THE VISION OF THE FOUR BEASTS.
This chapter begins the second section of the book. All before this has been
narrative; visions are introduced into the narrative, but they were not given
to Daniel himself, but to others; his role was the secondary one of
interpreter. These visions and the events connected with them are related
more as incidents in the biography of Daniel, than as revelations of the
future. With this chapter begins a series of revelations to Daniel personally.
This chapter is the last chapter of the Aramaic portion of Daniel. Though
thus linguistically joined to what has preceded, logically it is related to
1 “In the first year of Belshazzar King of
dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream,
and told the sum of the matters.” The language of the Septuagint is
suggestive of the actual state of matters, “While Baltasar was reigning —
acting as king — for the first year, Daniel saw a vision (παρὰ - para – beside)
his head upon his bed. Then Daniel wrote the vision which he had seen in
While these words do not necessarily imply that Belshazzar was not king,
but only acting as king, they yet may mean this. We know now that for five
years during the nominal reign of his father Nabunahid, Belshazzar really
reigned. Theodotion does not absolutely agree with the Massoretic reading
here, In the first year of Belshazzar King of the Chaldeans, Daniel saw a
and he wrote the dream. The omission of the final clause will be observed.
The Peshitta is closer to the Massoretic; it differs, in fact, only by the insertion
Of malcootha, “the reign of,” before “Belshazzar.” This is, in all probability,
the original heading of the tract in which Daniel first published his
prophecy. What were the circumstances, so far as we can attain a
knowledge of them, when thus the future was revealed to Daniel? The
Scythian forces under Astyages had conquered all the countries
intermediate between the steppes whence they had come and
Above all, they had overthrown the Median Empire, that was closely
associated with that of
were besieging its cities when Cyrus, the King of Ansan, rebelled against
Astyages. We may imagine that, from the extent of their empire, the Manda
would have to be somewhat scattered. Cyrus then might easily gain
advantage over the small division of Manda that held the canton of Ansan.
As usually, the attacks of
been made across the canton of Ansan; the rebellion of Ansan would thus
separate the Manda in
latter being the main portion. Cyrus succeeded in rousing the Medes,
Elamites, and Persians against this invading horde, and wrested the power
from them. Nabunahid, in a pious inscription, regards Cyrus as the
instrument in the hand of Marduk to overthrow these oppressive Manda.
Shortly after this uprising of Cyrus, Nabunahid is to appearance stricken
with illness, and for several years takes no part in the business of the
empire. In the seventh year of Nabunahid, we learn from the annals that the
king was in Tema, and did not
conducted the affairs of the monarchy. It was probably, then, in this year,
when Cyrus had defeated the Scythians, and had driven them
Keen political insight might easily foresee the events in the comparatively
immediate future. The rise of a vigorous new power like
meant menace to the neighboring powers.
and discontent, was in
no condition to resist. The fall of
imminent — its place
was to be taken by
succeeded Assyria, and before Assyria had been the empires
the Hittites. He remembered the dream of his old master Nebuchadnezzar.
Now a dream is vouchsafed to himself, which repeats the vision of
Nebuchadnezzar with some differences. He is reminded that the changes
that come over the affairs of men are not unending. The rise and fall of
empires is not the confused whirl of uncontrolled atoms, but all tending
towards an end — the
establishment of the
2 “Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and,
behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea.” The
Septuagint omits the introductory clause, and renders, “On my couch I saw
in my night-sleep, and, behold, the four winds of heaven fell upon the great
sea.” Theodotion, like the Septuagint, omits the introductory clause, and
renders, “I Daniel beheld, and, lo, the four winds of the heaven rushed
upon (προσέβαλλον– proseballon – broke forth) the great sea.” The Peshitta
seems as if transferred from the Massoretic text, the resemblance is so close.
The variations in the Greek Version may be due to condensation of a fuller
narrative. The verb translated “strove” in our Authorized Version is better rendered,
as in the Revised, “brake forth upon.” Luther’s version is, “sturmeten wider
einander.” This, like the Authorized Version, seems to be the result of the
Vulgate pugnabant. The only objection to this is that it ought to be
followed by a preposition. The translation suggested by Levy,
“stirred up,” appears still better. The sea referred to is naturally to be taken
it in his boyhood. The symbolic meaning of the sea is the mass of heathen
nations (Psalm 65:7). The “four winds of heaven” usually stand for the
points of the compass (Jeremiah 49:36). Here, however, the winds are
pictured as actual forces dashing down upon the sea, and stirring it up to
its depths. It may be objected that this is an impossible picture. It might be
replied that Virgil, in the first book of the ‘AEneid,’ 84-86, and Milton, in
‘Paradise Regained,’ has the same thing. Daniel has more freedom, for he
narrates a vision, and, further, to him the winds (rucheen) were under the
guidance of angels. Hitzig denies that the winds can be angelicae
potestates, as Jerome maintains; and, when Jerome supports his position by
a quotation from the Septuagint Version of Deuteronomy 32:8, gives
as answer a mark of exclamation. The passage, “He set the nations
according to the number of the angels of God,” represents a phase of
thought in regard to angelology, which Daniel elsewhere obviously has.
The double meaning of the word ruach made the transition easy. We see
the same double meaning in Zechariah 6:5. The sea, then, is to be
regarded as the great mass of Gentile nations, and the winds are, therefore,
the spiritual agencies by which God carries on the history of the world. As
there are four winds, there are also four empires. There are angelic princes
of at least two of these empires referred to later. May we not argue that
these empires had, according to the thought of Daniel, each an angelic
head? It may be doubted whether the most advanced critics know more of
angelology than Daniel, or can be certain that his view was a mistaken one.
history, as revealed to Daniel, unfolded itself. Nebuchadnezzar marched
along the eastern shores of that midland sea; the Persian monarchs essayed
to command it by their fleets; across a branch of that sea came Alexander;
and from yet further across its blue waters came the Romans. The
the time of Daniel and that of our Lord.
3 “And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one
from another.” The Septuagint rendering omits “great;” otherwise it is a
closely accurate representation of the Massoretic text, save that the
translator seems to have had, not aDAˆm ad, but as in the Syriac,
Theodotion has μεγάλα – megala – great - but does not so slavishly follow the
Aramaic construction at the end. The Peshitta is very close to the Massoretic, save
that in the last clause it agrees with the Septuagint. The number four is, in apocalyptic
writings, significant of the world; “the four winds” mean the whole world. Here it is
human history that is summed up in the four beasts. So in Zechariah we have “four
horns” that symbolize the oppressors of the people of God (Zechariah 1:18).
We have “four” chariots in Ibid. 6:1, which seem to be symbols of the
same thing. Beasts. Animals of one sort or another are used of nations in the
crocodile, as “a
dragon” in Ezekiel 29:3
eagle (Ibid. ch.17:3). Composite beings are used as symbols
addressed as a ‘“covering cherub” (Ibid. 28:14). In the Book of Revelation
In the Book of Enoch (85. — 90.) we find this figurative use of animals carried
much further. Assyria and Babylonia and, following them,
use of composite, monstrous animal forms as symbols, not so much, however,
of political as of spiritual powers. This distinction is the less important, that
political events were regarded as the production of spiritual activity.
4 “The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till
the wing. thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth,
and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given
to it.” The Septuagint and Theodotion render “lioness,” but otherwise agree
with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta does not differ from the received text.
The word hyra is epicene. It is, however, to be noted that in later
Aramaic the terminal letter was a, not h. The word gappeen, “wings,” is
worthy of note; in this form it appears in the Peshitta, i.e. in Eastern
Aramaic; genappeen is the Targumie form. Most commentators agree
that the first beast here is the Babylonian Empire. Nebuchadnezzar is
compared (Jeremiah 49:19) to a lion and to an eagle (Jeremiah 4:7; also
Ezekiel 17:3), and suitable to this are the winged human-headed figures
found in the ruins of
the avoidance of any reference to numbers. It may be objected that the “eagle’s
wings,” ˆyPig" (gappeen), are in the dual. Yet the number two is not
mentioned. That the word was in the dual in the pre-Massoretic text does
not appear from the versions, so the correctness of the dual pointing may
be doubted. Unity was the mark of the Babylonian Empire in the vision of
Nebuchadnezzar, and unity still remains its numerical sign. As swiftness
and aggressiveness are symbolized by wings, especially “eagle’s wings,”
when we read, “I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked,” we learn that
before the fall of
be the aggressive conquering power it had been. A man’s heart was given
to it. J.D. Michaelis thinks the reference here is to the fact that when they
first broke from their original seats, the Chaldeans were barbarians, but
they became civilized in
latter were divided into many cantons, each under its separate king, and
that on and after the conquest of
became more able to act in concert. The circumstances connected with the
accession of Nabopolassar are wrapped in mystery. However, it is clear
this cannot be the reference here. The giving of the man’s heart is brought
into close relationship with the plucking of the wings. This fact also
decides us against the view so generally maintained, that there is here a
reference to the madness of Nebuchadnezzar. In his case the heart of a
beast was given to a man; in the case before us the heart of a man is given
to a beast. To us the contrast seems more obvious than the resemblance.
Much superior is Calvin’s interpretation. Speaking of the phrases, “set
upon his feet,” and “the heart of a man was given to him,” Calvin says, “By
these modes of speech one understands that the Assyrians and Chaldeans
were reduced in rank — that now they were not like lions, but like men”
(compare II Samuel 17:10, “Whose heart is as the heart of a lion”). There is
no reference, then, to any supposed humanizing influences which manifested
themselves in Babylonian methods of government after Nebuchadnezzar was
restored to his reason. From being an empire that spread its wings over the earth,
it became limited very much to
territory surrounding the city of
ready to be overwhelmed by the encroaching Manda. He manifests nothing of
lion-like courage or eagle-like swiftness of assault. This was the state of
things when Daniel had this vision. Nabunahid was in Tema, while his son
did his best to defend the frontier against the threatening encroachments of
Cyrus. Hitzig and Havernick maintain that the attitude suggested by the
phrase, “set upon its feet,” is what, in heraldic language, is called
“rampant;” it is possible, but it rather militates against the natural meaning
of the words. Before leaving this, it must be noted that, as in the vision
Nebuchadnezzar had of the statue, the symbol of the Babylonian Empire is
the noblest metal — the head of gold. Here the noblest animal is the
for this, as in the passage in the second chapter for that — that the
Babylonian Empire had more in it of the symbol of Divine government. No
monarch was more like a god to his subjects; his power was unchecked,
5 “And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it
raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it
between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much
flesh.” The Septuagint rendering here differs but slightly. “A second” is
omitted, and instead of “they said”, it is “one said” or “he said.”
Theodotion agrees with the Septuagint in omitting the word “second,” but
agrees with the Massoretic in having “they said.” The Peshitta begins more
abruptly than the others, “And the second beast [was] like to a bear,” etc.
In regard to the Aramaic text, the use of the haphel form must be observed.
The presence of the c instead of the s is an indication of antiquity in the
word rc"B](besar), which becomes in the Targums ds"B]. It has been
supposed that the reading should be rvebi (bishayr) with v, which would
mean” dominion” — a phrase that would give a sense out of harmony with
the context. It is in regard to the meaning of this symbol that interpreters
begin to be divided. The most common view is that this refers to the
Median Empire. There is nothing to support the assumption that the author
of Daniel distinguished between the Median and the Persian empires;
everything, indeed, which, fairly interpreted, proves that, while he regarded
the races as different, he looked upon the empire as one. It is the laws of
“the Medes and the Persians” that are appealed to before Darius the Mede.
The united empire is symbolized as a ram with two horns. Dr. Davidson, in
his review of Professor Bevan’s Commentary (Critical Review) on Daniel,
shows the duality indicated by the animal raising one of its two sides. That
one race was stronger than the other had to be symbolized, and this was
done by making the symbolic animal raise one side. The attitude at first
sight may be difficult to comprehend. There is a figure in Rawlinson’s ‘Five
Great Monarchies,’ vol. 1. p. 332, in which a pair of winged bulls are
kneeling with one leg; the side opposite to the kneeling leg is thus the
higher. Kliefoth denounces this interpretation as mistaken, without
assigning any reason against it. The interpretation by which he would
supersede it is that it means “to one side of
reference to locality at all. Moreover, as all the animals come out of the
sea, their relationship to
the mouth of it between the teeth of it. What is meant by these three ribs
has been much debated. In the first place, Havernick thinks that it is a
mistake to translate ˆy[l[ (‘il’een) “ribs;” he maintains the true rendering
to be “tusks.” He identifies [l[ with [lx (Hebrew); but even if we grant
this identification, we do not find any justification for this rendering. The
word for “tusks” seems rather to be ybyn, which occurs in the Targum of
Joel 1:6 and Job 29:17, and the same word occurs in the Peshitta.
At the same time, the symmetry of the figure would fit some such view. In
none of the other beasts is there any reference to what they are devouring.
Still, one cannot lay stress on this. When we come to consider what is
meant by the “three ribs,” we have great diversity of opinion. On the
supposition that the ribs are in the mouth of the bear, and being gnawed by
it, it must mean that at the time when by the conquest of
into the apocalyptic succession, the bear-empire had laid waste three
territories. Ewald agrees that three countries must be meant, but assumes
these countries to be Babylonia,
Biblical or other, that the Median Empire ever extended to
following Ben Ezra, takes the ribs as three cities —
There seems nothing to identify “ribs” with “cities;” we can imagine it to mean
“provinces.” Thus we are led to Kraniehfeld’s opinion, that it represents
constituent portions of an older confederation broken up. The view of
Kliefoth, that the conquests of the Medo-Persian Empire are intended —
the ribs are already in the bear’s teeth when he enters into the sphere of
apocalyptic history. Jephet-ibn-Ali maintains the “three ribs” to refer to the
three quarters of the world over which the
the view of Keil. It seems better, with Von Lengerke, to regard the number
three as not important, but a general term for a few, though, at the same
time, we can make approximation to the number when we look not at the
Medea, but at Cyrus. Moreover, had we a better knowledge of early
apocalyptic, it is at least a possible thing that we might find that “three”
was the designating number of
us that the position of Cyrus — at the time we assume the vision to have
been given to Daniel — suits admirably with the picture of the bear. Like
the bear, he came from the mountains, in contradistinction from the lion of
the plains. He
united under his rule his hereditary kingdom
and Media. Thus we might have the three ribs if we might lay aside the
notion of these being devoured. He overthrew the Manda and Croesus
before he conquered
be conquered before he could encounter Croesus. It is singular that writers
who are determined to maintain that Daniel drew all his information as to
Babylonian history from Jeremiah and other early writers, should also, by
implication, maintain that, in defiance of the continual mention by these
writers of kings of the Medes, as if they were a numerous confederacy
(Jeremiah 51:11), Daniel held that there was a united empire of the
Medes separate from the
maintained by Ewald, represented by a bear, “because its empire was less
extensive than that of
theocratic monarch — the monarch who ruled as God. They said thus unto
it, Arise, devour much flesh. The speakers here may be “the watchers,” or
it may be used impersonally. On the assumption that the bear is the
shadowy Median Empire, what meaning can this command have? The
Medes, as distinct from the Persians, by the time that Epiphanes ascended
the throne, had become very shadowy. The scriptural account of them does
not represent them as pre-eminently cruel. Isaiah (Isaiah 13:17)
foretells they will conquer
taken by assault. Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:25) places the Medes with
other nations under the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar King of
(Jeremiah 51:11, 28) he too asserts that the Medes will
There is nothing here to indicate the expectation that Media should be a
pre-eminently destructive power. This applied correctly
6 “After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which
had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four
heads; and dominion was given to it.” The Septuagint rendering is shorter,
“And after these things I saw another beast, like a leopard, and four wings
stretched over it (ἐπέτεινον – epeteinon - - epiteinon – stretched over), and
there were four heads to the beast.” The grammar of this is difficult to understand.
As it stands, it must be translated as above; if, however, we might read ἐπιτεινον,
we should avoid the solecism of uniting a neuter plural to a plural verb, rendering,
“and it stretched,” etc. Paulus Tellensis renders as above, and adds a
clause, “and a tongue was given to it” — a reading to all appearance due to
the transposal of l and v. It is difficult, on the present text, to explain how
the Septuagint rendered “wings of a fowl,” “stretched over it.” If, however, the
original word were that used in the Peshitta, <ARAMAIC> (paehatha), it
is explicable that this should have been read Wvr"p]. Theodotion and the
Peshitta do not differ from the Massoretic text. The majority of critical
maintain this to be the
animal than a bear, and therefore, according to the argument these critics
used with regard to the second empire, it ought to mean that it symbolized
a still smaller empire. That, however, is impossible. Moreover, we have
the four wings declared to mean that the Persian power extended to all
quarters of the world, and attention is directed to the fact that the
statement is made concerning it, “dominion was given to it.” This assumes,
what would be admitted by everybody to be contrary to fact, had the critics
not a further conclusion in view. The traditional interpretation is that the
Hellenic Empire — that of Alexander the Great and his successors — is
intended here. In defense of this we have the fact that four, as we have just
said, is the numerical sign of the Greek power. In the following chapter we
have the goat, with its one notable horn, which, on being broken off, is
replaced by four. In the eleventh chapter we are told that Alexander’s
empire is to be divided to the four winds of heaven. But “wings” are not
prophetically so much the symbol of extensive dominion, as of rapidity of
movement. If Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 17:3) is a great eagle with long
wings, it is because of the rapidity of his conquests. Jeremiah says of his
horses, they are “swifter than eagles.” Again in Lamentations, “Our
persecutors are swifter than eagles.” Wings, then, symbolize swiftness of
motion. If we turn to the next chapter, the swiftness of Alexander’s
conquests is the point that most impresses the seer. Swiftness, compared
either with the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar or of Alexander, was not the
characteristic of the Persian conquests. Cyrus, in the course of thirty years,
had subdued Asia Minor, probably
Nebuchadnezzar, after the battle of Carehemish, had advanced to the river
but rapidity of movement characterized some of them we do know, and
Alexander’s conquests were made with extreme rapidity. Altogether the
figure seems much more suitable for the empire of Alexander the Great.
7 “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth
beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great
iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue
with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were
before it; and it had ten horns.” The Septuagint differs
considerably, though not essentially, “After these things I beheld in a night
vision a fourth terrible beast, and the fear of it excelled in strength; it had
great iron teeth, it devoured and pounded down; it trode round about with
its feet; it differed from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten
horns, and many counsels were in its horns.” The sense of this does not
really differ, save in the last clause, which seems to belong to the next
verse. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta differs
only by having” after these things,” following the Septuagint, instead of “after
this.” The identification of the empire intended by this beast has been the
crux of interpreters. Practically all ancient authorities — Josephus, and the
author of the Apocalypse of Baruch being among the number — maintain
modern critics, not merely of the exclusively critical school, have held that
it refers either to the Greek Empire as a whole, or to the Seleucid portion
of it. As we shall discuss this subject in a separate excursus, we shall at
present look at the principles to be adopted in dealing with such a question.
The important point is the numerical note of this “beast.” It is “ten” — the
same it may be remarked, as in the feet of the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s
dream. When we turn from the Apocalypse of the Old Testament to the
Apocalypse of the New, we find “ten” the note of
should put this to the one side, as merely the opinion of an apostle, and
therefore not to be considered at all in comparison with that of Hitzig or
Von Lengerke, yet he was writing little more than a couple of centuries
from the time when, according to critics, Daniel was written; moreover, he
was in the direct line of apocalyptic tradition. The Apocalypse of Baruch,
written in all probability B.C. 60, has the same view, and it is separated by
little more than a century from the time of the Maccabees. The Fourth
Book of Esdras, written about A.D. 80, has the same view. All three books
imply that it is the universally received opinion. This view is really the only
one that fairly meets the case. The view which separates the Seleucid
Empire from that of Alexander may be laid aside, although the first three
empires are correctly interpreted, because it is directly controverted by the
statement that this fourth empire is to be diverse from all that had gone
before. The empire of the Seleucids was in no sense diverse from that of
Alexander. This fourth empire was to be stronger than all that had gone
before. The Seleucid Empire was notoriously and obviously less powerful
than the empire of Alexander had been, and was merely a match for the
empire of the Ptolemies. Further, the next chapter shows that the writer of
Daniel regarded the empire of the Diadochi (the rival generals, families and
friends of Alexander the Great who fought for control over his empire
after his death in 323 BC.)as really a continuation of that
of Alexander the Great. The other view rests on a division between the
Median and the Persian empires, which is contradicted by any fair
interpretation of this book. The next chapter shows clearly that the writer
regarded the Medo-Persian power as one, but as having two dominant
races. The “great iron teeth” of the beast have a reference to the iron legs
of the dream-image which appeared to Nebuchadnezzar. This beast “is
diverse from all the beasts that were before it.” In all the previous empires,
the constitution was avowedly monarchical. With the Roman, the
republican constitution appeared, and even under the emperors the forms
of that constitution were preserved. In this sense it was diverse from all the
8 “I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among
them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first
horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like
the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” The Septuagint
Version, if we consider it a rendering of the Massorotic, begins really with
the words which are made in it the last clause of the preceding verse, “And
counsels were many in its horns.” This reading is certainly not to be
preferred, although it can easily be understood how it has arisen. The
version proceeds, “And behold another born sprang up in the midst of them
— little in its horns” — this latter is a doublet — “and three of the former
horns were rooted out by it, and, behold, eyes as human eyes were in this
horn, and a mouth speaking great things, and it made war against the
saints.” Theodotion is practically in agreement with the Massoretic text, as
is also the Peshitta. As Daniel is gazing, his attention is directed to the
horns; he sees their appearance changing. An eleventh horn springs up,
much less than any of the former ten; quickly, however, it grows, and
before its growth three of the former horns are rooted up. This horn now
drew his gaze from all the others: it had human eyes, it had a mouth
speaking great things. In the changes of the dream the horn now seems
separated from the animal on which it is; it becomes an oppressor, and
makes war upon the saints. It is usual to identify this horn with that in ch.
8:7. When carefully looked at, the alleged resemblance is reduced to the
fact that in both cases “a horn” is used as a symbol of an oppressor of the
saints. We must remember that, according to the figure, these ten horns are
contemporary. If we take the typology of the next chapter as our guide,
these horns are kingdoms or dynasties. Unlike the Greek Empire, which
split up into four, this fourth empire splits up into ten. Another dynasty
rises up and sweeps away three of these earlier dynasties. Nothing like this
occurred in regard to the empire of the Diadochi. Of course, it is true the
number ought not to be pressed, save as a designative symbol. There must,
however, be more than five or six, as in such a case four would be a more
natural general number. It may, however, be twelve or fifteen. Several
events in the history of the kingdoms that have followed the Roman
Empire might satisfy one part of this picture — the replacing of three
kingdoms by one. It is a possible enough view that provinces may be
referred to, as Jephet-ibn. Ali maintains. As, however, the primary
significance of the “horn” is power, the most probable solution seems to us
to be to take the “ten” horns
as the magistracies of Republican
we reckon the magistracies, there were fewer, if we take the distinctive
individuals occupying the magistracies, more, than ten. The imperial form
of government replaced several of these magistracies, which may roughly
be reckoned at three. Certainly of the imperial power it might be said that it
had a mouth “speaking great things;” for the claim to deification made
openly was certainly a new claim. Other monarchs had claimed to be the
sons of their god; only the Roman emperors were addressed as divus
during their lifetime. Certainly the empire made war against the saints —
against the people of God. It was Nero, a Roman emperor, who decreed
war against the Jews; it was Vespasian, another Roman emperor, that
began the conquest of
is Titus personally. If we are permitted to take the ten horns as successive
emperors, he was the eleventh emperor, and three emperors were swept
away before the Flavian dynasty. We must reserve fuller discussion of this
subject to a special excursus.
9 “I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit,
whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool:
His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire. 10 A fiery
stream issued and came forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered
unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the
judgment was set, and the books were opened.” The Septuagint Version here does
not differ much from the Massoretic save that there are two cases of-doublet.
Theodotion and the Peshitta are evidently translated from a text identical
with that of the Massoretic. There is, however, one point where the
versions agree against the Authorized Version — the thrones are not cast
down, they are “placed,” as in the Revised. Luther and most German
commentators render thus, as does Jerome. Ewald translates “cast,” that is,
“set.” In the third chapter, where we have the same word, it means” cast
down; “this leads us to prefer the Authorized rendering. The word for
“throne” is to be observed. It means not so much the throne-royal as the
seat of a judge; but the office of judge was that essentially of
the king. The Ancient of days did sit. It is not “the Ancient of days,” but
“one ancient in days,” that is to say, the phrase is not appellative, but
descriptive. After the thrones of these earlier kingdoms were cast down,
then one appeared like an old man clad in a garment of snowy whiteness,
and the hair of His head as wool. That this is a symbolic appearance of God
is beyond doubt. Ewald remarks on the grandeur of the description as
excelling in boldness even the vision of Ezekiel. The throne, the judgment seat
of the Ancient of days, is a chariot of “fiery flame,” with “wheels of
burning fire” — a description that suggests the translation of Elijah. His
throne is at once the judge’s seat and the chariot of the warrior. From
beneath this chariot-throne “a fiery stream issued forth.” In the Book of
Revelation (Revelation 22:1), from beneath the throne of God there
issued the river of the water of life, clear as crystal. Compare with this also
Enoch 14:9-22 below:
And I went in till I drew nigh to a wall which is built of crystals and
surrounded by tongues of fire: and it began to affright me. And I went into
the tongues of fire and drew nigh to a large house which was built of crystals:
and the walls of the house were like a tesselated floor (made) of crystals, and
its groundwork was of crystal. Its ceiling was like the path of the stars and
the lightnings, and between them were fiery cherubim, and their heaven was
(clear as) water. A flaming fire surrounded the walls, and its portals blazed
with fire. And I entered into that house, and it was hot as fire and cold as ice:
there were no delights of life therein: fear covered me, and trembling got hold
upon me. 14. And as I quaked and trembled, I fell upon my face. And I beheld
a vision, And lo! there was a second house, greater than the former,
Enoch’s description is derived from this, but amplified to a
great extent. Thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand
times ten thousand stood before Him. The word “thousands” in the
Aramaic has the Hebrew plural termination in the K’thib, but in the most
ancient forms of Aramaic there are many points where the two tongues
have not yet diverged. The symbol here is of a royal court, only the
numbers are vaster than any earthly court could show. The angels of God
are present to carry out the decisions of the judgment. Compare with this
Enoch 1:9 (Charles’s translation), “Lo! He comes with ten thousands of his holy
ones, to execute judgment upon them” (See Jude 1:14-15). Those that minister
unto the Judge are those whose duty it is to carry out the Divine sentence; those
who stand before Him are those who are spectators of this great assize. The
judgment was set. This translation is not accurate. The word translated
“was set” is the same as that rendered in the second clause of the preceding
verse “did sit.” Again, although deena’, thus vocalized, means “judgment,”
it may be differently vocalized, dayyana, and mean “Judge.” If we take the
present pointing, the phrase may be taken as equivalent to “the assize
began.” And the books were opened. It ought to be noted that the word
here used for “books” is derived from a root primarily meaning “engrave.”
The Babylonian books, as they have come down to us, are clay tablets
“engraved” or “impressed” with letters. We have all manner of legal
documents in this form. The piles of tiles and cylinders which contain the
deeds of those before the judgment-seat stand before the Judge. One by
one they are displayed before Him. The scene presented is one of
unspeakable grandeur, and all put before us with a few masterly strokes.
· the great fiery throne;
· the Judge, awful with the dignity of unnumbered ages,
· attended by a million of angels who are ready to do His will; and
· a hundred million watching and listening spectators.
We find that this description of the judgment in the first Apocalypse reappears,
modified and made yet more solemn, in the last Apocalypse (Revelation 20:11-15).
We are, however, not to regard this as the final judgment. Daniel is rather admitted
into the presence of God in the heavens, and sees His judgment continually being
prepared against the wicked.
God’s Books (v. 10)
“The books were opened.”
Ø The book of remembrance.
o God keeps a record of His people’s troubles (Psalm 56:8).
He is not ignorant of them, nor indifferent to them. He
takes notice and gives sympathy. He will take account of
them in the future, turning them to good, or compensating
for the endurance of them.
o God keeps an account of His people’s faithfulness
(Malachi 3:16). Though they appear to be forgotten, their
humble service is all noted.
o God preserves a remembrance of men’s sins. God forgets
sin when He forgives it, but till then our forgetting it does
not remove it from His book of remembrance, any more
than our forgetting a bond releases us from the
obligation of it when it is presented.
Ø The book of life. Paul refers to those “whose names are written in the
book of life” (Philippians 4:3; see also Exodus 32:33; Revelation 3:5).
God preserves a record of the heirs of eternal life. He knows them,
if men do not. He takes note of them individually; their names
are written. The world is redeemed, not in the mass, but individually.
Each one of us either has or has not his name written down in the
“book of life..” The most important question for each to ask is
whether his name is there.
Ø The book of the future. The future is known to God, and the course of
providence and redemption by which He will work out His purposes of
righteousness and mercy is determined (Revelation 5:1). Sudden
changes surprise us, but they were anticipated by God. There is no
chance, but an overruling wisdom fixes the great landmarks of the future.
Ø The book of remembrance is sealed. We have no present visible proof
that Got notes our trouble, our fidelity, or our sin. We may forget our
past, and it will lie hidden and silent. (It would not surprise me if
God has our life in some form of “virtual reality”! – CY – 2014)
Ø The book of life is sealed.
o We may have sure evidences of our redemption, but we cannot
directly read our names in the book of life. Perhaps the reason
for this is that we may walk by faith and experience its discipline.
o We cannot read the names of others. Therefore we cannot
Pronounce judgment on them, nor say how many or who
will be saved.
Ø The book of the future is sealed. Prophecy has extracted a few pages.
But the great volume will only be unrolled as it is accomplished. It is
best that we should not know the future, as we only have sufficient
strength to bear the burden of the present (Matthew 6:34). It is best
also because we can learn to walk humbly and trustfully, while we
resign the future to the care of our Father in heaven (Ibid. v.32).
(“…..as thy days, so shall thy strength be.” Deuteronomy 33:25)
of all a day of revelation. The decrees of reward and punishment will
follow the opening of God’s books.
Ø The record of our conduct will be brought to light. (“For there
is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that
shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken
in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the house tops.”
Luke 12:2-3). Forgotten deeds will be remembered, and the truth
of character made clear (I Corinthians 14:25).
o Hidden sin will be revealed.
o Unrecognized merit will be honored.
Ø The roll of the redeemed will be read. Not one of God’s people
will be forgotten. Christ will own the humblest of His followers.
Ø The purposes of God concerning the future will declare themselves.
The book of the future is unrolled by degrees as time passes. But its
most momentous contents will be those which will be made clear
when the great facts of the unseen world are first brought to light.
Then God’s purposes with mankind will be understood as we on
earth can never comprehend them.
11 “I beheld then because of the voice of the great words
which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his
body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.” The Septuagint
Version has been translated from the same text; but the word translated
“because” is rendered τότε – tote - then, according to the usual meaning of
the word. Theodotion has a doublet. The Peshitta is much briefer, “I saw that
this beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was cast into the flame
of fire.” The voice of the great words; that is, blasphemies. The punishment
of blasphemy among the Babylonians was burning. On account of the
blasphemies of the little horn, the whole empire to which it belonged was
destroyed. If we regard the fourth beast as
imperial dignity, it was on account of its blasphemies that the empire really
ceased. The blasphemous claim to divinity wrought madness in the minds
of such youths as Caligula, Nero, Commodus, Caracalla, and Heliogabalus.
The process might be a slow one. God had His purpose in the history of the
race to work out by the
madness of the emperors that brought the empire down. The way the
provinces were harried by barbarians East and West could well be
described as burning the body of it with fire.
12 “As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their
dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and
time.” The Septuagint has a different reference, “And those about
him he took away from their dominion, and time of life was given them for
a time and a season.” Here, as in the seventh verse, we have shear. The
reference then would be to the horns that still remained after the one
blaspheming horn was destroyed. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic.
The Peshitta differs, but only slightly. As the Massoretic text stands, there
is difficulty in maintaining that the reference here cannot be to any other
than to the other three beasts. They should still occupy a place, but possess
no dominion, even after they were removed from supreme authority. After
province in the
considered throughout the whole period of the Persian rule. After the
of Persis; and from the remains
of the Persian Empire sprang up
and then the second
“For a season and a time” does not refer to any definite time. Jephet-ibn-
Ali regards the reference till the end of the rule of the fourth beast. This
militates against the idea that ‘iddan must always mean “a year.”
Godless Kingdoms (vs. 1-12)
Daniel’s vision brings before us the origin, the character, and the destiny of
Ø Earthly. The Divine kingdom comes from above — “with the clouds of
heaven” (v. 13). These kingdoms come from below — from the dark
depths of the sea. Earthly passions, not the will of God, shape their origin.
Ø Tumultuous. “The four winds of heaven strove upon the great sea;” the
kingdoms issued from the throes of the storm. The great monarchies of
antiquity did not grow up by the development of peaceful arts and
commerce. They were formed by wars of conquest, and wild, wicked
strifes of ambition. The glory of political success often leads men to
disregard the crimes by which it is achieved. But these cannot be
ignored by God.
Ø Successive. One after another the great beasts rise from the sea. God’s
kingdom is one and lasting, but as these earthly kingdoms are transient,
new kingdoms take the place of the old. Thus the same drama is reacted in
many ages. Till the reign of Christ is complete, we must expect to see the
rise and fall of earthly ambition.
Ø Points of agreement.
o They are all more or less brutal. To Nebuchadnezzar the
kingdoms appeared bright and glorious (ch. 2:31). To Daniel,
the prophet of God, they appeared savage and brutal. The
passions of godless politics are low and unspiritual.
o They are destructive. The true end of government is the peace
and welfare of the world (Romans 13:1-4 ). But it has always
been the work of wicked ambitious monarchies to spread
devastation and misery.
Ø Points of difference. The great beasts are “diverse one from another.”
Nationalities are of various types. The faults of governments are not all
alike. Evil assumes various forms. All godless kingdoms are not equally
bad. In the vision, the first kingdom shows signs of improvement in its
later days (v. 4). The second is far more destructive (v. 5). The last
power is least in apparent size, yet most fatal to its neighbors (v. 8).
Thus human history is full of variety, change, and surprise. It is only in
the Divine order that we meet with assured and peaceful stabilty.
Ø They are all only temporary. One succeeds another.
Ø They all come up for judgment (v. 10). There is a judgment on nations
as well as on individuals. The proudest earthly power must bow before
the judgment-seat of God. They who ignore God will not escape His
Ø As there are degrees and varieties of crime, so there will be degrees and
varieties of punishment. The worst of the great beasts is entirely
destroyed (v. 11). The others are dealt with more leniently. Thus at the
great judgment the sentence will be proportionate to the sin (Luke
Ø The godless kingdoms will all be superseded by the universal and eternal
kingdom of heaven. GOD’S RIGHTEOUS RULE will ultimately take
the place of the most violent and destructive earthly powers. Evil will
FINALLY SUCCUMB to good.
Brute Rule (vs. 1-12)
“Four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another” (v.3).
We remark the transition here from history to prophecy; the date, the
first year of Belshazzar, that is, before the fall of the first of the world powers
about to be described; the form, a dream, — before this Daniel had
interpreted others’ dreams, he now dreams himself; the fact that it was at
once committed to writing, i.e. not set down after fulfillment; and that the
prophecy is only an outline, so that we must not expect too much detail.
All this in v. 1. The nature of the prophecy rebukes dogmatism. It may be
well to call attention here to the fact that all these expositions and homilies
are written independently of each other; there may be, then, possibly some
diversity of critical judgment; this, however, will be no disadvantage to the
student. For our own homiletic purpose we treat this chapter under three
o in the first, we have a vision of brute rule;
o in the second, of Divine sovereignty;
o in the third, of a great rebellion.
· ITS CONDITION. “The great sea” is distinguished from all inland seas.
The ocean. The image of our troubled world (Isaiah 17:12-14;
Revelation 21:1). Out of the commotion and confusion of troubled
peoples the four forms of brute rule arose.
the wind plays on ocean, so do supernatural powers (in this case evil) lash
into fury the passions of a troubled world; and out of revolutionary
confusion emerges often brute despotism.
as described in ch. 2. Why the different form? That vision gave the external
glory; this the inmost nature. They had life in them, but it was a life less
than human. Man sinks below the human when the pneu~ma – pneuma –
spirit - is no longer animated by the Spirit of God. As with man individually,
so collectively, so with nations, governments. Government is of God, but may
lose the Divine in it, and so become BRUTAL! A beast may inspire terror;
but its look is not heavenward, but earthward; hears no Divine voice; has no
conscious relations with God. “Four beasts,” but “diverse.” All brutal.
Ø The lion-form. The Babylonian empire. Dominant, like the king of the
forest; swift and reaching far, like the eagle. Then came deteriorations.
The deteriorations developed slowly. “I continued looking” is the sense.
Swift energy was crippled. Not even with the speed of a lion walking
did the empire advance; but painfully, slowly, as a beast marching on
hind legs alone. Then instead of the lion-heart at the center of
government, the timid heart of a man. Here we have the glory of
until it fell before one mightier than itself. So do governments
without God go down.
The bear-form. The
heavy, slow. Of these characteristics, the most striking illustration would
be the cumbrousness and slow advance of the Persian armies; e.g. the
the symbol. Raising itself on one side, and perhaps striking out with its
right forearm. This indicates the combination of Mede with Persian — the
latter the stronger and more aggressive. The three ribs devoured stand for
waste of life incident to Persian progress. How many of the two millions
Ø The leopard-form. The Greek empire, specially under Alexander.
Characteristics: insatiable appetite for blood, swiftness, subtlety. “Four
wings.” “Four heads.” The Greek dominion essentially one, but with
four centers. Trace the analogy. Alexander’s determination to conquer
the world. Swift movement, equalled only by Napoleon I. The subtlety
of his genius. The division of his empire into four.
The nameless form. The
no one creature can represent it, nor the combined attributes of many.
The eminence and importance of this empire are apparent from:
o Its prominence in this chapter.
o Daniel’s anxiety to “know the truth of the fourth beast.”
o Its collision with the Divine kingdom.
o Its successive historical aspects.
§ Its first aspect. (See v. 7.) All this exhibits the utterly
destructive energy of
it destroyed for destruction’s sake. A contrast with
the other powers. They ravaged, subdued, extorted
tribute; “but their connection with the states which
they subdued was loose and
v conquered all,
v kept all,
v assimilated all
§ Two developments.
v “Ten horns.” Horn is the symbol of power.
The ten were on the head from the beginning,
to manifest the unity of
European nations. Their development, however,
was not at once.
v The one. Small at the beginning. Displaces a third
(nearly) of existing powers. A development of the
Roman domination. “Eyes” for a certain
intelligence. Pride and blasphemy out of its
“mouth”? What can this be but the papacy?
shall the brutal reign. How sublime the contrast ushered in by v. 9!
Below, the ocean, lashed by powers of evil; out of it the brutal, its last
developments the worst. Now heaven opens. Thrones were set (not “cast
down”). A central throne. On it the Eternal! The throne the source of all
splendor, the fount of energy (Revelation 4:5). Judgment proceeding.
Not the last judgment. But the continuous judgment of men and nations.
other empires long gone, though for a while they lingered.
Ø The eternal supremacy of God.
Ø The righteousness of His judgments.
Ø The certain doom of all that is alienated from His own Divine
Individuals and nations are human and humane only as THEY LIVE IN HIM!
The reign of the brutal in any form cannot be eternal. Animalism in all its
ugly, cruel, sensual forms, must go down; for God in Christ “must reign,
till He hath put all enemies under His feet.” (I Corinthians 15:25)
13 “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of
man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days,
and they brought Him near before Him.” The version of the Septuagint is
different in the last two clauses of this verse, “As the Ancient of days He
came, and those standing around were present to Him.” Although the
reading here is supported by Paulus Tellensis, we suspect some error of
copyists. Theodotion practically agrees with the Massoretic. The Peshitta
renders the last clause, “Those standing before Him approached Him.”
These earthly kingdoms having been destroyed, THE NEW KINGDOM
OF GOD IS USHERED IN!” “A son of man” (not “the Son of man,”
as in our Authorized Version) appears in the clouds of heaven. It is a question
whether this is the King of the Divine kingdom, the personal Messiah, or the
kingdom itself personified. It is agreed that, as the previous kingdoms were
represented by a beast, a man would be necessary symmetrically to
represent at once the fact that it is an empire as those were, but unlike
them in being of a higher class, as man is higher than the beasts. Further, it
is brought in line with the image-vision of the second chapter, where the
stone cut out of the mountain destroys the image. But we must beware of
applying mere logic to apocalyptic. In this vision we see that “a man’s
heart” really meant weakness as compared with the courage and strength
represented by the lion. Further, the point of distinction between this vision
and that of Nebuchadnezzar is that this is more dynastic, looking at the
monarchs, while the other looks at the powers — the empires as distinct
from their personal rulers. Hence, while the Son of man here refers to the
Messianic kingdom, it is in THE PERSON OF THE KING! It is to be
observed that, while the beasts came up out of the sea, the Son of man
came with the clouds of heaven. This indicates the THE DIVINE
ORIGIN OF THE MESSIAH! That the writer might not apprehend this
is no argument against this being really symbolized. When He comes to the
throne of the Ancient of days, He is accompanied to the presence of the
Judge by the attendant angels — a scene which might seem to justify the
Septuagint Version of Deuteronomy 32:43 as applied by the writer of the
Hebrews. “And again, when He bringeth in the first begotten into the
World, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.” (Hebrews 1:6 –
below is the commentary on this verse)
“But, again, with reference to the time when He shall introduce this
SON, the Firstborn, into our inhabited world, He speaks thus of the
angels.” Or it may be, “But whenever he shall bring a second time into the
world the Firstborn who has already once appeared, He speaks thus of the
angels.” But the first meaning seems more suitable to the general context.
The force of the writer’s argument is the same, whichever view we take;
the point being that, at the time of the advent of the Son, whatever advent
may be meant, the angels appear only as attendant worshippers. As to the
understood nominative to “saith,” we may suppose it to be “God,” as in
v. 5. But it is to be observed that le>gei – legei – saith – He is saying, without
an expressed nominative, is a usual formula for introducing a scriptural quotation.
The question remains — What is the text quoted, and how can it be understood
as bearing the meaning here assigned to it? In the Hebrew Bible we find
nothing like it, except in Psalm 97:7, “Worship Him, all ye gods,” Authorized
proskunaesate auto pantes hoi aggeloi autou – worship Him all ye gods (angels).
But in Deuteronomy 32:43 we find in the Septuagint, though not in the Masoretic
pantes huioi Theou - the very words, including the introductory καὶ (and) which
are quoted. Hence, the quotations in this Epistle being mainly from the
Septuagint, we may conclude that this is the text referred to. It occurs
towards the end of the Song of Moses, in connection with its concluding
picture of the LORD’S final triumph, in which the nations are called upon to
rejoice with His people, when He would avenge the blood of His servants, and
render vengeance to His adversaries, and make atonement for (Greek,
ἐκκαθαριεῖ - ekkathariei - expiation) His land and for His people. Viewed in the
light of later prophecy, this triumph is identified with that of the Messiah’s
kingdom, and is therefore that of the time of bringing “the Firstborn into the
world.” compare Romans 15:10, where “Rejoice, ye Gentiles,” etc., from the
same passage, is applied to the time of Christ. It is no objection to the quotation
that, as it stands in the Epistle, “the Firstborn,” though not mentioned in
the original, seems to be regarded as the object of the angels’ worship. The
passage is simply cited as it stands, the reader being left to draw his own
inference; and the main point of it is that the angels in “that day” are not,
like the Son, sharers of the throne, but only worshippers.
14 “And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a
kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him:
His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away,
and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” The versions differ
only slightly and verbally from this. The personal element is here made
prominent. Compare with this Revelation 5:12, “Worthy is the Lamb
that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and
honor, and glory, and blessing.” (I recommend listening to Agnus Dei
by entering it in your browser and listening to your favorite rendition to
get a perspective of heavenly things! - CY – 2014) The Messianic kingdom,
and with it the Messiah, WAS TO BE EVERLASTING! The resemblance is
great, as might be expected, between this statement and that in ch. 2:44, “A
kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to
other people.” It is to be noted that even His dominion is bestowed upon Him.
The Ancient of days, whose sentence has deprived the other dynasties of
their empire, bestows boundless empire on the Messiah (Compare Psalms 2.
and 72.). Jeremiah’s account of the state of matters on the return from the
Captivity (Jeremiah 30:21)is compared to this, but there it is
not a king who is to come near before God, it is simply “governor”
(mashal). In Jeremiah we have to do with a subject-people living in the fear
of the Lord, but under the yoke of a foreign power.
The Real King-Maker (vs. 9-14)
The panorama which passed before Daniel’s mind in the night-season did
not terminate in a scene of confusion and misery. This scene of brutal
ferocity occurs in the middle of a great tragedy, and leads on to a peaceful
triumph of truth and righteousness. These inhuman kings were not masters
of the situation. One higher than they watched the moral chaos from His
supernal throne, and, out of the tangled mass of conflicting ambitions and
passions, brought a condition of permanent prosperity and peace.
appearance of venerable age — “the Ancient of days.” These inhuman
monsters were “but of yesterday;” and, knowing that their time was short,
were eager to make for themselves a name, be the methods what they may.
But the Ruler of the nations is “from everlasting.” His years outnumber all
the generations of men. Human tribes come and go; dynasties rise and fall;
to Him they are like the meteorological changes on an April day. He sits
unmoved, the calm Monarch of the universe. His clothing, “white as
snow,” betokens the immaculate righteousness of His administration. No
intelligent being has ever detected the slightest blemish in His just and
impartial sway. It is not consistent with His supreme dignity to give an
account of His doings to human creatures, but to the extent that our moral
judgments can comprehend His acts, we can join with the seraphim in the
acclamation, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty” (Isaiah 6:3);
“Just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.” (Revelation 15:3)
He is not an indifferent spectator of human affairs. He may be slow to anger,
yet is He the more sure to punish. “His throne was like the fiery flame, and
His wheels as burning fire” (v.9). Sin, lust, crime, of every sort, shall be
swept from His domains with a fiery besom; yea, all creatures who identify
themselves with wickedness. Every force and element in nature is His servant,
and a stream of fire issues from his feet. The earth, long stained with shameful
crime, shall be purified, and the saints shall emerge from the trial “as gold that
has been purified.” Though long delayed, complete retribution shall in due
time come, and the oppressed among the sons of men shall be publicly
vindicated and honored.
but by myriads, The largest number known to the ancients is put for an
indefinite number. Everything that lives and breathes minister unto Him.
The orders and ranks of unfallen angels are His lieutenants. At a single
glance of His eye they fly on fleetest wing to fulfill His Divine behests. One
angel, with his invisible sword, scattered and decimated the proud army of
Sennacherib. An east wind discomfited Pharaoh’s host. A few flakes of
snow annihilated the regiments of Napoleon. More than once a
thunderstorm has defeated the most valiant troops of warriors. The locust,
one feeble branch of God’s military retinue, has chased a whole nation
from the field. “To whom, then, shall we liken God?” And is not he a
prodigious fool who challenges God to a contest? “Let the potsherds strive
with the potsherds of the earth; but woe to the man who strives with his
Maker!” (Isaiah 45:9) Filled with Divine courage, “one man shall chase
a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight.” (Deuteronomy 32:30)
language does not refer exclusively to the final and general judgment of
mankind. It refers especially to a present judgment, and a special
adjudication touching the ambitious kings. The activity of God’s mental
judgment is never in suspense. Judicial acts are always proceeding. “For
judgment,” said Christ, “I am come into the world” (John 9:39). Still,
it is permitted us to think of state occasions, when public investigations are
made, clear proofs of human guilt are adduced, and world-wide approval
is given of Divine verdicts. “The books were opened” (Revelation 20:12),
viz. the volume of Divine Law, clearly read by men; the book of history;
the book of memory; the book of conscience. The decision shall not be
reached with unseemly haste. The investigation shall proceed under the
superintendence of Wisdom herself, and her calm decisions can never
be called in question.
present to the view of Daniel, was an act concerning the “great beast.” He
had been seized by God’s detectives, and arraigned before the bar of
heavenly justice. His last daring act of rebellion was that of speaking proud
and defiant words against God. Thus the haughty oppressors of nations
boast, “Our wills are our own: who is Lord over us?” But their
discomfiture will be complete and overwhelming. The beast was slain. Life
was withdrawn. Nor this only. His body was destroyed. As he had
consumed others, so, by a righteous retribution, he shall be consumed in
the burning flame. Lesser penalties are imposed on the other beasts.
Further opportunity of amendment is given to some. Dominion is forfeited,
but life for a brief season is prolonged. Yet, in this heavenly assize, there
are not only wrongs punished; rights are vindicated. Obedience, excellence,
merit, are commended, are exalted to the highest place. The human
monarchs, who abused their sovereign trust, shall be dethroned — yea,
destroyed; but in their place another shall arise — A KING OF
RIGHTEOUSNESS, A PATTERN PRINCE! Instead of savage beasts,
there shall be, as King of nations, a Son of man — a man fresh from the
hands of God. His innate glory shall be partly veiled, “He came in the clouds
of heaven.” His is no usurped authority. He does not take this honor of himself.
He professes allegiance to the world’s Ruler and Judge, and receives the
kingdom at the hands of God. “Angels and principalities and powers” delight
to do Him honor; “they brought Him near” the everlasting Father. The Son
of man does not disdain to receive the kingdom from the Creator and
Originator of all things. Because of His meekness and righteousness
(not because of muscular power and violence) the Son of man receives
investiture of UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGNTY! Others, like Alexander
and Timour, had aspired to this, but they were not worthy. Real merit shall
at length rise to the surface, and reach the topmost place. Before Him
“every knee shall bow,” either attracted by His grace or awed by His power.
To Him shall appertain, not a kingdom only, but transcendent glory, and
dominion born of love. All nations and languages shall ultimately serve Him,
and His kingdom shall be durable as eternity. Universality and permanency
are the indelible marks of MESSIAH’S EMPIRE!
The Kingdom of the Son of Man (vs. 13-14)
In contrast with the brutal godless kingdoms, we have here a description of
the higher final kingdom — its origin, character, and destiny.
Ø It comes from above. Divine providence inaugurates it, and heavenly
principles inspire it. Christ and His kingdom are from above (John
Ø It is in intimate relations with God. The Son of man “came to the
Ancient of days,” and was brought “near before Him.” The source
of the power of Christ is His oneness with the Father (John 10:30),
His dependence on the Father (Ibid. ch. 5:19), and His obedience to
the Father (Psalm 40:8; Hebrews 10:7).
Ø It is a gift of God. The other kings seized their power. To the Son of
man a dominion is “given.” Christ does not conquer the world by force.
He receives His kingdom through the influence of God’s grace and
providence on men (John 18:36).
Ø It is a true dominion. Christ came to save the world by ruling over it.
He is King as well as Redeemer. He claims obedience and more
thorough submission than the greatest earthly despot can exact, viz.
the submission of the heart (Colossians 3:23).
Ø It is typified by “the Son of man,” and therefore:
o more spiritual and higher in character than the godless
kingdoms which are represented by ravenous beasts;
o more humane, — gentleness and mercy are great characteristics
of Christ’s kingdom (Isaiah 32:2; 42:1-3; Matthew 11:28-30);
o characterized by oneness and sympathy with its subjects, —
the old monarchs were destructive tyrants, Christ is one
with His people, a son of man (Hebrews 2:14-18; 4:15).
Ø It is glorious. Christ was of humble earthly origin, and His kingdom
came in obscurity (Luke 17:20). Thus it was apparently inglorious
when compared with the pomp of worldly monarchies. But it has
God’s glory, THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS! This glory is seen
in its principles and in its achievements, triumphing over sin and
securing the peace and blessedness of obedience to God’s will
Ø It is to be universal. The greatest human monarchies were limited in
extent. Christ’s is to be world-wide.
o Christ claims all, and will not be satisfied till He has
recovered the lost (Isaiah 53:11).
o Christ suits all. He is the true “Son of man.” Therefore all
races can find THEIR SAVIOUR AND LORD IN HIM!
o Christ will attract all. His appeal is to the common human
heart of the world (John 12:32).
Ø It is to be everlasting. Other kingdoms are temporary, and subject to
final destruction. The kingdom of the Son of man is indestructible
o It is Divine, and the Divine is eternal (Psalm 145:13).
o It is righteous in principle. There is no evil in it to be a
seed of corruption (Psalm 72:7).
o It is founded upon eternal principles, not on maxims of
o It brings blessings which will be always of value (Matthew
The Enthronement of Christ (vs. 13-14)
“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man” (v 13).
Either after, or more probably in connection with, the destruction of the
fourth world-power, universal empire was given to Christ — the Messiah
of Hebrew expectation. We assume, for the present, that it is He who is
described in the next paragraph. That the assumption is well-founded will
the night, and behold! with the clouds of heaven like unto a Son of man
was advancing, and to the Ancient of days to come, and before Him they
caused Him to approach.”
Ø The Personage was Divine. Advancing, girt with clouds, marks the
Divine. Clouds hide the glory behind and beyond. They symbolize the veil
that dims the glory of God. Many are the scriptural passages to illustrate.
Select a few, and we shall see how the same idea starts up in successive
ages of the Church (Exodus 13:21; 14:24). If these describe the action
of the Angel-God, they are all the more pertinent as illustrations of this
passage in Daniel (Exodus 16:10; 40:34; Leviticus 16:2; II Chronicles
5:13-14; Psalm 97:2). Christ takes up these representations,
and applies them to Himself (Matthew 26:64). (In this last passage, note
“the Son of man” so again in Ibid. ch. 25:31.) Similar, though not
identical, is the imagery of II Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 1:7.
Holy Scripture is consistent in applying such descriptions only to God,
and to God in Christ. See the charge against one enemy of the Church
in olden time (Isaiah 14:13-14). These intimations of the Divine in
Christ of the Old Testament are like the gray that precedes the dawn.
If Daniel anticipated that the Messianic Deliverer would be one of the
race, it is clear, and will be clearer, that he had a glimpse of the truth
that He would be Divine.
Ø The personage was also human. “A Son of man.” The phrase is used
in the Old Testament:
o For man simply (Numbers 23:19).
o To remind the gifted and inspired of their oneness with the race.
So eighty times in Ezekiel (3:10-11, 17, et passim). So here the
advancing one was partaker of the infirmity (innocent) of the
race. With “clouds,” the engirdlement of the Divine, He might
come; so also like “a Son of man.” Of none other can this
double affirmation be made — except the Lord Jesus.
That the phrase here denotes the Messiah is clear:
o From a general consensus of rabbinical opinion.
o From the Lord’s own assumption of the name. Christ calls
himself “the Son of man,” though others call Him
“the Son of God.” What is its significance?
Answering, we do not limit ourselves to Daniel’s standpoint.
o The Christ was to be of the human race. The humanity is
Christologically as important as the Divinity, and each is
indispensable to the mediatorial office.
o In the name is an intimation of the universality of the Saviour’s
mission. An implied protest against Jewish exclusiveness.
“Son of David” points to the throne of
albeit the sway spiritual. “Son of man” to his relation to the race;
“Son of God” to His relation to the Eternal.
o Of world-wide dominion. “The Son of man” was to be no
ordinary mortal, but King of the race, and King for the race
(compare Psalm 8:4-8 with Hebrews 2:5-9). (A most
impressive missionary sermon might be preached from the words,
“Now we see not yet all things put under him [man]; but we see
Jesus!” - Ibid. v.8 - i.e. on the way surely to universal empire.)
Note in this connection the wide horizon of Daniel’s prophetic vision. It is
no longer merely
with the prophet’s historical position. His watch-tower is no longer
world-powers, their developments in relation to the everlasting rule.
Ø The King came from the heavenly world. Out of it, and down from it.
He “came with the clouds of heaven.” This empire is not like those that
arose out of “the sea,” from the turbulences of men.
Ø He received the kingdom from the Eternal. Abundant illustration will be
found in Matthew 28:18; John 3:35; 13:3;17:2; I Corinthians 15:27.
Ø The enthronement has no relation to the categories of time or space.
We are not to suppose that at some place, at some moment, there was
to be some literal fulfillment; that the Eternal under venerable form,
would sit on a throne; that the Christ would come to sue for empire,
etc. This is the rock on which many interpreters are wrecked. Nor is
there reference to the last judgment, for then Christ Himself is on the
throne. Broad views, free from mere literalism, on such matters are
Ø And yet there are the pomp and circumstance of an indefinite and
multitudinous accompanying of the King “They caused him to
approach.” A sort of grand indefiniteness in the expression. Not
alone does Jesus come to reign. (“Behold, the Lord cometh with
ten thousands of His saints, To execute judgment upon all, and
to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly
deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard
speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
Ø Supernatural in origin. “There was given Him.”
Ø Spiritual in character. Invisible rule over souls. We speak of the
empire of mind; we see in vision matter at the footstool of
intellect. But what shall we say of the empire of religion, of
Christianity, of Christ? Mind at the feet of Jesus, and, as a
consequence, all below mind! Imaginations cast down,
etc. (II Corinthians 10:5).
Ø Universal in extent. “All people,” etc,
Ø Everlasting. “Shall not pass away,” etc.
Excursus on “The Son of
The title given here to the Messiah for the first time, appears prominently
in the Book of Enoch, and becomes consecrated to us in the lips of our
Lord, as the favorite title by which He designated Himself as the Messiah.
The phrase, “son of man,” ben-adam, is used of man as contrasted with
God: Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man that he should lie, nor the son
of man that he should repent;” of man as weak: Isaiah 51:12, “Who art
thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of
man which shall be made as the grass?” (so Job 25:6; Psalm 144:3).
Again, it is used simply as equivalent to “man:” Jeremiah 49:18, “No
man shall abide there, neither shall son of man dwell in it” (see also
Jeremiah 51:43). The contrast, so far as there is a contrast, is between
vyai and μd;a;AˆB,. In the Psalms we have benee adam and benee ish
contrasted: Psalm 62:9, “Surely men of low degree (benee adam) are
vanity, and men of high degree (benee ish) are a lie.” This distinction does
not apply to Aramaic, in which enush is the only generally used word for
“man.” In the prophecies of Ezekiel the phrase becomes determinative of
the prophet. The question is complicated, however, by the fact that in
Eastern Aramaic barnesh, a contraction for bar-enasho, is used very
generally for “men,” as col-bar-nesh, “everybody.” It also occurs in this
sense in Targumic, though more rarely, as Job 5:7. The title here, then,
simply declares that one, having the appearance of a man, was seen coming
in the clouds of heaven. The phrase in the Peshitta for “the Son of man” is
batch d’nosh. It is implied that this mysterious Being had the form of a
man, but further, it is implied that he was other than man. In the Book of
Enoch the phrase has ceased to be descriptive merely, and has become an
appellation. Thus Enoch 46:1-2:
1 “And there I saw one who had a head of days, and His head was white
like wool, and with Him was another being, whose countenance had the
appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness like one of the
holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all
the hidden things concerning that Son of man, who He was, and why He
went with the Head of days.
2 And he answered and said unto me, This is the Son of man, who hath
righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteousness, and who reveals all the
treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of spirits hath chosen
Him, and His lot before the Lord of spirits hath surpassed everything in
uprightness for ever.”
This is clearly borrowed from the chapter before us. Elsewhere we have endeavored
to fix the date of this part of the Book of Enoch, as B.C. 210. Of course, in this view
the Maccabean origin of Daniel is definitely set aside. If, however, we take the date
assigned to this part by Mr. Charles, then we have a choice between approximately
B.C. 90 and B.C. 70. Even then the date seems too near the critical date of Daniel to
explain the rapid development the idea has undergone. In Daniel the person
“like a son of man”
may be a personification of
so; here in Enoch we have to do with a super-angelic being.
The view that it is the Messiah who is meant by the “Son of
man” was held practically by all interpreters, Jewish and Christian, until the
middle of last century.
If we look at the phenomenon of prophetism, we shall find ourselves open
to another view of the matter. From I Peter 1:10 we see that prophets
did not necessarily know the meaning of their own prophecies. It might
well be, then, that to Daniel the distinction between the Messianic King and
the Messianic kingdom was not one clearly apprehended. We see in the
prophecies of the second Isaiah that the “servant of the Lord” is first the
holy people, then the prophetic order, and latterly a person. There probably
was a similar uncertainty here. If we grant this indefiniteness, the next
question that rises is — What is the special aspect of the Messianic
kingdom that is intended to be portrayed when this title is given to its
King? If we are guided by what is incomparably the oldest interpretation,
that of the second Book of Enoch, this title implies an incalculable dignity.
When we come to our Lord’s use of it in the Gospels, there is nothing to
oppose this. Thus John 5:22, “And hath committed all judgment unto
Him, because He is the Son of man;” so Matthew 9:6, “The Son of man
hath power on earth to forgive sins.” This is not contradicted by
Ibid. ch. 8:20, “The foxes have holes,… but the Son of man hath not
where to lay his head.” The emphasis of the statement lies in the contrast
between the inexpressible dignity of the Person and the poverty of his
earthly circumstances. It is because the ideas of superhuman dignity had
been associated with the title that our Lord had, in foretelling his
approaching crucifixion,. to bring the two facts into close connection, “The
Son of man must be lifted up.” So after Peter’s confession, “The Son of
man must suffer many things.” We see that the multitude of the Jews
understood the title to have this lofty meaning, for they demand (John
12:34), “How sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this
Son of man?” The attempts to make it imply something humiliating by
dwelling on the fact that not adam or ish is the word for “man,” but
‘enosh, are beside the question, for these deductions apply to the Hebrew
words, not to .the Aramaic. And in Aramaic neither ish nor adam is in
common use as equivalent for “man.” It is as much beside the point as if
one, knowing the difference between man and mann in German, should lay
stress on the fact that in this phrase in English “man” has only one n.
The connection of this surpassing dignity with humanity has probably deep
roots in human nature.
15 “I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the
visions of my head troubled me. 16 I came near unto one
of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told
me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. 17 These great
beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the
earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and
possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.” The version of the
Septuagint differs in some points from the Massoretic. In the fifteenth
verse there is no reference to the spirit being in the body; it adds “of the
night” after “visions,” and changes “my head” into “my thoughts.” The
sixteenth verse presents no essential points of difference. In the seventeenth
verse the differences are more considerable, “These great beasts are four
kingdoms, which shall be destroyed from the earth.” There seems a good
deal to be said for the reading behind this version. The first variation,
“kingdoms” instead of “kings,” may be due to logic, but it has further
“destroyed from” instead of “arising out of,” which cannot have resulted
from the Massoretic. The verb qoom, “to stand up,” followed by rain,
“from,” is not elsewhere used in the sense which we find in the Massoretic
here. When one is prone on the earth, as Saul before the revelation of the
witch of Endor, “he stood up from the earth” (I Samuel 28:23, Targum
Jonathan) — word for word as here. When Abraham (Genesis 23:3,
Targum Onkelos) arose from before his dead, we have a similar
construction. In II Samuel 11:2, “David arose from his couch.” This
construction involves change of position, either directly or implicitly. It is
difficult to understand how the one reading arose from the other. The
condensation of the sense as it appears in the Septuagint is not likely to be
attained by a falsarius. In v. 18 there is nothing calling for remark, save
that the reduplication of “for ever and ever” is omitted. While Theodotion
is nearer the Massoretic text, he too differs from it in some points — his
rendering of nidnay by ἕξει – hexei - body. Schleusner thinks this probably
a false reading for εκστασἰς