Daniel 7
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
what follows.
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
heads (κεφάλαια
– kephalaia - chapters) of (λόγων- logon – narration).”
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
ἐνύπνιον - enupnion - dream) and
the visions of his head upon his bed,
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
come to
conducted the affairs of the monarchy. It was probably,
then, in this year,
when Cyrus had defeated the Scythians,
and had driven them out of
Media, and
Keen political insight might easily foresee the events in
the comparatively
immediate future. The rise of a vigorous new power like
that of
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
of
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
earth.
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
as the
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.
Moreover, the
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,
adjAˆm adj, as he renders ἓν
παρὰ τὸ
ἕν – en para to en –
one from another.
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
prophets; thus
crocodile, as “a
dragon” in Ezekiel 29:3
eagle (Ibid. ch.17:3). Composite beings are used as symbols
also, as
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 אריה is epicene. It is, however, to be noted that in later
Aramaic the terminal letter was א,
not ה. 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,” ˆ
גַפִּין (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
history of
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
symbol of
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,
unlimited, uncontrolled.
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 שׂ instead
of the ס is an
indication of antiquity in the
word בְּשַׂר (besar), which becomes in
the Targums בְּסַד. It has been
supposed that the reading should be בִשֵׁר (bishayr) with שׁ, 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 ˆ עלעין (‘il’een) “ribs;”
he maintains the true rendering
to be “tusks.” He identifies עלע with צלע (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 ניבי, 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
assail
There is nothing here to indicate the expectation that
Media should be a
pre-eminently destructive power. This applied correctly
enough to
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 – 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 פְרַשׁוּ. Theodotion and the
Peshitta do not differ from the Massoretic text. The majority of critical
commentators
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
of
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
the
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
preceding empires.
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
captured
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.
A Vision of Human Violence.
(vs. 1-8)
Dreams have a foundation in external fact. The mind
of man has a creative
faculty — a faint reflection of the Divine — and, when
released from the
domination of visible things, it asserts its original
power. Daniel was
advanced in years, had seen many changes in the government
of
and probably had been brooding seriously over the fortunes
and prospects
of the Hebrews. The past and the future were inextricably
interlaced.
·
NIGHT HAS ITS USES, AS WELL AS DAY. Night is not
an entire
blank in a man’s history. God is as much with us by night as by day.
“He
giveth his beloved sleep.”
(Psalm 127:2) But, at the same time, He
supports the
imagination and memory in
strange activity. Here we have a hint of the
separate life of mind and body. If
this occurs now, may not the mind be
amply active, while the body is
fast asleep in the grave? Night reveals to us
pictures, which the garish day dissipates.
Darkness is freighted with
celestial light. What is
darkness to the body need not be darkness to the
mind. Trial may have a rough
exterior, but there is latent good within.
Sorrow is endowed with a Divine power of benediction.
Death itself to the
saint is but a veil that hides the dawning light. Reality
is often the antipodes
of phenomenon.
·
MATERIAL THINGS
ARE MIRRORS IN WHICH MEN MAY SEE
THEIR TRUE CHARACTERS.
The mind, in its infantile state, is most
impressed with visible and
tangible things. “The great sea” is a significant
picture of the mobility and
restlessness of the multitude. The masses of
men, having no settled beliefs,
no fixed principles of action, are as fickle,
and as easily wrought upon, as
the unstable sea. As the briny waters are
promptly driven hither and thither
by every wind that blows, so the
multitudes are moved and tossed
by every passing passion — by the
faintest prospect of
self-advantage — or by the fevered ambition of a
stronger will than their own. The Jews, having relinquished their safe
anchorage, viz. faith in God, were driven helplessly north
and south, east
and west, by the wind passions of unscrupulous conquerors. It seemed as if
the four winds of heaven strive
at one and the same time upon this Hebrew
sea. “The wicked are like the troubled
sea.” (Isaiah 57:20)
·
UNTAMED BEASTS ARE THE APTEST SYMBOLS OF
MILITARY CONQUERORS.
One is like a lion, though, as years roll on,
he at length acquires a man’s
heart — the sensibility of human tenderness.
A second is like a leopard; yet
so swift is he for destruction, that the
fleetness of the leopard fails
to convey all the truth; therefore four wings of
a fowl are added to the symbol.
A third is like a bear, intent only on tearing
and consuming much flesh. A
fourth destroyer of men is so fierce and
death-breathing that not one of
the savage beasts in nature can represent
him. He is a “beast
dreadful and terrible,” having teeth of iron. It is rare
that beasts of prey make war
upon their own species, much less upon their
own kindred. God has provided
the wildest beast with but two horns, to
serve as weapons of defense; but
this human monster was furnished with
ten horns. One cannot but be
struck with the singular incongruities we
meet with in this prophetic
dream; yet even this fact is instructive. The
wildest vagaries of the
imagination are outstripped by the moral
incongruities of human character
and human conduct. Where shall we find
an incongruity so strange as
this — the wilful
degradation of the man to a
level lower than
the untrained beasts?
·
GOD’S PRESENT REVELATIONS TO MEN ARE PARTLY
OBSCURE, PARTLY CLEAR. “We know only in part; hence we
prophesy only in part.” We may
be sure that this arrangement is best. It is
an act of kindness and of wisdom
on the part of God. It serves to stimulate
inquiry on our part. We may
learn from it to cherish humility, inasmuch as
we are not at present competent
to receive larger communications of
God’s will. Thankful ought we to
be that we have enough knowledge of
God’s will for our practical
guidance; and when we have worked up all this
raw material into personal
service, we shall obtain more. God “made
known His ways unto
Moses,” but His acts only unto “the children of
of the attractions of the heavenly state, that fresh light
will continually be
shed upon the past history of our race, as well as upon
the wisdom of the
Divine government.
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.
We see:
·
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
been broken,
Empire fell,
“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
godless kingdoms.
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
notice.
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
12:47-48).
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
sections:
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 πνεῦμα – 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
Nebuchadnezzar’s
until it fell before one
mightier than itself. So do governments
without God go down.
Ø
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
invasion of
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
returned from
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.
Ø
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
disjointed.”
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
the
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.
The
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
life.
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 λέγει– 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
Version; where the Septuagint has προσκυνήσατε
αὐτῷ πάντες
οἱ ἄγγελοι
αὐτοῦ –
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
text, - καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν
αὐτῷ πάντες
υἱοὶ θεοῦ
- kai proskunaesatosan auto
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
8:23).
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);
and,
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
(Colossians 1:27).
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
and everlasting.
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
temporary expediency.
o
It brings
blessings which will be always of
value (Matthew
5:3-12).
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
immediately appear.
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
best.
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.”
Jude 1:14-15)
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
אִישׁ and בֶּן־אָדָם. 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.
2. 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 - ekstasis – trance. However, in Judges 14:9
we have ἕξει
used for “body.” In
the seventeenth verse we have “kingdoms”
instead of “kings.” The last clause agrees with the Massoretic, but there is
subjoined ἀναστήσονται
– anastaesontai – shall arise - “which shall be taken
away” — an addition that suggests that some of the
manuscripts before
Theodotion had the same reading as that before the Septuagint
translator.
He renders yeqoomoon
rain by ἀναστήσονται
ἐπὶ - anastaesontai epi –
shall arise out of - showing that at all
events he had a different preposition.
The reduplication of “for ever and ever” is omitted. The Peshitta v. 15
has “in the midst of my couch” instead of “in the midst of my body."
In the seventeenth verse the preposition is not min, but ‘al. Jerome, instead of
corpus, “body,” has in
his, “in these,” — as if he had read b’idena
instead of
nidnay; he also in v. 17 reads regna, not reges. The Massoretic
text has some
peculiarities. The
first words afford one of the rare instances where we have
the ‘ithpael instead of
the hithpael; it may be due to scribal correction. In
the
seventeenth verse ‘inoon
(K’thib) affords an instance of the frequent
Syriasm in Daniel. The “Most High” is rendered by a plural
adjective,
עֶלְיונִין, (‘elyoneen); it is explained differently. Kranichfeld and Stuart
regard it as pluralis excellentiae. Bevan and Behrmann regard it as a case
of attraction, the latter giving as parallel instances, hence
‘ayleem
(Psalm 29:1) and benee nebeem. The difficulty remains that neither the
pluralis excellentiae nor change of number is known in Aramaic. The fact
that this strange form has produced no effect on any of the
versions makes
the reading suspicious. Professor Fuller sees in this word
a proof of
Babylonian influence, but he does not assign his
reason. We now enter a
new stage in the development of this vision. After the
wonderful assize has
ended, Daniel dreams that he is still standing among these
innumerable
multitudes, and, feeling that all these things are symbols,
he is grieved
because he cannot comprehend what is meant by them. So from
one of
those attendants who crowd the canvas of his vision he asks
an
explanation, or rather “the certainty,” of this vision; he
wishes to know
whether it is s mere vision or of the nature of a revelation.
This is a
perfectly natural psychological condition in dreaming. In
the act of
dreaming we question ourselves whether we are dreaming or
not; we may
even ask one of the characters in our dream the question.
The
interpretation is interesting, but has been already, to
some extent
forestalled. A difficulty is seen by some commentators —
how these four
kingdoms could be said to arise, when one of them was
nearing its fall. If
we take the reading of the Septuagint, this difficulty is
obviated. Saadia
Gaon makes these four kings the nominative to the verb
“receive”
(wrongly translated in our Authorized Version, “take”), and
maintains each
of these empires shall hold the kingdom of Israel UNTIL
THE MESSIAH
SHALL COME! This view would
necessitate grammatically that the
Messiah should never come, but that the reign of these four
world-empires
should be prolonged into eternity. “The saints of the Most High,” in
the
thought of Daniel would be, of necessity, the Jews; for we
need not discuss
the possibility of the angels being the holy ones implied
here — they always
have the kingdoms of the world under them — but we may see
the Israel
of faith in this figure. The believers in Christ are the
true Israel, and the
kingdom of heaven which Christ set up is thus promised to
fill the earth.
The Church is thus the true ultimate state. If we regard
the Church as a
society formed of those who are mutually attracted to each
other, have a
mutual love for each other, and have a common love to God,
then all the
history of the world is tending towards the establishment
of such a society,
universal as the world. National hatreds are much less
acute now than they
were. (This was written a couple of centuries ago. A lot has happened and
is happening since then, so much that the Scripture seems
to be fulfilled
before our very eyes!
Jesus said, “When ye see these things come to pass,
then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth
night!”
Luke 21:28 – CY – 2014)
Despite the efforts to rouse class against class,
there seems more sympathy between classes than there was.
(Once again,
this was written long ago.
In the study of ch. 2:43, I was especially
struck at the seeming fulfillment today of the words “they
shall mingle
themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to
another.” - I refer to the Arab- Israeli situation in the Middle
East,
treatment of Christians in
with the illegal immigrant situation thrown in! – CY –
2014) The final
break-down of national and class oppositions, not
necessarily by the
abolition of either class or nation, will prepare the way for
the
Christ-commanded love which is the tie that unites the members
of the true eternal Church of God
19 “Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast,
which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful,
whose teeth
were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake
in pieces,
and stamped the residue with his feet; 20 And of the ten horns that were
in his head, and of the other which came up, and before
whom three
fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very
great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. 21 I beheld, and
the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed
against them;
22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given
to the saints
of the Most High; and the time came that the saints
possessed the
kingdom.” In regard to the
version of the Septuagint here, we have the
advantage of Justin Martyr’s transcription, in which, however, the
difference from the Chigi texts
are not of great importance. The Septuagint
here is pretty close to the Massoretic
text. “Behold” has intruded into the
text;
it is, however, omitted from Justin Martyr. Another clause,
evidently a
doublet, is emitted also, and the clause assumes nearly the
shape it has in
Theodotion. It is difficult to imagine how the reading of the
Septuagint arose.
The differences from the Massoretic
text are for the rest not essential. This
is the case with Theodotion and
the Peshitta. These verses to some extent
recapitulate the earlier description of this fourth beast.
There are, however,
features added — to the “iron teeth” of the
seventh verse are added “claws
of brass.” The
main change is in regard to the little horn that came up last.
We not only learn here that three other horns were plucked
up before it,
but the personification is now carried further, and the
horn makes war,
then it is not warfare against a nation, but against a
community like a
Church. If we look upon the Christian Church as succeeding
to the position
of Israel, then Rome persecuted the Church, and persecution
ceased only
when Rome became Christian. But a wider view opens itself
to us. All
modern states are in a sense a continuance of Rome, and so
far as they do
not submit themselves to the direction of Christ, they are
still at war with
the saints. It is only when the Son of man comes in His
power that the
kingdom will belong to the saints. It is to be observed,
the figure of an
assize is still kept up, and “judgment is given to” or “for
the saints,” and in
virtue of this decision they possess the kingdom.
23 “Thus he said, The fourth boast shall be
the fourth
kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms,
and
shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and
break it in
pieces. 24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten
kings that shall
arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be
diverse from
the first, and he shall subdue three kings. The Septuagint
differs in some minute points from the Massoretic text. The text as given
by Justin Martyr is slightly shorter by omitting some
words. Theodotion
and the Peshitta also agree. What
remarks can be made on this have been
made already. It is to be observed that it is the whole
earth that is devoured
by the fourth beast as presented to us now. In the earlier
presentation,
although very terrible, his devastation is limited. There
is nothing said to
indicate that the kings are successive, but the inference
rather is that they
are contemporaries. If the fourth kingdom is the Greek Empire, then ten is
a number far too small for the various kings of the various
dynasties that
sprang up. There were seven or eight Lagids,
as many Seleucids, three or four
Attalids, five or six Antigonids, not to speak of such men as Lysimaehus and
Perdiccas, who were kings, but who did not found dynasties. If the
fourth kingdom
Is tacitly reduced to the Syrian kingdom, then how is it
explained that the
author of ‘Daniel’ was ignorant, in the seventh chapter,
that the Lagids
were also successors of Alexander as well as the Seleucids?
25 “And he shall speak great words
against the Most High,
and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think
to change
times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until
a time and
times and the dividing of time. 26 But the judgment shall sit, and they
shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it
unto the
end. 27 And the
kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the
kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the
people of the
saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting
kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey Him.” The versions do not
present
much of note in, v. 25, save that the Greek versions imply
that dominion
over all is given to the oppressors. Throughout the Septuagint has traces of
explanatory expansion. He
shall speak words against the Most High. The
word “against,” letzad, is
really “to the side of.” This clause may refer to
blasphemy against God, but more naturally refers to
self-exaltation to a
place alongside of God. Shall wear out the saints of the Most High.
Persecute them, or maintain war against them; the natural
meaning of the
word is “afflict.” And
shall think to change times and laws. It ought not to
be “laws,” in the plural, but “law.” It may refer to the
marked changes
introduced into the calendar by Julius Caesar. Certainly
the law or
constitution of the Roman state was changed by him. And they shall be
given into his
hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Who
shall be given into his hands? It is usually assumed that
it is the saints; hut
the Septuagint asserts that it is universal dominion that
is given into the hands of
the oppressors. We have no right to assume that ‘iddan, “a time,” means “a
year;” it is really any defined time. Certainly it does
approximate to the
time during which the temple was polluted with heathen
offerings; but it
also coincides with equal accuracy to the campaigns of Vespasian and
Titus against the Jews. Vespasian
landed in
67, and
approximately, three years and a half occupied by this war.
But “centuries”
might also be meant. From the birth of our Lord, on whom
the oppression
was first exercised, till the accession of Constantine, was
three centuries
and a portion of a century. The judgment shall sit. Not necessarily the last
judgment, but the evil that is being done comes before God
for judgment.
The taking away of the kingdom and dominion is immediately
at the end of
the period indicated by “a time and times and a dividing
of time.” The
dominion was not taken away from Epiphanes
then, nor from Vespasian; it
did, however, pass from the heathenish empire when
Constantine ascended
the throne. At the same time, any such purely limited
explanation is against
the whole symbolic character of this vision. It is a period
of time measured
by “seven” halves. The times may receive their
definition, not from the
calendar, but from their spiritual import or dynamic
content. The three
years of our Lord’s ministry is of more moment for the
history of the race
than all the millennia that preceded it.
28 “Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me
Daniel, my
cogitations much troubled me and my countenance changed in
me:
but I kept the matter in my heart.” The first clause
here is in the Septuagint
joined to the preceding verse, and rendered, “And all power
shall be given
to him, and they shall obey him to the end of the matter” —
a connection
that in many ways is suitable. The difficulty is thrown
further back. To
whom is this power to be given, and whom are all to obey?
The Septuagint
clearly takes the reference to be to the little horn, as
“end” is rendered by
καταστροφῆς – katastrophaes.
The more common view is that
the reference here is to the Son of man as the Head or the
embodiment of the Messianic kingdom. The remaining portion
of the verse
is rendered, “I Daniel was exceedingly overcome with
astonishment, and
my habit (ἕξις
– hexis) was
changed to me, and the word I confirmed in my heart”
— a translation that does not seriously differ from the Massoretic.
Theodotion and the Peshitta render from a
text practically identical with
the Massoretic. As for me Daniel, my cogitations
much troubled me. The
prophet himself did not understand the revelation that had
been made to
him, even after he had received the explanation. Further,
there was the
thought of the distress that would befall his own people. And my
countenance
changed in me. “My splendour,” “brightness.”
Daniel was
now an old man; but yet there might be a certain
brightness, the remains of
his former personal beauty. He becomes pale and emaciated
as he
meditates on what he has seen. But I kept the matter in my heart. Thus
Mary retained in her heart all the wonders she had seen
regarding her Son.
This statement is introduced as a guarantee that the vision
is correctly
recorded. Daniel retained the vision in his mind, and so
was ready to
recognize the fulfillment of a portion.
(I studied Daniel from the Pulpit Commentary in the early
1960’s – I
remember being on a basketball trip at
and I was studying it.
Then, it was hard reading and now also.
I regret
that there is not more help here. We must look to the Author, the Holy
Spirit for help! However, I personally have received quite a bit of
insight on this study of Daniel with the Pulpit Commentary, but
this chapter has been difficult. CY – 2014)
The Great Antagonist (vs. 15-28)
“I beheld, and the same horn,” etc. (vs. 21-22). In introducing this
subject, let the following interesting facts be noted. The
dream occasioned
Daniel great anxiety. “Even
I Daniel grieved was my spirit, in the midst of
[its] sheath.”
The soul a sword in its scabbard. He solicited information
from one of the myriads in attendance on the Eternal. In
answer, two or
three suggestions were made, leading Daniel to inquire
further, which he
did, especially respecting the fourth brute power. The
angelic interpreter
explained, and also gave additional touches to the picture,
of which we
shall make use in the homily. All this is the dream,
mark! We shall assume
that the single horn does not stand for the antichrist of
the Old Testament,
viz. Antiochus Epiphanes; and
that the schemes of interpretation which
involve that it does so break down. The reasons for that
assumption we
could give, but would be more proper to the body of a
critical commentary
than to a homily. We must assume all this in homiletical treatment. This
prophetic Scripture throws forward lights, then, on:
Ø
It was the
fourth brute world-power. (v. 17.)
Ø
Its genius
differed from those that had gone before. “Diverse,”
etc. (v.23).
Ø
It appropriated
to itself the good of every land. “Shall devour,” etc. (v. 23).
Ø
Its tyranny
was oppressive. “Shall tread,” etc. (Ibid.).
Ø
It survives
until the final overthrow of all brute-power by the
establishment of
the eternal kingdom. Rome imperial,
Rome dismembered,
Rome papal, are still Rome. “One!
— one
mighty and formidable power,
trampling down
the liberties of the world; oppressing and persecuting the
people of God,
the true Church; and maintaining an absolute and arbitrary
dominion over
the souls of men; as a mighty domination standing in the
way of the
progress of truth, and keeping back the reign of the saints on
earth.”
Ø
The “ten horns” were sovereignties.
Ø
Developments
of the
Ø
Contemporaneous.
Ø
The exact
designation of them is not necessary.
The “ten” have been
designated. But differences of opinion have arisen.
This not surprising seeing that
the new powers arose in a time of great
confusion, and the boundaries
were frequently changing. Perhaps strict
literal and numerical exactness
is not to be expected. The vague character
of prophecy generally would
warrant a contrary conclusion.
wonderful fulfillment of
Daniel’s dream. But it is necessary in all
contemplation of the Romish religious system to distinguish carefully and
ever in our minds between the
Christian element in it, and the corruption of
that Christian element. (As
illustration of this distinction, Collette’s ‘
Novelties of Romanism,’ R.T.S.,
is invaluable.)
Ø The “other” horn was another
sovereignty.
Ø
It sprang
from the Roman domination. Papal
represents
possessing the same capital,
etc.
Ø
It came into
being after the dismemberment. After the
ten.
Ø
Small at the
beginning. From the apostolic age there
had been a bishop
at
of civil power. When?
This one of the most difficult questions in history.
Different theories of
interpretation depend on the answers. Enough that
so small was the beginning, that
none can answer with certainty — when?
Ø
The sovereignty
differed from all other. (v. 24.) Combination of
spiritual with secular
power. This involves a mighty difference.
Ø
It displaced
other sovereignties. (v. 25.) “He
shall subdue three
kings.” Either three kingdoms went down before it, or a third,
about
a third of the power and
influence of existing monarchies disappeared.
Distinct governments vanished
before the rising papacy; and the papacy
Itself assumed civil functions.
Here again it is not necessary to involve
the broad incontrovertible facts
with questionable historic detail
(see end of v. 20). “More
stout” refers to the magnitude finally
attained.
Ø
Has been
distinguished by a far-seeing sagacity. “Eyes
like the eyes of
a man.” A sagacity of human sort, not Divine. The diplomacy of
Rome,
the sublety
of the Jesuit, are notorious. The historical illustrations,
medieval and modern, are
infinitely varied and innumerable.
Ø
By
blasphemy. (v. 25.) “He shall speak great words
against the Most
High.” Blasphemy
o
either denies
to God something of His essential glory;
o
or assumes the
names, attributes, and works of God for the
creature. In both senses
the papacy has been guilty. The
illustrations are
numberless which are to be found in the
doctrine, ritual, practice,
and history of the Roman Church.
Some of them terrible. Many
of them are now open before
us, but we cannot present
them here in our limited space.
o
By persecution.
o
The new
sovereignty has” changed times and law.” Not “laws,”
but the fundamental and
eternal law of right. Of this, too, the
illustrations are without
number.
Ø
The dream
even now waits fulfillment. Much has been
fulfilled, but
Much remains to be.
Imperial
kingdoms have arisen; and a
part of their power has disappeared
before the growing
supremacy of papal
within the last half-century
been shorn of its strength. (Early
1800’s) Still much remains for the future to
disclose.
Ø
The time is definite,
though to us, as we believe, unknown.
Ø
But will
certainly fall. (vs. 11, 26.) Note the
reason in v. 11.
Ø
Then to rise
no move. (vs. 11, 26.) Are explicit and strong.
everywhere, theirs for ever. War was indeed made against the saints,
achieved, too, a certain
success. But principle never dies. The final victory
lay with the persecuted.
Dominion passed over to them. In what sense? We
might say that good men made the
laws, but this would be a poor thing to
say. Rather is this the truth —
that the need of government almost
passed
away. THE INFLUENCE
OF CHARACTER WAS ENOUGH. Some
judicial administration might be
necessary to arrange debatable points. But
deliberate crime had now become
non-existent. To illustrate: Mr. Goldwin
Smith, after saying that, in a
particular instance, “not the special form of
the government, but the
comparative absence of necessity for government,
is the thing to be noted and
admired,” goes on to say, “The proper sphere
of government is compulsion. The
necessity for it in any given community
is in inverse proportion to
the social virtue and the intelligence of the
people. The policeman, the executioner, the tax-gatherer, — these
are its
proper ministers, and the
representatives of what we call its majesty. It is
destined to
decrease as Christianity increases, and as force is superseded by
social
affection, and spontaneous combination for the public good. The
more a community
can afford to dispense with government, the more
Christian it
must be” (‘The Civil War in
days gives over empire to the
Son of man; His sovereignty is exercised
through His saints. They have
something of his own sway. What is that?
The sway of spiritual supremacy.
The rule of righteousness. The law of
love. The
empire of
Godly Obedience the Basis of
Permanent Dominion (vs. 28).
Wisdom and
righteousness are the qualities of a real king. Daniel, though
not ambitious of a material sceptre,
yet, by virtue of his weighty influence,
swayed the destinies of the Babylonian empire. He ruled by
an
unpretentious grace.
·
GOOD MEN ARE
MORE CONCERNED FOR GOD’S CAUSE
THAN FOR ANY SELF-EXALTATION. Daniel was grieved in spirit, not
because of personal ill, nor
from fear of the lions’ den, but because of the
obscurity of the vision; in
other words, because of the uncertain fortune of
God’s kingdom. The symbol of the
fourth beast seemed to betoken
disaster, suffering, yea, even
destruction, for the people of God. That
under the violence of this
unnatural monster the saints of the Most High
should be worn out with
oppression, and that rude wickedness should
prevail; this distressed
and overwhelmed the heart of Daniel. He lived for
one object. His life, from the
early days of youth, had been directed
towards one end — viz, the reversal of
restoration of the Hebrews to
content; if this event was
shrouded in doubt, he grieved. In his ease self
was repressed — kept down. He
was consumed with pious zeal for others’
good — for God’s honor. Never once do we find him plotting for his own
elevation or for his own
interests. He did not live for fame. Yet he had it.
He thought mainly of God, and
God set his thought and care upon him. He
had so completely identified
himself with God’s cause on earth, that all his
interest and happiness were
indissolubly bound up with it. Herein God
observed his promise, “Them
that honor me I will honor.” (I
Samuel 2:30)
To him heaven
was open. He moved in the society of angels. And, when his
mind was
enveloped with difficulty, he gladly sought counsel and instruction
from one of the heavenly host. A
wise man will ever seek to increase his
wisdom. He welcomes light from
every quarter.
·
SELF-EXALTATION
IS EVENTUALLY DOOMED TO
DESTRUCTION. The nature of man has great possibilities both of
elevation and descent.
He who will be a monarch, be the methods what
they may, shall be degraded to
the level of a beast. These four human
sovereigns are represented by
the Spirit of truth as four beasts. They were
so rapacious after rule, that,
on the road, they did not hesitate to devour
much flesh. A thousand, or a myriad,
human lives were, in their estimation,
nothing, so long as they could climb to a throne, and see their
proud wills
obeyed. Yet they were
only beasts in the guise of men. They had the tastes,
inclinations, ferocity, of brutes. The fourth in the contemptible series was
so wanton and
lustful in his rage, that not one of the wild beasts on earth
could fitly
represent him. He was a very prodigy
of brutality. But empire so
gained could not continue. The
seeds of decay were sown in it from the
beginning. “They that use the sword shall
perish by the sword.” Their
success is but for a moment — a
vapor, which barely appeareth, and then
for ever vanisheth.
Who can point us today to an earthly throne, which has
been founded by military arms,
and has endured? Vaulting
ambition has
always
overleaped itself. They that have
determined to be rulers, be the
cost what it may, shall sink into infamy — into the pit of human
scorn.
“The judgment shall sit.” A King of all other kings calmly rules, with
irresistible sceptre, in a
higher sphere; and woe be to the puny
tyrant that
dares resist His will! Jehovah hath “prepared His throne in the heavens;”
(Psalm 103:19) and this is a fundamental principle in His kingdom: “He
that exalteth himself shall be abased.” (Matthew
23:12) They that bite and
devour shall be consumed one of another.
·
LOWLY
GOODNESS SHALL RISE TO A GLORIOUS AND
PERMANENT THRONE. They who sink self shall rise into the possession
of a better nature and of a
loftier state. To live for others is heroic — godlike.
Real goodness thinks little
about itself — is blind to its own virtues
and charms. It deems others’ merits superior to its own,
others’ faults to
be less. Its eye is mainly fixed upon the true standard of
excellence, and it
strains every nerve to reach
that. So long as that is beyond, unattained, it
mourns and grieves. The mark of
true saints, in their present state, is not
perfection, but consecration. They are God’s devoted ones — “the
sacramental host of His elect.”
Their characteristic mark is loyalty —
growing
holiness. They are devoid of personal
ambition. If they have
crowns thrust upon them, they
will place them at once at the service of
their Lord. To acquire wisdom, righteousness, love, — this is their
ambitious aim, even to be worthy
friends of the King of grace. In
process
of time they become “more
than conquerors” (Romans 8:37) for
they
acquire a conquest which is permanent and irreversible — a conquest which
serves as a vantage-ground for higher conquest yet. Whether the
dominion,
which the saints of God obtain, is over evil principles, or over
living
personalities, or over men, may remain an open question. It may very
properly
be said to include all. It is a dominion over self, over sin, over death, over
Satan, yea, over their fellow-men. For, in the nature of things, in
proportion
as any man
has wisdom, purity, love, he rules with invisible sceptre
over other
men. Yet, kings and priests though the saints are, they are
willing vassals
under Christ. He
is “Lord of all.”
Excursus on the Four Monarchies
of Daniel.
Among the visions in Daniel, two are conspicuous as being
all but
universally acknowledged to be parallel to each other — to
be twofold
symbols of the same great truth. They have this
peculiarity, that they are
parts of the Aramaic portion of Daniel, which is otherwise
mainly
historical. The first of these visions is given to Nebuchadnezzar, and is
intensified to him by the fact that after he had forgotten
it, or had bound
himself not to tell it, it is recalled to him by the grace
of God, who had
given it in a new vision to Daniel. The king dreams of a
colossal image,
with head of gold, arms and chest of silver, belly and
thighs of brass, legs
of iron, and feet partly of iron and partly of clay. Then
suddenly a stone,
cut out of the mountains without hands, smites the image on
the feet, and it
falls and becomes as the small dust of the threshing-floor,
and is carried
away of the wind, while the stone becomes a great mountain
and fills the
earth. (ch. 2:31-35). This is interpreted of four successive
monarchies,
the first of these being the Babylonian. This is the beginning of the
Aramaic portion of Daniel.
The second vision is given to Daniel himself, and is
related in this chapter
vs. 1-8, which forms the conclusion of the Aramaic portion
of Daniel. This sea,
presumably the
wings like an eagle; its wings were plucked, and a man’s
heart was given to
it. The second beast was like a bear, that raised itself up
on one side, and
had in its jaws three ribs. The third beast was like a
leopard which had four
wings. The fourth beast was great and terrible, unlike any
of the former
beasts, breaking in pieces and trampling under foot. It had
ten horns. In the
midst of its horns another, an eleventh horn, sprang up,
and there were
rooted out before it three of the former horns. At this
point the end of the
solemn drama is placed — God, the Ancient of Days, appears
to judgment.
Then comes a Son of man in the heavens, and the dominion
is given to Him.
Thus the judgment here described is not the final judgment.
The fourth
beast is burnt up with fire; the other beasts have their
dominion taken
away. The interpretation follows, which makes the four
beasts four kings,
or four monarchies. The fourth is
to be diverse from all its predecessors,
and to make war against
the people of God.
The number of the kingdoms, being four, points to an idenity,
as also the fact that both assert that the Messianic
kingdom — the terminus
ad quem of all apocalypse — will be revealed after the setting up
of the
fourth kingdom without any intercalated power. We shall,
then, assume
these two visions to present the same scheme of universal
history under
different aspects.
When we look at this double vision, the first thing that
strikes us is the
unique breadth of view
exhibited. If we may for the nonce accept the
traditional
interpretation, we see the whole course of history, from the
days of Nimrod down to the
present time, portrayed; nay, beyond the
present, on to the
millennium and the last judgment.
We ought not scientifically to assume, without proof, that
prophecy that
foretells is impossible. The Jews believed in foretelling prophecy. “When
a prophet
speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come
to pass, that is
the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet
hath spoken it
presumptuously.” (Deuteronomy 18:22).
The early Christians believed in prophecy
that foretold;their whole
argument against the Jews was the recital of what the
prophets had spoken. To
deny that prophecy foretells is to assert that Christianity is
founded on a gigantic
blunder. Closely connected with this is the belief that
the prophets did not necessarily comprehend the meaning of
their own
words, as in I Peter. 1:11 we are told that they had to “search
what, and
what manner of time the Spirit which was in them did
signify.” This is
involved in the primitive idea of prophecy and inspiration,
as may be seen
by the oracles. The priestess that gave the enigmatic
answer at Delphi was
not supposed to know what was the meaning of her own words.
The whole
critical assumption that the words of a prophet were absolutely
conditioned by his
environment, is utterly unscientific, as all unproved
assumptions are. On
the ground of that gratuitous assumption, critics have
no right to assert that no more can be in a prophecy than
the prophet who
uttered it could have fully understood.
We would make another preliminary observation. Apocalypse
was a mode
of composition of which we have many examples — one other
besides
Daniel being canonical. To understand Daniel, then, we
ought to apply the
canons of interpretation which may be deduced from other
apocalypses,
especially from the Book of Revelation. One of these that is of special
importance is the way numbers are used as marks by which
identities are
indicated. Thus in Revelation the dragon, the beast that
came out of the
waters, and the scarlet beast on which the woman sat, are
recognized to be
all symbols of one and the same antichristian power — Rome, by the fact
that always we have the seven heads and ten horns
prominent. Towards
God it is diabolism, towards the saints it is a
devouring beast, and to the
world at large the “harlot.” On the other hand, the
beast that came out of
the earth, that had two horns, is different.
If we apply this principle to Daniel, we can maintain the
identity of the two
visions — before us: first, because each had four members;
next, we can
identify the fourth kingdom in each series by the facts
that there are ten
toes to the feet of the image, and ten horns upon the
fourth beast — the
prominence of the number ten proves the identity of
the two. The second
empire in the image has duality as its ruling mark — there
are the two
shoulders; and the bear raises itself up on one side,
implying the other. This
twofoldness is intensified in the vision of the “ram” and “he-goat;”
the ram
has two horns. The third monarchy has no number
prominent in the image vision,
but has four wings as the third beast. When we pass
to the next
vision, we find that, when the “he-goat” loses his notable
horn, .four others
spring up. And in the eleventh chapter the empire of
Alexander was divided
to the four winds of heaven.
While this is an affirmative principle, it is also a
negative one. On the
ground of the identity of prominent numbers, we may assume
the identity
of the thing symbolized, though symbolized by diverse
symbols; on the
other hand, where prominent numbers are diverse,
notwithstanding a
general resemblance, we can assume a diversity in the thing
symbolized.
Thus the little horn of the eighth chapter is very like,
superficially, to the
eleventh horn of the seventh chapter: but the difference of
numerical
relations compells us to regard,
them as symbols of different things. It was
the identity here assumed that led Delitzsch
to abandon the traditional view
of the fourth monarchy, and give in his adhesion to the
critical view. When,
however, we look at the numerical relations of the two, we
find they are
wholly different. In the seventh chapter the eleventh horn
does not belong
to any of the previous horns, and dispossesses three of
them; on the other
hand, the little horn of the eighth chapter springs out
from one of the four
horns — it is not an independent horn, but a sprout from
one of the extant
horns. Further, there are no horns dispossessed or uprooted
before it. These
prominent differences override the resemblance of the one
having a mouth
speaking great things and making war with the saints, and
the other being a
king that understood dark sentences, and made war against
Messiah the
Prince. Notwithstanding this superficial resemblance, we
are compelled to
maintain the real difference. Surely more than one tyrant
made war against
the saints and persecuted them. At all events, this must be
said — that the
numerical difference renders it illegitimate to draw any
argument from the
purely superficial resemblance above referred to.
Having considered these preliminaries, let us look now at
the various
interpretations that have been put forward of these
visions. First, there is
the common, as it may be called, the traditional view,
which, as we all
know, makes the first empire the Babylonian, the second the
Medo-
Persian, the third the Greek, and the fourth the Roman. This
view is
repudiated with one consent by all critics; to admit that
the Roman was
intended would be to admit that prophecy foretold, and
that, Scripture
notwithstanding, is tacitly assumed to be impossible. Mere
negation is not
enough; it is necessary to replace the ancient view by some
other that will
enable the interpreter to say that not the Roman, but the
Greek, is the
fourth empire.
The problem before critical interpreters, then, is to show
how there can be
four mornarchies beginning with Nebuchadnezzar and ending with the
Greek, or at all events the Seleucid Empire. We may neglect
a scheme
referred to Ewald by Pusey, but which in his Commentary on Daniel Ewald
does not adopt, namely, that the Ninevite
monarchy is the first, and the
Babylonian the second. This interpretation contradicts the
words of Daniel
when he interprets the dream to Nebuchadnezzar.
He says to
Nebuchadnezzar, “Thou art this head of gold” (ch.2:38).
We would note is that the symbol of this second empire
implies duality
(Medes and Persians). The two arms
of the image show it clearly. (ch. 2:32)
The second beast which lifted itself up on one side implied that same
duality (v. 5). When we turn to the eighth chapter, we find
a ram with two
horns, the one of which that came up last outgrew the one
that sprang up
earlier. There we find the same duality in unity as
symbolized in the other
symbols. That one of the two elements should be the more
powerful is
implied in the bear that raised itself up on one side. No one can deny that the
Persian Empire presented a dual aspect to those outside. In
Herodotus and
Thucydides Μήδἰζειν is to side
with the Persians. Herodotus calls the
great Persian war τα Πέρσὶκαὶ.
The proofs of the unity of the empire of the Medes and the
Persians are
numerous in Daniel. When Daniel interpreted the inscription
on the wall, he
had before him Upharsin,
“and fragments;” he sees in this that the
Babylonian kingdom would be broken by the Persians —
an interpretation
that involves a play on the words פְרַס, “to divide,” and פְרַס, “a Persian;”
there is nothing about Medes in the inscription. Yet Daniel says the
kingdom is given to the Medes and the Persians. Further,
the prophecy
which declared that the Babylonian Empire would be
overthrown by the
Persians is regarded as fulfilled when Darius the Mede receives
the
kingdom. Again, when Darius publishes the decree that
condemns Daniel
to the lions’ den, he is moved to establish the decree
“according to the law
of the Medes and Persians, which altereth
not.” When Darius would
rescind the decree, he is met by this immutability of the
laws of the Medes
and the Persians. If the empire was Median,
why was the name Persian
appended thus? If it be objected that Medes is
placed before Persians, Dr.
Pusey rightly remarks that this is in all likelihood due to the
court
politeness of those about a Median satrap, or king. Boys in
Scotland often
play at a game which they invariably call “Scotch and
English,” never
“English and Scotch,” yet the disparity in population,
extent, and influence
is greater between England and Scotland than that between
Persia and
Media. If one had no end to serve by denying it, it would
seem impossible
to deny that the Persian Empire was regarded as a dual
empire by the
author of the Book of Daniel; and that, in his view, in
this empire the Mede
had almost an equal place with the Persian; that, in short,
in the Persian
Empire the Medes occupied much the same position as the
Scotch do in
the English.
The third empire is the Greek. It has four as its
numerical note. The
leopard has four wings. The goat that symbolizes
chapter has four horns. These wings are the symbol
of rapidity of
movement. As a matter of history, the conquests of
Alexander were made
with extreme rapidity. He ascended the throne of
twenty, in B.C. 336. In two years he had subdued the whole Balkan
peninsula. In B.C. 334 he crossed the
conquered Asia to the Oxus and
the Indus, and
the
nearly as extensive conquests. On the ground of the
suitability of the
symbol to the facts of the Greek conquest, we would say
that the third
empire is that of Alexander and his successors. The symbol
in the image-vision
is not so clear, but the metal, bronze, was one that was
much used
by the Greeks for armour, and,
moreover, was eminently suitable for
artistic purposes; hence it was a suitable symbol for the
Greek power.
On this traditional theory the fourth empire is the Roman.
We have spoken of the New Testament Apocalypse. There are
three
beasts introduced with ten horns; two of these are
certainly
fourth beast in Daniel has ten horns. Evidently, then, the
Apostle John had
no doubt as to the reference of Daniel’s beast with ten
horns The
Apocalypse of Baruch was probably written in B.C. 60. and
there the
Roman power is expressly designated as the fourth kingdom.
Here is direct
evidence, coming down to little more than a century after
the critical date
of Daniel, that in Jewish opinion the fourth empire in
Daniel was the
Roman.
We admit there are difficulties in interpreting the
features of this fourth
monarchy. In approaching this part of our subject, we would
lay it down as
a principle that, in interpreting apocalyptic writings, we
are to be guided by
notes of interpretation to be found in them. One of these
notes of
interpretation we find in Revelation 17:9, “The
seven heads are seven
mountains, and they
are seven kings.” Here we find the
numerical note
which points out the city of Rome. The number seven has
two meanings:
“mountains,” the seven hills of Rome; and “seven kings,”
presumably the
seven rulers of Rome, Nero being the seventh and Pompey the
first. There
may be a reference to the seven kings of Rome. Whatever the
interpretation here, at all events this much is clear — the
symbols carry
double. With this
principle, let us approach this symbol of the ten horns. The
magistracies of Rome were, roughly speaking, ten — two
consuls,
originally two praetors, two censors, and four tribunes.
The imperial power
was utterly unknown to the Roman constitution; but it,
coming up after the
others, absorbed the power of three of these magistracies —
the
tribunitian, the praetorian, and censorial. Certainly the imperial
dignity had
a mouth speaking great things. Not only was the emperor
regularly deified
on his decease, but even during ‘his life he was saluted as
a present deity.
Temples were erected to Augustus during his lifetime, and Caius Caligula
could hardly be restrained from compelling the Jews to
worship his statue.
But these horns may not only be co-ordinate and
contemporary, but also
successive. From the
standpoint of Judaism, what was the greatest injury
inflicted on the holy people by
include in the rank of rulers Pompey, who certainly had burned
in his
personality upon the Jews by his profanation of the temple,
and certainly
bulked more largely in the eye of every one, Romans or
foreigners, than
any preceding Roman, as we may see by reading
Manilia,’ then Vespasian was the
eleventh ruler, and before him three
emperors, Galba, Vitellius, Otho, had been
removed.
The interpretation is not yet exhausted. It has been
recognized that the two
legs represent the twofold division of the empire into
eastern and western
Although this was only made actual by Diocletian,
the division existed in
reality from the first between the subjects speaking Latin
and those
speaking Greek. Taking this as our starting-point, there
could easily be
enumerated ten powers, Eastern and Western, that may form
the ten toes
of the image. The number ten is not to be taken with
arithmetical
exactness. The imperial power of Russia may be symbolized
as that which,
arising beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire and of the
kingdoms
formed from it, seems likely to overstep her present
limits, and, it may well
be, shall swallow up three other powers. This latter
interpretation we
merely throw out as suggestive.
The critical school have some difficulty in making out
their ten rulers, who
are symbolized by the ten horns. Porphyry drew on the
Egyptian Ptolemies
to fill out the deficiencies of the Seleucids. That is
evidently an illicit
process. The more general scheme now is to start with
Alexander the
Great, then take the successive Seleucids; as they are not
enough, Heliodorus,
who never was king, is inserted. If, however, the fourth
beast is the
Greek power, and Alexander is to be taken as the first
monarch, then all his
successors, Lagids, Antegonids, and Attalids, as well
as Seleucids, have to
be reckoned — a number to be counted by scores rather than
tens. Were it
not for the necessity they are under to make the fourth
monarchy the
Greek, this attempt would have been acknowledged to be a
failure.
Before we leave this, we must consider this point — the
growing
degradation of the powers that succeed the Babylonian. In
what sense
could Babylon be the head of gold, while Persia was silver,
Greece bronze,
and Rome iron? It is evident that this inferiority is not
one of extent of
territory; for the successive monarchies were each more
extensive
geographically than its predecessor. In what, then,
consists the inferiority?
The only suggestion that seems to me at all to meet the
case, is one made
by Dr. Bonnar of East Kilbride, in his ingenious book, ‘The Great
Interregnum.’ In looking at this question, we must begin by
divesting
ourselves of all our preconceived notions of representative
government and
freedom of the people, in fact, all our Western ideas, and
look at monarchy
with the eyes of an Oriental. To an Oriental that monarchy
is highest that is
likest Divine sovereignty. Only the most absolute monarch can at
all, in
idea, represent Divine sovereignty. The Babylonian
government had this
absoluteness — the king’s will was law, without cheek or
limitation. This,
as the likest to the Divine
government, was the head of gold. The Persian
monarch had the seven nobles — so to say, peers of the
crown — that
limited his authority. The hereditary satraps formed a
further limitation.
This was silver, not gold. This monarchy had still much of
the Divine
absoluteness in it, but not so much as the Babylonian, The
Greek Empire
still retained many of the features of Oriental
absoluteness, as many of the
features of Oriental magnificence, but they limited their
own authority by
the introduction of autonomous cities all over their
dominions. Along with
the Greek city life there was a certain independence and
freedom assigned
to the individual, that limited the action of the monarch.
He was no longer
removed from all men by an immense distance; with all his
absoluteness, he
was a Greek among Greeks. Still, the idea of the monarchy
was kept up.
There is thus a further degradation — the age of bronze is reached;
the
age
of gold is past,
and even
that of silver. With Rome, the empire that was
diverse from all others, the monarchical idea disappeared. The emperor
was simply Imperator of a republic. He might be
deified in his lifetime,
might wield absolute power in actuality, but in idea he was
but the servant
of the Roman Republic. The bronze had given place to iron.
If we carry our
eyes down the ages to the kingdoms that have succeeded the
Roman
Empire, monarchy has ceased to have much power at all. The
iron now is
mingled with the miry clay. The progress of constitutional history all over
the world has been the lessening of government authority,
and setting the
individual free. (Then why is the greatest example the
world has ever known,
The United States of America, drifting the other way, back
into governmental
overreach, UNLESS WE ARE NEARING THE END TIMES AND THE
APPEARANCE OF THE ANTI-CHRIST? - CY –
2014) The stone cut out
of the mountain, so far as material
goes, is at a still lower level in regard to value
than the iron mingled with the miry clay. Individualism
becomes absolute in
Christianity when the believer, in exercise of his absolute
personal right over
himself, SURRENDERS
HIMSELF ABSOLUTELY into the hands of
JESUS CHRIST!
The Messianic kingdom, foreseen by the prophet, and foretold in the stone
in the vision of the image, and in the Son of man in that
of the four beasts,
looks forward to a time beyond the present, when all civil
governments will
have ceased, when the Church shall be manifest as the true
state, when
Christ, the Anointed of the Lord, ALONE SHALL REIGN! This prophecy is
not fulfilled in Christ’s coming in weakness as the Babe at
Bethlehem, nor in
his life of sorrow and death, of shame and suffering. No; it is
in His coming
the second time, without sin, unto salvation (Hebrews 9:28). It is failure to realize
this that leads Bishop Westcott
to maintain the fourth monarchy to be the Greek.
He somehow thinks that the fourth kingdom must have passed
away before the
Messiah comes. But in the image-vision the stone was cut
out of the mountain
before the image had disappeared. When a person approaches this subject
with a set of presuppositions, he is all the less likely to
reach a true
conclusion. Looked at in the way it presents itself to us, this SUBLIME
SCHEME of universal history terminates only when the
kingdoms of this
world are become the kingdoms of our God and of His
Christ; when the
promise made to the Son by the Father, that He should have
the heathen for
His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for
his possession, SHALL
BE FULFILLED! Only some such time
of universal peace can adequately
CONCLUDE HISTORY and
FULFIL
PROPHECY!. (See Revelation
11:15;
Psalm 2:8)
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com