: another beast, a second one, resembling a bear...

178. Gehenna was a valley to the south of Jerusalem, which became the dumping and burning ground for thecity’s refuse. As a result, it was continually ablaze with flames.

DANIEL CHAPTER 7 101

After this, as I continued to watch, behold:another one, like a leopard, with four wings...

After this, as I continued to watch in the visions of the night,behold: a fourth beast, fearful and dreadful...

I watched until thrones were set out....At that point, I looked [away]

because of the sound of the great words the horn proclaimed,and I watched until the beast was slain...

As for the remnants of the beasts,their rule was caused to pass away,and an extension of their lives was given to themfor an appointed season.

(Dan. 7.2-12)

As can be seen, these events follow on from one another both logicallyand chronologically. First Babylon arises (7.4), then Medo-Persia (7.5),then Greece (7.6), and then the fourth beast, whose empire spreads farand wide (7.7-8). As a result of its destructive activities, the fourth beastmust be judged. It is tried, found guilty (7.9-10), and judged (7.11).Meanwhile, the first three beasts are permitted to live on for a while(7.12). The sequential nature of these events is really very clear. Wecannot simply say (along with one commentator), “The visions go for-wards and backwards [in time]”, and then order them as we see fit. Wemust allow the text to dictate its own chronology.

So, with the chronology of 7.12 in place, let us turn our attention toits specific content. But first, a brief reminder of the nature of ‘king-doms’ may be helpful. Daniel’s first three beasts depict geographical king-ships—in particular, the kingships of Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece(cf. “2.45a: Some further thoughts”). As such, they are very difficult to‘destroy’. Nations can be conquered, and people can be slaughtered. Butareas of land cannot simply disappear (even if they are renamed), andit is very difficult to relocate a centre of power—hence, most of the ma-jor cities we read about in the OT still exist in some form today (e.g.,Thebes, Gaza, Jerusalem, Damascus, Susa, etc.). Men like Cyrus and

102 7.12: THE THREE BEASTS LIVE ON

Alexander were therefore every bit as much ‘Kings of Babylon’ as menlike Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Indeed, the OT explicitly refers tomen like Cyrus and Artaxerxes as “Kings of Babylon”,179 as do Babylon’sown records.180 Given these considerations, we should view Daniel’sbeast-cum-kingdoms, not as entities which ‘replace’ one another, but asentities which subsume one another. Put another way, when a new king-dom arises in Daniel’s visions

Daniel’s four empires do not begin with a clean slate; rather, they buildon top of one another’s successes and achievements. Babylon subsumesJudah, Medo-Persia subsumes Babylon, Greece subsumes Medo-Persia,and Satan’s empire subsumes the entire world, Greece included. Daniel’sfirst three beasts therefore depict centres of power which continue to ex-ist long after their time of dominion has come to an end. The kingship ofBabylon continues to exist in the form of the present-day rulers of Iraq,181

the kingship of Persia continues to exist in the form of the present-dayrulers of Iran,182 and the kingship of Greece continues to exist in the formof modern-day Greece. True—since Daniel’s day, man has carved up theNear East into a number different regions, to which he has assigned newnames. But, in God’s eyes, it makes little difference. As far as God isconcerned, there are still such things as the kingships of Babylon, Persia,and Greece.183

The implication of 7.12 is therefore as follows. The day will comewhen God will judge the world by means of his appointed Messiah (Acts17.31). Satan will be banished from the earth, Satan’s followers willbe slain, and the works of Satan’s empire will be utterly burnt up. Theworld will thereby be liberated from Satan’s reign, and the glorious fu-ture promised to Israel—her golden age—will become a reailty (2.45,7.13-14, 7.26-27). In Israel’s golden age, the first three beasts will con-tinue to inhabit God’s Creation; that is to say, the Gentiles nations will

179. Ezra 5.13, Neh. 13.6.

180. Babylon’s records explicitly refer to the Greek and Seleucid kings as ‘Kings of Babylon’ (PDBC XXX).

181. Saddam Hussein actually considered himself to be a reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar.

182. Iran celebrated Cyrus’s 2,500th anniversary in 1971, referring to him as the ‘founder’ of their monarchy.

183. There are also, I assume, such things as the kingships of Assyria, Egypt, Arabia, and so on. But, sincethese kingships never rose to power over Judah, they are not in view here.


continue to be ruled by Gentile kings. As such, the beast’s lives willbe “extended”, but they will no longer have dominion over Israel; their“rule” will be taken away from them (7.12). They will therefore exist astamed beasts. They will be subject to the rule of the Son of Man, and willtravel up to Jerusalem each year in order to honour the God of Israel,184

no longer the head but, rather, the tail (Deut. 28.13). Their existence,according to 7.12, will continue for “an appointed season”.185 That sea-son is, in my view, Israel’s golden age. (At the end of it, the three beastsmay take part in the world’s final rebellion against God: Rev. 20.7-10.)It is an appointed season insofar as it will begin at God’s appointed time,while it is an appointed season insofar as it is one of the specific ‘seasons’or ‘ages’ appointed in God’s sovereign plan. Babylon’s age of dominionwas the first of these ‘seasons’, and Israel’s will be the last. As such, theend-point of ch. 7’s first vision parallels the end-point of ch. 6. Just asthe lions in Babylon’s den were made subject to Daniel’s headship, so theearth’s beasts will become subject to Daniel’s people.186 As the apostleJohn foresaw,

The nations will walk by [the] light [of the city of God],and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it,and its gates will never be shut by day,nor will there be night there.The glory and the honour of the nations

will be brought into it.(Rev. 21.24-26†)

Of course, my proposed interpretation of 7.12 will not appeal to thosewho are post-millennial or a-millennial in their eschatology, but let us notworry about such things for now. Let us simply appreciate the followingpoint. 7.12 posits the existence of an age which begins after the fourthbeast has been destroyed and yet which accommodates the survival ofthe first three beasts.

184. Psa. 2.7-12, Isa. 2.2-4, Zech. 14.16.

185. I take the term zeman we ciddan to be a thematic couplet. See 2.21’s trans. notes.

186. Exod. 4.22, Deut. 28.13, Isa. 43.1-4.

104 7.13-14: THE CORONATION OF THE SON OF MAN

7.13-14: The coronation of the Son of Man

7.13 As I continued to watch in the visions of the night, behold: with the cloudsof the heavens, one like a son of man was coming, and he came to theAncient of Days, and was presented before him.

7.14a And [it was] he to whom rule and glory and a kingdom were given, and alltribes, nations, and tongues will serve him.

7.14b ‘His rule is an age-steadfast rule which will never pass away, and hiskingdom is one which will never be harmed!’.

With the advent of 7.13-14, we reach one of the most important passagesin the entire Hebrew Bible—not only because of its centrality to the Bookof Daniel, but because of its centrality to the NT. Indeed, in 7.13-14 wefind the kernel both of Jesus’ preferred title (the “Son of Man”) as wellof Paul’s ‘heavenly’ theology (e.g., Eph. 2.2-6, Col. 3.1-7). It is a passageof profound theological importance and richness. We begin our consid-eration of it with a few brief statements about its context and content:(A) 7.13-14’s son of man approaches the throne of ‘the Ancient of Days’.As such, the events of 7.13-14 are set in heaven (7.9-10). (B) The term“son of man” signifies a man as opposed to an animal.187 The heavenlyson of man is therefore a very different kind of ruler from the earth’sbeasts. He is everything the beasts are not, yet should be. (C) Daniel’sson of man is given “rule and glory and a kingdom”, at which point it isstated, “all tribes, nations, and tongues will serve him”. As such, 7.13-14 depicts the coronation of Daniel’s son of man—the moment when theSon of Man is crowned as the king of all Creation.188 The Son of Mancan only, therefore, be Israel’s Messiah189—the man who will one day lib-erate Israel from her shackles, subdue the Gentile nations, and establishhis reign from shore to shore.190 (D) When Jesus was asked, “Are you

187. e.g., Num. 23.19, 2 Sam. 7.14, Job 16.21, Psa. 8.4, etc.

188. The events described in 7.9-14 actually share a number of similarities with Near Eastern coronations(Frankfort 1948:245-248).

189. hence my use of capital letters

190. Psa. 2.6-12, 72.11, Isa. 11.1-12, Zech. 14.1-9, etc. That Daniel’s reference to a “son of man” refers tothe Messiah has been questioned by Critical-historical commentators, but the motivation for their doubtis not clear to me. True—Daniel does not explicitly refer to the “son of man” as a Messiah, but then veryfew prophecies do refer to Messiahs. What makes a prophecy Messianic is not the word “Messiah”, butthe prophecy’s content, and, when we consider what is said about Daniel’s son of man, we cannot reallybe in any doubt about its referent. Daniel’s “son of man” is crowned as God’s vice-regent and awarded allpower and authority over the nations—a role specifically reserved for Israel’s Messiah (Gen. 49.10, Psa.


the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”, he explicitly identified him-self with Daniel’s son of man, saying, “I am [indeed], and you will seethe Son of Man seated at the right hand of power, and coming with theclouds of heaven” (Mark 14.61-62†). (E) The “saints” and the “people”mentioned later in ch. 7 are clearly connected to Daniel’s son of man,since they are: i] human, and ii] associated with the heavenly realms(“the high places”). (F) The NT describes Jesus’ resurrection as the mo-ment when Jesus became the king of all Creation. Jesus declared to hisdisciples soon after his resurrection, “All authority in heaven and on earthhas been given to me” (Matt. 28.18). Peter said to the Jewish people,“This Jesus, [whom you crucified], God [has] raised up and...exalted athis right hand.... God has made [Jesus] both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.33-36). Stephen cried out, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Sonof Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7.55-56). Paul wrote,“[God has] raised [Jesus] from the dead and seated him at his right handin the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power anddominion,...and he [has] put all things under his feet” (Eph. 1.20-22),and “[while Jesus] humbled himself,...God has highly exalted him andbestowed on him the name...above every name, [in order] that, at thename of Jesus, every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and un-der the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil.2.8-11). The NT clearly, therefore, sees Jesus’ resurrection and ascensioninto heaven as a fulfilment of the events depicted in 7.13-14. (G) At theend of Daniel’s vision, the “kingdom” given to the Son of Man becomesthe possession of “the people...of the high places”. In other words, whatthe Son of Man receives in heaven is inherited by his people on earth(7.18, 7.22, 7.27). Just as the Anti-God is the corporate head of Satan’speople, so the Son of Man is the corporate head of God’s people. And,

2.6-12, 72.1-11, 89.1-29, 110.4-7, 132.12-18, Isa. 11.1-12, 63.1-6, Jer. 23.5, 33.6-18, Ezek. 37.24-28,Hos. 3.4-5, Hag. 2.20-23, Zech. 6.12-13, 9.9-10, 14.1-9, Mal. 3.1-3). On any sensible definition of theterm, then, Daniel’s reference to a son of man is clearly ‘Messianic’. To put the point another way, toanoint [«MŠH. »] a man is to set him apart and empower him for a divinely-appointed role (most often,to serve as a prophet, a priest, or a king), and one of the most important roles referred to in the OT isthat of the man who God has set aside to restore the nation of Israel. So, when we ask, ‘Is such-and-sucha text Messianic?’, our question is really, ‘Does the text refer to the man whom God has appointed torestore the nation of Israel?’. And, in the case of Dan. 7.13-14, the answer is, in my view at least, Yes.Though in the minority, some Critical-historicists agree. Elgvin, for instance, writes, “I sympathise withthe minority of modern scholars who see the Son of Man as an exalted messianic figure (...in particularNoth 1928, Gese 1977:152-159). The authority he is given over people and nations is easiest read inlight of biblical texts on the future rule of the Davidic king. Biblical texts before Dan. 7 do not affordangelic figures with universal rule or a Grossreich” (2002:171-172).


just as the Anti-God’s destruction is the destruction of all Satan’s people,so the Son of Man’s vindication is the vindication of God’s people.191 (H)Insofar as it is inaugurated in Heaven’s courts, the Son of Man’s reign isa heavenly reign. (I) Insofar as it involves “nations” and “kingdoms un-der the heavens”, the Son of Man’s reign has an earthly aspect to it. (J)In the first half of 7.14a, a kingdom is said to have been given (past192

tense) to the Son of Man, even as Daniel watches. The Son of Man’sreign therefore has a ‘present’ aspect to it. It was inaugurated in 28 AD,when Jesus ascended to heaven. (K) In the second half of 7.14a, weare told, “all tribes, nations, and tongues will [future193 tense] serve” theSon of Man. The Son of Man’s reign therefore has a ‘future’ aspect to it.It has yet to be fully inaugurated.

With these things in mind, let us note some of the more unusual (or un-expected) features of Daniel’s vision in 7.13-14: (A) The Son of Man isintroduced with the phrase “As I continued to look [out] into the visionsof the night”—a phrase which occurs in only one other place in ch. 7,namely when Daniel introduces the reign of the fourth beast (7.7). (B)While one would expect the coronation of the Son of Man in ch. 7’s visionto be associated with the rising of the sun and the dawning of light,194 itis instead associated with the “night” (7.13). (C) While the Son of Manis present in heaven (7.13-14), his people are present on the earth (7.21,7.23-25). (D) While the Son of Man’s people receive dominion whenthe Ancient of Days comes (down) from the heavens, the Son of Manreceives dominion when he ascends to the heavens (from the earth?). Asa result, the Son of Man and his people are separated in an unexpectedmanner. (E) While, in 7.13-14, the Son of Man is given dominion overthe nations, the fourth beast is said to “prevail” over the Son of Man’speople (7.21). The Son of Man’s people are hence depicted as ‘fish out

191. Note, however, an important difference between the Son of Man and his people. While the Son of Man’speople come to inherit “a kingdom, rule, and greatness”, they are not said to inherit the Son of Man’s“glory” in quite the same way (7.27). Hence, while ch. 7 depicts an exceptionally close connectionbetween the Son of Man and his people, it nevertheless retains a distinction between them. The Son ofMan has a unique glory in ch. 7.

192. pfct.

193. Some Bible-versions render 7.14a slightly differently, but the idea is the same. The vb. “serve” is an impf.form, the essential point of which is to describe an ‘incomplete’ or ‘unfinished’ action.

194. Isa. 60.1-20, Zech. 14.6-9, Mal. 4.2.


of water’. They belong to “the high places”, but they are dwelling on theearth (7.17-18).

How, then, are we meant to collate all of these details into a single co-herent vision? The answer, in my view, is as follows. We are to see theSon of Man as a depiction of God’s Messiah (Jesus); we are to see theSon of Man’s coronation as a depiction of Jesus’ exaltation to God’s righthand and his subsequent reign on heaven’s throne; and we are to see theAncient of Days’ descent (7.22, 7.26-27) as a depiction of Jesus’ return inpower and glory—a view hereafter referred to as the ‘Heavenly Corona-tion view’. With the above overview in mind, then, let us consider someof the specific details of the Heavenly Coronation view.

God’s kingdom will be inaugurated in the earth in two distinct phases:a heavenly phase and an earthly phase. Its heavenly phase is presentlyunderway. It is the phase of history about which Peter writes, “Heavenmust receive [God’s Messiah] until the time [comes for] the restorationof all things” (Acts 3.21†),195 is foreshadowed in Psa. 110.1 (“YHWH saysto my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstoolfor your feet”’), and is envisaged by Jesus himself when he likens hisinauguration of God’s kingdom to a man who goes to “a distant coun-try” to “receive a kingdom for himself” and then returns to establish hisauthority much later (Luke 19.11-12). In 3n/2n BC, God sent his Son,Jesus, into the world. Jesus was rejected by his people and slain by theworld’s beasts. But God then chose to raise Jesus from the dead andto exalt him to his right hand. Just as 587 marked the first moment inhistory when Israel acquired a Gentile king, so the moment of Christ’sascension marked the first moment in time (since Adam’s fall) when theworld acquired a human king. As such, it marks a moment of monumen-tal significance, and is both the first step and cornerstone in God’s plansto once again subjugate his Creation to the reign of mankind. From thattime onwards, the Gospel has gone forth and been preached throughoutall the nations, as millions have been converted to the cause of Christ.The Son of Man has been publicly glorified and crowned as king in thehearts of men from every tribe, tongue, and nation (Rev. 5.6-10), as de-

195. I am indebted to my friend Carl Partis for drawing my attention to this important verse.


picted in 7.13-14. He has been worshipped and adored by his people asLord and Saviour.

But, while God has drawn millions to himself in the present age, Satanhas certainly not been inactive. Over the centuries, as the ‘rider’ of thefourth beast, Satan has sown his seeds of dissension in the world and has‘trampled down’ the remnant of God’s people (7.7-8, Matt. 13.24-26).The present age therefore constitutes a ‘frontier’ between two spiritualrealities: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Needless tosay, these two kingdoms are poles apart. The kingdom of God is heav-enly in orientation. It is characterised by righteousness and love and thereign of the risen Son of Man. As such, its people are referred to assaints of “the high places”. By way of contrast, the kingdom of Satan isentirely earthly in orientation. It is characterised by sin and selfish am-bition and the beast’s rampant reign. God’s aim in the present age is todirect our gaze heavenwards: to unite us with the risen Son of Man andto conform our lives with his doctrine and image. Satan’s aim, on theother hand, is to keep us focused on life’s earthly concerns: to unite uswith the beasts and to corrupt our moral sensibilities by means of his liesand propaganda. As a result, men and women have a choice to makein the present age: to serve God or Satan, to set their affections on theheavenly Son of Man or the present fallen world. But the time will comewhen the Ancient of Days will draw the present age to a close. He willdescend in the form of the heavenly Son of Man (7.22, Zech. 14.3-4), atwhich point he will destroy Satan’s empire and establish God’s empirein its place. (In the language of ch. 2, he will topple the Gentile Colos-sus and thereby pave the way for the coming ‘mountain’.) The night ofGentile dominion will give way to the eternal Day of God (Zech. 14.7,Mal. 4.2), and the earthly phase of God’s kingdom will be able to beginin earnest. And, while the earthly reign of God’s Messiah will merely bea continuation of the Messiah’s heavenly reign, it will make the earth avery different place. God’s people will no longer be downtrodden, andJesus—no longer the humble Nazarean peasant—will rule the nationswith a rod of iron (Psa. 2.9). The prayers of God’s people will therebybe answered. God’s kingdom will come, and God’s will will be done, onearth even as it is in heaven (Matt. 6.10, Rev. 21.1-2).


What, then, can we say by way of assessment of the Heavenly Coronationview? In my opinion, it has a number of points to commend it. First, itexplains why the Son of Man is connected with “the night” as opposedto a new day. Second, it allows us to interpret 7.13-14 as a heavenlyscene, which is certainly what it appears to be.196 Third, it explains whythe Son of Man’s reign is depicted by means of both ‘now’ and ‘not yet’terminology. Fourth, it explains why the Son of Man’s reign is depictedin both ‘heavenly’ and ‘earthly’ terms. And, fifth, it explains why God’speople suffer on earth (at the hands of the beast) while their represen-tative is exalted in heaven. And, importantly, it does all of these thingsin a manner which is entirely consistent with NT doctrine.197 The Heav-enly Coronation view therefore seems to fare well precisely where itsalternatives struggle.

7.13-14: The crowning of the Son of Man

So, with the role of 7.13-14 within Daniel’s vision clarified, let us nowturn (much more briefly) to its specific details.

behold: with the clouds of the heavens, one like a son of man wascoming (7.13b). 7.13 marks the beginning of a new vision in Daniel’snight visions. Daniel, however, is still in heaven’s courts, just as he was in7.9-12. In the distance, he then sees a figure like a son of man, in whosetrain are multitudes of “heavenly clouds”. According to Daniel, the fig-ure in the distance is “like” a son of man. When Daniel says “like”, hedoes not mean to deny the Son of Man’s humanity; he means to describethe Son of Man’s character. The four beasts resemble animals—wild, un-tamed, and brutish by nature; meanwhile, the Son of Man resembles aman. He is entirely obedient to God’s will, precisely as man was meantto be.

one like a son of man. The figure of “a son of man” is slightly enigmaticsince it seems to have a dual function. On the one hand, the Son of Manis a figure of genuine authority. As a man, he has the right to reign over

196. Some commentators take 7.13-14 to depict Christ’s earthly return, but its context suggests otherwise.

197. See App. 7D for a discussion of some objections to the Heavenly Coronation view.

110 7.13-14: THE CROWNING OF THE SON OF MAN

the beasts (Gen. 1.26, Psa. 8.6-8). He is a figure of power and majesty.198

At the same time, the image of “a son of man” embodies a certain ‘anti-climactic’ modesty. The one who emerges victorious from the battle ofthe night is not some great king or mighty hero; he is simply a “son ofman”—a mere mortal.199

with the clouds of the heavens (7.13b). The Son of Man is said to beaccompanied by “the clouds of the heavens”. Quite what these “clouds”depict is not clear to me. (We could equally well translate the relevantphrase as ‘heavenly clouds’.) Some commentators take the clouds to al-lude to the presence of YHWH and hence to the Son of Man’s divinity. Byway of analogy, they cite texts such as Exod. 19.19 and 24.15, where Godappears to Moses in a “cloud”. But, whenever the presence of YHWH is as-sociated with “clouds” in the OT, their purpose is to obscure YHWH’s gloryin order to allow him to freely interact with his creatures.200 To takethe clouds as an indication of the divine presence does not, therefore, fitthe context of 7.13-14. (Why would the Son of Man need to shield hisglory?201)

A preferable option, to my mind, is to take 7.13’s heavenly clouds as adepiction of armies. In Scripture, armies are often depicted as “clouds”on the horizon, which is no doubt how they appeared from a distanceas they churned up huge dust-clouds behind them; hence, for instance,Solomon’s bride saw Solomon on the horizon, and asked, “Who is thiscoming up from the wilderness like columns of smoke [alt., clouds ofsmoke], perfumed with myrrh and frankincense?” (Cant. 3.6-8).202 Wecan also consider prophetic texts such as, “Behold, [the King of Babylon]comes up like clouds, his chariots like the whirlwind, his horses swifterthan eagles” (Jer. 4.13†), “I [the LORD] will put an end to the wealth ofEgypt by means of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon: he and his

198. He is subtly differentiated from the mighty heavenly figure described in ch. 10, who is referred to merelyas ‘one [made] in the likeness of the sons of men’ (10.16).

199. Seow 2003:108-109.

200. e.g., Deut. 4.11, Psa. 18.11-12, 97.2, etc.

201. Besides, God is only ever said to enshroud himself in a “cloud” (sing.) in Scripture.

202. Even a small flock of sheep can churn up sizeable dust-clouds behind it in the desert. The disturbancecaused by an entire army would, therefore, be a remarkable sight, especially if they were on chariots.


people...will be brought in to destroy the land... [Egypt] will therebybe covered by a cloud” (Ezek. 30.10-18†), “Be ready, [O Gog], and keepready, you and all your hosts. ...You will advance, coming on like a storm;you will be like a cloud covering the land—you and all your hordes—,and many peoples will be with you” (Ezek. 38.7-9†).

It therefore seems reasonable to take 7.13’s heavenly clouds to depict a‘host’ led into God’s presence by the Son of Man. But what kind of hostexactly? I personally take the “clouds” to depict a human host—in par-ticular, a host of blood-bought believers. 7.13-14 can then be seen as adepiction of both the inaugural moment as well as the ongoing activitiesof the NT age. The Son of Man has fulfilled his mission on earth, and hasnow returned to heaven with a host of ransomed people in his train. Heleads these people out of the present world and into heaven’s courts, likea long line of captives (Col. 2.13-15, Eph. 4.8), as per Rev. 7:

I looked, and behold:a great multitude no one could number,from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages,standing before the throne and before the Lamb,clothed in white robes,with palm branches in their hands,and crying out with a loud voice,

Salvation belongs to our God,who sits on the throne,and to the Lamb!...

Then one of the elders addressed me, saying,

Who are these,clothed in white robes,and from where have they come?,...

and he said to me,

These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation.They have washed their robesand made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

112 7.13-14: THE CROWNING OF THE SON OF MAN

Therefore they are before the throne of God,and serve him day and night in his temple.

(Rev. 7.9-15)

In sum, then, 7.13-14 sets before us a scene of great majesty. The Sonof Man appears in the distance and returns triumphantly to heaven—his‘prisoners’ in his train—, at which point all heaven erupts in celebrationand praise. Of course, the text can only be understood as such in lightof NT revelation. But—and here we must note an important point—, ourinterpretation of 7.13-14 is consistent with what Daniel and his readerscould have gleaned from the text. Daniel could have located the activ-ities of 7.13-14 in heaven’s throneroom. He could also have identifiedthe Son of Man as a Messianic figure who approached YHWH fresh from‘the battlefield’ and whose victory meant a victory for all God’s people(7.27). Ch. 7’s vision could therefore have a communicated a wealth ofinformation to its readers.

And he came to the Ancient of Days, and was presented[QRB (C)] beforehim (7.13b). The Son of Man is presented before the Ancient of Days’throne. The text does not specify exactly who presents the Son of Man,but the implication is clear. He is presented before God on behalf ofthose in his train, namely his ransomed people.203

And [it was] he to whom rule and glory and a kingdom were given,and all tribes, nations, and tongues will serve him (7.14a). BeforeGod’s throne, the Son of Man is given the “rule” over the nations. He iscrowned the king of all Creation. Hence, just as Daniel saw Belshazzarreceive power and authority from his father (Nabonidus), so Daniel nowsees the Son of Man receive power and authority from his heavenly father(7.1). That the of 7.14a is Messianic is clear from its connection to

203. «QRB»(C) often describes the presentation of a sacrifice before the LORD (Ezra 6.10, 6.17 cf. CAL 2016),as per the semantic field of the Heb. «NGŠ» (‘to draw near’ in the G-stem, ‘to bring a sacrifice’ in theC-stem). 7.13 could, therefore, contain a subtle allusion to the Son of Man’s sacrifice, as described inthe NT (e.g., John 12.12-43). Just as the smoke (i.e., the posthumous form) of Levitical sacrifices roseup before the LORD (Exod. 29.25, Lev. 1.9, etc.), so the Son of Man rose up before the LORD in theaftermath of his sacrificial death on earth. And, importantly, in the NT, Jesus’ sacrifice and ascensionis inextricably linked to his enthronement, hence the Book of Hebrews states, “After making purificationfor sins, [the Son] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1.3).


Psa. 2: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, andI will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth yourpossession” (Psa. 2.6-8).204 Indeed, 7.14 portrays the Son of Man as thefulfilment of these very words. Daniel’s son of man is God’s anointedruler—the One who will finally usher in Israel’s golden age. In ch. 3,Nebuchadnezzar sought to usher in his own ‘golden age’, complete with agolden statue, but he was unable to procure the ‘service’ of three notableIsraelites (3.12-14). The Son of Man, by way of contrast, will procurethe ‘service’ of every nation under the sun.

‘His rule is an age-steadfast rule which will never pass away, andhis kingdom is one which will never be harmed’ (7.14b). The textof 7.14b mirror Nebuchadnezzar’s words of praise in 4.34b. They alsoseem to be slightly detached from the general flow of 7.13-14a. Theyare not so much a description of further events in the vision as much as acommentary on what has already happened. We should probably, there-fore, see 7.14b as a pinion of praise sung by heaven’s hosts in response tothe Messiah’s coronation. The theme of heaven’s praise is the eternalityof the Messiah’s reign. The beasts are not Creation’s rightful rulers. Therule they were given in 7.2-8 was only temporary. By way of contrast,the Son of Man is Creation’s rightful ruler. He is given eternal dominionover the nations. His reign is therefore depicted as a kingdom whichwill never be destroyed—or, in the context of ch. 2’s dream, a kingdomof stone which fills the entire earth (2.34-35, 2.45).

7.2-14: Some concluding thoughts

Like Daniel’s other visions, the vision described in 7.2-14 is brilliantly andbeautifully crafted. It is simple in essence and yet rich with symbolismand complexity: uncomplicated and yet profound. It begins with fourempires, each of which rise to power over the Near East: i] the Baby-lonian empire, ii] the Medo-Persian empire, iii] the Greek empire, and,iv] on the horizon, the shadowy empire of Satan, which will ultimatelyenvelop all of its predecessors. The vision then depicts an empire which

204. The continuation of Psa. 2 becomes particularly apposite if (via revocalisation) we read 2.9 בשבט) Mתרע(ברזל! as ‘you will shepherd them [i.e., the three beasts] with a staff of iron’, as per the Theod. and Pesh.

114 7.15-16: DANIEL’S FIRST QUESTION TO THE ANGEL

runs ‘in tandem’ with Satan’s, namely the empire of God’s Messiah. Thatempire is represented by the heavenly ascent, coronation, and reign ofthe Son of Man. It is the inverse of the empire of the Beast. While theBeast’s empire is temporary, earthly, and completely out-of-control, theSon of Man’s is eternal, heavenly, and in perfect harmony with God’swill. The vision finally culminates in a sequence of important events:i] the descent of the Ancient of Days to the earth, ii] the fall of Satan’skingdom, iii] the vindication of God’s people, and iv] the subjugation ofthe nations. Heaven and earth are thereby reconciled and made to dwellin harmony. It is a picture of both simplicity and richness—the work oftrue genius.

7.15-16: Daniel’s first question to the angel

7.15 As for me, Daniel, my innermost spirit was grieved, and the visions of mymind left me troubled.

7.16 I approached one of those who stood in attendance, and I began to seek[answers] from him as to the certainty of all these things, and he spoke tome and began to make known to me the significance of the [relevant]matters.

In 7.15-28, Daniel is provided with an interpretation of what he has seen(in 7.2-14). He is also provided with a ‘close-up’ of the closing momentsof the fourth beast’s reign.

As for me, Daniel, my innermost spirit was grieved (7.15a). Ch. 7’svision leaves Daniel grieved and disturbed. The Aramaic in question isvery vivid. Daniel’s grief is not superficial. His dream has left him deeplyanguished (7.15a). Like Nebuchadnezzar, he cannot stop ‘replaying’ itscontents in his head (4.5, 7.15b). Daniel’s response to his dream is note-worthy. Daniel does not have a frail or nervous disposition. He hasendured many hardships in life (the exile for a start), and has ministeredto some of the most powerful men in the Near East. He has even been re-quired to declare such men’s folly to them. Why, then, has Daniel’s dreamleft him so shaken? The answer is simple. It foretells great trials for agroup of people whom he cares about deeply, namely the Jewish people.Daniel responded in precisely the same way when he heard about ch. 4’s


dream and realised the trials which awaited his friend Nebuchadnezzar(4.19). 7.15 therefore stands in stark contrast to 7.14. In 7.14, the Sonof Man’s coronation causes heaven’s hosts to cry out in praise, but the vi-sion as a whole leaves Daniel anguished. Daniel’s response to the visionis clearly not based on a misinterpretation of it, for, when the vision hasbeen fully explained to him, his response is much the same (7.28).

I began to seek [answers] from him as to the certainty of all thesethings (7.16a). Daniel now approaches one of the angels surroundingGod’s throne. He is still, it seems, present in heaven’s courts. Heenquires about the certainty[yas.s. îb] of what he has seen, i.e., the certaintywith which it can be known. Daniel therefore seems to want to knowwhether or not what he has seen is set in stone, i.e., whether or not itcan be averted. In general, when a prophet of God foretells a disaster, itis unavoidable. We might consider, for instance, the prophet in Bethel’swords: “The saying [of the man of God] against the altar in Betheland against all the houses of the high places...will surely come to pass”(1 Kgs. 13.32) or Habakkuk’s words, “If [the vision] seems slow, waitfor it; it will surely come” (Hab. 2.3†). At times, however, a prophet’sutterances can be avoided. Nebuchadnezzar’s fate, for instance, couldhave been avoided (or at least delayed),205 and Nineveh’s destructionwas avoided (Jon. 3.10). Daniel wants to know what kind of predictionch. 7’s vision concerns. In 7.19, once he has found out, he then seeksgreater clarity on the matter. As a whole, then, I understand the generalflow of Daniel’s dialogue with the angel in the following terms:

Speaker Text Paraphrase

DANIEL: [What is] the certainty of allthese things?

Will the things I have seendefinitely come to pass? Is thevision set in stone?

205. See our comments on 4.27.

116 7.17-18: THE ANGEL’S RESPONSE

THE

ANGEL:These great beasts (which arefour) are four kings who willstand up from the earth. Butthe saints of the high places willreceive the kingdom and willpossess the kingdom for theage—even for ever.

Yes, four great kings must arise,many of whom will be hostile.But the dream is not all badnews. In the final analysis, yourpeople will inherit the nations.

DANIEL: Afterwards, I desired certaintyconcerning the fourth beast...

In that case, I may as well hearthe worst of it. Tell me all aboutthis fourth beast!

[INT.] [As I continued to look, the hornmade war with the saints]

[Daniel is given a more detailedinsight into the fourth beast’sactivities]

7.17-18: The angel’s response

7.17 ‘These great beasts, which are four [in number], are four kings. They willstand up from the earth.

7.18 But the saints of the high places will receive the kingdom and willmaintain possession of the kingdom for the age [to come]—even for ever’.

These great beasts...are four kings, [who] will stand up from theearth (7.17). According to the angel, the four beasts whom Daniel hasbeen watching are “four kings” who will emerge from the earth. Theywill stand out from their peers because of their strength and ambition,and will soon rise to greatness. That the angel describes the kings asarising from “the earth” is an interesting detail, since they are initiallysaid to emerge from “the sea” (7.2). I therefore take 7.2 to emphasise thebeasts’ association with the sea as opposed to the land, i.e., the ‘nations’as opposed to Israel. Meanwhile, I take 7.17 to emphasise the beast’sassociation with earth as opposed to the heavens, i.e., with a fallen worldas opposed to a renewed creation.

The four “kings” are the corporate heads of four “kingdoms” (7.23-24).As mentioned previously, these kings are: i] Nebuchadnezzar, who ini-tiated the Times of the Gentiles with his conquest of Judah in 587 BC

(2.38), ii] Cyrus, who took over the reins from Nabonidus and Belshazzarin 539 BC (8.3), iii] Alexander, who overthrew Darius III in 333 BC and


afterwards subsumed Israel (8.5, 11.3), and iv] the Anti-God, i.e., theeleventh horn of the fourth beast (7.7-8) who is yet to come (9.26). Intheir day, the first three of these kings were the most powerful and iconicrulers the Near East has known. As such, they make apt figureheads forthe kingdoms which flowed forth from their loins. Insofar as he is thepersonification of Satan, the same will be true of the Anti-God. But theAnti-God’s role is different from Daniel’s first three kings in at least oneimportant way. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, and Alexander were the first intheir respective dynasties to rise to greatness, but the Anti-God will bethe last. Given 7.17, then, we could reasonably expect Satan’s grip onthe world (or at least certain parts of the world) to become stronger overtime and to culminate in a period of Satanic domination at the end ofthe age (7.8, Rev. 17.12-13).206

But the saints of the high places will receive the kingdom (7.18a).7.18 stands in sharp contrast to 7.17. From the earth, four great kingswill arise; and, in earthly terms, these kings will prosper and succeed.But, ultimately, it will be the down-trodden saints who acquire dominionover the nations. Jesus could therefore say to the Jewish people:

Blessed are the poor in spirit,for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are those who mourn,for they shall be comforted.Blessed are the meek,for they shall inherit the earth.

(Matt. 5.3-5)

What took men like Alexander years to amass (and seconds to lose) willbecome the possession of the saints in an instant, and will remain intheir possession forevermore. True—the saints’ inheritance may take along time to come, but it will be well worth the wait.

206. That Daniel describes the world’s beasts as “great” is intriguing since Daniel’s first three beasts have in-deed come to be remembered as ‘greats’ (“Nebuchadnezzar the Great”, “Cyrus the Great”, and “Alexanderthe Great”). Maybe, then, the Anti-God will acquire a similar epithet.

118 7.17-18: A NOTE ON THE IDENTITY OF DANIEL’S ANTI-GOD

The saints...will receive[QBL (D)] the kingdom (7.18). Here, the term“saints” refers to all those people who, like Daniel, have taken theirstand alongside the God of Heaven.207 Meanwhile, “the kingdom” re-fer to God’s entire creation, i.e., “[all] the kingdoms under the whole ofheaven” (7.27). 7.18 therefore describes an event of global significance.The worldwide people of God are given worldwide dominion. That thesaints are said to receive[QBL (D)] alludes to the overthrow of the kings ofthe Gentiles. At the end of the present age, God will judge the fourthbeast, and depose the first three. The earth will therefore be left va-cant in order for the saints to receive as their own, just as Belshazzar’sthrone was left vacant in the aftermath of 539 BC in order for Darius (thehead of the Medo-Persians) to receive[QBL (D)] as his own (5.30). The Godwho gave ‘greatness and glory’ to the various kings of the earth (2.37-40,5.19) will thereby give ‘greatness and glory’ to his people, and more be-sides (2.44-45, 7.18). And, importantly, the saints will “maintain [their]possession” of their inheritance forevermore (7.18b).

7.17-18: A note on the identity of Daniel’s Anti-God

As mentioned elsewhere, the OT and NT are consistent in their depictionof the Anti-God. A sinister and shadowy king will rise to greatness atthe end of the present age, and will do great damage to the people andtemple of God.208 Many Bible-students therefore want to know who theAnti-God is. Is he currently alive? And, if so, where is he? And howcan he be identified? According to many commentators, such questionsare misguided, since Daniel’s Anti-God lived and died during the 1st cent.AD—a view we will refer to as ‘the Historic Anti-God view’. Advocatesof the Historic Anti-God view generally identify the Anti-God with a mannamed Vespasian, the Roman emperor who ordered the destruction ofJerusalem in 70 AD. But the Historic Anti-God view suffers from a num-ber of important drawbacks. Below, we list some of the more notableones:

207. Consider 7.18’s trans. notes in light of “7.1-28: Its literary structure”.

208. See “3.7-12: XXX” and “7.8: Some further thoughts on the Anti-God”.


(1) If Daniel’s Anti-God is Rome’s eleventh emperor, then Daniel’s fourthbeast can only be Rome. As such, the Historic Anti-God view suffersfrom all the same problems as the Roman Hypothesis.209 (2) The fourthbeast’s ten horns depict a group of co-regents as opposed to a successionof rulers.210 The ten horns cannot, therefore, refer to ten Roman emper-ors, in which case Vespasian cannot be the eleventh. (3) Daniel was notthe only prophet to see ten kings arising in the end-times. The apostleJohn also predicted the rise of ten kings in a day to come, but he wasexplicitly told, “they have not yet received royal power” (Rev. 17.12).Even in John’s day, then, the ten kings were a future prospect, in whichcase they cannot have been a line of Roman emperors. (4) Even if weallow the ten kings to be a succession of rulers (as opposed to a groupof co-regents), it is hard to make Vespasian the eleventh of them. Thedefining feature of Daniel’s beasts is their dominion of the land of Judah.The most natural way to count Rome’s kings is therefore to begin withthe man who first gained dominion over Judah, i.e., Pompey the Great.211

But Vespasian then becomes the twelfth rather than the eleventh king.212

Some commentators therefore choose to begin their count with Julius,or to omit Marc Anthony, but neither solution seems ideal. (5) Accord-ing to the text of ch. 7, the Anti-God’s distinctive is his blasphemousbehaviour (7.7-8, 7.19-20). But Vespasian—while an awful man—washardly the most blasphemous of Rome’s emperors. Compared to menlike Caligula (who freely raped women, transformed Rome’s palace intoa brothel, and required his citizens to worship him), Vespasian was fairlymoderate. (6) According to the text of ch. 7, the Anti-God’s demiseushers in a time of great blessing for God’s people (7.26-27, 9.27, 12.1-2). But Vespasian’s demise did not usher in any great blessings. On thecontrary, it ushered in the rise of Titus and Domitian, who inflicted greatpain on God’s people. (7) According to the text of ch. 9 (discussedlater), the Anti-God erects an ‘abomination of desolation’ in Jerusalem’stemple. But Vespasian never erected such an ‘abomination’. True—hesacked and defiled Jerusalem’s temple. But the term ‘abomination of

209. “7.7-8: XXX”.

210. See “7.7-8: XXX”.

211. Ant. 14.4.

212. See App. 7E.

120 7.19-20: DANIEL’S SECOND QUESTION

desolation’ refers to a very specific activity in Daniel’s writings. It refersto the instigation of a pagan sacrifice—something Vespasian never did(discussed later).213

In sum, then, the Historic Anti-God view is problematic on a number oflevels. It makes sense neither of the ten horns, nor of the Anti-God’srole as an eleventh, nor of the Anti-God’s exceptionally blasphemous be-haviour, nor of the blessings associated with his fall, nor of the erectionof an abomination of desolation.214

7.19-20: Daniel’s second question

7.19 I then sought greater clarity concerning the fourth beast—[the one] whichwas different from all the others: extraordinarily fearful, iron-toothed andbronze-clawed, consuming, breaking [its victims] in pieces, and, with itsfeet, trampling down the remnant—,

7.20 and [likewise] concerning the ten horns on its head and the other [one]which arose before which three [others] fell—[concerning] that horn inparticular because it had eyes and a mouth proclaiming great things andappeared to be greater than its peers.

I then sought greater clarity concerning the fourth beast (7.19a).Daniel has been shaken by the suffering which the fourth beast inflictson the Jewish people. He therefore asks his angelic interpreter whetherthe fourth beast’s reign of terror is a “certainty”. The implication of whatfollows (in 7.21-27) is clear. The reign of the fourth beast—and the riseof the eleventh horn—cannot be avoided. Before the saints are glorified,they must endure the reign of the fourth beast. To put the point in lessBiblical terminology: no guts, no glory.

213. See “9.24-27: XXX”.

214. Jordan identifies the eleventh horn with “the false Jews” together with “the line of Herods” (2005:387).As such, he avoids at least some of the problems listed above, but, in the process, he introduces a numberof others. The false-Jews-plus-the-Herods did not “uproot” three Roman emperors (contra Jordan, thevb. «QQR» means ‘uproot’ not ‘reduce to stumps’), and cannot really be depicted as more “fearful” orpowerful than the Roman emperors (the ten horns: 7.19-20). Besides, if the ten horns depict ten indi-vidual emperors (as Jordan maintains), then why would the eleventh embody a whole line of Herods,plus others besides? And how come the Herods take the form of an eleventh horn when the tenth Romanhorn fell in 69 AD, a hundred years after the rise of the first Herod?


different from all the others: extraordinarily fearful... (7.19).Daniel’s question highlights a number of the beast’s salient features,namely its uniqueness, terrifying presence, destructive nature, and tenhorns. Daniel thereby brings our attention to the thoroughly hideousnature of the beast’s reign. The beast has no redeeming features at all.At the same time, Daniel introduces two new details into ch. 7’s vision:i] the beast’s ‘bronze claws’, and ii] the superiority of the eleventh hornover its peers. The significance of these details is not immediately ob-vious to me. The mention of “claws” may allude to the way in whichNebuchadnezzar’s nails took on the appearance of claws (4.33). If so,Daniel’s intention may be to underline the beast’s degenerate and de-based nature. The mention of “bronze” is more difficult to fathom. TheAramaic for “bronze” (neh. aš) sounds very similar to the Heb. for “ser-pent” (nah. aš). Daniel’s mention of bronze may, therefore, allude to thebeast’s Satanic nature.215 It may, alternatively, hint at a Greek influencein the beast’s origins or manner of rule, since the bronze in the Colos-sus represents the Greek empire. At any rate, bronze claws are decid-edly out of place in the natural world, so, if nothing else, they underlinethe beast’s unearthly nature. Meanwhile, the combination of iron andbronze alludes to the toughness and ruthlessness of the fourth beast, asis demonstrated in Micah’s prophecy (among others),

Arise and thresh, O Daughter of Zion,for I, [the LORD], will make your horn iron,and I will make your hoofs bronze,so that you may beat in pieces many peoples,and devote to the LORD their unjust gain.

(Mic. 4.13†)

Before we unpack the eleventh horn’s “greatness”, a brief reminder ofch. 8’s content may be helpful. In ch. 8’s vision, Daniel sees a “lessdeveloped horn” rise to “greatness” (8.9-10). It begins life in relative

215. The consonants nh. š actually relate to the events of ch. 7 in a surprising number of ways. The vb. «NH. Š»(D)

means ‘to divine’, the noun nh. š refers to an ‘omen’, the noun nh. šwl refers to a ‘tempest’ or ‘surging ofwaves’, the noun nh. šyr refers to a ‘wild beast’, and the Heb. neh. ošet refers to ‘lust’ or ‘depravity’ (Ezek.16.36), all of which are closely connected to the content of ch. 7. In fact, pretty much every Aram.word which can be built around the consonants nh. š seems relevant to ch. 7 in some way. But, of course,whether such things were in Daniel’s mind as he wrote (or God’s mind as he inspired him) is hard to say.

122 7.21-22: DANIEL’S FOURTH VISION

obscurity, as one of four co-regents (8.8). But, as it advances towardsIsrael, it becomes a much “greater” horn, both in terms of its stature andits boldness (8.9-12). The horn vividly depicts the reign of AntiochusEpiphanes. Antiochus began his life in obscurity, but turned out to bea major influence on Israel, from whose perspective Daniel’s visions areseen. In terms of the vision, then, Antiochus began life as a “little” or“less developed” horn, but soon became “great”. Accordingly, the text of7.19-20 can be interpreted in one of two ways. The Anti-God could beseen as an essentially ‘small horn’ (i.e., a fairly insignificant ruler) whoworks great mischief in Israel and hence becomes a ‘big fish’ in God’splans. The text of 7.20 could even be taken to support such a notion,since the eleventh horn is only said to appear to be great—a word notused of any other of ch. 7’s rulers. The alternative is to see the Anti-Godas a genuinely ‘big player’ in world history—a ‘great horn’, a man whorises to the fore of world history (aided, perhaps, by Satan’s power) andacquires an unhealthy interest in the affairs of Israel. Which of these op-tions is the more plausible is hard to say. The Book of Revelation seems,on balance, to favour the latter option, but ultimately I do not know.

7.21-22: Daniel’s fourth vision

7.21 As I continued to watch, that horn made war with the saints, and itprevailed against them

7.22 until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was passed [in favour of] thesaints of the high places, for the appointed time had come, and the saintstook possession of the kingdom.

that horn made war with the saints (7.21). Daniel is now given a finalvision, which provides him with a ‘close-up’ of the culmination of thebeast’s reign. In the wider context of ch. 7, 7.21-22 constitutes Daniel’sfourth and final vision. The first three visions are found in 7.2-6, 7.7-12,and 7.13-14 respectively.216

In 7.21, the eleventh horn is said to ‘make war’ against God’s saints and,in fact, to “prevail” against them. The war seems to take place afterthe Anti-God has risen to power, i.e., after he has uprooted three of his

216. See “7.2: Daniel’s dream begins”.


peers and subsumed their kingdoms (7.19-20). The three horns may,therefore, be kings who protect God’s people, and who must be disposedbefore the Anti-God can march against Israel. I take the mention of a“war” to refer to a literal military advance or invasion. It is thereforesignificant. It marks a watershed in the beast’s campaign. Much of thefourth beast’s violence against God’s people has taken very subtle formsover the years—forms such as misinformation, slander, discrimination,and so forth. But 7.21 describes a moment when the Anti-God wagesoutright war against the saints, and even manages to gain the upperhand. He is the final and ultimate expression of the beast’s hatred ofGod.

until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was passed [in favourof] the saints (7.22). At God’s appointed time, the saints are vindicated.I take the word “until” to have the same significance as it does elsewherein the vision (7.4, 7.9, 7.11). The Anti-God will be granted a certainamount of latitude (within God’s predefined parameters), but his reignwill then be brought to an end. The figure who turns the battle in thesaints’ favour is, of course, the Ancient of Days. The saints are, after all,his people—i.e., the saints “of the high places”—, and God never allowsthose who trust in him to be put to shame (Isa. 49.23, Rom. 9.33, 10.11,1 Pet. 2.6). If, therefore, 7.9-11 describes the moment when the Beastreceives its just deserts, then 7.22 describes the moment when the saintsreceive theirs—hence the employment of the vb. «YHB»(Gp) in both verses.In 7.9-10, heaven’s court passed judgment against the beasts, whereas,in 7.22, the court passes judgment in favour of the saints. Justice istherefore dispatched. As such, 7.22 constitutes the counterpart to thearrival of the stone in ch. 2 (2.44-45).

Exactly which event is depicted by the Ancient of Days’ arrival is not clearto me. Insofar the Ancient of Days is the God of Heaven (and distinctfrom Daniel’s son of man), 7.22 seems to depict the descent of the entireheavenly realm, i.e., the establishment of the throneroom described in7.9-14 on the earth (Rev. 21.1-4). If so, the text of 7.22 does not describea single moment but, rather, a whole sequence of events. These eventsinclude the judgment of the beasts (7.9-11), the inauguration of the Mes-

124 7.21-22: DANIEL’S FOURTH VISION

siah’s earthly reign (7.13-14), the subjugation of the nations (7.12), andthe establishment of God’s (mobile) throne on the earth (7.9). The apos-tle John seems to describe the same events in Rev. 21.1-4, saying,

I saw a new heaven and a new earth,for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away,and the sea was no more.And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,coming down out of heaven from God,prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying,Behold! The dwelling place of God is with man!He will dwell with them,and they will be his people,and God himself will be with them as their God.He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,and death shall be no more,neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore,for the former things have passed away.

(Rev. 21.1-4)

Quite how these events will unfold—and over what time-period—is notclear to me. But what is not in doubt is their wonder and inevitability.When the events described in Dan. 7.22 and Rev. 21.1-4 finally come topass, they will be “marvellous in our eyes” (Psa. 118.22-23). The nightof the beasts will come to an end, and the eternal Day of God will begin.God’s heavenly throne will then become the earthly throne “of God andof the Lamb”, and all heaven and earth will be united under the Son ofMan’s headship.217

judgment was passed [in favour of] the saints of the high places,for the appointed time had come, and the saints took possession ofthe kingdom (7.22b). Once God’s appointed time arrives, the saintsfinally—after many years of dispersion and persecution—regain “posses-sion” of their kingdom, and more besides. They gain control not only ofthe land of Israel but of all Creation (7.27). 7.22b’s guarantee of justice

217. Eph. 1.10, 1 Cor. 15.24, 15.28, Rev. 21.1-2, 22.1-5.


must have brought great comfort to the hearts of Daniel’s early readers.Their years in Babylon had for the most part been years of misery andshame (Psa. 137.1-6). Even the rebuilding of the Temple was a sourceof sorrow and shame to them since it was such a pale reflection of its for-mer glory (Ezra 3.11-13). Yet, according to 7.22b, the day would comewhen the Jewish people’s land would be restored and they would rulethe whole world. The Ancient of Days—the One who had formed themand ever since “carried them” in his arms—would redeem them fromtheir enemies, once and for all.218

7.23-24: The angel interprets Daniel’s final vision

7.23 He spoke as follows: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on theearth, which will differ from all the [other] kingdoms, and willconsume[PKL] the whole earth, tread it [down][DWŠ], and break it[DQQ] intosmall pieces.

7.24 As for the ten horns, ten kings will stand up from that kingdom, andanother [king] will stand up after them, and he will be different fromthose before him, and will lay low three kings.

The fourth beast will be... (7.23a). The angel now interprets 7.21-22’svision for Daniel, but he first reminds Daniel of an important charac-teristic of the beast’s reign, namely its uniqueness—a characteristic alsomentioned in 7.7 and 7.19. The Holy Spirit does not waste his words.The unique nature of the fourth beast must, therefore, be central to itsidentity, in which case it should be central to our attempts to interpret ch.7’s vision. Next, the angel describes the beast’s destructive tendencies.The beast is said to consume, tread underfoot, and break in pieces. Theseactivities are similar to those mentioned in 7.7, but they differ from themin a couple of ways. First, in 7.7, the object of the beast’s consumptionis unspecified, while here in 7.23 it is identified as “the whole earth”.Second, in 7.7, the beast breaks the world’s kingdoms in pieces and thentramples[RPS] on the (Jewish) remnant, while here in 7.23 it treads[DWŠ]

the whole world underfoot and then breaks it in pieces. 7.23’s activi-ties therefore seem to be concerned with the beast’s conquest of foreignkingdoms. I personally take these activities to depict the way in which

218. Deut. 33.27, Isa. 43.1, 63.9.

126 7.23-24: THE ANGEL INTERPRETS DANIEL’S FINAL VISION

the beast subsumes foreign nations, cripples their strength (Amos 1.3,Mic. 4.13, Hab. 3.12), and crushes their will to resist. The Anti-God’ssubsumption of the three territories mentioned in 7.24 is a case in point.A further point brought out in 7.23 is the worldwide extent of the beast’sdominion. The beast’s power and ambition is too great to be limited tothe Near East. Its kingdom will overspill the borders of the Near Eastand eventually flood the entire earth.

The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth (7.23a). Thefuture tense of ‘to be’ in the phrase “the fourth beast will be a fourthkingdom” is slightly odd, and differs from Daniel’s other statements ofthe form ‘such-and-such an image = such-and-such an aspect of real-ity’.219 It is almost as if the fourth beast is closer to reality than the oth-ers. It is an actual entity, which will manifest itself as a fourth kingdom.We could even translate 7.23’s Aram. as “the fourth beast will becomea fourth kingdom”. If so, it may be intended to contrast Nebuchadnez-zar’s transformation. While the first beast became a restored man (7.4cf. 4.33-34), the last beast will become a degenerate kingdom.

As for the ten horns (7.24). The angel now focuses on the final daysof the fourth beast. He informs Daniel of four important facts: i] thebeast’s ten horns are ten kings who will come to rule over the fourthkingdom, ii] after these ten kings have arisen, an eleventh will arise, iii]the eleventh king (the Anti-God) will be a very different kind of ruler tohis peers, and iv] three of the kingdom’s ten kings will fall before theAnti-God. The time, then, will come when the Near East will consist often individual kingdoms—or perhaps just ‘a large number of’ kingdoms.An eleventh king will then rise to power in the Near East. He will en-counter resistance from three of the region’s kings, whom he will subdueand thereby carve out a region of the Near East for himself. Whether hewill personally take control of the conquered territories or delegate themto his subordinates we are not told.

According to the text of 7.24, the Anti-God will be a very unusual charac-ter. He will not be a normal king at all. He will “differ” from the rest of

219. where Daniel sets the ‘interpretandum’ and interpretation in apposition (e.g., 5.26-28, 7.17, 8.20-21).


the Near East’s rulers in some important way. But in what way exactly?The clue seems to lie in 7.23, where the fourth beast is said to be “differ-ent” from its peers. Perhaps, then, the Anti-God will differ from his peersin the same way in which the fourth beast differs from its peers, i.e., byvirtue of its mysterious and intangible nature. Perhaps, then, the Anti-God will not be a human king at all. Perhaps he will be a more shadowyentity who ‘stands behind’ many of the world’s leaders—an idea whichbecomes much more plausible if we take the ten kings to be demonically‘infused’ creations. Or perhaps the Anti-God will be a Big-Brother-likefigurehead, manipulated by some unknown entity? He is certainly intro-duced in vague and ambiguous terms in the Book of Revelation—and,as if to muddy the waters further, John later mentions a beast-like “im-age” which is said to take on a life of its own (Rev. 13.15). Perhaps,then, the Anti-God is not the kind of ‘king’ we often take him to be. Whoknows? Either way, at some point in the days to come, the Anti-God willarise, and God’s people will require great “wisdom” and “understanding”if they are to discern his identity (Rev. 13.18).

7.25: The angel gives Daniel further revelation

7.25a He will make a proclamation against the Most High, and will wear out thesaints of the high places;

7.25b and he will plan to effect a change in the times appointed by law, and theywill be delivered into his hand for a season, [two] seasons, and half aseason.

He will make a proclamation against the Most High and will wearout the saints (7.25a). After overthrowing three of the world’s ten kings(the saints’ defenders?), the Anti-God will fully inaugurate his reign ofterror and blasphemy. Many people do the devil’s work unwittingly, butthe Anti-God will certainly not be included among them. His campaignwill be specifically directed against “the Most High”, whose name he willblaspheme. In the process, he will “wear out” God’s people, as if theyare garments worn out by years of hard wear and tear. God’s people willtherefore be ‘stretched thin’, almost to breaking-point.

128 7.25: THE ANGEL GIVES DANIEL FURTHER REVELATION

and he will plan to effect a change in the times appointed by law(7.25b). If 7.25a refers to the Anti-God’s actions, then 7.25b refers tohis methods and his degree of success. According to 7.25b, the Anti-Godwill seek to change “the times appointed by law”. The singular “law”strikes me as most likely to refer to the Torah, i.e., the Mosaic law.220

The following considerations point to a similar conclusion: i] the eventsof 7.25b are set in the land of Israel (see later), ii] the context of 7.25 re-volves around the persecution of God’s people (7.25a), and iii] accordingto the text of 9.24-27, Jerusalem’s temple-worship will be disrupted inthe latter half of the Anti-God’s campaign. I therefore take 7.25 to referto an attempt (on behalf of the Anti-God) to establish a new pattern ofworship in Israel, i.e., to change the pattern of worship as it is stipulatedby divine “law”. Such behaviour would in fact be entirely consistent withthe nature of an Anti-God. We might consider, for instance, how Anti-ochus forbade Sabbath-keeping in Judah and replaced the daily sacrificewith a pagan offering. It would also be consistent with what we learn in7.7-8. The Anti-God is driven by a deep-seated hatred of both God andhis people, and is a man of immense pride. It would not, therefore, besurprising if, just as the Times of the Gentiles were inaugurated with agodless ruler who sought to corrupt the worship of God’s people, so theywill conclude with one. In ch. 3, the villain of the piece was Nebuchad-nezzar; in the days to come, it will be the Anti-God.

That the Anti-God only plans to change the saints’ pattern of worshipsuggests he will not be wholly successful in his campaign against God’speople. Perhaps God’s people will refuse to comply with his decrees,even on pain of death, just as many Jews did in Antiochus’s day. Orperhaps nations who are friendly to the Jewish people will intervene ontheir behalf and thwart the Anti-God’s plans (Rev. 12.15-16). Either way,the main point remains the same. The Anti-God will seek to make thesaints obedient to his law as opposed to God’s. To change the world’s‘appointed times’ and to depose the world’s kings is God’s unique prerog-ative (2.21), but the Anti-God will seek to make it his. He will uprootthree of God’s appointed kings (and may even set others in their place),

220. See 7.25’s trans. notes.


and he will also seek to reinvent God’s calendar (7.24-25). His ungodlynature will therefore manifest itself very clearly.

and they will be delivered into his hand (7.25b). The antecedentof the word “they” is not obvious to me.221 Are “the saints” given intothe Anti-God’s hand? Or the “times appointed by law”? Or both? Theanswer is not clear to me. All of these options are possibilities, and noneof them can easily be dismissed.222 As mentioned above, the Anti-Godwill certainly seek to disrupt the pattern of worship in the Temple for‘half a week’ (9.27), so it seems as if he will in fact seek to alter the “law”in some way. At the very least, then, I take 7.25b’s “they” to includethe “times appointed by law”. But whether or not the “saints” are alsoin mind I cannot tell. That God would “deliver” his saints over to theAnti-God (“delivered” is a ‘divine passive’) is, of course, a disconcertingnotion, which we will take up in due course. But, for the moment, letus note a more basic point, namely, nothing in Daniel’s vision is left tochance. Even the most evil of dictators can acquire power over theirenvironment only with God’s permission.

for a season[ciddan], [two] seasons, and half a season (7.25b). Thephrase “a season, [two] seasons, and half a season” is a deliberatelyimprecise term in a number of respects. First, the term ciddan is verygeneric. It could, in theory, refer to anything from a day to a wholeepoch. (Had Daniel meant a “year”, he could easily have said so.) Sec-ond, the number of ciddans included in the term ciddanîn is deliberatelyvague. The word ciddanîn could be a dual form,223 but it could equallywell refer to any number of seasons. Third, like the word ciddan, theword “half” is very generic. If often denotes an exact “half”, but it canalso denote an unspecified ‘fraction’ or ‘portion’.224 In and of itself, then,the text of 7.25b is highly ambiguous. But, when we consider the textof 7.25b alongside 9.24-27 (often known as ‘Gabriel’s seventy weeks’),

221. Since the vb. ‘to deliver’ has a passive voice, the pronoun “they” is unlikely to signify an ‘indef. plural’similar to those found in 5.3, 5.29, 7.5, 7.26, etc.

222. The Theod. has “it will be given into his hand” (dothesetai en cheiri autou), which seems most likely torefer to “the law” (understood as a separate object from the “times”), while the Old Gr. has “everythingwill be delivered into his hands” (paradothesetai panta eis tas cheiras).

223. which the Masoretes did not point as such (cf. our discussion of the form parsîn in 5.25b)

224. CAL plg 2015:v.n.

130 7.25: THE ANGEL GIVES DANIEL FURTHER REVELATION

things become much clearer. The thrust of Gabriel’s seventy weeks canbe summed up as follows.

God views Israel’s history in terms of a block of seventy “weeks”. Eachof these “weeks” represents a seven-year period of time. During the 70th

of these weeks, an ungodly “desolator” (the Anti-God) rises to power.For “half” of the 70th week—i.e., for three-and-a-half years—, he dis-rupts the Jewish people’s worship. At the end of the 70th week, God’sjudgment then falls on the desolator, at which point Israel’s golden agebegins in earnest. We do not have to look hard to see the parallels be-tween Daniel’s Anti-God and Gabriel’s desolator. Both are ungodly kings;both are associated with the end-times; both seek to disrupt God’s systemof worship; both afflict God’s people for a divided block of time; both areultimately judged by God; and both of them usher in Israel’s golden ageby means of their fall. Daniel therefore seems to want us to identify thebeast’s eleventh horn with Gabriel’s last-days desolator,225 and to equate7.25’s “season, seasons, and half a season” with the ‘year, two years, andhalf a year’ of desolation implicit in the text of 9.27, i.e., with the secondhalf of Gabriel’s 70th week, as is supported by Rev. 12.6 and 12.14. Justas God’s appointed king walked the earth for three-and-a-half years atthe beginning of the present age, so Satan’s appointed king will walk theearth for three-and-a-half years at its climax. This much, it seems, is theclear implication of the text.

But a question still remains, namely, Why would Daniel choose to refer to‘half a week of years’ in such a roundabout manner? Why not explicitlyrefer to years[šnh] as opposed to seasons[cdn], and a half[h. s.y] as opposed toa division[plg]? A number of possible answers suggest themselves.

First, the objective of prophetic texts is not always (for reasons we willlater discuss) to spell out their content in the most transparent mannerpossible. Second, the sequence of time-periods described in 7.25b mayhave been deliberately crafted in such a way as to convey the sense oftruncation and restraint. As Ebrard writes, “It appears as if [the Anti-God’s] tyranny would extend itself: ...first a time, then the doubled time,

225. For a more comprehensive discussion of the matter, see “7.8: Some further thoughts on the Anti-God”.


then the fourfold. ...But...suddenly it comes to an end in the midst of theseven times. ...Instead of the fourfold time, there is only half a time”.226

In other words, the Anti-God seeks to inflict a full seven times of sufferingon the saints, but God, in his mercy, truncates the Anti-God’s reign evenas it begins to crescendo. God will not allow his people to suffer a mo-ment longer than they can bear. We might consider, by way of analogy,Jesus’ words to his disciples, “[The last] days will be days of tribula-tion,...but for the sake of the elect...[God will] shorten the days” (Mark13.20†). 7.25b’s turn of phrase therefore reflects the way in which everyevent in ch. 7’s vision is subject to God’s pre-defined constraints. Thesame God who said to Satan, “Everything [Job] has is in your hands, buton the man himself you are not to lay a finger”, will say to Satan’s ruler,“three-and-a-half years and no longer” (Job 1.12†). The Anti-God’s planswill not, therefore, be realised; they will remain as mere “plans” (7.25).Third, the saints’ three-and-a-half times may be intended to allude toNebuchadnezzar’s seven seasons of desolation. Consider, by way of il-lustration, the following parallels between them. Both are intended tohumble their recipients (4.17, 12.5-7). Both, if we take Nebuchadnez-zar’s “seasons” as summer-winter seasons, continue for three-and-a-halfyears. Both are connected with a ‘beastly’ mindset (Nebuchadnezzar isgiven the mind of a beast, while the Jewish people are given over to abeast). Both cause God’s elect to turn to their Saviour in repentance andfaith. And both culminate in the restoration of a fallen kingdom (Neb-uchadnezzar regains the kingdom of Babylon, while the Jewish peopleregain the kingdom of Israel). Ch. 7 therefore depicts the Anti-God’scampaign as an event which will lead to the Jewish people’s conversion.Fourth, the ambiguity of the phrase “a season, [two] seasons, and half aseason” may be a device which allows the text of 7.25 to accommodatea number of different fulfilments, as the text mene cmene cteqel ûparsîndoes. If so, the question arises, How else might the phrase “a season,[two] seasons, and half a season” be interpreted? One possibility is for usto take 7.25’s “seasons” to refer, not to years, but to much longer epochsof time, i.e., to the very “epochs” Daniel has in mind when he refers toGod as “the one who causes the appointed-timesciddanîn to come and

226. KDBCOTOT Dan. 7.25. The phrase “a season, [two] seasons, and half a season” may, therefore, beintended to echo ch. 3’s lists, which also seek to develop into sevenfold expressions of power but are notpermitted to do so (cf. “3.1-30: Its main message”).

132 7.26-27: THE BEAST’S JUDGMENT AND THE SAINTS’ TRIUMPH

go” (2.21). The text of 7.25 could then be thought of in broader, more‘global’ terms. The first “season” could refer to Israel’s season of captivityin Babylon (i.e., her exile); the “seasons” (plur.) could refer to Israel’s on-going tribulations under Gentile rule (which continue even today); andthe final “half a season” could refer to Israel’s final three-and-a-half yearsof “tribulation” (9.27, 12.1). The “he” of 7.25 would then have to be un-derstood, not merely as a reference to the Anti-God, but as a referenceto the one who stands behind the Anti-God, namely Satan himself, theage-old enemy of God’s people (Zech. 3.1, Rev. 12.7-13). A second pos-sibility is to understand the term pelag ciddan as a reference to ‘a divisionof a season’, i.e., an act of division associated with a given season. (Wecan consider, by way of analogy, the phrase ‘the trouble of the times’ in9.25,227 which roughly translates as ‘the trouble associated with a par-ticular period of time’.) 7.25’s “half a season” could then refer to theera referred to in 2.41-43, when the fourth kingdom is said to become adivided[plg] kingdom, i.e., when a rift seems to develop with in its ranks,and its members become polarised in some way. Either way, 7.25 has adouble-fulfilment. It refers: a] to the Times of the Gentiles as a whole,and b] to a specific period of persecution which will take place at theend (and comprise a microcosm) of those times. Put another way, it hasboth a ‘local’ and a ‘global’ fulfilment, like many other prophecies.

7.26-27: The beast’s judgment and the saints’ triumph

7.26 But, when the court sits, his rule will be caused to pass away, to beannihilated and destroyed until the end-point,

7.27a at which point the realm, rule, and greatness of the kingdoms under all ofheaven will have been given to the people, the saints of the high places.

7.27b “Their kingdom is an age-steadfast kingdom, and all rulerships will serveand obey them!”,

In 7.26-27, the angel concludes his interpretation of Daniel’s final vision(in 7.21-22). Needless to say, it stands in dramatic contrast to 7.22-25.Whereas 7.22-25 concerns the beast’s crimes and the saints’ suffering,7.26-27 concerns the beast’s judgment and the saints’ vindication.

227. !Mהעתי בצוק


when the court sits, his rule will be caused to pass away, to be an-nihilated and destroyed until the end-point (7.26). At the end of thesaints’ times of tribulation, heaven’s court will sit. They will strip himof his “rule” (alt., ‘authority’) and pass judgment on his crimes, preciselyas is depicted in 7.9-10. In light of the court’s decision, God’s judgmentwill then fall on the Anti-God—which, since he is the fourth beast’s cor-porate head, will not be restricted to him alone. Rather, it will includethe judgment of the Anti-God’s entire earthly kingdom. The fall of theAnti-God will therefore be the fall of Satan’s entire empire, just as thefall of Belshazzar was the fall of Babylon. According to 7.26b, the Anti-God’s kingship will then be “annihilated and destroyed until the end-point”. The phrase “until the end-point” conceals an important detail.The casual reader of Daniel’s vision may have been tempted to identifythe “end-point” of the vision with the arrival of the Ancient of Days. Buthere in 7.26b, as in 7.12, Daniel envisages a further afield end-point, i.e.,an end-point beyond the Ancient of Days’ return. As mentioned earlier,then, Daniel’s vision views the judgment of Satan’s empire not as a singlemoment in time but as an ongoing process (2.34-35, 7.12). It looks be-yond the reign of the Gentiles into (what I believe to be) Israel’s goldenage, during which time Satan’s works will gradually be undone.

at which point the realm, rule, and greatness will have been givento the people, the saints of the high places (7.27a)

The translation “will have been given” reflects a pfct. verbal form. As thekingdom of Satan is undone, the reign of God’s saints will overshadowthe earth. Hence, after the saints’ trials will come blessing. Their timeof tribulation will last for a “night”, but joy will come with the “morning”(7.2, Psa. 30.5). As mentioned above, the blessings listed in 7.27a signifya complete reversal in the saints’ fortunes. The people who have beenscattered throughout the nations, without no kingdom to call their own,now receive the kingdoms of the entire earth. The people who have beengiven over to the beasts for many “seasons” are now given dominion overthe beasts, i.e., they are given the very “rule” taken away from the beastin 7.26. And the people who have had no “greatness” in man’s eyes arenow crowned with “greatness”. They are truly, therefore, recognised for

134 7.26-27: THE BEAST’S JUDGMENT AND THE SAINTS’ TRIUMPH

what they are, namely, “saints of the high places” (1 John 3.1-2). Formany years down-trodden, they are raised up and exalted (1 Sam. 2.8).

the people, the saints of the high places (7.27a). 7.27a’s turn ofphrase is important. Insofar as the saints are ‘holy ones’ and associ-ated with ‘the high places’, they are connected with the heavenly realmsand with the Most High God. But, insofar as they are “people”, they areconnected with the earth and with “humanity”. They are also, of course,connected to the Son of Man (as previously noted), who forms a bridgebetween heaven and earth in the context of ch. 7. Indeed, the saints’ con-nection with the Son of Man is brought out explicitly in 7.27b, for just asthe Son of Man’s vindication is greeted with a pinion of praise (7.14b), sotoo is the saints’ vindication (7.27b). For the most part, the Son of Man’sblessings becomes his people’s. But, interestingly, one of the accoladesattributed to the Son of Man in 7.13-14 is not said to be inherited byhis people, namely his “glory”. This is not, of course, a point we shouldover-press, since the concept of “greatness” is not so different from theconcept of “glory” (5.18, 7.27a).228 But the omission of the term “glory”from 7.27a may nevertheless be significant. Even once the saints havebeen glorified, the Son of Man will retain a place of pre-eminence. Hisglory will be unparalleled in God’s creation.

“Their kingdom is an age-steadfast kingdom, and all rulerships willserve and obey them!” (7.27b). The kingdom which the saints receiveis said to be an age-steadfast kingdom, since it is God’s eternal kingdom,the earth’s fifth and final empire. According to the Prophets, its head-quarters will be situated in Jerusalem (Isa. 2.1-4, Ezek. 48.35). As such,it will be surrounded by—and served by—a number of other “rulerships”,such as those depicted by Daniel’s three beasts (7.12). 7.27b marks theculmination an amazing vision. It begins in darkness and chaos, but itends in glory and harmony, with the fourth beast judged, his predeces-sors tamed, the saints vindicated, the Messiah enthroned, and Creationrestored. The concept of ‘service’ is not, of course, an abstract notion.Just as all men ‘served’ Nebuchadnezzar (with the exception of threenotable saints: 3.12-14), so all men will now ‘serve’ God’s chosen saints.

228. and God’s people do in fact ultimately come to share their Messiah’s glory in any case (e.g., Isa. 60.1-3)


7.28: Daniel’s reaction

7.28 which concludes the ‘bottom line’ of the matter. As for me, Daniel, mythoughts left me extremely troubled, and my brightness of face began tofade. Nevertheless, I kept the matter in my heart’.

which concludes the ‘bottom line’ of the matter. As for me, Daniel,my thoughts left me extremely troubled (7.28a). With the advent of7.28, the vision fades away, but it leaves its mark on Daniel. As Danielponders what he has seen, it terrifies him—visibly so. The descriptionof Daniel’s reaction is actually very similar to 5.6’s description of Bels-hazzar when he saw the hand of God. But the root causes of the men’sreactions should not be conflated. While Belshazzar was troubled bypersonal concerns, Daniel was troubled by the prospect of his people’ssuffering. As such, Daniel’s reaction is a great credit to him. At thetime of ch. 7’s events, Daniel must have been about sixty years old at thevery least. He could easily, therefore, have dismissed the vision as ‘some-one else’s problem’. We might consider, by way of analogy, Hezekiah’srelief when Judah’s problems were postponed beyond his days (2 Kgs.20.19). But Daniel was a larger-hearted man than Hezekiah. Danielhad a deep-seated concern for God’s people. As a result, he was grievedat the thought of their suffering (10.1-3, 1 Cor. 12.26). He was not thekind of man to be content with his own edification. He wanted to seeothers blessed alongside him.

Nevertheless, I kept the matter in my heart (7.28b). Despite his angst,Daniel continues to ponder his vision, and decides to keep the matter tohimself. It must have been tempting for Daniel to discuss his concernswith his friends (as he did in 2.17-18), or to seek to forget about thedream entirely. Its contents with not exactly encouraging—at least notin the short term. But Daniel does not do either of these things. His re-sponse is very reminiscent of Jacob’s response to his son Joseph’s dream.(Jacob is said to “ke[ep] the matter in mind”: Gen. 37.11 HCSB.) WhereasJoseph’s brothers dismissed Joseph’s dream (and in fact despised him forsharing it with them), Jacob made a mental note of Joseph’s dream, andcontinued to ponder it over the years. He let the matter settle in hisheart. The thought of 7.28b may well be similar. Daniel did not come

136 7.28: DANIEL’S REACTION

to an immediate decision about what his vision meant, or who he shouldshare it with. Instead, he let the matter settle. He made a careful note ofthe dream (7.1), and gave himself plenty of time to weigh up its contents.To claim to have received a divine communiqué is no casual matter. Itneeds to be carefully thought through.


7.1-28: A final retrospective

The vision recorded for us in ch. 7 is without doubt a breathtaking one.Four beast-cum-kings arise from the churning Sea of the Gentile nationsand crawl up onto the land of Israel. One by one, they throw downtheir predecessors, take dominion over the Near East, and crown them-selves kings of Judah. They then proceed to scatter the Jewish peoplethroughout their newly-acquired kingdoms. As time goes on, the beasts’behaviour progresses from good to bad to plain ugly. The first beast is,at least to some extent, a godly and majestic creature; the second is lessmajestic; the third less so again; and the fourth is completely depraved.As such, Daniel’s vision depicts a world spiralling out of control. Theruler of the earth have rejected God’s authority and have put themselveson a road to deviance and destruction. They are devolving into whatthey were made to govern: brute amoral beasts (Rom. 1.23). Giventhe symbolism associated with the number four, Daniel’s fourth beast isprecisely as we would expect it to be. It is the logical conclusion of allits predecessors—a beast of beasts, sinister, unearthly, and unidentified.It is fuelled by pride, hatred, and rage—at war with itself, with God’speople, and with God himself. It can only, therefore, be the kingdom ofSatan.

In interpretative terms, Daniel’s vision portrays the rise of four world-powers which sweep the Near East: the empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Satan. The last of these empires soon overspillsits bounds and ultimately comes to overshadow the entire world. ButDaniel’s four beasts are not only identified with kingdoms. They are alsoidentified with kings—in particular, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander,and the Anti-God. These four kings sum up the defining characteristicsof their kingdoms. The first three were the founders of their respectiveempires. The Anti-God, however, is different, since he arises not at theoutset of the fourth beast’s reign but at its conclusion. At that point intime, the Near East will consist of ten distinct sub-kingdoms—a picture ofweakness and instability, corresponding to the iron-and-clay stage of theColossus. From the midst of the world’s instability, the Anti-God thenemerges. He promptly overthrows three of the world’s existing kings,

138 7.1-28: A FINAL RETROSPECTIVE

and, once sufficiently bloated with pride, makes his move on the Jewishpeople. Against that backdrop, Daniel sees a vision of a son of man inheaven’s throneroom, where all is brightness, fire, purity, and unity. Likethe beasts, the Son of Man depicts a kingdom—namely the kingdom ofGod. But, unlike the beasts, he depicts a ruler who is worthy to ruleGod’s creation. Indeed, he is precisely what the beasts are not. He ischaracterised by humility, moral purity, and humanity, as is his kingdom.

The inauguration of the Son of Man’s kingdom takes place in two distinctphases. The first is a heavenly phase. The Son of Man is enthroned inthe heavens, while his people (the saints) are located on the earth. In asense, then, the Son of Man and his people are separated from one an-other, but they nevertheless share a close connection. The saints are liketheir Messiah in terms of their character (hence their depiction as hu-mans), are heirs of his divine kingdom, and, as they depart from earth’sbattlefield, take their place alongside him in heaven’s courts (7.13, Rev.7.13-14).

The heavenly phase of God’s kingdom is set to continue until the Anti-God emerges on the earth. Once the Anti-God’s appointed time haselapsed, the Ancient of Days will then descend from the heavens in theform of the Son of Man. He will judge the Anti-God, vindicate God’s suf-fering saints, and banish Satan from the earth (Rev. 20.1-6). The earthlyphase of God’s kingdom will then begin in earnest, as creation is broughtback under the headship of a man—or, to be more precise, a second man,a last Adam (1 Cor. 15.45). The overarching narrative of ch. 7 is there-fore a story of re-creation. It begins in darkness, with the Spirit of Godhovering above the face of the waters (7.2), and ends with man exaltedabove the beasts. It is, to my mind, one of the most magnificent visionsin all of Scripture. Israel has had many prophets over the years. Somewere given a glimpse of Israel’s near future, others a glimpse of Israel’sfar future, and still others a combination of the two. But none of theirvisions rivalled Daniel’s for majesty or for comprehensiveness.


7.1-28: Its near fulfilment

In ch. 8 and 10-12, Daniel is told to ‘seal up’ the visions he receives,since they concern very distant events (8.26, 12.4 with Rev. 22.10 forcontext). But he is not given any such command in ch. 7. I thereforetake ch. 7’s vision to have had a partial fulfilment in the days of Danieland his contemporaries—a fulfilment which may be connected with thevision’s head (7.1’s trans. notes), i.e., the uninterpreted details of thevision (7.2-14). The purpose of the sôp (7.16-27) may then be to applythe vision to later generations (7.28).

Sadly, we do not know too much about life in Babylon after the fall ofNebuchadnezzar, but we can say at least the following things about it:(A) After the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar’s son (Evil-Merodach) ruled Babylon for two years (from 562-560 BC).229 Judaismwould still have been a recognised religion (3.29), and the Jewish peoplewould have been well-represented in Babylon’s upper echelons. Danielat least was a senior official, as, I assume, were Shadrach, Meshach, andAbed-Nego. And Evil-Merodach must have been sympathetic to the con-cerns of the Jewish people, since he released Yehoiachin from prisonon his accession (2 Kgs. 25.27). (B) After the death of Evil-Merodach,Labashi-Marduk acceded to the throne, and reigned for a total of roughlyfour years (from 560-556 BC).230 (C) Soon afterwards, the reign ofNabonidus began, which ushered in a period of great discord in Babylon.Nabonidus did not worship Marduk (the customary god), but, rather, agod named Sin. Babylon’s priesthood therefore became extremely frus-trated with Nabonidus, and eventually forced him to leave the capitalcity. In the King’s absence, Belshazzar was installed, but his presencedid little to improve matters. It may even have made them worse. IfNabonidus was unorthodox when it came to religion, then Belshazzarwas contemptuous. Daniel certainly had no respect with him, and histreatment of the Temple-vessels was nothing short of horrendous. (D)In 543 BC, Nabonidus made a concerted effort to enforce the worship ofSin on the Babylonians. Belshazzar no doubt aided him in it. In the end,

229. See our previous discussion of PDBC (“XXX”), or Josephus’s citation of Berosus (Ant. 1.20).

230. Ibid..

140 7.1-28: ITS NEAR FULFILMENT

Nabonidus returned to Babylon in 539 BC, at which point he gathered allthe ‘gods’ into the capital city. Nabonidus’s motive is not recorded, but itmay have been connected to his religious agenda. Either way, it wouldhave caused chaos in the land.

Given these data-points, consider the following reconstruction of eventsin Babylon in light of ch. 7’s vision. In 587 BC, a savage beast rises topower over Judah. Nebuchadnezzar’s rule is one of great strength andferocity, but, eventually, Nebuchadnezzar is tamed. He is a lion whobecomes a man. In Nebuchadnezzar’s aftermath, Evil-Merodach (a sec-ond beast) arises. Evil-Merodach reigns for two years, as is reflected bythe bear’s two-fold nature, and is then deposed. Afterwards, Labashi-Marduk (a third beast) arises, who reigns for four years, as is reflectedby the leopard’s four heads. (Consider how the seven cows in Pharaoh’sdream depict seven years.) The fourth beast inaugurates an era of dis-integration in Babylon. It commences with the accession of Nabonidus.As time goes on, Nabonidus causes Babylon to become a progressivelyless united kingdom, until it splinters into a large number (ten?) of dis-tinct provinces. From the midst of these provinces, a sinister ‘less devel-oped’ horn (Belshazzar) emerges. Belshazzar begins to enforce a strictreligious regime in Babylon—a regime which extols the worship of Sinat the cost of the worship of other gods. To do so, he deposes threeof the kingdom’s existing rulers who are unwilling to comply with hisdemands (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego?). A time of intense suf-fering for the Jewish people then begins, until, in 539 BC, a Messianicfigure (Cyrus) arises. Cyrus is a ruler characterised by great power anmajesty, and commands an army of 10,000 ‘immortals’. He promptly dis-poses of Belshazzar, torches much of the city of Babylon, and establishesMedo-Persia’s supremacy. Soon afterwards, great authority is bestowedon Daniel (a son of man), who is awarded a prominent place in Medo-Persia’s ranks.

Now, the above reconstruction of events entails a certain amount of spec-ulation and ‘prophetic license’. But it presents us with an intriguing pic-ture, and one which is by no means implausible, even if it is difficult tosubstantiate. Perhaps, then, the ‘head’ of Daniel’s vision (7.2-14) corre-


sponds to the ‘head’ of Nebuchadnezzar’s colossus (7.1’s trans. notes),and depicts its key events in apocalyptic terms. And perhaps the chap-ter’s sôp then provides later generations with a definitive interpretation.Who knows? It is certainly a possibility.

We will now (shortly) turn our attention to a discussion of the practi-cal applications. But, first, a quick word about ch. 7’s position withinDaniel’s writings as a whole.

7.1-28: Its place within the Book of Daniel

Those who view the Book of Daniel as a product of multiple author-ship often downplay the interconnection between its chapters. WayneSibley-Towner even goes so far as to claim, “The second half of the Bookof Daniel [i.e., chs. 7-12] [has] little to do with the first half”.231 But acareful consideration of the book’s flow reveals a different story. Con-sider, by way of illustration, the connection between ch. 7 and the keyevents of chs. 1-6. As will be recalled, in ch. 1, we read of Babylon’sconquest of Israel and the Israelites’ dispersion. In ch. 2, we are thenshown a vision of the era which has been thereby inaugurated, namelythe ‘Times of the Gentiles’. In ch. 3, we see the hubris which characterisesthe rulers of those Times and its effect on God’s people. In ch. 4, we seeone of Babylon’s rulers devolve into a beast. In ch. 5, we are shown God’ssovereignty over the times and seasons of world history. And, in ch. 6,we see Babylon’s lions tamed. Ch. 7 then brings all of these themes to-gether in the form of a single majestic vision. The kingdom which is lostin 1.1-2 is restored in 7.26-27, and the beasts who run wild in chs. 2-6are made subject to God’s authority. Far from an disconnected addition,then, ch. 7’s vision constitutes the perfect climax to Daniel’s Aramaic chi-asmus, as well as the perfect introduction to the Book’s prophetic section(chs. 7-12). The composition of Daniel’s writings is really quite brilliant.It is concise, careful, and coherent.

231. Towner 1986:1.

142 7.1-28: SOME APPLICATIONS

7.1-28: Some applications

As always, we can learn a number of important practical lessons from ch.7,232 the first of which should be very familiar to us by now.

(1) God is sovereign over world history, even when he does not appear tobe. To correctly interpret Daniel’s vision is a challenging business, and tocomprehend God’s sovereignty is certainly no easier. But the real ques-tion when it comes to God’s sovereignty is as follows. Do we genuinelybelieve in it? Do we actively trust in God’s sovereignty over our lives,or not? When our world begins to fall apart, and it seems as if Godhas given up on us, do we still have confidence in him? When we aretold our job is on the line, when we receive bad news at the doctors’surgery, when our children become sick and ill: do we still trust in God’ssovereignty? When the fig tree fails to blossom, and there is no fruit onthe vines, and the fields produce no food, do we still rejoice in the LORD

and take joy in the God of our salvation (Hab. 3.18-19)? Do we stillbelieve God’s ways are best? Do we believe God can have a plan anda purpose even in these things? The answer, according to ch. 7’s vision,is, Yes. God is in control of every single detail of our lives. And, if weare willing to trust him—and even to praise him—in the midst of oursorrow, then God will bring great glory to his name, and, in due time, hewill glorify us in ways beyond anything we can possibly imagine. As theapostle Paul writes,

Eye has not seen,nor has ear heard,nor has [there] entered into the heart of man,the things which God has prepared for those who love him.

(1 Cor. 2.9†)

(2) The world can be a dark place at times. Nebuchadnezzar’s Colos-sus and Daniel’s beasts are two sides of the same coin. They depictprecisely the same period of history, but they do so from very differ-ent perspectives. Nebuchadnezzar focuses on man’s outward splendour,

232. Much of what follows is indebted to Bob Deffinbaugh’s series of sermons on Daniel (Deffinbaugh, XXX).


while Daniel focuses on man’s inner corruption. Daniel’s vision thereforeserves as a perfect foil for Nebuchadnezzar’s, and warns us against get-ting too caught up in the present world. Man has accomplished manygreat things over the years. He has made intellectual advances, tech-nological advances, and even moral advances. As believers, we shouldencourage and support such things, but we must never let them lull usinto a false sense of security. Beneath man’s reign lies a spirit of bes-tiality. That spirit is often hidden from our view. (Many of man’s evilsare committed behind closed doors, and are ignored by the world’s me-dia.) But it is nonetheless present. The world does not love God, nordoes it love God’s people. It is Satan’s instrument to further his wickedagenda (1 Cor. 2.8, 1 John 5.19). As children of God, we must thereforekeep a safe distance from certain aspects of the world. When we buygoods from ethically-questionable companies, or pay money to watch un-savoury films, or support dubious political movements, we are furtheringSatan’s cause, and are being awful stewards of what God has entrustedto us. As believers, our charge is clear. We are to “take no part in theworthless deeds of evil and darkness” but, rather, “to expose them” (Eph.5.11-12 NLT). Often, however, we are not always as quick or willing toexpose the world’s errors as we should be. May God therefore grant usthe grace to take our duties more seriously and to discharge them morethoroughly.

(3) Believers are commanded to mirror the character of their Messiah.Ch. 7’s vision revolves around two radically different kingdoms. Thefirst is the kingdom of Satan. It is characterised by rebellion, self-aggrandisement, and immorality. The second is the kingdom of God. Itis characterised by obedience, self-sacrifice, and righteous-living. Need-less to say, such godliness is exemplified nowhere more clearly than inthe life of Christ. According to NT doctrine, Jesus came to be exaltedabove the kings of the earth, not by running roughshod over his en-emies, but by means of suffering, submission, and self-sacrifice (Mark10.45, Heb. 2.5-10). He knowingly went to the cross, where he gavehis life as a ransom and was torn to pieces by the world’s beasts (Psa.22.12-21). Yet, through suffering he triumphed, and through humilia-tion he was glorified, for, while his earthly people “despised and rejected”


him, he in fact “bore [their] griefs”. He was “pierced for our transgres-sions,...crushed for our iniquities,...[and] upon him [fell] the chastise-ment [which] brought us peace” (Isa. 53.3-5). As the well-known hymnputs it,

By weakness and defeat,he won the meed and crown;trod all our foes beneath His feet by being trodden down.

He Satan’s power laid low;made sin, he sin o’erthrew;Bowed to the grave, destroyed it so,and death by dying slew.

As followers of Jesus, we are called to live as Jesus lived. Our road toglory may entail great physical pain and humiliation, as Jesus’ did, or itmay entail a different kind of struggle. Either way, our calling as chil-dren of God is to bear our cross in patience and obedience. Indeed, atsuch times we follow in Christ’s footsteps most closely, and bring mostglory to our Father in heaven. To see a child follow his father’s instruc-tions in simple obedience and humility is a wonderful sight. May we, asChristians, seek to behave in a similar manner.

(4) Biblical prophecy has an important role to play in the life of the Chris-tian. It enables us to walk by faith rather than by sight. As creaturesof time and space, we are unable to see the world as God sees it for awhole multitude of reasons. We are blind as to the repercussions of thepresent moment (i.e., to what our actions might bring about in the yearsto come). We do not realise how grievous certain sins are to God, orwhat God might need to do in order to prevent them. We do not haveGod’s patience, and, as a result, we expect God to deal with the world’sAnti-Gods immediately rather than in his good time (Gen. 15.12-17, 2Pet. 2.4-9). We are unaware of the activities of—as well as God’s plansfor—the world’s angels and demons (10.13, 10.20, Eph. 3.10). We donot fully appreciate the glory God gains when his people are faithful tohim amid their trials (Job 1.12, Rev. 15.2). We do not properly valuemany aspects of our day-to-day lives, and tend to overlook the impor-


tance of ‘the ordinary’. And we will never know how things could haveturned out had history taken a different course. As a result of thesethings, we are poorly-placed to appreciate God’s dealings with his cre-ation—which is precisely why prophecy is so important.

Prophecy allows us to see the world as God sees it. Prophecy shows ushow God is bringing his sovereign plans to pass, even by means of theworld’s chaos and disorder. To see the wicked in the ascendancy (andthe world in decline) is a horrible sight to behold. It causes us to losehope, and to lose confidence, and to doubt the truth of God’s word. Butprophecy gives us a different perspective on things. According to Daniel’svision, even the rise of the world’s Anti-Gods is a sign of better things tocome. Indeed, such events are the very events God has appointed tousher in his kingdom. Once man’s sin reaches a pre-determined point,the Son of Man will descend and bring man’s reign to an end—henceJesus’ words to his disciples:

When these things begin to take place [i.e., when chaos reignson the earth], stand up and lift up your heads, because yourredemption is drawing near!

(Luke 21.20-28 Dan. 7.21, 7.25-27)

Prophecy also bolsters our faith by means of its historical fulfilment.Daniel predicted the reigns of Babylon’s successors with unbelievableaccuracy. He foresaw events which no political or historical commenta-tor could reasonably have foreseen. More importantly, Daniel foresawevents which would accomplish God’s sovereign will. By means of theBabylonians’ might, God purged the land of Judah of its sin and defile-ment. By means of the Persians’ wealth, God rebuilt Jerusalem’s city andtemple. By means of the Seleucids’ Anti-Gods, God rekindled the faithof his backslidden people. And, by means of Satan’s schemes, God madehis Son the sacrifice for mankind’s sin (1 Cor. 2.7-8, Heb. 2.9).

In sum, then, the purpose of prophecy is, not to map out the future,but to change our perception of the present—to ground our thinking inGod’s infallible word as opposed to our own immediate circumstances.


God will not fail his people. That is the message both of history andof prophecy. When we see the nations rage, we need not, therefore,despair, or start uprooting ‘weeds’ from God’s kingdom. Our duty is topress on with our Great Commission, namely to “go and make disciplesof all nations, [to] baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Sonand of the Holy Spirit, [and to] teach them to obey everything [Jesushas] commanded [us]” (Matt. 28.18-20 NIRV). And, as we do so, let usnot forget Jesus’ accompanying promise: “Behold, I am with you always,[even] to the end of the age” (Matt. 28.20). If the study of prophecy doesnot spur us on in our lives as Christians, then our consideration of it hasbeen a merely intellectual exercise.

(5) The study of prophecy is a fundamentally spiritual activity; it is deepcalling unto deep. The Book of Daniel contains a number of paeans ofpraise, which come from the lips of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, and Darius(2.21-22, 4.3, 4.34-37, and 6.26). These paeans of praise are very simi-lar to Daniel’s description of his vision in 7.13-14 and 7.26-27, which isno coincidence. On the contrary, it teaches us an important lesson. Whatcertain exceptional men have come to know and experience by means ofhistory, God has declared and made real to us by means of prophecy (2Pet. 1.16-19). Prophecy is inspired by God’s Holy Spirit. It has a latentpower, which the Holy Spirit still uses today to convict our hearts as westudy it. The study of prophecy is not, therefore, like reading a textbook.It is an activity which God himself is involved, and which he uses to buildus up in our faith.

(6) Believers are to be marked out by endurance. Many people wonderwhy prophecy is so complicated. The answer has to do with the purposeof prophecy. Prophecy is not intended to produce a sudden burst of en-thusiasm, or a surge of dynamism. It is intended to nurture a deep-seatedhope of glory within us, and to brace us for the road ahead. Put anotherway, prophecy is not in keeping with the world’s way of doing things. Itis not intended to produce instant joy or gratification (as Daniel’s ownresponse demonstrates), but, rather, long-term patience and endurance.And the very nature of prophecy reflects that fact. Just as the fruit of pa-tience takes time to develop in our lives, so prophecy takes time to digest,


since its fruits cannot be produced in an instant. To correctly understandprophecy is only half the battle. We need to let it sink into hearts, to be-come real to us, to infiltrate into—and to shape—our thoughts, desires,and ambitions. And these things come only with long contemplationand prayer. The process by which we come to understand prophecy istherefore an integral part of the way in which it bears fruit in our lives.We therefore need to give ourselves plenty of time to digest its message.Those who are satisfied by quick and easy solutions to its many riddleswill miss out on its many blessings.

(7) Biblical prophecy does not pull its punches. In recent years, I havebecome aware of a tendency for preachers to give their hearers an unre-alistic impression of the Christian life. They promise health and wealthand all sorts of other things which the Gospel itself does not guarantee.The ultimate fruit of such preaching is confusion and disillusionment.Biblical prophecy, however, has a completely different tone. It revolvesaround salty, down-to-earth realism. It foretells, not only of the joys andglories of God’s coming kingdom, but the trials and tribulations whichmust precede it. When Paul spoke to the believers in Antioch, his aimwas three-fold: i] to “strengthen their souls”, ii] to “encourage them tocontinue in the faith”, and iii] to warn them of the “many tribulations”they would face (Acts 14.21-22). Biblical prophecy has precisely thesame objectives.

(8) Believers are called to be people, not only of strength, but of tender-ness as well. Daniel was a man of unshakable faith. During his time inBabylon, he was required to labour in the midst of his enemies, to de-liver messages of judgment to some of the world’s fiercest despots, andto spend a night in a pit of lions. None of these things seem to havetroubled Daniel, or to have driven him to despair. But ch. 7 is a differentstory. In ch. 7, Daniel is shown a vision of the Anti-God, and he is shakento the core by it. Daniel therefore comes across as a very well-roundedindividual. He was not only a man of great intellect. He was also a manwho had a great love for his brethren, which we will do well to emulate.Our God is a God of love and compassion. He is a God who rejoiceswhen his people prosper, and who weeps when his people flounder (Isa.


15.5, Hos. 11.8, Zeph. 3.17). The successes and failures of God’s peopleshould affect us in a similar way. A well-known contemporary chorusopens with the request, ‘Break my heart with whatever breaks yours!’,which is no bad thing to pray. That which is dear to our Lord’s heartshould likewise be dear to ours.

(9) An incredible future awaits us as God’s people—a future we need toprepare for here and now. As Christians, we have been given a high call-ing. God has chosen us to rule the world with him! It is a fact whichis almost beyond comprehension. Given a task of such importance ineveryday life, we would spend an enormous amount of time and effortpreparing for it. But, when it comes to the afterlife, we often do notthink in such terms. Why? Because we are often not sure how to pre-pare for the afterlife, or what it will consist of. We envisage the afterlifein terms of clouds and harps and heavenly creatures, and we are thenconfused as to what role we might be asked to play in it. But Scripturedoes not describe the afterlife in such terms. Scripture describes the af-terlife in terms of cities and kings and earthly duties (Luke 19.17, Rev.21.1-22.5). Moreover, Jesus has told us exactly how to prepare for theafterlife: to invest our earthly possessions in the furtherance of God’skingdom, to use our talents wisely, and to be ‘faithful stewards’ of whatGod has entrusted to us (Matt. 25.14-30, Mark 10.30). There will be noshortage of jobs to be done on God’s renewed earth. God wants us touse the present age to demonstrate our desire, ability, and commitmentto do those jobs. God wants us to be faithful servants, like Daniel—menwho can be trusted to discharge whatever jobs he assigns to us.

Ultimately, then, Daniel’s vision of the hosts of heaven and the ages tocome boils down to a set of very practical concerns. Are we ready forour Lord’s return? Are we getting on with what he has called us to do?And are we seeking to live lives of holiness and devotion to God? As theapostle John writes, “When [God] appears, we will be like him, becausewe will see him as he is. And everyone who has this hope in him purifieshimself, just as he is pure” (1 John 3.2-3†).


But, at this point, a question arises, namely, Why are our duties in the ageto come spoken about so little in our churches? The answer, I suspect,has a lot to do with the kind of hymn we sing. Consider, for instance,as N. T. Wright suggests,233 the final verse of the (otherwise excellent)hymn “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling”:

Finish, then, thy new Creation,Pure and spotless let us be;Let us see thy great salvation,Perfectly restored in Thee!Changed from glory into glory,Till in heaven we take our place;Till we cast our crowns before thee,Lost in wonder, love, and praise!

(Charles Wesley)

Apparently, then, when God brings world history to a close, at whichpoint his people will spend eternity in their heavenly home.234 But theBook of Revelation does not conclude with the final verse of ch. 5. Chs.4-5 do not describe the completion of God’s new Creation. On the con-trary, they describe what is clearly an intermediate state. The final stateof God’s creation is set out in 21.1-22.5, where activities such as the cast-ing down of crowns, the singing of hymns, and the taking of our placesin heaven is not mentioned at all. Instead, we read about work whichneeds to be done: nations which need to be ruled, lands which need tobe “healed”, and so on (Rev. 21.24, 22.2, etc.). We therefore need toensure our view of the afterlife is grounded in Biblical truth as opposedto popular hymnology, for an imbalanced view of the afterlife leads toan imbalanced view of the present age. If we conceive of the future asa time of perpetual hymn-singing in a ethereal reality, then it will not betoo long before our ‘secular’ duties fall by the wayside, not to mentionour Great Commission. Our Christian lives will start to revolve aroundSunday-morning meetings rather than Monday-to-Saturday service. TheBible, however, is a very ‘down to earth’ book. Indeed, Jesus himself will

233. XXX.

234. Such sentiments abound in popular hymns. Consider, for instance, the much-loved lyric, “The sky, notthe grave, is our goal”!


come down to the earth one day. Let us therefore seek to labour for ourLord in every aspect our life, and to demonstrate ourselves to be goodand faithful stewards of all our earthly resources (Eph. 5.22, 6.7). It willmake a very real difference to our lives, both in the present age and inthe age to come. Jesus is presently recruiting for his kingdom, and heis looking, not for the sexually immoral or greedy or intemperate, butfor men and women who can be trusted to obey his commands (1 Cor.6.1-11).

(10) Believers should set their sights high in life, but they should not be‘sensationalists’. Two distinct visions are revealed to Nebuchadnezzarin chs. 2-4. In both cases, the King is left unable to understand God’scommuniqué, as are his wise men. Daniel is therefore required to act asan interpreter, which he is more than happy to do. But why, one mightwonder, did God not speak to Nebuchadnezzar clearly in the first place?What was the need for all the cryptic imagery and enigmatic symbols?The answer is inherently connected to the purpose of the two visions.God did not want Nebuchadnezzar’s visions to boost the King’s (alreadyconsiderable) pride. After all, Nebuchadnezzar could easily have beenflattered by YHWH’s communication with him, since, of all the kings ofthe Near East, the God of Israel had chosen to contact him alone. Godtherefore spoke to Nebuchadnezzar in such a way as to keep him in hisplace. He gave Nebuchadnezzar a dream which was a burden to him,and which he could not understand without the help of a lowly Jewishexile. As a result, Nebuchadnezzar was forced to realise the inadequacyof his own abilities, as well as of Babylon’s accumulated wisdom. Hewas forced to approach God in God’s appointed way. We might consider,as an analogy, God’s interaction with the great Naaman, whom he toldto bathe, not in the majestic rivers of Assyria, but in the muddy watersof the Jordan, in Israel (2 Kgs. 5.10-14).

But what do these considerations have to do with ch. 7’s events? Theanswer is as follows. Just as God wanted to humble Nebuchadnezzarat the outset of his new role in God’s economy, so God wanted to hum-ble Daniel at the outset of his new role in God’s economy. Daniel wasa major figure in Babylon’s administration. In over forty years, not a


single dream or riddle had got the better of him (5.11-12). As a result,Daniel had ascended to the top of his profession. But the accession ofBelshazzar signalled a new dawn in Daniel’s life (7.1). It signalled theend of his days as a wise man in Babylon and the beginning of his daysas a prophet of God.235 God therefore wanted Daniel to realise two im-portant things. First, his role as a prophet was not simply an extensionof his role as a wise man. Second, throughout his role as a prophet, hewould be in constant need of God’s help and guidance. God thereforegave Daniel a dream which, for the first time in his long life, left him ut-terly bewildered. Daniel had no choice but to ask for assistance (7.16).Daniel thereby took on the role of Nebuchadnezzar, while an angel tookon the role of Daniel. It was a completely new experience for Daniel.

God’s communication with Daniel teaches us an important lesson. AsChristians, we have been given an absolutely incredible privilege. Wehave been granted access to the very throneroom of God, where we areallowed to interact with the Creator of heaven and earth. It is almost toomuch to believe! Nevertheless, we must maintain a sense of perspective.I have encountered a number of Christian ministers whose religious ex-periences can only be described as completely ‘incredible’—whose expe-riences go way beyond what can reasonably be expected on the basis ofScripture. Such ministers seem to receive angelic visitations and visionsof the future on an almost daily basis. One minister even claims to havefelt a hand take hold of him as he left his room after a time of prayer,and to have heard a voice say to him, ‘Five more minutes—just five moreminutes!’. (“The Spirit longed for my fellowship”, the minister explains.)Now, while, in one sense, another man’s relationship with his Lord isnone of my business, I nevertheless want to make two quick remarksabout the experiences mentioned above. First, I am skeptical of theirveridicality. Very often, the ministers who most significantly exceed thenorm when it comes to ‘spiritual experiences’ seem to fall significantlyshort of the norm when it comes to verifiable Christian fruit, e.g., thecultiviation of a holy and humble Christian character, souls saved, liveschanged. Second, we need to be careful when we share our spiritual

235. In 8.1, Daniel refers to ch. 7’s vision as a new ‘beginning’, which demarcates it as a seminal moment inhis life.


experiences with others, since our stories can have an adverse effect onpeople. Other believers can be made to feel as if they are ‘second-classChristians’, or as if their relationship with God is substandard in someway. They can even be pressurised to ‘manufacture’ similar experiencesfor themselves, at which point a vicious circle ensues. We therefore needto be careful about how we share our religious experiences with otherpeople. We can learn a lot from King David’s mindset, who wrote,

My heart is not lifted up;my eyes are not raised too high;I do not occupy myself with things

too great and too marvellous for me.Rather, I have calmed and quieted my soul,like a weaned child with its mother.

(Psa. 131†)

David did not want to pry into matters which were beyond him or to getcarried away by mystical experiences. Yet he nevertheless had a greathunger to know more of his God, and cried out,

Earnestly I seek you, [O LORD];my soul thirsts for you.My flesh faints for you,as in a dry and weary land... Thus have I looked upon you inthe sanctuary,to see your power and glory.

(Psa. 63.1-2†)

There is a healthy balance to David’s statements. There is both humilityand hunger, contentedness and expectancy. Ultimately, the bottom lineis as follows. When we share our experiences with other people, wemust be honest. We will ultimately be accountable to God for what wesay (or do not say) to other people, and we cannot justify dishonesty.God edifies his people, not through hypocrisy and pride, but throughsincerity and godliness. Let us, therefore, be careful to maintain a senseof perspective in terms of how we talk about our spiritual experiences.


(11) The kings of the present age are in desperate need of our prayers. Inthe closing stages of Daniel’s vision, the fourth beast’s persecution of thepeople of God is connected with the establishment of “the times[zeman]

appointed by law” (7.25). We might consider, as an analogy, the ap-pointed time[zeman] for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego to bow be-fore the King’s image, or the “law” which prohibited Daniel from prayer.Perhaps, then, we need to think more carefully about the ways in whichSatan can use the world’s laws in order to persecute God’s holy people,and to be alive to the danger of such possibilities. If so, we will needto be vigilant both in prayer and in social action. Our rulers may notbe aware of it, but they are involved in a spiritual battle for control overthe earth. We must therefore strive in prayer for them, especially whentheir decisions involve the future of the Jewish people. We should notbe ignorant of Satan’s designs (2 Cor. 2.11). God has revealed them tous in Scripture for a reason.

(12) Our suffering, if we are believers, will only be temporary. Ch. 7’svision depicts the world’s fourth kingdom as a fundamentally ‘divided’kingdom, as does ch. 2’s (2.41-43, 7.7-8). But the kingdom of God isalso a ‘divided’ kingdom. It is divided between the heavens above, whereChrist is enthroned, and the earth below. And, one by one, God’s peopleleave the earth’s battlefield and enter into a realm of glory, just as Johnsaw in his vision and said,

[Behold], the ones coming out of the great tribulation!They have washed their robesand made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Thus they arebefore the throne of God,and serve him day and night in his temple.And he who sits on the thronewill shelter them with his presence.They will hunger no more,neither will they thirst anymore.The sun will not strike them,nor any scorching heat.For the Lamb in the midst of the thronewill be their shepherd,


and he will guide them to springs of living water,and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.

(Rev. 7.14-17†)

These are surely some of the greatest words in all of Scripture. As be-lievers in Jesus, the day will come when our times of “tribulation” willbe behind us. We will be united with our Saviour in heaven, with theOne who has made us and redeemed us for himself. Many things aboutthe end-times may be unclear to us, but one thing at least is very clear.One day, we will “meet [our] Lord in the air”, and we will finally see theOne we love, and whatever happens thereafter, we will forever “be with[him]” (1 Thes. 4.17). Wherever he goes, we will go too. That is ourultimate hope and, praise God, our ultimate destiny.

commentary on daniel :: chapter 7 (7.1-28)

Documents