Daniel 7 1 14 commentary

A verse by verse commentary on Daniel 7 1-14 dealing with Daniel’s Dream of Four Beasts,

1. DANIEL 7 1-14COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Daniel’s Dream of Four Beasts
1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon,
Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through
his mind as he was lying in bed. He wrote down
the substance of his dream.
BARNES, "In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon - On the
character and reign of Belshazzar, see Introduction to Dan. 5 Section II. He
was the last of the kings of Babylon, and this fact may cast some light on the
disclosures made in the dream.
Daniel had a dream - Margin, as in Hebrew, saw. He saw a series of events
in vision when he was asleep. The dream refers to that representation, and
was of such a nature that it was proper to speak of it as if he saw it. Compare
the notes at Dan_2:1.
And visions of his head upon his bed - See the notes at Dan_4:5.
Then he wrote the dream - He made a record of it at the time. He did not
commit it to tradition, or wait for its fulfillment before it was recorded, but
long before the events referred to occurred he committed the prediction to
writing, that when the prophecy was fulfilled they might be compared with
it. It was customary among the prophets to record their predictions,
whether communicated in a dream, in a vision, or by words to them, that
there might be no doubt when the event occurred that there had been an
inspired prediction of it, and that there might be an opportunity of a careful
comparison of the prediction with the event. Often the prophets were
commanded to record their predictions. See Isa_8:1, Isa_8:16; Isa_30:8;
Hab_2:2. Compare Rev_1:19; Rev_14:13; Rev_21:5. In many instances, as in
the case before us, the record was made hundreds of years before the event
occurred, and as there is all the evidence that there could be in a case that
the record has not been altered to adapt it to the event, the highest proof is
thus furnished of the inspiration of the prophets. The meaning here is, that
Daniel wrote out the dream as soon as it occurred.
1

2. And told the sum of the matters - Chaldee, “And spake the head of the
words.” That is, he spake or told them by writing. He made a
communication of them in this manner to the world. It is not implied that
he made any oral communication of them to anyone, but that he
communicated them - to wit, in the way specified. The word “sum” here -
שׁאר rē'sh- means “head”; and would properly denote such a record as would
be a heading up, or a summary - as stating in a brief way the contents of a
book, or the chief points of a thing without going into detail. The meaning
here seems to be that he did not go into detail - as by writing names, and
dates, and places; or, perhaps, that he did not enter into a minute
description of all that he saw in regard to the beasts that came up from the
sea, but that he recorded what might be considered as peculiar, and as
having special significancy.
The Codex Chisianus renders this, ἔγραψεν ἐις κεφάλαια λόγων egrapsen eis
kephalaia logōn- “He wrote in heads of words,” that is, he reduced it to a
summary description. It is well remarked by Lengerke, on this place, that
the prophets, when they described what was to occur to tyrants in future
times, conveyed their oracles in a comparatively dark and obscure manner,
yet so as to be clear when the events should occur. The reason of this is
obvious. If the meaning of many of the predictions had been understood by
those to whom they referred, that fact would have been a motive to them to
induce them to defeat them; and as the fulfillment depended on their
voluntary agency, the prophecy would have been void. It was necessary,
therefore, in general, to avoid direct predictions, and the mention of names,
dates, and places, and to make use of symbols whose meaning would be
obscure at the time when the prediction was made, but which would be
plain when the event should occur. A comparison of Dan_7:4, Dan_7:9,
Dan_7:11, Dan_7:14, will show that only a sumptuary of what was to occur
was recorded.
Matters - Margin, as in Chaldee, words. The term words, however; is often
used to denote things.
CLARKE, "In the first year of Belshazzar - This is the same Belshazzar
who was slain at the taking of Babylon, as we have seen at the conclusion of
chap. 5. That chapter should have followed both this and the succeeding.
The reason why the fifth chapter was put in an improper place was, that all
the historic parts might be together, and the prophetic be by themselves;
and, accordingly, the former end with the preceding chapter, and the latter
with this. The division therefore is not chronological but merely artificial.
Told the sum of the matters - That he might not forget this extraordinary
dream, he wrote down the leading particulars when he arose.
GILL, "In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon,.... Daniel having
finished the historical part of his book, and committed to writing what was
2

3. necessary concerning himself and his three companions, and concerning
Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede, proceeds to the
prophetic part, and goes back to the first year of Belshazzar's reign,
seventeen years before his death, and the fall of the Babylonish monarchy
last mentioned; for so long Belshazzar reigned, according to Josephus (u);
and with which agrees the canon of Ptolemy, who ascribes so many years to
the reign of Nabonadius, the same, with Belshazzar: he began to reign,
according to Bishop Usher (w), Dean Prideaux (x), and Mr, Whiston (y), in
the year of the world 3449 A.M., and 555 B.C.; and in the first year of his
reign Daniel had the dream of the four monarchies, as follows:
Daniel had a dream: as Nebuchadnezzar before had, concerning the same
things, the four monarchies of the world, and the kingdom of Christ, only
represented in a different manner: or, "saw a dream" (z); in his dream he
had a vision, and objects were presented to his fancy as if he really saw
them, as follows:
and visions of his head came upon his bed; as he lay upon his bed, and deep
sleep was fallen on him, things in a visionary way were exhibited to him
very wonderful and surprising, and which made strong impressions upon
him:
then he wrote the dream: awaking out of his sleep, and perfectly
remembering the dream he had dreamed, and recollecting the several
things he had seen in it; that they might not be lost, but transmitted to
posterity for their use and benefit, he immediately committed them to
writing:
and told the sum of the matters; the whole of what he had dreamt and seen;
or however the sum and substance of it, the more principal parts of it, the
most interesting things in it, and of the greatest importance: when it was
daylight, and he rose from his bed, and went out of his chamber, he called
his friends together, and told them by word of mouth what he had seen in
his dream the night past; or read what he had written of it, which was as
follows:
HENRY, "The date of this chapter places it before ch. 5, which was in the
last year of Belshazzar, and ch. 6, which was in the first of Darius; for
Daniel had those visions in the first year of Belshazzar, when the captivity of
the Jews in Babylon was drawing near a period. Belshazzar's name here is,
in the original, spelt differently from what it used to be; before it was Bel-
she-azar-Bel is he that treasures up riches.But this is Bel-eshe-zar-Bel is
on fire by the enemy.Bel was the god of the Chaldeans; he had prospered,
but is now to be consumed.
We have, in these verses, Daniel's vision of the four monarchies that were
oppressive to the Jews. Observe,
I. The circumstances of this vision. Daniel had interpreted
Nebuchadnezzar's dream, and now he is himself honoured with similar
3

4. divine discoveries (Dan_7:1): He had visions of his head upon his bed,when
he was asleep; so God sometimes revealed himself and his mind to the
children of men, when deep sleep fell upon them (Job_33:15); for when we
are most retired from the world, and taken off from the things of sense, we
are most fit for communion with God. But when he was awake he wrote the
dreamfor his own use, lest he should forget it as a dream which passes
away; and he told the sum of the mattersto his brethren the Jews for their
use, and gave it to them in writing, that it might be communicated to those
at a distance and preserved for their children after them, who shall see
these things accomplished. The Jews, misunderstanding some of the
prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, flattered themselves with hopes that,
after their return to their own land, they should enjoy a complete and
uninterrupted tranquility; but that they might not so deceive themselves,
and their calamities be made doubly grievous by the disappointment, God
by this prophet lets them know that they shall have tribulation: those
promises of their prosperity were to be accomplished in the spiritual
blessings of the kingdom of grace; as Christ has told his disciples they must
expect persecution, and the promises they depend upon will be
accomplished in the eternal blessings of the kingdom of glory. Daniel both
wrote these things and spoke them, to intimate that the church should be
taught both by the scriptures and by ministers' preaching, both by the
written word and by word of mouth; and ministers in their preaching are to
tell the sum of the mattersthat are written.
JAMISON, "Dan_7:1-28. Vision of the four beasts.
This chapter treats of the same subject as the second chapter. But there
the four kingdoms, and Messiah’s final kingdom, were regarded according
to their externalpolitical aspect, but here according to the mind of God
concerning them, and their moralfeatures. The outward political history
had been shown in its general features to the world ruler, whose position
fitted him for receiving such a revelation. But God’s prophet here receives
disclosures as to the characters of the powers of the world, in a religious
point of view, suited to hisposition and receptivity. Hence in the second
chapter the images are taken from the inanimate sphere; in the seventh
chapter they are taken from the animate. Nebuchadnezzar saw superficially
the world power as a splendid human figure, and the kingdom of God as a
mere stone at the first. Daniel sees the world kingdoms in their inner
essence as of an animalnature lower than human, being estranged from
God; and that only in the kingdom of God (“the Son of man,” the
representative man) is the true dignity of man realized. So, as contrasted
with Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, the kingdom of God appears to Daniel, from
the very first,superior to the world kingdom. For though in physicalforce
the beasts excel man, man has essentially spiritualpowers.
Nebuchadnezzar’s colossal image represents mankind in its own strength,
but only the outward man. Daniel sees man spiritually degraded to the beast
level, led by blind impulses, through his alienation from God. It is only from
above that the perfect Son of man comes, and in His kingdom man attains
his true destiny. Compare Psa_8:1-9with Gen_1:26-28. Humanity is
impossible without divinity: it sinks to bestiality (Psa_32:9; Psa_49:20;
4

5. Psa_73:22). Obstinate heathen nations are compared to “bulls” (Psa_
68:30); Egypt to the dragon in the Nile (Isa_27:1; Isa_51:9; Eze_29:3). The
animal with all its sagacity looks always to the ground, without
consciousness of relation to God. What elevates man is communion with
God, in willing subjection to Him. The moment he tries to exalt himself to
independence of God, as did Nebuchadnezzar ( Dan_4:30), he sinks to the
beast’s level. Daniel’s acquaintance with the animal colossal figures in
Babylon and Nineveh was a psychological preparation for his animal
visions. Hos_13:7, Hos_13:8would occur to him while viewing those
ensigns of the world power. Compare Jer_2:15; Jer_4:7; Jer_5:6.
Belshazzar — Good Hebrewmanuscripts have “Belshazzar”; meaning “Bel
is to be burnt with hostile fire” (Jer_50:2; Jer_51:44). In the historyhe is
called by his ordinary name; in the prophecy,which gives his true destiny,
he is called a corresponding name, by the change of a letter.
visions of his head — not confused“dreams,” but distinct images seen
while his mind was collected.
sum — a “summary.” In predictions, generally, details are not given so
fully as to leave no scope for free agency, faith, and patient waiting for God
manifesting His will in the event. He “wrote” it for the Church in all ages; he
“told” it for the comfort of his captive fellow countrymen.
K&D, "The time here indicated, “in the first year of Belshazzar,” which
cannot, as is evident, mean “shortly before the reign of Belshazzar” (Hitz.),
but that Daniel received the following revelation in the course of the first
year of the reign of this king, stands related to the contest of the revelation.
This vision accords not only in many respects with the dream of
Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2), but has the same subject. This subject,
however, the representation of the world-power in its principal forms, is
differently given in the two chapters. In Daniel 2 it is represented according
to its whole character as an image of a man whose different parts consist of
different metals, and in Daniel 7 under the figure of four beasts which arise
one after the other out of the sea. In the former its destruction is
represented by a stone breaking the image in pieces, while in the latter it is
effected by a solemn act of judgment. This further difference also is to be
observed, that in this chapter, the first, but chiefly the fourth world-
kingdom, in its development and relation to the people of God, is much
more clearly exhibited than in Daniel 2. These differences have their
principal reason in the difference of the recipients of the divine revelation:
Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, saw this power in its
imposing greatness and glory; while Daniel, the prophet of God, saw it in its
opposition to God in the form of ravenous beasts of prey. Nebuchadnezzar
had his dream in the second year of his reign, when he had just founded his
world-monarchy; while Daniel had his vision of the world-kingdoms and of
the judgment against them in the first year of Belshazzar, i.e.,
Evilmerodach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, when with the
death of the golden head of the world-monarchy its glory began to fade, and
the spirit of its opposition to God became more manifest. This revelation
5

6. was made to the prophet in a dream-vision by night upon his bed. Compare
Dan_2:28. Immediately thereafter Daniel wrote down the principal parts of
the dream, that it might be publicly proclaimed -the sum of the things(
ןיִלִּמ
שׁאֵר
) which he had seen in the dream.
רַמֲא
, to say, to relate, is not opposed
to
בַתְכּ
, to write, but explains it: by means of writing down the vision he
said, i.e., reported, the chief contents of the dream, omitting secondary
things, e.g., the minute description of the beasts.
CALVIN, "Hear. Daniel begins to offer instruction peculiar to the Church. For God
had formerly appointed him an interpreter and instructor to, profane kings. But he
now appoints him a teacher to the Church, that he may exercise his office within it,
and instruct the sons of God in the bosom of the Church. We must notice this first of
all, because thus far his predictions extended beyond the limits of the household of
faith, but here Daniel’s duty is restricted to the Church. He says: This vision was
bestowed upon him in the first year of King Belshazzar, before that change
happened, which we have previously seen. First of all, we must try to understand the
design of the Holy Spirit; that is, the end and use for which he opened up to Daniel
the material of this chapter. All the prophets had held out to the elect people the
hope of deliverance, after God had punished them for their ingratitude and
obstinacy. When we read what other prophets announce concerning their future
redemption, we should suppose the Church to have been promised a happy, quiet,
and completely peaceful state, after the people had returned from captivity. But
history testifies how very differently it turned out. For the faithful must have grown
weary and have fallen away unless they had been admonished of the various
disturbances which were at hand. This, then, is the first reason why God revealed to
his Prophet what we shall soon see; namely, that three monarchies yet remained,
each of which should succeed the former, and that during them all the faithful
should endure permanently and constantly in reliance on the promises, although
they should see the whole world shaken, and severe and distressing convulsions
prevailing everywhere. For this reason, Daniel’s vision concerning the four empires
is here set forth. Perhaps it will be better to defer the summary of it till the Prophet
begins to treat of each beast separately. But with regard to the two first verses, we
must observe the time of the dream.
Before the Medes and Persians transferred the Chaldean Empire to themselves, the
Prophet was instructed in this subject, that the Jews might recognize the partial
fulfillment of what God had so often promised themselves and their fathers. For if
their enemies had possessed Babylon without any new prediction, the Jews perhaps
would not have been so attentive to those prophecies which had been long ago
uttered in their favor. Hence God wished to refresh their memories, and then, when
they saw the fall of that empire which all thought to be impregnable, they would
perceive the government of God’s secret counsels, and the partial, if not the
complete fulfillment of what he had testified by their prophets. He says — he saw a
dream When he previously spoke of the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar he
6

7. mentioned a vision, but not for the same reason, because the unbelieving when
seeing do not observe. They perceive something indeed, dimly and without
distinctness, while their thoughts immediately fade away. The Prophet’s method was
different; because he not only dreamed, but saw a distinct vision, and thus could
profitably deliver to others what he had received. The Prophet then expresses
something peculiar by this phrase, for we know how prophets usually attribute such
visions to God, when they perceive the secrets of heaven, not with the eyes of flesh,
but by the illumination and intelligence of the Spirit. He adds — visions of his head
were on his bed; thus the dream would have more weight, and lest we should think
any confusion existed in Daniel’s brain. Thus he expresses how he saw whatever the
Lord wished him to know in a dream with a calm mind. He afterwards adds —
Then he wrote the dream, and explained the meaning of the words. By this phrase
he teaches us how his seeing the vision was not for his own sake personally, but for
the common edification of the Church. Those who suppose Daniel to have leapt
suddenly from his bed, lest he should forget the dream, offer a vain and frivolous
comment. Daniel rather wished to bear ‘witness to this vision as not peculiar to
himself, but common to God’s elect people; and hence not only to be celebrated
orally, but to be delivered to posterity for a perpetual remembrance. We must bear
in mind these two points; first, Daniel wrote this prophecy that the knowledge of it
might ever be celebrated among the faithful; and then, he considered the interests of
posterity, and so left the vision written. Both these points are worthy of notice to
induce us to pay greater attention to the vision, since it was not delivered for a single
individual; but God chose Daniel as his minister, and as the herald and witness of
this oracle. Hence we see how it concerns us; it was not teaching for any single age,
but it extends to us, and ought to flourish till the end of the world. He repeats the
same thing by adding — he explained the sense of the words. For those who
separate these two clauses, seem to stumble on plain ground. (2) Daniel then spoke
and said — This has no reference to words, but to writing; as if the Prophet had
said, I have discharged my duty; since he knew that what we shall afterwards see
concerning the four monarchies was not divinely entrusted to him for the sake of
suppressing anything made known, but he rather felt himself a chosen instrument of
God, who was thus suggesting to the faithful material for trust and endurance. He
spoke, therefore, and explained; that is, when he desired to promulgate this oracle,
he bore witness to there being no difference between himself and God’s Church in
this announcement; but as he had been an elect and ordained teacher, so he
delivered what he had received, through his hands, Hence Daniel not only
commends his own faith, but excites all the pious to anxiety and attention, lest they
should despise what God had pronounced through his mouth.
Verse 2
He repeats again, He saw in his vision during the night. Again, I say, Daniel affirms
that he brought forward nothing but what God had authoritatively delivered to him.
For we know that in the Church all human traditions ought to be treated as
worthless, since all men’s wisdom is vanity and lies. As God alone deserves to be
listened to by the faithful, so Daniel here asserts that he offers nothing of his own by
7

8. dreaming: in the ordinary way, but, that the vision is sure, and such as cannot
deceive the pious.
He afterwards adds, Behold! the four winds of heaven fought in a great sea. I much
prefer this rendering. Interpreters differ respecting the winds, but the genuine sense
appears to be this; Daniel assumes a simile universally known, for on solid ground
any such turbulent concussion is seldom heard of as at sea, when any mighty
tempest arises. Without doubt, he here proposes the image of a raging sea to warn
the faithful against dreadful commotion at hand, just as, if the sea were agitated
with storms and raging with tempests on all sides. This is the meaning of the phrase.
Hence he names four winds, to show the faithful how the motion which should
shatter the globe should not be single and simple, but that various storms should
arise together on all sides — exactly as it happens. We may’ sometimes see the earth
moved just as if a tempest were, tossing about the sea in all directions, but the
motion will yet be single. But God wished to show his Prophet not only a simple
concussion, but many and different ones, just as if all the winds were to, meet in one
general conflict. Philosophers, indeed, enumerate more winds than four when they
desire to treat of the number with precision, but it is the common phrase to speak of
four winds blowing from the four quarters or regions of the globe. The sense,
however, is clear and by no means forced — the world being like a troubled sea, not
agitated by a single storm or wind, but by different. conflicting blast., as if the whole
heavens conspired to stir up commotion’s. This vision at the first glance was very
bitter to the faithful, because they counted the years prescribed to them by
Jeremiah; the seventieth year was now at hand, and God had then promised them
an end of their troubles. Now God announces that they must not indulge in the hope
of rest and joy, but rather prepare themselves for sustaining the rush of the fiercest
winds, as the world would be everywhere agitated by different storms. They might
perhaps suspect God of not performing his promises, but this ought, to be sufficient
for appeasing their minds and propping them up with the hope of redemption, when
they saw nothing happen either rashly or by chance. Again God came to meet their
temptations lest their courage should fail, by teaching them that the method of their
redemption was not quite so easy as they had previously conceived from former
predictions. God indeed had not changed his plans, for although a long period had
elapsed since he spoke by Isaiah and the other prophets, yet he wished to prepare
the Jews against delay, lest it should break down the courage which would be
required to meet such great afflictions. But when redemption really approached,
then God explained its method more fully and familiarly, and showed how great and
severe were the remaining struggles. Hence the faithful, instructed by such
prophecies, would contend strenuously and yet proceed constantly in their course of
faith and patience. It now follows, —
COFFMAN, "Practically all scholars, whether liberal or conservative, are convinced
that the prophecy of this chapter follows the same pattern as that in Daniel 2, and
that the "four beasts" appearing here are to be identified with the four parts of the
great image with the head of gold which appeared in Daniel 2. This means also that
the same critical errors alleged in their interpretations of Daniel 2 are repeated in
8

9. this chapter, where against all reason, and opposed to the plainest facts, critical
enemies of the Bible insist on identifying the fourth of the world empires prophesied
here as that of the Greeks and Macedonians under Alexander the Great.
The greatest minds of human history, as well as many of the intellectual giants of
our own millennium, have unanimously and invariably identified the "four beasts"
of this chapter as Babylon, Medo-Persia, the Greeks, and the empire of the Romans.
Note the following:
"The traditional theory is that the fourth empire is the Roman."[1]
"The common Jewish belief much earlier than the fourth century was that the
fourth empire was the Roman."[2]
"The Fourth Book of Esdras (dated near the beginning of the Christian era)
describes the Roman power as an eagle and expressly identifies the Roman empire
as the fourth beast of Daniel."[3]
The apostle John, as we found in our studies of the Revelation, did not hesitate to
identify the beast with the ten horns as Rome.
"The apocalypse of Baruch which was written about 60 B.C. expressly designates
Rome as the fourth beast of Daniel."[4]
The Bible teaches that the kingdom of God was to be established in the days of the
"fourth beast"; and that of course was during the times of the Roman empire.
Trying to force the interpretation that Alexander's kingdom was the fourth beast
reduces the prophecy to an absurdity.
"The interpretation commonly received in the church (throughout history) is that
these four kingdoms (or beasts) are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-
Grecian, and the Roman. On this opinion, Martin Luther wrote, 'All the world are
agreed, and history and fact abundantly establish it.'"[5]
"Sir Isaac Newton stated that the fourth beast is undoubtedly that of the Roman
empire and devoted an entire chapter to his exposition of how the little horn rooted
out three of the ten horns."[6]SIZE>
From the above, it is absolutely clear that when this prophecy is approached
intellectually, the traditional and we believe authentic understanding of the
prophecy is absolutely valid. The greatest minds of two millenniums could hardly be
wrong about what the language says and means. Besides, anyone who will put his
mind to the task of discerning what is meant by the words of these chapters (Daniel
2 and Daniel 7) cannot fall to discern the truth.
How then does it come about that the near-unanimous opinion of critical scholars
9

10. today shifts from the true interpretation? It is very important that this be properly
understood.
The a priori bias of the critical schools today which deny the supernatural, reject
any such thing as predictive prophecy, reject all ideas of the miraculous, do not
believe in the inspiration of Bible writers, and in fact reject every major premise of
Christianity, including all of its fundamentals such as the resurrection of the dead
and the final judgment - this bias, this necessity which they have taken upon
themselves to deny everything in the Bible that contradicts their godless prior
assumptions forces them to deny a book like Daniel.
Keil stated that the true understanding of Daniel prevailed until about the end of
the last century; but when faith in the supernatural origin and character of Biblical
prophecy was shaken by Deism and Rationalism, the prophecy of the Roman
Empire under the figure of the fourth best was denied. On what grounds? Here is
the logic (?). Since there is no such thing as predictive prophecy, the author of
Daniel could not have prophesied anything that he had not seen and witnessed; and,
since the very earliest that they dared to allege the date of Daniel had to be placed
subsequent to what is prophesied, they misinterpreted clear and undeniable
references to the Roman Empire as being references to the empire of Alexander!
Then they arbitrarily, and against all evidence and all reason, moved the date of
Daniel to the times of the Maccabees (about 165 B.C.). This meant, of course, that
Daniel could not have written the book.
The whole fraudulent position of critical enemies of the Bible is apparent in such
shenanigans as that!
Furthermore, look at the writings of the whole fraternity of the Bible enemies;
there is not an original idea in all of them put together. They are all parroting the
same outdated, exploded, disproved and ridiculous arguments that were first
advocated a hundred years ago. We are willing to admit this: if one is willing to give
up all hope, reject the claims of the Christian religion, and enter upon a sensuous
unbelieving existence apart from God and without hope in the world, these critical
enemies of God's Word are exactly the crutch that he needs. Any truth in their evil
postulations? Certainly not.
Daniel 7:1
"In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions
of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream and told the sum of the matters."
"This dream and the visions were special, divinely-imposed revelations from God,
as the rest of the chapter shows? We are here dealing, not with an ordinary dream
of Daniel, but with a revelation from God.
Some of the inscriptions excavated from Babylon indicate that Nabonidus was
10

11. actually king, leading to charges that this contradicts the Biblical account where
Belshazzar is seen as the king when the nation fells But, as Thomson said, "We now
know that for five years during the nominal reign of his father Nabonidus,
Belshazzar was acting as king."[9] This solves the difficulty.
COKE, "Introduction
Daniel's vision of four beasts, and of God's kingdom. The interpretation thereof.
Before Christ 555.
THE historical part of the book of Daniel was finished with the last chapter; the
remaining part of this book acquaints us with the visions which at different times
were communicated to the prophet himself. The interval of time from the first to the
last of these visions is about one or two-and-twenty years, that is to say, from the
first year of Belshazzar mentioned at the beginning of this chapter to the third year
of Cyrus at the beginning of chapter 10th. The first vision or dream is contained in
the 7th chapter, and is the only one that is written in the Chaldee language; and
perhaps the similarity of it to the dream of Nebuchadnezzar which the prophet had
related and expounded at chapter 2: might have been one reason why this same
language was here adopted; and the benefit designed by it for the impious king in
whose reign it was delivered, another. What was there prefigured by a large statue,
composed of various metals, is here pointed at by a very different sort of emblems,
each suited to the disposition or character of the persons to whom the
communications were made. Four beasts are, in this dream, designed to signify the
four great monarchies or kingdoms, according to the interpretation of an angel; and
some circumstances relating to the fourth beast are intended to adumbrate a series
of events which were to reach to the latest ages of the world.
ELLICOTT, "Introduction
EXCURSUS E: THE FOUR KINGDOMS (Daniel 2, 7).
In the notes upon the parallel, though supplementary, vision contained in Daniel 2, 7
attention has been directed to each of the four empires which has hitherto governed
the world. It has been explained in the notes that these four empires are the
Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Græco-Macedonian, and the Roman. The fourth
empire in each case is succeeded by the kingdom of the Messiah, which in Daniel 2 is
symbolised by a stone, but in Daniel 7:27 is described more clearly as the “kingdom
of the people of the saints of the Most High.” This view of the four kingdoms is
found in the early part of the second century A.D. maintained by the author of the
epistle of Barnabas, who speaks of the ten kingdoms (Barn., Ep. iv. 4, 5) foretold by
Daniel as then existing, and of the fourth beast as then reigning. The fragments of
St. Hippolytus show that the same opinion prevailed in the Church a century later.
11

12. The longer ecclesiastical commentaries of St. Jerome and Theodoret maintain the
same opinion, which has been followed in modern times, with some modifications,
by a large number of commentators.
A second view, of great antiquity, is mentioned by Porphyry, who flourished in the
third century. His opinion coincided with the interpretation just mentioned up to a
certain point. He made the panther, or third beast, represent Alexander the Great;
but the fourth beast, according to him, meant the four successors of Alexander. He
then enumerated up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes those kings whom he
conceived to have been most remarkable for persecuting God’s people in the times
of the Ptolemies and Seleucidæ, and ultimately identified the little horn with
Antiochus Epiphanes, in whose time he believed the Book of Daniel to have been
written. This view has not been without support in recent times.
A third view, which has antiquity to support it, is due in the first instance to St.
Ephraim Syrus, according to whose teaching the four kingdoms are the Babylonian,
the Median, the Persian, and the Greek. He is careful, however, to point out that the
fulfilment which the prophecy received in the times of the Maccabees is only typical
of a further fulfilment to be expected in the last days. It exceeds the limit of a note to
trace the origin of this opinion in the Syrian Church, and the development of it in
modern times. It is sufficient to observe that, like Porphyry’s interpretation, it limits
the horizon of the prophet chiefly to the Greek period.
This view, which, more or less modified, finds many adherents in the present day,
rests upon the identification of the little horn in Daniel 7:8, with the little horn in
Daniel 8:9. If Antiochus is the horn of Daniel 8, why should he not be hinted at in
Daniel 7? and if so, why should not the goat (Daniel 8:5), which is known (Daniel
8:21) to be the kingdom of Greece, be identical with the fourth beast of Daniel 7? It
is then argued that the period of persecution hinted at in Daniel 7:25 coincides with
that which is mentioned in Daniel 9:27, being half a week, or three days and a half,
and that the same measure of time occurs in Daniel 12:7. Is it possible, it is asked,
that these similar measures of time represent different events? Again, it is observed
that there is no interval mentioned as occurring between the last times and the times
of the persecutions mentioned in Daniel 7, 8, 10-12, and also that the words in which
Antiochus is predicted (Daniel 8:19) are spoken of as the “last end of indignation”
and “the end.” This is stated to support the view that the predictions of Daniel are
limited by the times of Antiochus.
On these grounds the persecution mentioned in Daniel 7:25 is supposed to be that of
Antiochus. The Greek Empire is represented by the fourth beast, while the second
and third beasts represent the Median and the Persian Empires respectively. But
here the question arises, Are there any grounds for believing that Daniel intended to
speak of a distinct Median Empire? The passages alleged in support are Daniel
5:28; Daniel 5:31; Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15. Daniel states of Darius
expressly that he was a Mede and of Median descent (Daniel 5:31; Daniel 9:1;
Daniel 11:1), and, on the contrary, that Cyrus was a Persian (Daniel 6:28; Daniel
12

13. 10:1). Also in Daniel 6:28 the writer appears to be contrasting Darius the Mede with
Cyrus the Persian, as if each belonged to a different empire. And though the kings
of Media and Persia are distinctly mentioned in Daniel 8:20, it is maintained that
the unity of the Medo-Persian Empire is not established thereby, because the two
horns, and not the body, of the goat are assumed to be the key of the vision. If the
brief duration and slight importance of the so-called Median Empire is objected, it
is replied that the importance of it to Israel was very great, for in the first year of it
the exile terminated, and at that very time Darius was under the special protection
of the Angel of the Lord (Daniel 11:1).
Upon this hypothesis the visions in Daniel 2, 7 are explained in the following
manner:—The materials of which the feet of the image were formed corresponds to
the two divisions of the Greek Empire noticed in Daniel 11, the iron representing the
Ptolemies, the clay the Seleucidæ. The mixture of the iron and clay points to such
attempts as are mentioned in Daniel 11:8; Daniel 11:17 to unite certain
heterogeneous elements in the political world. The silver breasts and arms are the
Median Empire, which was inferior to the Babylonian (Daniel 2:39). which, it is
asserted, does not hold true of the Persian Empire. Then comes the Persian Empire,
which, as Daniel interpreted the vision (Daniel 2:39), “bare rule over all.” Similarly,
in Daniel 7, those who maintain the interpretation find no difficulty about the first
beast; but the second beast is Darius the Mede; the three ribs are the three satrapies
mentioned in Daniel 6:2 (St. Ephraim explains them of the Medes, the Babylonians,
and the Persians). The command, “Arise, and devour much flesh,” means that the
empire of Darius had a great future prospect, which he would not realise. Then the
panther is Cyrus; the four wings are the Persians, Medes, Babylonians, and
Egyptians; the four heads are four Persian kings, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius
Hystaspes, and the last, who is either Xerxes or Darius Codemannus. It remains that
the fourth beast is the Greek Empire, the first which was of a totally distinct
character from the Asiatic empires which had preceded it. The little horn is
Antiochus Epiphanes, and the other ten horns are ten kings, who are not supposed
to be reigning simultaneously; three of them, however, were contemporaneous with
the little horn. The ten kings are assumed to be—(1) Seleucus Nicator, (2) Antiochus
Soter, (3) Antiochus Theos, (4) Seleucus Callinicus, (5) Seleucus Ceraunus, (6)
Antiochus the Great, (7) Seleucus Philopator, (8) Heliodorus, (9) Demetrius, (10)
Ptolemy Philometor. The last three were deposed by Antiochus Epiphanes, the
allusion being to Demetrius (Daniel 11:21) and to Ptolemy Philometor (Daniel
11:22-28). It is then alleged that all the events which are explicitly mentioned in
Daniel 11 are figuratively expressed by the ten toes of the image and by the ten
horns of the fourth beast.
In this interpretation there is much that appears plausible at first sight. It seems to
make the whole plan of the book more distinct, and to introduce a symmetry and
coherence among the several parts which is wanting to the interpretation given
above. But though the truth is simple, everything simple is not true. Grave
difficulties will be found, upon closer inspection, to underlie this hypothesis
respecting the four kingdoms.
13

14. (1) What reason is there for identifying the little horn in Daniel 7:8 with the little
horn in Daniel 8:9? In one case it grows up amongst ten, in the other out of four. In
one case it destroys three of the other horns, in the other none. Or, to take Daniel’s
own interpretation, the “kink of a fierce countenance” (Daniel 8:23) arises while the
four horns are still in existence, though “in the latter time of their kingdom.”
Bearing in mind that the ten toes of the image correspond to the ten horns of the
fourth beast, there appears to be strong primâ facie evidence for supposing that the
horizon of Daniel 8 is different from that of Daniel 2, 7, 11.
(2) Further consideration shows that Antiochus Epiphanes does not correspond with
the little horn (Daniel 7), or with the king mentioned (Daniel 11:21, &c.). Antiochus
is foretold (Daniel 8:9-12; Daniel 8:23-25) as “becoming great toward the south, and
toward the east, and toward the pleasant land, and waxing great even to the host of
heaven,” &c.; but the person foretold in Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:20; Daniel 7:25, “has a
mouth speaking proud things,” &c. In no point do these two awful personages
agree, except in blaspheming God and in making war against His people. They
differ in many important respects.
(3) The measures of time, again, are different in each vision. Antiochus Epiphanes
carries on his destructive work for 2,300 (or 1,150) days, but the Antichrist
mentioned in Daniel 7:25 has the saints in his power for a “time, times, and the
dividing of time.” By no possible calculation can these two measures of time be
made identical. Nor can the same measure of time which occurs in Daniel 12:7 be
identified either with the 1,290 days, or with the 1,335 days mentioned in Daniel
12:11-12.
(4) Further, in Daniel 8:9 “the last end of indignation” does not mean the end of all
things, any more than it means the end of the captivity. It points to the persecution
of Antiochus, when, for the last time in Jewish history, the innocent suffered for the
guilt of the apostates. This was a persecution of which the adherence of the Jews to
their religion was the cause. Politics provoked later persecutions, but in this they
were involved in only a secondary manner. The plain question was, would the Jews
suffer their religion to be Hellenised, or would they not? This, again, is alien to the
thoughts contained in Daniel 7:21; Daniel 7:25.
(5) Nor is it clear that Daniel knew of a Median as distinct from a Persian Empire. If
Darius “received the kingdom,” some superior power must have given it to him. If
he was “made king,” some higher authority must have invested him with the
sovereignty. Nor does history give us any reasons for supposing that there was at
this time any broad national distinction between the Medes and Persians.
(6) Lastly, the empire of Alexander the Great does not correspond to the fourth
empire, which is described in Daniel 2, 7. None of the elements of iron appear in it.
The leading characteristic of it was not “breaking in pieces and bruising” other
empires, but rather assimilation. The policy of it was to Hellenise them, to clothe
14

15. their ideas in Greek forms, to unite widely separated nations which it had subdued,
by treating them courteously, adopting their national customs, and by polishing the
whole external with Greek culture.
Great and undoubted though the difficulties are which are contained in the
interpretation given above in the Notes, they are not so great as those which are
involved by the so-called “modern” interpretation just mentioned.
Verse 1
VII.
(1) The date of this and of the following chapter comes in chronological order after
the fourth chapter. As St. Jerome has observed, “In superioribus ordo sequitur
historiœ quid sub Nebuchadonosor et Balthasar, et Dario sive Cyro mirabilium
signorum acciderit. In kis vero narrantur somnia quœ singulis sint visa ternporibus:
quorum solus propheta conscius est, et nullam habent apud barbaras nationes signi
vel revelationis magnitudinem, sed tantum scribuntur, ut apud posteros eorum quœ
visa sunt memoria perseveret.”
Visions.—From this, and from the phrase “sum of the matters,” it appears that
Daniel had other visions at this time. By “sum” is meant the principal parts of the
vision.
TRAPP, "Daniel 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a
dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, [and] told the
sum of the matters.
Ver. 1. In the first year of Belshazzar.] Here beginneth, to speak properly, the
prophecy of Daniel, or rather the second part of Daniel’s works, which is concerning
visions exhibited of God by divine revelations, not to others, but to himself. This
vision is the subject and groundwork of the rest that follow to the end of the
prophecy. One not unfitly compareth it to a general map of the whole world; the
rest to particular tables of various countries.
Daniel had a dream and visions of his head.] God renewed unto him the same thing
by vision which he had exhibited before by dream, in recompense of his religious
care to know the matter and to record it for the Church’s comfort. (a)
Then he wrote the dream.] It was God’s will the visions of the prophets should be
written [Isaiah 30:10] and published to the Church. [Isaiah 30:30]
BENSON, "Daniel 7:1. In the first year of Belshazzar, &c. — The prophet, having
related some remarkable passages concerning himself and his brethren in captivity,
15

16. and having given proof of his supernatural illumination in interpreting other men’s
dreams, proceeds to give an account of his own visions; and thereupon goes back to
the first year of Belshazzar’s reign, which was seventeen years before the history
contained in the last chapter. This vision concerns the same events with those
referred to in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, chap. 2., with some enlargements and
additions, and different images.
WHEDON, "1. In the first year of Belshazzar — For Belshazzar see Introduction,
III, 3, (4). If these portions of the Daniel apocalypse represent actual events, then
Daniel 7, 8 must chronologically precede chap. 5. Contemporaneous records make it
impossible to believe that Belshazzar ever reigned over Babylon as its supreme
ruler — which fact is also suggested by verse 29 — but he may have been made co-
ruler with his father, Nabonidus, as many crowned princes were before and after
this date. Although this is not stated in any cuneiform documents which have so far
been found, it is certain that for a number of years before his father’s death he
seems to have been the real ruler of the kingdom. [See Introduction, III, 3, (4).]
Daniel is here stated to have written down the “visions of his head” (compare Daniel
2:28) and to have told the sum and substance of them to others, although the book
as a whole, or the interpretation of it, was to be sealed and hidden (Daniel 12; Daniel
4).
POOLE, "Daniel’s vision of the four beasts, Daniel 7:1-8, and of God’s kingdom,
Daniel 7:9-14. The interpretation thereof, Daniel 7:15-28.
This prophecy is written in Chaldee, to be a monument and document to him of the
reverence his father and grandfather showed towards God, who had done such
mighty works for them, and against them, to humble their pride, and make them
know that the high God ruled, and they reigned at his mercy. Howbeit Belshazzar
made no use of it, but lifted himself up in profaneness and pride till the wrath of
God plucked him down.
In the first year of Belshazzar: now Daniel begins to declare the visions God showed
him at sundry times, therefore he goes back to the first year of Belshazzar. It is
observed by the curious, that the word Belshazzar is here changed by the prophet,
one letter transposed, which alters the signification greatly; for his name is ruvaln
Daniel 5:1, which signifies
treasures searched out and possessed; but the word in the text is this, ruavln which
means,
Bel is consumed with the fire of an enemy, as was prophesied by Jeremiah, Daniel
1:2 Jeremiah 51:44. See Jeremiah 51:25,58. The Jews used to change the names of
idols and idolaters, and it turned to a reproach to them, as Grotius proves well out
of Moses de Kotzi.
16

17. He wrote the dream: these visions of Daniel were sent, and recorded by him in
writing, for the benefit of the church, to rectify their mistake; for they thought all
things would succeed prosperously after they returned out of their captivity: yet
they should find a world of troubles in many generations following, seeing that of
the four great monarchies, which he calls beasts, there was but one passed, and they
should find three more yet to come. This Daniel dreamed, saw, wrote, and told the
sum of it.
PETT, "Introduction
Chapter 7 The Wild Beasts and the Kingdom of the Most High.
In this chapter four empires under their kings are depicted as arising which will be
like wild beasts. They represent the whole of the present and future until the rise of
God’s everlasting kingdom, the fifth empire, the empire which results from the
fulfilment of the covenant. We can compare here chapter 2, and can, unless we have
reason to see otherwise, assume the same four empires, Babylon, Medo-Persia,
Greece (as also specifically in chapter 8) and the apocalyptic empire.
They are in contrast with ‘the son of man’, a human figure who represents the
people of God under their prince. The empires behave like wild beasts, savagely,
irrationally and immorally; the people of God behave like man created in the image
of God, rationally and morally. The son of man suffers under the beasts, but in the
end is victorious and receives the everlasting kingdom. Through the intervention of
God good will triumph in the end.
We must remember that this is a dream. We must not expect it necessarily to
proceed fully in logical and chronological form (see especially Daniel 7:11-12). Two
parallel activities are described. The activities of the wild beasts on earth, and the
parallel activities in heaven, as the One on the throne, with His attendants, monitors
all that is happening.
Verse 1
The Four World Empires (Daniel 7:1-8).
‘In the first year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of
his head on his bed. Then he wrote the dream and told the sum of the matters.’
‘In the first year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon.’ Official documents at the time
were all dated by the years of Nabonidus, who was Belshazzar’s father and outlived
him, but Belshazzar had been given the ‘kingship’ of Babylon by his father when his
father spent ten years fighting, and then studying, in Arabia. We are told that his
father ‘entrusted the army and the kingship’ to him, probably around 556 BC
17

18. (others argue for 553 BC).
Up to now we have seen Daniel interpreting other people’s dreams, but now we
learn that he also had dream-visions for which we were prepared in Daniel 1:17.
(See also Daniel 2:28; Daniel 4:2; Daniel 4:10 for comparable phraseology). The
dream does not come chronologically, for had it done so it would have come between
chapter 4 and chapter 5. Rather it takes up and expands on chapter 2 once
assurances have been given of the fact that the living God is able to deliver His
people in the face of the greatest of kings and empires. Daniel writes the dream
down to ensure a permanent record, together with its interpretation. ‘The sum of
the matters’ means that he wrote down the essentials, depicting the heart of things.
EBC, "VISION OF THE FOUR WILD BEASTS
WE now enter upon the second division of the Book of Daniel-the apocalyptic. It is
unquestionably inferior to the first part in grandeur and importance as a whole, but
it contains not a few great conceptions, and it was well adapted to inspire the hopes
and arouse the heroic courage of the persecuted Jews in the terrible days of
Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel now speaks in the first person, whereas throughout
the historical section of the Book the third person has been used.
In the form of apocalypse which he adopts he had already had partial precursors in
Ezekiel and Zechariah; but their symbolic visions were far less detailed and
developed-it may be added far more poetic and classical-than his. And in later
apocalypies, for which this served as a model, little regard is paid to the
grotesqueness or incongruity of the symbols, if only the intended conception is
conveyed. In no previous writer of the grander days of Hebrew literature would
such symbols have been permitted as horns which have eyes and speak, or lions
from which the wings are plucked, and which thereafter stand on their feet as a
man, and have a man’s heart given to them.
The vision is dated, "In the first year of Belshazzar, King of Babylon." It therefore
comes chronologically between the fourth and fifth chapters. On the
pseudepigraphic view of the Book we may suppose that this date is merely a touch of
literary verisimilitude, designed to assimilate the prophecies to the form of those
uttered by the ancient prophets; or perhaps it may be intended to indicate that with
three of the four empires-the Babylonian, the Median, and the Persian-Daniel had a
personal acquaintance. Beyond this we can see no significance in the date; for the
predictions which are here recorded have none of that immediate relation to the
year in which they originated which we see in the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Perhaps the verse itself is a later guess or gloss, since there are slight variations in
Theodotion and the LXX Daniel, we are told, both saw and wrote and narrated the
dream.
In the vision of the night he had seen the four winds of heaven travelling, or
18

19. bursting forth, on the great sea; and from those tumultuous waves came four
immense wild beasts, each unlike the other.
The first was a lion, with four eagles’ wings. The wings were plucked off, and it then
raised itself from the earth, stood on its feet like a man, and a man’s heart was given
to it.
The second was like a bear, raising itself on one side, and having three ribs between
its teeth; and it is bidden to "arise and devour much flesh."
The third is a leopard, or panther, with four wings and four heads, to which
dominion is given.
The fourth-a yet more terrible monster, which is left undescribed, as though
indescribable-has great devouring teeth of iron, and feet that stamp and crush. It
has ten horns, and among them came up a little horn, before which three of the
others are plucked up by the roots; and this horn has eyes, and a mouth speaking
great things.
Then the thrones were set for the Divine judges, and the Ancient of Days seats
Himself-His raiment as white snow, His hair as bright wool, His throne of flames,
His wheels of burning fire. A stream of dazzling fire goes out before Him. Thousand
thousands stand before Him; ten thousand times ten thousand minister to Him. The
judgment is set; the books are opened. The fourth monster is then slain and burned
because of the blaspheming horn; the other beasts are suffered to live for a season
and a time, but their dominion is taken away.
But then, in the night vision, there came "one even as a son of man" with the clouds
of heaven. and is brought before the Ancient of Days, and receives from Him power
and glory and a kingdom-an everlasting dominion, a kingdom that shall not be
destroyed-over all people, nations, and languages.
Such is the vision, and its interpretation follows. The heart of Daniel "is pierced in
the midst of its sheath" by what he has seen, and the visions of his head troubled
him. Coming near to one of them that stood by-the angelic ministrants of the
Ancient of Days-he begs for an interpretation of the vision.
It is given him with extreme brevity.
The four wild beasts represent four kings, the founders of four successive kingdoms.
But the ultimate and eternal dominion is not to be with them. It is to be given, till
the eternities of the eternities, to "the holy ones of the Lofty One."
What follows is surely an indication of the date of the Book. Daniel is quite satisfied
with this meagre interpretation, in which no single detail is given as regards the first
three world-empires, which one would have supposed would chiefly interest the real
19

20. Daniel. His whole curiosity is absorbed in a detail of the vision of the fourth
monster. It is all but inconceivable that a contemporary prophet should have felt no
further interest in the destinies which affected the great golden Empire of Babylon
under which he lived, nor in those of Media and Persia, which were already
beginning to loom large on the horizon, and should have cared only for an incident
in the story of a fourth empire as yet unheard of, which was only to be fulfilled four
centuries later. The interests of every other Hebrew prophet are always mainly
absorbed, so far as earthly things are concerned, in the immediate or not-far-distant
future. That is true also of the author of Daniel, if, as we have had reason to see, he
wrote under the rule of the persecuting and blaspheming horn.
In his appeal for the interpretation of this symbol there are fresh particulars about
this horn which had eyes and spake very great things. We are told that "his look
was more stout than his fellows"; and that "he made war against the saints and
prevailed against them, until the Ancient of Days came. Then judgment was given to
the saints, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."
The interpretation is that the fourth beast is an earth-devouring, trampling,
shattering kingdom, diverse from all kingdoms; its ten horns are ten kings that shall
arise from it. Then another king shall arise, diverse from the first, who shall subdue
three kings, shall speak blasphemies, shall wear out the saints, and will strive to
change times and laws. But after "a time, two times, and a half," {Comp. Revelation
12:14 Lu 4:25 James 5:17} the judgment shall sit, and he will be annihilated, and his
dominion shall be given forever to the people of the saints of the Most High.
Such was the vision; such its interpretation; and there can be no difficulty as to its
general significance.
I. That the four empires, and their founders, are not identical with the four empires
of the metal colossus in Nebuchadrezzar’s dream, is an inference which, apart from
dogmatic bias, would scarcely have occurred to any unsophisticated reader. To the
imagination of Nebuchadrezzar, the heathen potentate, they would naturally
present themselves in their strength and towering grandeur, splendid and impassive
and secure, till the mysterious destruction smites them. To the Jewish seer they
present themselves in their cruel ferocity and headstrong ambition as destroying
wild beasts. The symbolism would naturally occur to all who were familiar with the
winged bulls and lions and other gigantic representations of monsters which
decorated the palace-walls of Nineveh and Babylon. Indeed, similar imagery had
already found a place on the prophetic page. [Isaiah 27:1, Ezekiel 29:3,, Ezekiel
32:2]
II. The turbulent sea, from which the immense beasts emerge after the struggling of
the four winds of heaven upon its surface, is the sea of nations. {Comp. Job
38:16-17, Isaiah 8:7,, Isaiah 17:12}
III. The first great beast is Nebuchadrezzar and the Babylonian Empire. There is
20

21. nothing strange in the fact that there should be a certain transfusion or overlapping
of the symbols, the object not being literary congruity, but the creation of a general
impression. He is represented as a lion, because lions were prevalent in Babylonia,
and were specially prominent in Babylonian decorations. His eagle-wings symbolise
rapacity and swiftness. {Comp. Jeremiah 4:7; Jeremiah 4:13; Jeremiah 49:16,
Ezekiel 17:3; Ezekiel 17:12, Habakkuk 1:2,, Lamentations 4:19} But, according to
the narrative already given, a change had come over the spirit of Nebuchadrezzar in
his latter days. That subduing and softening by the influence of a Divine power is
represented by the plucking off of the lion’s eagle-wings, and its fall to earth & bull;
But it was not left to lie there in impotent degradation. It is lifted up from the earth,
and humanised, and made to stand on its feet as a man, and a man’s heart is given
to it.
IV. The bear, which places itself upon one side, is the Median Empire, smaller than
the Chaldean, as the bear is smaller and less formidable than the lion. The
crouching on one side is obscure. It is explained by some as implying that it was
lower in exaltation than the Babylonian Empire; by others that "it gravitated, as
regards its power, only towards the countries west of the Tigris and Euphrates."
The meaning of the "three ribs in its mouth" is also uncertain. Some regard the
number three as a vague round number; others refer it to the three countries over
which the Median dominion extended-Babylonia, Assyria, and Syria; others, less
probably, to the three chief cities. The command, "Arise, devour much flesh," refers
to the prophecies of Median conquest, and perhaps to uncertain historical
reminiscences which confused "Darius the Mede" with Darius the son of Hystaspes.
Those who explain this monster as an emblem, not of the Median but of the Medo-
Persian Empire, neglect the plain indications of the Book itself, for the author
regards the Median and Persian Empires as distinct. [Daniel 5:28; Daniel 5:31;
Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15-28; Daniel 8:20; Daniel 9:1; Daniel 10:1]
V. The leopard or panther represents the Persian kingdom. It has four wings on its
back, to indicate how freely and swiftly it soared to the four quarters of the world.
Its four heads indicate four kings. There were indeed twelve or thirteen kings of
Persia between B.C. 536 and B.C. 333; but the author of the Book of Daniel, who of
course had no books of history before him, only thinks of the four who were most
prominent in popular tradition-namely (as it would seem), Cyrus, Darius,
Artaxerxes, and Xerxes. {Comp. Daniel 8:4-8} These are only four names which the
writer knew, because they are the only ones which occur in Scripture. It is true that
the Darius of Nehemiah 12:22 is not the Great Darius, son of Hystaspes, but Darius
Codomannus (B.C. 424-404). But this fact may most easily have been overlooked in
uncritical and unhistoric times. And "power was given to it," for it was far stronger
than the preceding kingdom of the Medes.
VI. The fourth monster won its chief aspect of terribleness from the conquest of
Alexander, which blazed over the East with such irresistible force and suddenness.
The great Macedonian after his massacres at Tyre, struck into the Eastern world
the intense feeling of terror which we still can recognise in the narrative of
21

22. Josephus. His rule is therefore symbolised by a monster diverse from all the beasts
before it in its sudden leap out of obscurity, in the lightning-like rapidity of its flash
from West to East, and in its instantaneous disintegration into four separate
kingdoms. It is with one only of those four kingdoms of the Diadochi, the one which
so terribly affected the fortunes of the Holy Land, that the writer is predominantly
concerned-namely, the empire of the Seleucid kings. It is in that portion of the
kingdom-namely, from the Euxine to the confines of Arabia-that the ten horns arise
which, we are told, symbolise ten kings. It seems almost certain that these ten kings
are intended for:-
1. Seleucus I (Nicator) 312-280
2. Antiochus I (Soter) 280-261
3. Antiochus II (Theos) 261-246
4. Seleucus II (Kallinikos) 246-226
5. Seleucus III (Keraunos) 226-223
6. Antiochus III (Megas) 223-187
7. Seleucus IV (Philopator) 187-176
Then followed the three kings (actual or potential) who were plucked up before the
little horn: namely-
1. Demetrius 175
2. Heliodorus 176
3. Ptolemy Philometor 181-146
Of these three who succumbed to the machinations of Antiochus Epiphanes, or the
little horn, [Daniel 11:21] the first, Demetrius, was the only son of Seleucus
Philopator, and true heir to the crown. His father sent him to Rome as a hostage,
and released his brother Antiochus. So far from showing gratitude for this
generosity, Antiochus, on the murder of Seleucus IV (B.C. 175), usurped the rights
of his nephew. [Daniel 11:21]
The second, Heliodorus, seeing that Demetrius the heir was out of the way, poisoned
Seleucus Philopator, and himself usurped the kingdom.
Ptolemy Philometor was the son of Cleopatra, the sister of Seleucus Philopator. A
large party was in favour of uniting Egypt and Persia under his rule. But Antiochus
Epiphanes ignored the compact which had made Coele-Syria and Phoenicia the
22

23. dower of Cleopatra, and not only kept Philometor from his rights, but would have
deprived him of Egypt also but for the strenuous interposition of the Romans and
their ambassador M. Popilius Laenas.
When the three horns had thus fallen before him, the little horn-Antiocbus
Epiphanes-sprang into prominence. The mention of his "eyes" seems to be a
reference to his shrewdness, cunning, and vigilance. The "mouth that spoke very
great things" alludes to the boastful arrogance which led him to assume the title of
Epiphanes, or "the illustrious"-which his scornful subjects changed into Epimanes,
"the mad"-and to his assumption even of the title Theos, "the god," on some of his
coins. His look "was bigger than his fellows," for he inspired the kings of Egypt and
other countries with terror. He made war against the saints, with the aid of "Jason
and Menelaus, those ungodly wretches," and "prevailed against them." He "wore
out the saints of the Most High," for he took Jerusalem by storm, plundered it, slew
eighty thousand men, women, and children, took forty thousand prisoners, and sold
as many into slavery (B.C. 170). "As he entered the sanctuary to plunder it, under
the guidance of the apostate high priest Menelaus, he uttered words of blasphemy,
and he carried off all the gold and silver he could find, including the golden table,
altar of incense, candlesticks, and vessels, and even rifled the subterraneous vaults,
so that he seized no less than eighteen hundred talents of gold." He then sacrificed
swine upon the altar, and sprinkled the whole Temple with the broth.
Further than all this, "he thought to change times and laws"; and they were "given
into his hand until a time, and two times, and a half." For he made a determined
attempt to put down the Jewish feasts, the Sabbath, circumcision, and all the most
distinctive Jewish ordinances. In B.C. 167, two years after his cruel devastation of
the city, he sent Apollonius, his chief collector of tribute, against Jerusalem, with an
army of twenty-two thousand men. On the first Sabbath after his arrival,
Apollonius sent his soldiers to massacre all the men whom they met in the streets,
and to seize the women and children as slaves. He occupied the castle on Mount
Zion, and prevented the Jews from attending the public ordinances of their
sanctuary. Hence in June B.C. 167 the daily sacrifice ceased, and the Jews fled for
their lives from the Holy City. Antiochus then published an edict forbidding all his
subjects in Syria and elsewhere-even the Zoroastrians in Armenia and Persia-to
worship any gods, or acknowledge any religion but his. The Jewish sacred books
were burnt, and not only the Samaritans but many Jews apostatised, while others
hid themselves in mountains and deserts. He sent an old philosopher named
Athenaeus to instruct the Jews in the Greek religion, and to enforce its observance.
He dedicated the Temple to Zeus Olympios, and built on the altar of Jehovah a
smaller altar for sacrifice to Zeus, to whom he must also have erected a statue. This
heathen Altar was set up on Kisleu (December) 15, and the heathen sacrifice began
on Kisleu 25. All observance of the Jewish Law was now treated as a capital crime.
The Jews were forced to sacrifice in heathen groves at heathen altars, and to walk,
crowned with ivy, in Bacchic processions. Two women who had braved the despot’s
wrath by circumcising their children were flung from the Temple battlements into
the vale below.
23

24. The triumph of this blasphemous and despotic savagery was arrested, first by the
irresistible force of determined martyrdom which preferred death to unfaithfulness,
and next by the armed resistance evoked by the heroism of Mattathias, the priest at
Modin. When Apelles visited the town, and ordered the Jews to sacrifice, Mattathias
struck down with his own hand a Jew who was preparing to obey. Then, aided by
his strong heroic sons, he attacked Apelles, slew him and his soldiers, tore down the
idolatrous altar, and with his sons and adherents fled into the wilderness, where
they were joined by many of the Jews.
The news of this revolt brought Antiochus to Palestine in B.C. 166, and among his
other atrocities he ordered the execution by torture of the venerable scribe Eleazar,
and of the pious mother with her seven sons. In spite of all his efforts the party of
the Chasidim grew in numbers and in strength. When Mattathias died, Judas the
Maccabee became their leader, and his brother Simon their counsellor. While
Antiochus was celebrating his mad and licentious festival at Daphne, Judas inflicted
a severe defeat on Apollonius, and won other battles, which made Antiochus vow in
an access of fury that he would exterminate the nation. [Daniel 11:44] But he found
himself bankrupt, and the Persians and Armenians were revolting from him in
disgust. He therefore sent Lysias as his general to Judaea, and Lysias assembled an
immense army of forty thousand foot and seven thousand horse, to whom Judas
could only oppose six thousand men. Lysias pitched his camp at Beth-shur, south of
Jerusalem. There Judas attacked him with irresistible valour and confidence, slew
five thousand of his soldiers, and drove the rest to flight.
Lysias retired to Antioch, intending to renew the invasion next year. Thereupon
Judas and his army recaptured Jerusalem, and restored and cleansed and
reconsecrated the dilapidated and desecrated sanctuary. He made a new shew-
bread-table, incense-altar, and candlestick of gold in place of those which Antiochus
had carried off, and new vessels of gold, and a new veil before the Holiest Place. All
this was completed on Kisleu 25, B.C. 165, about the time of the winter solstice, "on
the same day of the year on which, three years before, it had been profaned by
Antiochus, and just three years and a half-‘a time, two times, and half a time"-after
the city and Temple had been desolated by Apollonius. They began the day by
renewing the sacrifices, kindling the altar and the candlestick by pure fire struck by
flints. The whole law of the Temple service continued thenceforward without
interruption till the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. It was a feast in
commemoration of this dedication-called the Encaenia and "the Lights"-which
Christ honoured by His presence at Jerusalem. [John 10:22]
The neighbouring nations, when they heard of this revolt of the Jews, and its
splendid success, proposed to join with Antiochus for their extermination. But
meanwhile the king, having been shamefully repulsed in his sacrilegious attack on
the Temple of Artemis at Elymais, retired in deep chagrin to Ecbatana, in Media. It
was there that he heard of the Jewish successes and. set out to chastise the rebels.
On his way he heard of the recovery of Jerusalem, the destruction of his heathen
24

25. altars, and the purification of the Temple. The news flung him into one of those
paroxysms of fury to which he was liable, and, breathing out threatenings and
slaughter, he declared that he would turn Jerusalem into one vast cemetery for the
whole Jewish race. Suddenly smitten with a violent internal malady, he would not
stay his course, but still urged his charioteer to the utmost speed. In consequence of
this the chariot was overturned, and he was flung violently to the ground, receiving’
severe injuries. He was placed in a litter, but, unable to bear the agonies caused by
its motion, he stopped at Table, in the mountains of Paraetacene, on the borders of
Persia and Babylonia, where he died, B.C. 164, in very evil case, half mad with the
furies of a remorseful conscience. The Jewish historians say that, before his death,
he repented, acknowledged the crimes he had committed against the Jews, and
vowed that he would repair them if he survived. The stories of his death resemble
those of the deaths of Herod, of Galerius, of Philip II, and of other bitter persecutors
of the saints of God. Judas the Maccabee, who had overthrown his power in
Palestine, died at Eleasa in B.C. 161, after a series of brilliant victories.
Such were the fortunes of the king whom the writer shadows forth under the
emblem of the little horn with human eyes and a mouth which spake blasphemies,
whose power was to be made transitory, and to be annihilated and destroyed unto
the end. [Daniel 7:26] And when this wild beast was slain, and its body given to the
burning fire, the rest of the beasts were indeed to be deprived of their splendid
dominions, but a respite of life is given them, and they are suffered to endure for a
time and a period.
But the eternal life, and the imperishable dominion, which were denied to them, are
given to another in the epiphany of the Ancient of Days. The vision of the seer is one
of a great scene of judgment. Thrones are set for the heavenly assessors, and the
Almighty appears in snow-white raiment, and on His chariot-throne of burning
flame which flashes round Him like a vast photosphere. The books of everlasting
record are opened before the glittering faces of the myriads of saints who
accompany Him, and the fiery doom is passed on the monstrous world-powers who
would fain usurp His authority.
But who is the "one even as a son of man," who "comes with the clouds of heaven,"
and who is brought before "the Ancient of Days," to whom is given the imperishable
dominion? That he is not an angel appears from the fact that he seems too be
separate from all the ten thousand times ten thousand who stand around the
cherubic chariot. He is not a man, but something more. In this respect he resembles
the angels described in Daniel 8:15; Daniel 10:16-18. He has "the appearance of a
man," and is "like the similitude of the sons of men." {Comp. Ezekiel 1:26}
We should naturally answer, in accordance with the multitude of ancient and
modern commentators both Jewish and Christian, that the Messiah is intended;
and, indeed, our Lord alludes to the prophecy in Matthew 26:64. That the vision is
meant to indicate the establishment of the Messianic theocracy cannot be doubted.
But if we follow the interpretation given by the angel himself in answer to Daniel’s
25

26. entreaty, the personality of the Messiah seems to be at least somewhat subordinate
or indistinct. For the interpretation, without mentioning any person, seems to point
only to the saints of Israel who are to inherit and maintain that Divine kingdom
which has been already thrice asserted and prophesied. It is the "holy ones
"(Qaddishin), "the holy ones of the Most High" (Qaddishi Eloinin), upon whom the
never-ending sovereignty is conferred; and who these are cannot be misunderstood,
for they are the very same as those against whom the little horn has been engaged in
war. [Daniel 7:16; Daniel 7:22-23; Daniel 7:27] The Messianic kingdom is here
predominantly represented as the spiritual supremacy of the chosen people. Neither
here, nor in Daniel 2:44, nor in Daniel 12:3, does the writer separately indicate any
Davidic king, or priest upon his throne, as had been already done by so many
previous prophets. [Zechariah 9:9] This vision does not seem to have brought into
prominence the rule of any Divinely Incarnate Christ over the kingdom of the
Highest. In this respect the interpretation of the "one even as a son of man" comes
upon us as a surprise, and seems to indicate that the true interpretation of that
element of the vision is that the kingdom of the saints is there personified; so that as
wild beasts were appropriate emblems of the world-powers, the reasonableness and
sanctity of the saintly theocracy are indicated by a human form, which has its origin
in the clouds of heaven, not in the miry and troubled sea. This is the view of the
Christian father Ephraem Syrus, as well as of the Jewish exegete Abn Ezra; and it is
supported by the fact that in other apocryphal books of the later epoch, as in the
Assumption of Moses and the Book of Jubilees, the Messianic hope is concentrated
in the conception that the holy nation is to have the dominance over the Gentiles. At
any rate, it seems that, if truth is to guide us rather than theological prepossession,
we must take the significance of the writer, not from the elements of the vision, but
from the divinely imparted interpretation of it; and there the figure of "one as a son
of man" is persistently (Daniel 7:18, Daniel 7:22, Daniel 7:27) explained to stand,
not for the Christ Himself, but for "the holy ones of the Most High," whose
dominion Christ’s coming should inaugurate and secure.
The chapter closes with the words: "Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel,
my thoughts much troubled me, and my brightness was changed in me: but I kept
the matter in my heart."
PULPIT, "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.
26

27. Daniel 7:1
In the first year of Belshazzar King of Babylon Daniel had a 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 beside
(παρὰ) his head upon his bed. Then Daniel wrote the vision which he had seen in
heads (chapters, κεφάλαια) of narration (λόγων)." 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 dream (ἐνύπνιον) 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 Babylonia. Above all,
they had overthrown the Median Empire, that was closely associated with that of
Babylon. They had pressed in upon Babylonia, and 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 Elam and Media on Babylonia and Assyria had
been made across the canton of Ansan; the rebellion of Ansan would thus separate
the Manda in Elam and Media from those in Babylonia—the 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 Babylon, but that the king's son 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 Elam, Media, and Babylonia,
that Daniel had the vision recounted in this chapter. Keen political insight might
easily foresee the events in the comparatively immediate future. The rise of a
vigorous new power like that of Persia meant menace to the neighbeuring powers.
Babylonia, filled with treachery and discontent, was in no condition to resist. The
fall of Babylon seemed imminent—its place was to be taken by Persia. But Babylon
had succeeded Assyria, and before Assyria had been the empires of Egypt and 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
27

28. 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
kingdom of God upon the earth.
2 Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and
there before me were the four winds of heaven
churning up the great sea.
BARNES, "Daniel spake and said - That is, he spake and said in the
manner intimated in the previous verse. It was by a record made at the
time, and thus he might be said to speak to his own generation and to all
future times.
I saw in my vision by night - I beheld in the vision; that is, he saw
represented to him the scene which he proceeds to describe. He seemed to
see the sea in a tempest, and these monsters come up from it, and the
strange succession of events which followed.
And behold, the four winds of the heaven - The winds that blow under the
heaven, or that seem to come from the heaven - or the air. Compare Jer_
49:36. The number of the winds is here referred to as four as they are now,
as blowing mainly from the four quarters of the earth. Nothing is more
common now than to designate them in this manner - as the east, the south,
the west, the north wind. So the Latins - Eurus, Auster, Zephyrus, Boreas.
Strove -ןחיגמ megı̂ychân. Burst, or rushed forth; seemed to conflict
together. The winds burst, rushed from all quarters, and seemed to meet on
the sea, throwing it into wild commotion. The Hebrew word (חיג gı̂yach)
means to break or burst forth, as a fountain or stream of waters, Job_40:23;
an infant breaking forth from the womb, Job_38:8; a warrior rushing forth
to battle, Eze_32:2. Hence, the Chaldean to break forth; to rush forth as the
winds. The symbol here would naturally denote some wild commotion
among the nations, as if the winds of heaven should rush together in
confusion.
Upon the great sea - This expression would properly apply to any great sea
or ocean, but it is probable that the one that would occur to Daniel would be
28

29. the Mediterranean Sea, as that was best known to him and his
contemporaries. A heaving ocean - or an ocean tossed with storms - would
be a natural emblem to denote a nation, or nations, agitated with internal
conflicts, or nations in the midst of revolutions. Among the sacred poets and
the prophets, hosts of armies invading a land are compared to overflowing
waters, and mighty changes among the nations to the heaving billows of the
ocean in a storm. Compare Jer_46:7-8; Jer_47:2; Isa_8:7-8; Isa_17:12; Isa_
59:19; Dan_11:40; Rev_13:1. The classic reader will be reminded in the
description here of the words of Virgil, AEn. I. 82, following:
“Ac venti, velut agmine facto
Qua data porta ruunt, et terras turbine perflant.
Incubuere mari, totumque a sedibus imis
Una Eurusque, Notusque ruunt, creberquc procellis.
Africus, et vastos volvunt ad littora fluctus.”
Compare also Ovid, Trist. I. 2, 25, following. It was from this agitated sea
that the beasts that Daniel saw, representing successive kingdoms, seemed
to rise; and the fair interpretation of this part of the symbol is, that there
was, or would be, as it appeared in vision to Daniel, commotions among the
nations resembling the sea driven by storms, and that from these
commotions there would arise successive kingdoms having the
characteristics specified by the appearance of the four beasts. We naturally
look, in the fulfillment of this, to some state of things in which the nations
were agitated and convulsed; in which they struggled against each other, as
the winds strove upon the sea; a state of things which preceded the rise of
these four successive kingdoms. Without now pretending to determine
whether that was the time denoted by this, it is certain that all that is here
said would find a counterpart in the period which immediately preceded the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar, or the kingdom which he founded and adorned.
His rapid and extensive conquests; the agitation of the nations in self-
defense, and their wars against one another, would be well denoted by the
agitation of the ocean as seen in vision by Daniel. It is true that there have
been many other periods of the world to which the image would be
applicable, but no one can doubt that it was applicable to this period, and
that would be all that would be necessary if the design was to represent a
series of kingdoms commencing with that of Nebuchadnezzar.
CLARKE, "The four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea - The
idea of strife is taken here from the effects that must be produced, were the
east, the west, the north, and the south winds to rise tempestuously, and
meet on the surface of the sea. By the great sea, the Mediterranean is
meant; and is so called to distinguish it from those lakes called seas by the
Hebrews; such as the Sea of Galilee, Dead Sea, Sea of Tiberias, etc.; but even
that may refer to Asia, the scene of all these contentions. This dream is the
same in meaning, under different emblems, as that of Nebuchadnezzar’s
metallic image; but in Daniel’s dream several circumstances are added. It is
supposed that Daniel had this dream about forty-eight years after
29

30. Nebuchadnezzar had the vision of the great image.
GILL, "Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night,.... He declared he
had had a vision by night, and this was the substance of it:
and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea: the
east, west, north, and south winds, broke out from each of their quarters,
and rushed in upon the great sea; either the Mediterranean, so called in
comparison of the sea of Sodom, and the sea of Tiberias in Judea; or upon
the waters of the main ocean, and raised up its waves, and seemed as it were
to be striving and fighting with them, and put them into a strange agitation;
by which may be meant the whole world, and the kingdoms and nations of
it, because of its largeness, inconstancy, instability, and disquietude; see
Rev_17:15, and by the "four winds" some understand the angels, either good
or bad, concerned in the affairs of Providence on earth, either by divine
order or permission; or rather the kings of the earth raising commotions in
it, striving and fighting with one another, either to defend or enlarge their
dominions; and which have been the means in Providence of the rising up of
some great state or monarchy, as after appears.
HENRY 2-8, "The vision itself, which foretels the revolutions of
government in those nations which the church of the Jews, for the following
ages, was to be under the influence of. 1. He observed the four winds to
strive upon the great sea,Dan_7:2. They strove which should blow
strongest, and, at length, blow alone. This represents the contests among
princes for empire, and the shakings of the nations by these contests, to
which those mighty monarchies, which he was now to have a prospect of,
owed their rise. One wind from any point of the compass, if it blow hard,
will cause a great commotion in the sea; but what a tumult must needs be
raised when the four winds strive for mastery! This is it which the kings of
the nations are contending for in their wars, which are as noisy and violent
as the battle of the winds; but how is the poor sea tossed and torn, how
terrible are its concussions, and how violent its convulsions, while the
winds are at strife which shall have the sole power of troubling it! Note, This
world is like a stormy tempestuous sea; thanks to the proud ambitious
winds that vex it. 2. He saw four great beasts come up from the sea,from
the troubled waters,in which aspiring minds love to fish. The monarchs
and monarchies are represented by beasts,because too often it is by brutish
rage and tyranny that they are raised and supported. These beasts were
diverse one from another(Dan_7:3), of different shapes, to denote the
different genius and complexion of the nations in whose hands they were
lodged. (1.) The firstbeast was like a lion,Dan_7:4. This was the Chaldean
monarchy, that was fierce and strong, and made the kings absolute. This
lion had eagle's wings,with which to fly upon the prey, denoting the
wonderful speed that Nebuchadnezzar made in his conquest of kingdoms.
But Daniel soon sees the wings plucked,a full stop put to the career of their
victorious arms. Divers countries that had been tributaries to them revolt
from them, and make head against them; so that this monstrous animal,
30

31. this winged lion, is made to stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart
is given to it.It has lost the heart of a lion, which it had been famous for
(one of our English kings was called Caeur de Lion-Lion-heart), has lost its
courage and become feeble and faint, dreading every thing and daring
nothing; they are put in fear, and made to know themselves to be but men.
Sometimes the valour of a nation strangely sinks, and it becomes cowardly
and effeminate, so that what was the head of the nations in an age or two
becomes the tail. (2.) The secondbeast was like a bear,Dan_7:5. This was
the Persian monarchy, less strong and generous than the former, but no less
ravenous. This bear raised up itself on one sideagainst the lion, and soon
mastered it. It raised up one dominion;so some read it. Persia and Media,
which in Nebuchadnezzar's image were the two armsin one breast, now set
up a joint government. This bear had three ribs in the mouth of it between
the teeth,the remains of those nations it had devoured, which were the
marks of its voraciousness, and yet an indication that though it had
devoured much it could not devour all; some ribs still stuck in the teeth of it,
which it could not conquer. Whereupon it was said to it, “Arise, devour
much flesh;let alone the bones, the ribs, that cannot be conquered, and set
upon that which will be an easier prey.” The princes will stir up both the
kings and the people to push on their conquests, and let nothing stand
before them. Note, Conquests, unjustly made, are but like those of the
beasts of prey, and in thismuch worse, that the beasts prey not upon those
of their own kind, as wicked and unreasonable men do. (3.) The third beast
was like a leopard,Dan_7:6. This was the Grecian monarchy, founded by
Alexander the Great,active, crafty, and cruel, like a leopard.He had four
wings of a fowl;the lion seems to have had but two wings; but the leopard
had four, for though Nebuchadnezzar made great despatch in his conquests
Alexander made much greater. In six years' time he gained the whole
empire of Persia, a great part besides of Asia, made himself master of Syria,
Egypt, India, and other nations. This beast had four heads;upon
Alexander's death his conquests were divided among his four chief
captains; Seleucus Nicanor had Asia the Great; Perdiccas, and after him
Antigonus, had Asia the Less; Cassander had Macedonia; and Ptolemeus
had Egypt. Dominionwas givento this beast;it was given of God, from
whom alone promotion comes. (4.) The fourth beast was more fierce, and
formidable, and mischievous, than any of them, unlike any of the other, nor
is there any among the beasts of prey to which it might be compared, Dan_
7:7. The learned are not agreed concerning this anonymous beast; some
make it to be the Roman empire, which, when it was in its glory,
comprehended ten kingdoms, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Britain,
Sarmatia, Pannonia, Asia, Greece, and Egypt; and then the little horn which
rose by the fall of three of the other horns (Dan_7:8) they make to be the
Turkish empire, which rose in the room of Asia, Greece, and Egypt. Others
make this fourth beast to be the kingdom of Syria, the family of the
Seleucidae, which was very cruel and oppressive to the people of the Jews,
as we find in Josephus and the history of the Maccabees. And herein that
empire was diverse from those which went before, that none of the
preceding powers compelled the Jews to renounce their religion, but the
kings of Syria did, and used them barbarously. Their armies and
31

32. commanders were the great iron teethwith which they devoured and broke
in piecesthe people of God, and they trampled upon the residueof them.
The ten hornsare then supposed to be ten kings that reigned successively in
Syria; and then the little hornis Antiochus Epiphanes, the last of the ten,
who by one means or other undermined three of the kings, and got the
government. He was a man of great ingenuity, and therefore is said to have
eyes like the eyes of a man;and he was very bold and daring, had a mouth
speaking great things.We shall meet with him again in these prophecies.
JAMISON, "the four winds — answering to the “four beasts”; their several
conflicts in the four quarters or directions of the world.
strove — burst forth (from the abyss) [Maurer].
sea — The world powers rise out of the agitations of the political sea(Jer_
46:7, Jer_46:8; Luk_21:25; compare Rev_13:1; Rev_17:15; Rev_21:1); the
kingdom of God and the Son of man from the clouds of heaven(Dan_7:13;
compare Joh_8:23). Tregelles takes “the great sea” to mean, as always
elsewhere in Scripture (Jos_1:4; Jos_9:1), the Mediterranean,the center
territorially of the four kingdoms of the vision, which all border on it and
have Jerusalem subject to them. Babylondid not border on the
Mediterranean, nor rule Jerusalem, till Nebuchadnezzar’s time, when both
things took place simultaneously. Persiaencircled more of this sea, namely,
from the Hellespont to Cyrene. Greecedid not become a monarchy before
Alexander’s time, but then, succeeding to Persia, it became mistress of
Jerusalem. It surrounded still more of the Mediterranean, adding the coasts
of Greece to the part held by Persia. Rome,under Augustus, realized three
things at once - it became a monarchy; it became mistress of the last of the
four parts of Alexander’s empire (symbolized by the four heads of the third
beast), and of Jerusalem; it surrounded allthe Mediterranean.
K&D 2-3, "With Dan_7:2Daniel begins his written report: “Daniel began
and said,” introduces the matter.
יֵוְזֶחאָיְליֵל־םִע
, visions in (during)the
night, cf. Dan_2:19. Dan_7:2and Dan_7:3describe the scene in general.
The four winds of heaven break loose upon the great sea, and rage fiercely,
so that four great beasts, each diverse from the others, arise out of its
bosom. The great sea is not the Mediterranean (Berth., Ges., Hitz., Ewald),
for such a geographical reference is foreign to the context. It is the ocean;
and the storm on it represents the “tumults of the people,” commotions
among the nations of the world (Häv., Leng., Hofm., etc.), corresponding to
the prophetic comparison found in Jer_17:12; Jer_46:7. “Since the beasts
represent the forms of the world-power, the sea must represent that out of
which they arise, the whole heathen world” (Hofmann). In the
interpretation of the image (Dan_7:17)
אמגַּיןִמ
is explained by
אָעְרַאןִמ
.
ַחיִגּ
means to break forth(Eze_32:2), to burst out in storm, not causative, “to
make the great sea break forth” (Kran.). The causative meaning is not
certainly found either in the Hebrew or the Chaldee. The four winds stand
32

33. in relation to the four quarters of the heavens; cf. Jer_49:39. Calvin
remarks: Mundus similis turbulento mari, quod non agitatur una procella
vel uno vento, sed diversis ventis inter se confligentibus, ac si totum
coelum conspiraret ad motus excitandos . With this, however, the meaning
of the words is not exhausted. The four winds of heaven are not merely
diversi venti, and their bursting forth is not only an image of a general
commotion represented by a storm in the ocean. The winds of the heavens
represent the heavenly powers and forces by which God sets the nations of
the world in motion; and the number four has a symbolical meaning: that
the people of all regions of the earth are moved hither and thither in violent
commotion. “(Ecumenical commotions give rise to oecumenical kingdoms”
(Kliefoth). As a consequence of the storm on the sea, there arise out of it
four fierce beasts, not all at once, but, as Dan_7:6and Dan_7:7teach, one
after another, and each having a different appearance. The diversity of the
form of the beasts, inasmuch as they represent kingdoms, is determined
beforehand, not only to make it noticeable that the selection of this symbol
is not arbitrary but is significant (Hävernick), but emphatically to intimate
that the vision of different kingdomsis not to be dealt with, as many
interpreters seem inclined to do, as one only of different kingsof one
kingdom.
COFFMn, ""Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and behold the
four winds of heaven brake forth upon the great sea."
"The four winds of heaven here ..." are cosmic forces of the greatest extent.
Involved are the rise of populations and human systems and developments
pertaining to all the people of the earth. The "great sea" here is not the
Mediterranean sea, but the oceans of population upon earth. Just as we have in
Revelation 13, where either the apostle John, or perhaps even Satan himself
(depending upon the translation) "stood upon the seashore" to behold the great
scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns that came up out of the sea, the sea of
earth's peoples, just as in the case here. The kinship between Revelation and Daniel
is evident in many such particulars.
COKE, "Verse 2-3
Daniel 7:2-3. Behold, the four winds—strove, &c.— What was revealed to
Nebuchadnezzar concerning the four great empires of the world was again revealed
to Daniel, with some additions, about forty-eight years after. But what was
represented to Nebuchadnezzar in the form of a great image, was exhibited to
Daniel in the shape of great wild beasts. The reason of this difference might be, that
this image appeared with a glorious lustre in the imagination of Nebuchadnezzar,
whose mind was wholly taken up with the admiration of worldly pomp and
splendour; whereas the same monarchies were represented to Daniel under the
shape of fierce wild beasts, as being the great supporters of idolatry and tyranny.
33

34. These great beasts, as explained by the angel, Daniel 7:17 are kingdoms. They arise
out of a stormy and tempestuous sea; that is, out of the wars and commotions of the
world; and they are called great, in comparison of other less states and kingdoms, as
they are denominated beasts for their tyrannical and cruel oppression. These beasts
are indeed monstrous productions; a lion, with eagle's wings; a bear, with three ribs
in its mouth; a leopard, with four wings and four heads; and a beast with ten horns:
but such emblems and hieroglyphics were usual among the eastern nations, as may
be seen in the monuments of antiquity: a winged lion and such like fictitious animals
may still be seen in the ruins of Persepolis. Horns are attributed to beasts which
naturally have none, being used in hieroglyphic writings for the symbols of strength
and power; and these figures are supposed to be the arms or symbols of particular
nations, and are not more strange than several which are still used in heraldry. See
Bishop Newton, vol. 1: p. 441. Instead of, Strove upon the great sea, at the end of the
second verse, Houbigant reads, Agitated the great sea; by which, he says, is meant
Asia; the great theatre of the wars and commotions here foreseen by Daniel.
ELLICOTT, " (2) The great sea.—In general (e.g., Joshua 15:47), these words imply
the Mediterranean. Such cannot be the meaning here, so that according to Daniel
7:17 we are justified in explaining the “sea” to mean the nations of the world, which
are compared to the sea (Isaiah 27:1; Psalms 46:3). The raging of the winds from the
four quarters of the sky points to the various political and social agitations which
disturb the world’s history, and lead to the changes and revolutions which mark its
progress as it tends towards the end.
TRAPP, "Daniel 7:2 Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and,
behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea.
Ver. 2. Daniel spake and said.] His writing is called his speaking, to teach us to
receive the writings of the prophets and apostles with no less reverence than if we
had heard them speak with their own mouths. (a)
I saw in my vision by night.] The night doth in Scripture frequently signify trouble.
This "vision by night" was of troublesome businesses - viz., hurlyburlies in the
world, and persecutions in the Church.
And behold the four winds of the heavens strove upon the great sea,] i.e., There was
a huge bustle upon the earth, by means of the four successive monarchies. See
Revelation 13:1; Revelation 13:11. The world is fitly called the "great sea," ever
unquiet and full of commotions; which are also called "winds" for their
boisterousness, contrariety of nature, and inconstance.
BENSON, "Verse 2-3
Daniel 7:2-3. Behold, the four winds strove upon the great sea — This denotes those
34

35. commotions in the world, and that troublesome state of affairs, out of which empires
and kingdoms commonly take their rise. And four great beasts came up from the
sea — Signifying the four great monarchies, or kingdoms, that should successively
arise in the world, and have their origin from wars and commotions, which
generally end in setting up the conqueror to be a great monarch over those whom he
hath subdued: compare Revelation 13:1. The reason why these monarchies, which
were represented to Nebuchadnezzar in the form of a great image, formed of gold
and silver, brass and iron, are here exhibited by fierce and savage beasts, has been
observed in the note on Daniel 2:31.
WHEDON, "Verse 2-3
2, 3. The four winds of the heaven [for the numerical symbolism see Introduction to
Ezekiel, VIII] strove (literally, burst forth) upon the waters of the Mediterranean
(Ezekiel 47:10) — the great international ocean of the ancients, and therefore
symbolic of all the imperial powers “of the earth” (Daniel 7:17, and compare Isaiah
17; Psalms 65:7) — and out of this boiling tempest the prophet sees in vision each
savage empire thrown up upon the shore (Daniel 7:4) in the form of a hideous wild
beast (compare Isaiah 17:1; Isaiah 29:3; Isaiah 51:19; Ezekiel 17:3; Ezekiel 29:3;
Revelation 13:1); each beast as diverse from the others as the kingdom which it
represented was different. What a sublime stage and scenery for this sublimest “epic
of history”!
POOLE, " Because Daniel doth not expound what is meant by
winds, expositors think there is room left for every one’s conjecture; wherein this
seems most likely, that by the four winds of the great sea is signified commotions of
contrary nations and factions, striving together by wars, and producing these four
beasts successively. That this is often signified by winds, see Jeremiah 49:36 51:1; in
the destruction of Babylon, the first monarchy; and of Elam, i.e. the Persian
monarchy.
The great sea in Scripture is the Mediterranean Sea, called now the Levant,
Archipelago, Straits, &c.
1. Comparatively; for the people called lakes seas, as the sea of Galilee,
Gennesareth, Cinneroth, the Dead Sea, or lake of Sodom; but the Mediterranean
was
Jamma rabba, the great sea, for its length and breadth, above all the lakes put
together, though it be itself but a lake in comparison of the Atlantic and Indian
Oceans.
2. Great sea, because the great stage of action hath been on it, and adjoined to it;
and all the four great monarchies have been masters of it.
35

36. 3. Allegorically, for it is usual in Scripture to compare people to waters, and nations
to seas, Revelation 13:1 17:15; called so from the confused noise of it, Revelation
19:6, and from the unstableness of them, always running and rolling with every
wind as it blows, endangering those that ride upon the backs of its swelling waves.
PETT, " ‘Daniel spoke and said, I saw in my vision by night and behold, the four
winds of the heaven broke on the great sea. And four wild beasts came up from the
sea, different one from another. The first was like a lion and had eagle’s wings. I
beheld until its wings were plucked and it was lifted up from the earth, and made to
stand on two feet like a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.’
From this point on Daniel speaks in the first person (apart from Daniel 10:1).
Rather than recording historical events he is now communicating personal visions.
The four winds of heaven indicate heavenly activity, the winds of God. For He is the
king of heaven and acts from heaven (Daniel 4:37 compare Daniel 4:13; Daniel 4:26;
Daniel 4:31). For these ‘four winds of heaven’ compare Jeremiah 49:36, where they
represent God’s fierce activity against Elam resulting in their scattering to all parts
of the earth. They are winds with ‘worldwide’ effects, although we must remember
that it means the known world of that day. Israel too had been spread in all
directions around the known world by the four winds of heaven (Zechariah 2:6).
Thus the idea of the four winds of heaven is of the activity of God stirring up ‘the
world’ with mighty effects (contrast Ezekiel 37:9 where the four winds are life
giving for the people of God).
Here the four winds break on the Great Sea. The Great Sea was the Mediterranean
Sea (Numbers 34:6-7; Joshua 1:4; Joshua 9:1; Joshua 15:12; Joshua 15:47; Joshua
23:4; Ezekiel 47:10; Ezekiel 47:15; Ezekiel 47:19-20; Ezekiel 48:28). It is its
standard name. Thus what arises is connected with the Mediterranean area. But the
sea was seen by Israel as an enemy. The roaring of enemies against Israel was
likened by Isaiah to the roaring of the sea (Isaiah 5:30), which is described as
restless and casting up mire and dirt (Isaiah 57:20). He also likens it to the roaring
and tumult of the nations (Isaiah 17:12-13). Israel was ever afraid of the sea and
looked on it as hostile, although thankfully controlled by God. So they would not
like the thought of anything arising from the sea. The arising from the sea links
these wild beasts firmly to the earth, and to the earth in tumult.
The first wild beast was ‘like a lion’ and had eagle’s wings. The lion was the king of
the wild beasts, and lions were noted for their strength (Judges 14:18), boldness (2
Samuel 17:10), ferocity (Psalms 7:2), and stealth (Psalms 10:9; Lamentations 3:10).
There was no escape from the lion (Isaiah 5:29). The thought of eagle’s wings is of
strong wings. They would bring Israel’s enemy against them (Deuteronomy 28:49).
But being borne by eagle’s wings was also a sign of being borne by God (Exodus
19:4; Deuteronomy 32:11). However, in the context here the emphasis is on the
36

37. ferocity of the wild beasts. Thus this wild beast was a fearsome sight, with the
strength, ferocity and stealth of a lion and the speedy attack and bloodthirstiness of
the eagle (see Job 39:28-30).
In Jeremiah 4:7 (compare Jeremiah 49:19; Jeremiah 50:44) Nebuchadnezzar is
likened to a lion coming to make the land desolate and he is described as ‘the
destroyer of nations’, and in Ezekiel 17:3 an eagle represents Nebuchadnezzar as
the transplanter of Israel, (and a second eagle the Pharaoh), a picture confirmed by
Habakkuk 1:8. Thus in view of chapter 2 we are certainly to see here
Nebuchadnezzar and his empire. The lion-likeness confirms its superiority to what
follows, as did the head of gold in chapter 2.
This interpretation is even more confirmed when we read on. For its wings were
plucked off, reminding us of Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliation at the hands of God
(Daniel 4:33), and after this the beast then stood on two feet like a man and a man’s
heart was given to it. This surely indicates his repentance towards the Most High,
and the return of both rationality and the growth of spirituality (Daniel 4:34-36).
Compare Daniel 8:18 where Daniel was stood upright to signify readiness to receive
the revelation of God, and Daniel 10:11 where standing was linked with
understanding. The rampaging, swift flying beast has become softened and
humanised like Nebuchadnezzar. But his empire will not survive long.
PULPIT, "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 LXX;
omits the introductory clause, and renders, "I Daniel beheld, and, lo, the four winds
of the heaven rushed upon (προσέβαλον) 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 (Bevan). The
translation suggested by Levy, "stirred up," appears still better. The sea referred to
is naturally to be taken as the Mediterranean; it is "the great sea" of the prophets
(Ezekiel 47:10). Jerusalem is not so far from the sea but that Daniel might have seen
it in his boyhood. The symbolic meaning of the sea is the mass of heathen nations
(Psalms 65:7). The "four winds of heaven" usually stand for the points of the
compass (Jeremiah 49:34). 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
37

38. 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 Mediterranean Sea was the centre round
which the epic of 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 Mediterranean saw most of
the history transacted that took place between the time of Daniel and that of our
Lord.
BI 2-3, "I saw in my vision by night.
Modes of Communication with God
Since the days of the apostles, the intercourse between Heaven and earth
has been maintained through the ordinary channels. God speaks to man
through the medium of his conscience—in the Bible, and by the operation of
His providence. These are now the appointed means whereby we are to
ascertain a knowledge of our duty. Not that our Heavenly Father is less
desirous of guiding us into the path of truth, or that we, His children are
more abandoned to the perils of the world than were the people of His
inheritance in a former age; but the ransom of our souls having been
effected through the meritorious sacrifice of the Son of God, the Saviour,
having ascended into glory and “received gifts for men”; and instruction,
accompanied with the most cheering promises, adapted to the case of every
individual, having been imported in the canon of Scripture, the Deity has
withdrawn Himself from holding a more immediate communion with His
creatures, leaving us, not to ourselves, but to the influence of those aids
which He has provided. Though visible conferences have ceased between
the inhabitants of this world and their omnipresent Creator, we are still
under Divine control, and derive our guidance, our strength, and our
comfort from on high. The ancient seers were instructed in different ways.
Some were endowed with the gift of prophecy by the action of the Holy
Spirit upon the mind, illumining the understanding, and conveying to the
person so inspired the requisite acquaintance with events not yet
accomplished. Angels were also employed to unfold to men the designs of
the Almighty. Daring the ages of prophecy, dreams appear to have been
frequently of a supernatural order, and highly significant of some
38

39. important circumstance. (Charles Popham Miles, B.A.)
3 Four great beasts, each different from the
others, came up out of the sea.
BARNES, "And four great beasts came up from the sea - Not at once, but in
succession. See the following verses. Their particular form is described in
the subsequent verses. The design of mentioning them here, as coming up
from, the sea, seems to have been to show that this succession of kingdoms
sprang from the agitations and commotions among the nations represented
by the heaving ocean. It is not uncommon for the prophets to make use of
animals to represent or symbolize kingdoms and nations - usually by some
animal which was in a manner peculiar to the land that was symbolized, or
which abounded there. Thus in Isa_27:1, leviathan, or the dragon, or
crocodile, is used to represent Babylon. See the note at that passage. In
Eze_29:3-5, the dragon or the crocodile of the Nile is put for Pharaoh; in
Eze_32:2, Pharaoh is compared to a young lion, and to a whale in the seas.
In Psa_74:13-14, the kingdom of Egypt is compared to the dragon and the
leviathan.
So on ancient coins, animals are often used as emblems of kingdoms, as it
may be added, the lion and the unicorn represent Great Britain now, and
the eagle the United States. It is well remarked by Lengerke (in loc.), that
when the prophets design to represent kingdoms that are made up of other
kingdoms, or that are combined by being brought by conquest under the
power of others, they do this, not by any single animal as actually found in
nature, but by monsters - fabulous beings that are compounded of others, in
which the peculiar qualities of different animals are brought together - as in
the case of the lion with eagle’s wings. Thus in Rev_13:1, the Romish power
is represented by a beast coming out of the sea, having seven heads and ten
horns, Compare it. Ezra (Apocry.) 11:1, where an eagle is represented as
coming from the sea with twelve feathered wings and three heads. As an
illustration of the attempts made in the apocryphal writings to imitate the
prophets, the whole of chapter 11 and chapter 12 of the second book of Ezra
may be referred to.
Diverse one from another - Though they all came up from the same abyss,
yet they differed from each other - denoting, doubtless, that though the
successive kingdoms referred to would all rise out of the nations
represented by the agitated sea, yet that in important respects they would
39

40. differ from each other.
CLARKE, "Four great beasts came up from the sea - The term sea, in
Hebrew םי yam, from המה hamah, to be tumultuous, agitated, etc., seems to
be used here to point out the then known terraqueous globe, because of its
generally agitated state; and the four winds striving, point out those
predatory wars that prevailed almost universally among men, from the days
of Nimrod, the founder of the Assyrian or Babylonish monarchy, down to
that time, and in the end gave birth to the four great monarchies which are
the subject of this vision.
Diverse one from another - The people were different; the laws and
customs different; and the administration of each differently executed.
GILL, "And four great beasts came up from the sea,.... Which are
afterwards interpreted of four kings or kingdoms, Dan_7:17, which rose up
in the world, not at once, but successively, and out of the sea or world,
through the commotions and agitations of it; and these are the four
monarchies, Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman; compared to
"beasts", because of the rapine and violence, cruelty, oppression, and
tyranny, by which they were obtained, set up, supported, and maintained;
and to "great ones", being not like single separate kingdoms, as the kingdom
of Israel, and the like, but consisting of many kingdoms and nations, and so
like beasts of an enormous size:
diverse one from another; in their situation, language, manner, strength,
and power; hence expressed by divers sorts of beasts, as the lion, bear,
leopard, &c.; as in Nebuchadnezzar's dream by different metals, gold, silver,
brass, and iron.
JAMISON, "beasts — not living animals,as the cherubic four in Rev_4:7
(for the original is a different word from “beasts,” and ought to be there
translated, living animals). The cherubic living animals represent
redeemed man, combining in himself the highest forms of animal life. But
the “beasts” here represent the world powers, in their beast-like, groveling
character. It is on the fundamental harmony between nature and spirit,
between the three kingdoms of nature, history, and revelation, that
Scripture symbolism rests. The selection of symbols is not arbitrary, but
based on the essence of things.
CALVIN, "After Daniel had beheld these great commotions which were shaking the
earth in different parts, another vision was offered to him. What has already been
said concerning the troubled sea and the conflict of the winds, is extended to the
four monarchies, concerning which we shall now treat. A certain preparation is
intended when God offers to the eyes of his Prophet a turbulent sea produced by the
conflict of the winds. Just as if he should say — after these troubles others shall
40

41. spring up; thus men will wait for peace and tranquillity in vain, for they must suffer
under fresh agitation’s. Now, the kind of trouble is expressed, by the words, four
beasts proceed out of the sea. Hence that concussion, those storms, and that
confused disturbance of the whole world through one kingdom succeeding to
another. It can scarcely happen that any kingdom can perish without involving
others in its ruin. A single edifice can scarcely fall without the crash being heard far
and wide, and the earth seeming to gape at its overthrow. Then, what must happen
when the most powerful monarchies so suddenly perish? Hence in this verse Daniel
shows how the world is like a troubled sea, since violent changes among its empires
were then at hand. The comparison of empires to beasts is easily explained. We
know how God’s glory and power are resplendent in all kingdoms, if they are
rightly conducted after the law of equity. But since we often see the truth of what
was said to Alexander, — The greatest kingdoms are the greatest robberies, and
very few absorb the whole power in a great empire, and exercise a cruel and
excessive tyranny. Here the Prophet compares empires to great and savage beasts, of
which he will afterwards treat. Now we understand the meaning of the words: and
we may learn this lesson from what usually happens in the empires of the world; in
themselves, as I have said, they are most beautiful reflections of the divine wisdom,
virtue, and justice, although those who obtain supreme sway very rarely
acknowledge themselves divinely created for the discharge of their office. As,
therefore, kings are mostly tyrants, full of cruelty and barbarity, and forgetful of
humanity, the Prophet marks this vice as springing from themselves and not from
the sacred ordinance of God. Let us proceed, —
COFFMAN, ""And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from
another. The first was like a lion, and had eagles' wings: I beheld till the wings
thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand upon
two feet as a man; and a man's heart was given to it."
These beasts do not represent individual kings, but kingdoms. Scholars of all schools
agree that Babylon was this first beast. We have already noted that Babylon was
noted for its identity with this beast, the king of animals. There is some
disagreement about what is meant by "a man's heart being given to it" (Daniel 7:4);
but Young's view that, "The change that came upon the beast evidently has
reference to the event of Nebuchadnezzar's madness and his subsequent
restoration,"[10] is as good as any.
ELLICOTT, "(3) Four great beasts.—The monstrous forms of the beasts are
implied, rather than the hugeness of their size. Other instances of beasts being taken
as emblems of kingdoms may be found in Isaiah 27:1; Ezekiel 29:3; Ezekiel 32:2. It
must be observed that the beasts do not rise up simultaneously, but in succession to
each other. In this way, and in the difference of their character, they form a parallel
to the subject-matter of the vision recorded in Daniel 2.
41

42. TRAPP, "Daniel 7:3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from
another.
Ver. 3. And four great beasts.] Regnorum feritas bestiarum nomine demonstratur,
saith Jerome. The fierceness of the four kingdoms is set forth by the name of beasts.
Bellum a belluis. Monarchies are mostly gotten, kept, and governed with violence
and tyranny. [Psalms 76:4 Song of Solomon 4:8] Regna mundana parantur et
retinentur bellis. Commune vitium monarchiis et tyrannis.
PULPIT, "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
אדּ־ןמ אד, but as in the Syriac, אדח־ןמ אדח, as he renders ἓν παρὰ τὸ ἕν. Theodotion
has μεγάλα, 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 LXX. 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 (Daniel 1:18; Daniel 2:1). We have "four" chariots
in the sixth chapter of Zechariah, which seem to be symbols of the same thing.
Beasts. Animals of one sort or another are used of nations in the prophets; thus
Egypt is symbolized in Isaiah 27:1-13, as "leviathan," presumably a crocodile
(Isaiah 51:7), as "a dragon" in Ezekiel 29:3 Babylonia is figured as an eagle (Ezekiel
17:3). Composite beings are used as symbols also, as Tyro is addressed as a
'"covering cherub." In the Book of Revelation Rome is figured as a beast with seven
heads and ten horns (Revelation 13:1). In the Book of Enoch (85.—90.) we find this
figurative use of animals carried much further. Assyria and Babylonia and,
following them, Persia made great 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 it had the wings of
an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off
and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood
on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a
42

43. human was given to it.
BARNES, "The first was like a lion - It is to be assumed, in explaining and
applying these symbols, that they are significant - that is, that there was
some adaptedness or propriety in using these symbols to denote the
kingdoms referred to; or that in each case there was a reason why the
particular animal was selected for a symbol rather than one of the others;
that is, there was something in the lion that was better fitted to symbolize
the kingdom referred to than there was in the bear or the leopard, and this
was the reason why this particular symbol was chosen in the case. It is to be
further assumed that all the characteristics in the symbol were significant,
and we are to expect to find them all in the kingdom which they were
designed to represent; nor can the symbol be fairly applied to any kingdom,
unless something shall be found in its character or history that shall
correspond alike to the particular circumstances referred to in the symbol,
and to the grouping or succession. In regard to the first beast, there were
five things that entered into the symbol, all of which it is to be presumed
were significant: the lion, the eagle’s wings - the fact that the wings were
plucked - the fact that the beast was lifted up so as to stand up as a man - and
the fact that the heart of a man was given to it. It is proper to consider these
in their order, and then to inquire whether they found a fulfillment in any
known state of things.
(a) The animal that was seen: “the lion.” The lion, “the king of beasts,” is
the symbol of strength and courage, and becomes the proper emblem of a
king - as when the Mussulmans call Ali, Mahomet’s son-in-law, “The Lion of
God, always victorious.” Thus it is often used in the Scriptures. Gen_49:9,
“Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he
stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him
up?” The warlike character, the conquest, the supremacy of that tribe are
here undoubtedly denoted. So in Eze_19:2-3. “What is thy mother? A
lioness: she lay down among lions, she nourished her whelps among young
lions.” Here is an allusion, says Grotius, to Gen_49:9. Judea was among the
nations like a lioness among the beasts of the forest; she had strength and
sovereignty. The lion is an emblem of a hero: 2Sa_23:20, “He slew two lion-
like men of Moab.” Compare Gesenius zu Isa. i. 851. So Hercules and
Achilles are called by Homer θυμολέοντα thumoleonta, or λεοντόθυμον
leontothumon- lion-hearted - Iliad e 639, ee 228, Odyssey l 766. See the
character, the intrepidity, and the habits of the lion fully illustrated in
Bochart, Hieroz. lib. iii. c. 2, pp. 723-745 - Credner, der prophet Joel, s. 100.
f. Compare also the following places in Scripture: Psa_7:2; Psa_22:21; Psa_
57:4; Psa_58:6; Psa_74:4; 1Sa_17:37; Job_4:10; Jer_4:7; Jer_49:19; Joe_
1:6; Isa_29:1-2. The proper notion here, so far as the emblem of a lion is
concerned, is that of a king or kingdom that would be distinguished for
43

44. power, conquest, dominion; that would be in relation to other kings and
kingdoms as the lion is among the beasts of the forest - keeping them in awe,
and maintaining dominion over them - marching where he pleases, with
none to cope with him or to resist him.
(b) The eagle’s wings: “and had eagle’s wings.” Here appears one
peculiarity of the emblem - the union of things which are not found joined
together in nature - the representation of things or qualities which no one
animal would represent. The lion would denote one thing, or one quality in
the kingdom referred to - power, dominion, sovereignty - but there would be
some characteristic in that king or kingdom which nothing in the lion would
properly represent, and which could be symbolized only by attaching to him
qualities to be found in some other animal. The lion, distinguished for his
power, his dominion, his keeping other animals in awe - his spring, and the
severity of his blow - is not remarkable for his speed, nor for going forth to
conquest. He does not range far to accomplish his purpose, nor are his
movements eminent for fleetness. Hence, there were attached to the lion
the wings of an eagle. The proper notion, therefore, of this symbol, would be
that of a dominion or conquest rapidly secured, as if a lion, the king of
beasts, should move, not as he commonly does, with a spring or bound,
confining himself to a certain space or range, but should move as the eagle
does, with rapid and prolonged flight, extending his conquests afar. The
meaning of the symbol may be seen by comparing this passage with Isa_
46:11, where Cyrus is compared to “a ravenous bird” - “calling a ravenous
bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsels from a far country.”
The eagle is an emblem of swiftness: Jer_4:13, “His horses are swifter than
eagles;” Jer_48:40, “Behold, he shall fly as an eagle, and shall spread his
wings over Moab.” See also Jer_49:22; Lam_4:19; Hab_1:8.
(c) The clipping of the wings: “I beheld until the wings thereof were
plucked” The word used (טרמ meraṭ) means, to pluck or pull, as to pull out
the beard (compare Neh_13:25; Isa_50:6), and would here be properly
applied to some process of pulling out the feathers or quills from the wings
of the eagle. The obvious and proper meaning of this symbol is, that there
was some check put to the progress of the conqueror - as there would be to
an eagle by plucking off the feathers from his wings; that is, the rapidity of
his conquests would cease. The prophet says, that he looked on until this
was done, implying that it was not accomplished at once, but leaving the
impression that these conquests were extended far. They were, however,
checked, and we see the lion again without the wings; the sovereign who has
ceased to spread his triumphs over the earth.
(d) The lifting up from the earth: “and it was lifted up from the earth, and
made to stand upon the feet as a man.” That is, the lion, with the wings thus
plucked off, was made to stand upright on his hind feet - an unusual
position, but the meaning of the symbol is not difficult. It was still the lion -
the monarch - but changed as if the lion was changed to a man; that is, as if
the ferocity, and the power, and the energy of the lion had given place to the
comparative weakness of a man. There would be as much difference in the
case referred to as there would be if a lion so fierce and powerful should be
made so far to change his nature as to stand upright, and to walk as a man.
44

45. This would evidently denote some remarkable change - something that
would be unusual - something where there would be a diminution of
ferocity, and yet perhaps a change to comparative weakness - as a man is
feebler than a lion.
(e) The giving to it of a man’s heart: “and a man heart was given to it.” The
word heart in the Scriptures often has a closer relation to the intellect or the
understanding than it new has commonly with us; and here perhaps it is a
general term to denote something like human nature - that is, there would
be as great a change in the case as if the nature of the lion should be
transformed to that of a man; or, the meaning may be, that this mighty
empire, carrying its arms with the rapidity of an eagle, and the fierceness of
a lion, through the world, would be checked in its career; its ferocity would
be tamed, and it would be characterized by comparative moderation and
humanity. In Dan_4:16, it is said of Nebuchadnezzar, “Let his heart be
changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him;” here, if the
symbol refers to him, it does not refer to that scene of humiliation when he
was compelled to eat grass like a beast, but to the fact that he was brought to
look at things as a man should do; he ceased to act like a ravenous beast,
and was led to calm reflection, and to think and speak like a man - a rational
being. Or, if it refers to the empire of Babylon, instead of the monarch, it
would mean that a change had come over the nation under the succession of
princes, so that the fierceness and ferocity of the first princes of the empire
had ceased, and the nation had not only closed its conquests, but had
actually become, to some extent, moderate and rational.
Now, in regard to the application of this symbol, there can be but little
difficulty, and there is almost no difference of opinion among expositors.
All, or nearly all, agree that it refers to the kingdom of Babylon, of which
Nebuchadnezzar was the head, and to the gradual diminution of the ferocity
of conquest under a succession of comparatively weak princes. Whatever
view may be taken of the book of Daniel whether it be regarded as inspired
prophecy composed by Daniel himself, and written at the time when it
professes to have been, or whether it be supposed to have been written long
after his time by some one who forged it in his name, there can be no doubt
that it relates to the head of the Babylonian empire, or to that which the
“head of gold,” in the image referred to in Dan. 2, represents. The
circumstances all so well agree with that application, that, although in the
explication of the dream Dan_7:16-27this part of it is not explained - for the
perplexity of Daniel related particularly to the fourth beast Dan_7:19, yet
there can be no reasonable doubt as to what was intended. For
(a) the lion - the king of beasts - would accurately symbolize that kingdom
in the days of Nebuchadnezzar - a kingdom occupying the same position
among other kingdoms which the lion does among other beasts, and well
represented in its power and ferocity by the lion. See the character and
position of this kingdom fully illustrated in the notes at Dan_2:37-38.
(b) The eagle’s wings would accurately denote the rapid conquests of that
kingdom - its leaving, as it were, its own native domain, and flying abroad.
The lion alone would have represented the character of the kingdom
considered as already having spread itself, or as being at the head of other
kingdoms; the wings of the eagle, the rapidity with which the arms of the
45

46. Babylonians were carried into Palestine, Egypt, Assyria, etc. It is true that
this symbol alone would not designate Babylon anymore than it would the
conquests of Cyrus, or Alexander, or Caesar, but it is to be taken in the
connection in which it is here found, and no one can doubt that it has a
striking applicability to Babylon.
(c) The clipping or plucking of these wings would denote the cessation of
conquest - as if it would extend no farther; that is, we see a nation once
distinguished for the invasion of other nations now ceasing its conquests;
and remarkable, not for its victories, but as standing at the head of all other
nations, as the lion stands among the beasts of the forest. All who are
acquainted with history know that, after the conquests of that kingdom
under Nebuchadnezzar, it ceased characteristically to be a kingdom
distinguished for conquest, but that, though under his successors, it held a
pre-eminence or headship among the nations, yet its victories were
extended no further. The successors of Nebuchadnezzar were
comparatively weak and indolent princes - as if the wings of the monster
had been plucked.
(d) The rising up of the lion on the feet, and standing on the feet as a man,
would denote, not inappropriately, the change of the kingdom under the
successors of Nebuchadnezzar. See above in the explanation of the symbol.
(e) The giving of a man’s heart to it would not be inapplicable to the
change produced in the empire after the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and
under a succession of comparatively weak and inefficient princes. Instead of
the heart of the lion - of being “lion-hearted” - it had the heart of a man; that
is, the character of wildness and fierceness denoted by an untamed beast
was succeeded by what would be better represented by a human being. It is
not the character of the lion changed to that of the bear, or the panther, or
the leopard; nor is it man considered as a warrior or conqueror, but man as
he is distinguished from the wild and ferocious beast of the desert. The
change in the character of the empire, until it ceased under the feeble reign
of Belshazzar; would be well denoted by this symbol.
CLARKE, "The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings - Bp. Newton
well remarks, that these great beasts, as explained by the angel, Dan_7:17,
are kingdoms. They arise out of a stormy and tempestuous sea; that is, out
of the wars and commotions of the world; and they are called great in
comparison of other states and kingdoms, and are denominated beasts for
their tyrannical and cruel oppression.
These four beasts are indeed monstrous productions; a lion with eagle’s
wings; a bear with three ribs in its mouth; a leopard with four wings, and
four heads; and a beast with ten horns. But such emblems and hieroglyphics
were usual among the eastern nations, as may be seen in the monuments of
antiquity. A winged lion, and such like fictitious animals, may be seen in
many parts of the ruins of Persepolis. Horns are attributed to beasts which
naturally have none, being used in hieroglyphic writings for symbols of
strength and power. And such figures are supposed to be the symbols of
different nations; and are not more strange than many that are still used in
46

47. heraldry. I believe the science of heraldry arose out of the knowledge gained
from the symbols used in the Sacred Writings, and the little acquaintance
anciently obtained of the meaning of some of the Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Hence our wiverons, griffins, unicorns, with a congeries of natural and
unnatural things, split eagles, two-headed swans, etc., etc., etc.
The beast like a lion is the kingdom of the Babylonians; and the king of
Babylon is compared to a lion, Jer_4:7; Isa_5:29; and is said to fly as an
eagle, Jer_48:40; Eze_17:3, Eze_17:7. The lion is considered the king of the
beasts, and the eagle the king of the birds; and therefore the kingdom of
Babylon, which was signified by the golden head of the great image, was the
first and noblest of all the kingdoms; and was the greatest then in being. The
wings of the eagle denote the rapidity with which the lion - Nebuchadnezzar,
made his conquests; for in a few years, by his own arms, he brought his
empire to such an extent, and raised it to such a degree of eminence, as was
truly surprising; and all tended to show with what propriety this eagle-
winged lion is here made his emblem.
The wings thereof were plucked - Lydia, Media, and Persia, which had
been provinces of the Babylonish empire, cast off the yoke, and put
themselves under kings of their own. Besides, the rapidity of its conquests
was stopped by its wars with the Medes and Persians; by whom it was at last
conquered, and divided between Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian.
And it was lifted up from the earth - That is, the wings were plucked,
rendered unfit for farther flight, by which it had before been lifted up from
the earth; making its conquests almost with the rapidity of an eagle’s flight.
In what a short time did Nebuchadnezzar, who is here chiefly intended,
conquer Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, Egypt, Arabia, etc.! But on his death the
wings were plucked; and no farther extension of the empire took place
under Evil-merodach or Belshazzar, till it was lost by the latter, and became
divided as we have seen above.
And made stand upon the feet as a man - This I think refers to the taming
of Nebuchadnezzar’s pride. He had acted like a fierce and ravening lion.
God struck him with insanity; he then lived the life of a beast, and had a
beast’s heart-disposition, and habits. At last God restored him.
And a man’s heart was given to it - He became humane, humble, and
pious; and in this state he appears to have died.
GILL, "The first was like a lion,.... That which rose up first, the kingdom of
the Babylonians, as the Syriac version expresses it; or the Assyrian
monarchy, founded by Nimrod, increased by the Assyrians, and brought to
its height under Nebuchadnezzar by the Babylonians and Chaldeans; this is
said to be like a "lion" for its strength and power, for its greatness, dignity,
and majesty; the same with the head of gold in Nebuchadnezzar's dream;
see Jer_4:7,
and had eagles' wings; denoting the celerity and swiftness with which
Nebuchadnezzar ran, or rather flew, over several kingdoms and countries,
and added them to his empire; see Jer_4:13,
47

48. and I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked; it was retarded and
stopped in its conquests; it could fly no further, nor make any new
acquisitions; yea, it was deplumed and stripped of some of its dominions,
the Medes and Persians falling off, and making war with it:
and it was lifted up from the earth; or, "with which it was lifted up from, the
earth" (a); with which wings it raised itself up, and lifted itself above other
kingdoms and nations; but now were plucked, and could not soar aloft as
formerly; its glory and majesty, power and strength, were lessened, whole
provinces revolting, as in the times of Evilmerodach, Neriglissar, and
Belshazzar:
and made stand upon the feet as a man; it did not fly like an eagle as before,
and overrun countries, and waste them; or go upon all four, as a beast; but
stood on its feet, its two hinder legs, like a man; signifying that it abated, in
the reigns of the above princes, of its strength and fierceness, and became
more mild and tractable, and was reduced within bounds like other
kingdoms:
and a man's heart was given to it; instead of a lion like heart, that was bold
and intrepid, and feared nothing, it became weak and fearful, and timorous
like the heart of man, especially in Belshazzar's time; not only when he saw
the handwriting on the wall, to which Jacchiades refers this; but when he
was so fearful of Cyrus that he shut himself up in Babylon, and durst not stir
out to give him battle, as Xenophon (b)relates; and when the city was taken,
the Babylonians were obliged to deliver up their arms, employ themselves
in tilling their fields, and to pay tribute to the Persians, and always salute
them as their lords and masters, as the same historian (c)says; see Jer_
51:30.
JAMISON, "lion — the symbol of strength and courage;chief among the
kingdoms, as the lion among the beasts. Nebuchadnezzar is called “the lion”
(Jer_4:7).
eagle’s wings — denoting a widespread and rapidly acquired (Isa_46:11;
Jer_4:13; Lam_4:19; Hab_1:6) empire (Jer_48:40).
plucked — Its ability for widespread conquests passed away under Evil-
merodach, etc. [Grotius]; rather, during Nebuchadnezzar’s privation of his
throne, while deranged.
it was lifted up from the earth — that is, from its groveling bestiality.
made stand ... as a man — So long as Nebuchadnezzar, in haughty pride,
relied on his own strength, he forfeited the true dignity of man, and was
therefore degraded to be with the beasts. Dan_4:16: “Let his heartbe
changed from man’s,and let a beast’s heartbe given unto him.” But after he
learned by this sore discipline that “the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of
men” (Dan_4:35, Dan_4:36), the change took place in him, “a man’sheart
is given to him; instead of his former beast’s heart, he attains man’s true
48

49. position, namely, to be consciously dependent on God.” Compare Psa_9:20.
K&D, 4, "In these verses there is a description of the four beasts.-Dan_
7:4. The first beasts resembled a lion with eagle's wings. At the entrance to a
temple at Birs Nimrud there has been found (Layard, Bab. and Nin.) such a
symbolical figure, viz., a winged eagle with the head of a man. There have
been found also images of winged beasts at Babylon (Münter, Relig. der
Bab.). These discoveries may be referred to as evidence that this book was
composed in Babylon, and also as explaining the Babylonian colouring of
the dream. But the representation of nations and kingdoms by the images of
beasts is much more widely spread, and affords the prophetic symbolism
the necessary analogues and substrata for the vision. Lions and eagles are
not taken into consideration here on account of their strength, rapacity, and
swiftness, but simply because they are kings among beasts and birds: “The
beast rules royally like the lion, and wings its conquering royal flight high
over the οἰκουμένηlike the eagle” (Kliefoth). This emblem corresponds with
the representation of the first kingdom with the golden head (Daniel 2).
What the gold is among metals and the head among the members of the
body, that the lion is among beasts and the eagle among birds.
After a time Daniel sees a change take place with this beast. The wings,
i.e., the feathers by which it flies, are plucked off: it is deprived of its power
of flight, so that it can no more fly conquering over the earth, or hover as a
ruler over it; i.e., the kingdom will be deprived of the power of conquering,
for it will be lifted up from the earth (
תַמיִקֳה
is Hoph., cf. Dan_4:33), and be
placed on its feet as a man. The lifting up from the earth does not represent,
accordingly, being taken away or blown away from the earth, not the
destruction of the Chaldean kingdom (Theodrt., Hieron., Raschi, Hitzig, and
others), but the raising of it up when lying prostrate on the ground to the
right attitude of a human being. This change is further described by the
words, “a man's heart was given to it,” denoting that the beast-nature was
transformed to that of a man. The three expressions thus convey the idea,
that the lion, after it was deprived of its power of flight, was not only in
external appearance raised from the form of a beast to that of a man, but
also that inwardly the nature of the beast was ennobled into that of a man.
In this description of the change that occurred to the lion there is without
doubt a reference to what is said of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4: it cannot,
however, be thence concluded, with Hofmann and others, that the words
refer directly to Nebuchadnezzar's insanity; for here it is not the king, but
the kingdom, that is the subject with reference to whose fate that event in
the life of its founder was significant. Forasmuch as it was on account of his
haughtiness that madness came upon him, so that he sank down to the level
of the beasts of the field, so also for the same reason was his kingdom
hindered in its flight over the earth. “Nebuchadnezzar's madness was for
his kingdom the plucking off of its wings;” and as when he gave glory to the
Most High his reason returned to him, and then for the first time he
attained to the true dignity of man, so also was his world-kingdom ennobled
in him, although the continued influence of this ennobling may not be
49

50. perceived from the events in the reign of his son, recorded in Daniel 5.
Besides, there lies herein not only the idea of the superiority of the first
world-kingdom over the others, as is represented in Daniel 2 by the golden
head of the metallic image, but also manifestly the typical thought that the
world-kingdom will first be raised to the dignity of manhood when its beast-
like nature is taken away. Where this transformation does not take place, or
where it is not permanent, there must the kingdom perish. This is the
prophetic meaning, for the sake of which that occurrence in the life of the
founder of the world-monarchy is here transferred to his kingdom.
CALVIN, "It is clear that the four monarchies are here depicted. But it is not
agreed upon among all writers which monarchy is the last, and which the third.
With regard to the first, all agree in understanding’ the vision of the Chaldean
Empire, which was joined with the Assyrian, as we saw before. For Nineveh was
absorbed by the Chaldeans and Babylonians; but the Prophet discourses at length
of the Assyrian and Chaldean Empire, which was then flourishing. No one, however,
would have thought it so near its end; and on the very night on which Belshazzar
was slain, we saw how securely and proudly he was immersed in his pleasures, and
what great and listless security existed throughout the city. This monarchy then
ought to be set before us in the first place. As in the second chapter that empire was
called the golden head of the statue, so also it is now called a lion; that is, it is
compared to a generous animal. It is comprehended under the image of a beast, and
its fierceness and atrocity, as I have said, is hereby denoted; but with respect to the
other kingdom, some superiority is granted to it, since the world is always growing
worse and worse. And although Cyrus was a very prudent prince, yet he did not
reach the temperance of former ages; for his ambition, avarice, and cruelty were
insatiable. For Isaiah also, when he speaks of the Persians, says, They desire neither
silver nor gold, but thirst after human blood. (Isaiah 13:17.)
We perceive then the reason why the Prophet says, The first beast offered to me was
like a lion, because greater integrity flourished under the Chaldeans than when all
the empires were mixed together, and the Persians subdued both the Chaldeans and
the Medes. For it is evident from all histories that they were a barbarous and fierce
nation. They were indeed showy in their praise of virtue, since they spent their lives
in austerity, and despised all luxuries, and were exceedingly temperate in their
living; but their ferocity and brutal cruelty rendered them detestable. The first beast
then was like a lion, says he, and had eagle ’s wings; that is, although it was a lion,
yet it had wings. This refers to its swiftness, since we know in how short a time the
Assyrians increased their monarchy, for they had previously subdued the
Chaldeans, just like a lion for swiftness. For a lion has force, spirit, and cruelty for
committing injuries. Besides, the prophet saw a winged lion, since they not only
increased their empire by their own strength, but suddenly extended their wings in
every direction. We see, then, how strength and power are denoted on the one hand,
and the greatest speed on the other. He afterwards adds, Their wings were dragged
or torn off. For when the Chaldeans desired to stretch beyond their bounds, the
50

51. Lord restrained them within due limits, and checked their continual victories. Their
wings were then torn off, when God restrained them by the check of a bridle, lest
they should wander as freely as they had formerly done.
The Prophet then adds, This beast was raised from the earth, implying the cessation
of the empire. For neither the Chaldeans nor the Assyrians were entirely destroyed;
but their glory was completely taken away. The face of the beast no longer
appeared, when God transferred that monarchy to the Medes and Persians. Hence
the Prophet adds, It stood upon its feet, and the heart of a man was given to it By
this form of expression, he means to imply the reduction of the Assyrians and
Chaldeans to their ordinary condition, and that they were no longer like a lion, but
like private men deprived of their power and strength. Hence the expression, a
man’s heart was given to them, is not intended by way of praise, but by “a man” he
intends any private person; as if he had said, the aspect of the Chaldeans and
Assyrians was no longer terrible, since, while their sway prevailed, all men dreaded
their power. Hence God removed from the world the face of that beast, and
substituted that of a man, and made them stand upon their feet. Formerly they flew
about. in the air, and despised the earth as far beneath their feet, but God makes
them stand upon their feet; that is, not conduct themselves after their customary
and former manner, but simply on the common level, after God had deprived them
of their empire. This, in my judgment, is the simple meaning of the Prophet. Should
there be any necessity, we shall afterwards confirm the remarks which we now run
through but cursorily. It follows: —
COKE, "Daniel 7:4. The first was like a lion— This is the kingdom of the
Babylonians; and the king of Babylon is in like manner compared to a lion,
Jeremiah 5:6 and said to fly as an eagle, Jeremiah 48:40. He is also compared to an
eagle, Ezekiel 3:7. The lion is esteemed the king of beasts, and the eagle the king of
birds; and therefore the kingdom of Babylon, which is described as the first and
noblest kingdom, and was the greatest then in being, is said to partake of the nature
of both. Instead of a lion, the Vulgate, Greek, and Arabic, read a lioness; and St.
Jerome observes, that the kingdom of Babylon, for its cruelty, is compared not to a
lion, but to a lioness; which, naturalists assert, is the fiercer of the two. The eagle's
wings denote its swiftness and rapidity: and the conquests of Babylon were very
rapid; that empire being advanced to its height within a few years by a single
person, by the conduct and arms of Nebuchadnezzar. It is farther said, that the
wings thereof were plucked, &c. that is to say, it was taken away from the earth, as
it is commonly understood, and as it is rendered in almost all the ancient versions:
or it may be translated, The wings thereof were plucked, wherewith it was lifted up
from the earth; as Grotius explains it, and as we read in the margin of our Bibles;
the conjunction copulative sometimes supplying the place of a relative. Its wings
were beginning to be plucked at the time of the delivery of this prophesy; for at this
time the Medes and Persians were incroaching upon it. Belshazzar the king, now
reigning, was the last of his race; and in the seventeenth year of his reign Babylon
was taken, and the kingdom transferred to the Medes and Persians. It is not easy to
say what is the precise meaning of the last clause, And made stand, &c. It is most
51

52. probable, that after the Babylonian empire was subverted, the people became
humane and gentle; their minds were humbled with their fortunes; and they who
vaunted as if they had been gods, now felt themselves to be but men. They were
brought to such a sense as the inspired writer wishes, Psalms 9:20. See Bishop
Newton as above. Houbigant reads, And it stood upon its feet, as a man; that is, says
he, before its wings were plucked; for the pride of Nebuchadnezzar is here marked
out, who seemed in his own opinion to be above a man; like an animal desirous to
advance itself to the human condition.
ELLICOTT, " (4) The first was like a lion.—The lion and the eagle are chosen as
being emblems of strength and swiftness respectively. They characterise the empire
of Nebuchadnezzar, and correspond to the golden head of the Colossus (Daniel 2).
The wings . . . plucked.—The eagle, deprived of its wings, loses its power of
swiftness and unrestrained motion.
From the earth.—The beast was raised from being on its four feet into the position
of a man, as is indicated by the words “a man’s heart.” We have not sufficient
historical details respecting the last years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign to enable us to
point to the reference. It has been suggested by St. Jerome that the words refer to
the madness of the king and to his subsequent recovery; but it must be borne in
mind that it is the kingdom rather than the king of Babylon which is the subject of
the vision.
TRAPP, "Daniel 7:4 The first [was] like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till
the wings 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.
Ver. 4. The first was like a lion.] Which is the king of beasts (as the eagle is of birds),
generous, strong, fierce, fair-conditioned; so were the Assyrian monarchs in
comparison of those that followed them.
And had eagle’s wings.] Whereby is noted their victorious celerity and alacrity in
seizing upon kingdoms. {as Obadiah 1:4 2 Samuel 1:23 Jeremiah 4:13; Jeremiah
48:40 Ezekiel 17:3}
I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked,] scil., By the Medes and Persians,
taming Babel’s insolence, and making her inhabitants tributaries and slaves, to till
their ground and to maintain their garrisons, saluting them as their masters
wherever they met them. (a)
And made stand upon the feet as a man,] i.e., Brought down to the common rank of
men, and no longer lift up as an eagle.
And a man’s heart (b) was given to it.] Which before thought itseff as good as God,
52

53. now had low and common spirits; not as once, imperious and impetuous.
BENSON, "Daniel 7:4. The first was like a lion — The Chaldean or Babylonian
empire: compared to the head of gold, the chief of metals, in the image represented
to Nebuchadnezzar in his dream, Daniel 2:32; Daniel 2:37-38, is here represented as
a lion, the king of beasts. Instead of a lion, the Vulgate, Greek, and Arabic read, a
lioness, signifying, says Jerome, the cruelty of that empire, lionesses, according to
naturalists, being fiercer than lions. It is represented as having eagles’ wings, to
denote the extent and rapidity of its conquests, that empire being advanced to its
height within a few years, by the conduct and arms of one single person, namely,
Nebuchadnezzar. I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked — Or, torn out, as
ותירמ may be rendered: that is, it was checked in its progress by frequent defeats,
and rendered unable to make further conquests. Its wings were beginning to be
plucked at the time of the delivery of this prophecy; for at this lime the Medes and
Persians were encroaching upon it. Belshazzar, the king now reigning, was the last
of his race; and in the seventeenth year of his reign Babylon was taken, and the
kingdom transferred to the Medes and Persians. And it was lifted up from the
earth — Removed from its foundation, and lost its stability: or, as some render the
clause, the wings thereof were plucked, wherewith it had been lifted up from the
earth, that is, had been enabled to fly swiftly, in extending its conquests; and made
stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it — When it was thus
curtailed and humbled, it became more peaceable and humane, agreeably to the
idea of the psalmist, Psalms 9:20, Put them in fear, O Lord, that the nations may
know themselves to be but men. The minds of the people were humbled by their
misfortunes, and by the calamities coming more and more upon the empire; and
they who vaunted as if they had been gods, now felt themselves to be but men.
WHEDON, " 4. All expositors refer this to the Babylonian empire, which is here
represented by the king of beasts as previously by the chief of metals (Daniel 2:38).
It has long been supposed that the lion was equipped with eagle’s wings to symbolize
the swiftness with which he could swoop upon his prey; but it is more likely that the
figure was taken from the innumerable representations in Assyria of winged lions
with human faces as the symbol of imperial strength and divine authority. This
royal symbol was well understood by the prophets (Jeremiah 49:19; Jeremiah 49:22;
Jeremiah 50:17; Jeremiah 50:44). Herder suggestively remarks (1, 57), “If Daniel
sees a vision in which animal forms denote kingdoms, symbolic shapes of that kind
must have been no strangers to his waking world; for we dream only of forms which
we see when awake and in our dreams give them new and various combinations.”
The wings thereof were plucked — This probably indicates a diminution in the
swiftness and aggressiveness of the Babylonian invasions before the end of the
empire. Although it may possibly contain an obscure reference to the account given
in Daniel 4:28-36, where Nebuchadnezzar became outwardly beastly (as his whole
empire had previously been), yet the cases are so dissimilar as to make even a vague
53

54. reference doubtful. Most recent expositors believe that the expression and a man’s
heart was given to it refers to the “humanizing of the kingdom;” although
Behrmann and Thomson think, with greater probability, that it has reference to the
weakening of the kingdom, since a lion’s heart has always been a symbol of
strength. (Compare 2 Samuel 17:10.) Certainly this figure of a plucked beast lifted
up and made to stand upon his [hind] feet, as a man, does not impress us as an
attempt to convey the idea that this empire at this time was “the best of all” (Prince),
having “superior intelligence” (Bevan) to all the empires which had preceded it;
rather it vividly expresses the denuding of the empire of its natural and divinely
granted powers and of its “lion heart,” and, in consequence of this, its defeat by the
second beast, who immediately appears on the stage of action as the heir of its
greatness. The battle between the lion and the bear and the latter’s victory is taken
for granted.
POOLE, " Lion, and eagle; one the king of beasts, the other the king of birds, for
which he is called the golden head, as Daniel 2:32,38. This was the Chaldean or
Assyrian; whose seat was first at Babylon, after at Nineveh, and then at Babylon
again.
Had eagle’s wings; they were swift, overrunning many countries, and brought their
monarchy to a prodigious height in a short time. Thus Jeremiah prophesied, Daniel
4:13,
He shall come up as clouds, his chariots shall be as a whirlwind, his horses are
swifter than eagles; in the 7th verse called a
lion, and here like
clouds, whirlwinds, and eagles for swiftness, Jeremiah 48:40 Ezekiel 17:3.
The wings thereof were plucked; which was first in stopping the career of their
victories, and after in casting them out of their kingdom, the nation was not
destroyed, but their monarchy.
A man’s heart was given unto it: this was truly verified in Nebuchadnezzar, after he
was as a beast turned out amongst beasts, Daniel 4:31-34; and finished upon his son
Belshazzar for not taking warning, Daniel 5:22.
PULPIT, "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 LXX. and Theodotion render
"lioness," but otherwise agree with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta does not differ
from the received text. The word הירא is epicene. It is, however, to be noted that in
later Aramaic the terminal letter was , א not . ה The word gappeen, "wings," is
54

55. worthy of note; in this form it appears in the Peshitta, i.e. in Eastern Aramaic;
genappeen is the Targumie form. No modern commentator has doubted, with, I
think, the single exception of Dr. Bonnar ('Great Interregnum'), that the first beast
here is the Babylonian Empire (Hitzig, Zöckler, Kliefoth, etc.). 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 Nineveh and Babylon. If we assume that the empire of Babylon is represented by
this first beast, then we have to note, in the first place, the avoidance of any
reference to numbers. It may be objected that the "eagle's wings," ןיִפַּג(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 Babylon a period set in, during which Babylonia ceased to 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
Babylonia. We know more now of the early history of Babylon and of the
Chaldeans, and know that at one time the latter were divided into many cantons,
each under its separate king, and that on and after the conquest of Babylon by
Merodach-Baladan, they 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". This is the view of Behrmann. 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
Babylonia, if not at times to little more than the territory surrounding the city of
Babylon. We find that Nabunahid felt himself 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
55

56. 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
Babylon—"the lion." The same reason may be assigned here 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.
BI 4-28, "And four great beasts came up from the sea.
The Four Beasts
I. THE ELEMENT OUT OF WHICH THE WORLD-KINGDOMS CAME INTO
EXISTENCE. “Four beasts came up from the sea.” The sea, when looked at
in some of its aspects, is a most fit symbol of the means by which human
kingdoms without godliness have made progress in the world.
1. There is the element of treachery. The sea is at one moment calm, and
apparently harmless; and the next, sending a nation into mourning by
overwhelming her vessels and casting their crews into the depths of the
ocean.
2. The element of restless change. From its creation to the present
moment its waters have not been at rest for a single hour.
3. The element of destructiveness. The sea is a terribly destroying power.
The Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman empires were
destructive rather than constructive forces in the world.
II. THE CREATURES WHICH ARE USED AS SYMBOLS OF THE
WORLDKINGDOMS. “Four beasts.” The characteristics of these kingdoms
were animal rather than human. There is no true humanity where there is
no divinity. These kingdoms of the parabolic vision are symbolised by beasts
of prey noted for their strength, and cruelty, and treachery; no animal of a
gentle, peaceful nature is found among them; denoting the entire absence of
these characteristics in kingdoms without godliness.
III. THE KINGDOM THAT AROSE LAST OUT OF THE SEA OF TIME,
EXCEEDED THOSE THAT HAD GONE BEFORE IT IN CRUELTY AND
POWER. No mere animal could set forth all its destructive power; it had
“iron teeth” and “ten horns.” The longer wickedness goes on unchecked the
more its evil tendencies develops themselves, and the more it spreads
desolation in the world.
IV. A TRULY HUMAN KINGDOM CANNOT ARISE OUT OF ANY ELEMENT
OF EARTH, IT MUST COME FROM ABOVE. “The Son of man came with the
clouds of heaven.” The head of every kingdom except Christ’s Kingdom has
been a mere man. But the Son of man was from above, and He came to be
the head of a kingdom of true humanity. The subjects of His Kingdom
become partakers of the Divine natural, and, therefore, this kingdom
exhibits none of the characteristics set forth by the beasts. It is a human
kingdom because it is a Divine kingdom. Therefore, it is an everlasting
56

57. kingdom. This vision teaches us:
1. The knowledge of the eternal in relation to human affairs in the ages to
come.
2. That God has stretched a measuring line across the bounds of every
kingdom. He has appointed the bound of their habitation.
3. Human kingdoms form a dark background to reveal the beauties of
the Kingdom of Christ. (Outlines by London Minister.)
The Symbolical Beasts
Let us first attend to the place from which these beasts seemed to issue. It
appeared to the prophet that they came up from the sea. We are not to
interpret this literally. The sea, here, represents or symbolises something
else, and, in a subsequent verse, we are told that it signifies the earth.
“These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of
the earth.” Now the word earth is often to be understood, not of this
material globe, but of its inhabitants, as in that passage of Jeremiah, “O
earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.” And that in Psalms, “Make a joyful
noise unto the Lord all the earth; make a loud noise, and rejoice and sing
praise.” In this passage it is also to be understood of the inhabitants of the
earth, or human society. When, therefore, these kings are said to rise out of
the earth, this signifies that they would rise up out of the social state. But
these beasts did not simply come out of the sea, when they rose out of it the
sea was in a very marked condition. The four winds were striving upon it.
Since the sea is the emblem of society, the sea, with the four winds striving
thereon, is to be understood of society in a state of very great and violent
commotion. Now, whereas the sea is represented as being in this state,
when the several beasts came out of it, this clearly intimates that these
kingdoms would arise amid great commotions, and that, compared with
what was to follow, society might be said to continue in this state, and the
earth to have no rest, until this extensive prophecy was fulfilled. In
particular, we find the great empires, here predicted, rising to ascendancy
amid the hurricanes of civil commotion, and convulsing the world by the
shock of their fall. The four beasts which came up out of the sea signified
four kings. “These four beasts are four kings that shall arise out of the
earth.” In this passage the word king is of equal significance with the word
kingdom. This is evident from verse 22, “The fourth beast shall be the fourth
kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms.” Here the
fourth beast is called the fourth kingdom, which undoubtedly implies that
the three preceding beasts were three kingdoms. Whereas these kingdoms
are symbolised by beasts, this was probably intended to describe the
qualities by which they would be distinguished. It seems to intimate that all
these governments, as to their principles and aims, who would be more
characterised by what was common to man with the inferior creation than
by those principles which connect, and ally, and link him to creatures
holding a higher place in the ascending scale of existence. They are not
simply represented by beasts, but by beasts of prey, by the lion, and the
57

58. bear, and the leopard, and another beast which was dreadful, and terrible,
and strong exceedingly. Now beasts of prey are principally distinguished
from ethers by two things, they are strong and fierce, they take by violence
and use with cruelty. And do not these symbols prove their own divinity?
For what has been the character of all the great monarchies since the time
of Daniel, as developed in their public character? May not a great part of
their history be summed up in this, that they were strong and fierce, that
they acquired dominion by violence, and used it in oppression? When
brought to the test have not all governments accounted might to be right?
Have not nations, up to this date, been known to one another principally as
military establishments? Is not the history of empires a history of wars,
murders, rapine, and desolation? If there be any variation in these
murderous annals, it is when force gives place to policy and intrigue; it is,
however, the wild beast still, though crouching in concealment, in order
that he may spring unexpectedly upon his unprepared victim. Violence and
fraud have been characteristic of every government that has risen hitherto
upon the earth, even when individual rulers were personally of good
character, and arts, commerce, and science were encouraged. There never
was an instance of a government acting steadily on the great principles of
truth and holiness. These beasts were four in number, and represented four
kingdoms that were to arise upon the earth. That these were the
Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires is evident from a variety
of considerations. In the first place, the symbols, here employed, will be
found inapplicable to any other connected chain of history. An individual
king may be found to whom some of the symbols apply, but a succession of
four monarchies rising after one another will nowhere be found to which
these words can with any plausibility be referred. In the second place, the
application of the symbols to these four empires is so easy and natural as to
show that the former were designedly employed to represent the latter. In
the third place, this will appear from a comparison of the seventh with the
second chapter of Daniel. These two chapters evidently refer to the same
subject. Four kingdoms are symbolised in the second chapter, four
kingdoms are symbolised in the seventh. In both chapters these kingdoms
are represented as extending down to the period when God would erect His
kingdom on the earth. In the second chapter the fourth kingdom is
represented as being one of irresistible strength. In the seventh chapter it is
described as being dreadful, and terrible, and strong exceedingly. The
fourth kingdom, in the second chapter, is represented in its latter stages by
ten toes. In the seventh chapter its last form is symbolised by ten horns.
There cannot remain, on any mind capable of weighing evidence, the
faintest doubt that the second and the seventh chapters relate to the same
subject. This being ascertained, it is easy to prove, from the second chapter,
that the four kingdoms must be understood of the Babylonian, Persian,
Grecian, and Roman empires. In the second chapter the head of gold
denoted the first monarchy; but Daniel said unto Nebuchadnezzar, “Thou
art this head of gold”; the Babylonian empire was, therefore, the first of
these kingdoms. Now, in the second chapter, the four empires are
symbolised by one image. They must, therefore, have come after one
another in the order of immediate succession. The other three kingdoms,
58

59. then, must signify the three great empires which immediately succeeded
that of Babylon. But it is matter of undeniable and immutable fact that the
empire of Babylon was succeeded by those of Persia, Greece, and Rome; the
Babylonian having been overthrown by the Persian, the Persian being
overthrown by the Grecian, and the Grecian being overthrown by the
Roman. Notwithstanding of certain minor exceptions that have been stated
against it, we regard this theory as one at which we have arrived by the
sound and simple exposition of the sacred text itself, and which has been
tested by time and proved to be genuine. But while the fate of empires is
concealed from man, it is naked and open to the eyes of God. Kingdoms rise
and fall by Divine ordination: “Surely their days are determined, the
number of their months is with God, he hath appointed them a bound which
they cannot pass.” And, from the book of His immutable decrees, it is easy
for Him to transcribe any page of the future with as much exactness as the
historian can describe transactions that are past. But why, it may be asked,
are only these four empires pointed out the prophecy? Why does the Holy
Seer confine His revelations to this limited district of the world? Beyond it
were myriads of the human race, and old and mighty dynasties, were then
existing, elsewhere, or were afterwards to arise. Why in this symbolical
representation of empire are not India and China included? Why are the
two great continents of Africa and America wholly omitted? For this
limitation we may venture to assign two reasons, not indeed drawn by
exposition from the Scriptures, but drawn by exposition from the oracles of
Providence. From what we see of His actual doings by means of these
empires, we are perfectly safe in asserting that they occupy the sole place in
these predictions on two accounts:
1. Because they were to exercise the greatest influence upon the church
during the period to which this prophecy refers.
2. Because through them God intended to civilize and Christianize the
whole earth. It is a fact which will not be denied that these empires have
had the principal effect upon the church for good or for evil In the days
of Daniel, the church existed only within the limits of the Chaldean
empire. Afterwards, we find it within the Persian empire. Then we find it
principally connected with the Grecian monarchy, favoured by the great
Alexander, and persecuted by more than one of his successors. In the
latter days of the Jewish dispensation, we find the Old Testament church
connected with the empire of Rome. It was by Rome that Jerusalem was
destroyed, and the Jews driven into exile. The place of their dispersion,
and the scone of their sufferings, during a period of nearly eighteen
centuries, has been almost exclusively within the limits of the four
prophetic monarchies. Within this district the Son of God became
incarnate and was crucified. Here the fires of persecution blazed most
fiercely against His devoted witnesses. Here the great apostacy from the
truth was generated. This district was the battlefield between Christ and
anti-Christ during many generations. It is the centre still of all the
contests between light and darkness, between God and Satan. It is thus a
fact that these four empires have had most effect upon the church for
good or for evil; and, therefore, we seem warranted in concluding that
they alone are mentioned in these predictions, because of the influential
59

60. connection in which they were to stand to the church. And it is not less
true that these four empires have had the principal effect in the
Christianization and civilization of the other districts of the world.
Beyond the limits of these monarchies, the four winds have striven on
the great sea. There have been wars, and changes, and conquests, but,
unless we greatly mistake the matter, there is a very marked difference
between the political commotions and changes which took place within
the territorial limits of the four empires and those which occurred
elsewhere. Beyond this district, we will see one great conqueror after
another sweeping over the earth in the same murderous career. But we
see no permanent current of civilization following these commotions.
We see no advancement amid all these changes. We see the nations
living in the same barbarous, or semicivilized, condition in which they
were in the times of Daniel. But the commotions which have occurred
within the limits of the four monarchies have had a civilizing tendency in
the issue. Not to ascend higher, wherever the Romans carried their
arms, they carried their noble literature, and left a seed of it behind.
Their later conquests were preparatory to the dissemination of the
gospel; and to the fourth empire, as the Divine instrument, may be
traced the whole of European civilization. Look beyond the limits of
these four empires, and wherever we see civilization it will be found to
have come from them. Civilization and religion went from them to
America, to Greenland, Australia, the isles of the Pacific, and to many
spots in Africa. And there can now be little doubt that by means of the
fourth empire, in its last form, and of the church within it, God intended
to originate those movements which shall result in the Christianization
of the world. How thankful should we be unto God that we have been
born within the limits of these four monarchies, not merely because the
currents of civilization flow there, but because of the streams of life by
which they are watered and fertilized. How great and glorious does God
appear in connection with this prophecy! How low should we lie in the
dust before Him, under a profound feeling of the nothingness of our
intellects, when we see His omniscient eye piercing the vista of ages and
generations, and unfolding the end from the beginning! When we survey
the long and dreary domination of the four predicted beasts, we are apt
to be seized with a feeling of despondency. Why has wickedness been
permitted to exult so long? But when we remember that the Lord
reigneth, and that the past stages of the world are merely preparatory to
its future glory, a prospect opens on our view delightful beyond all
description. If rays of the Divine glory are seen sparkling out amid the
eras that are past, we are prepared for the announcement that, when the
work is completed, “the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the
waters cover the sea.” (W. White.)
Vision, of Four Wild Beasts
The first of these is the Babylonian empire. In the dream of
Nebuchadnezzar its symbol was the head of gold, and in the dream of
Daniel, the first wild beast which was like a lion and had eagle’s wings. The
60

61. superior excellence of the head of gold to the silver, brass, and iron of the
colossal image corresponds with the superior excellence of the first wild
beast, which had the body of the king of beasts and the wings of the king of
birds, to the three other wild beasts which came up afterwards out of the
sea. A royal dignity belonged to the Babylonian empire which was lacking in
its successors. It is true that when Daniel had his dream the Babylonian
empire was near its end; but as the stand-point of Daniel in the dream was
before the wild beasts came up out of the sea, the interpreter justly spoke of
then to Daniel as “four kings which shall arise out of the earth.” In the
dream the Babylonian empire was yet to come; but in point of fact it had
already come, and was on the eve of passing away. In the plucking of the
wild beast’s wings, which deprived it of its soaring ambition, and in lifting it
up from the earth and giving to it a man’s attitude and heart, which
deprived it of the voracious nature of the wild beasts, there seems to be a
reference to the madness and restoration of Nebuchadnezzar. The
Judgment which humbled and ennobled the great king, paved the way for
the overthrow of the first great world-power. The empire after the
restoration of Nebuchadnezzar had never been so glorious; but the change
wrought in him had deprived it of the conquering and destructive power of
the wild beast. The lion-like ferocity and eagle-like swiftness in pouncing
upon the nations had given place to the kindliness and consideration of a
brother man. And when the great king died the glory had departed. None of
his successors had either his genius or his strength and nobility of spirit;
and in twenty-three years the Babylonian empire had ceased to be. The
second world-empire is the Medo-Persian. Three reasons seem to place this
opinion, which has been common in all ages, on a solid and immovable
foundation.
(1) It is historically true. It is admitted on all hands that the empire
which succeeded the Babylonian was the Medo-Persian. To suppose,
as the higher critics generally do, that the kingdom meant in both
dreams is a kingdom of the Medes, is to ascribe to them a grave
historical blunder, since the kingdom of the Medes lost its separate
existence and became a part of the dominion of Cyrus eleven years
before the downfall of the Babylonian empire.
(2) It is the empire meant in the sacred narrative. This seems clear
from the following facts. In his interpretation of the mysterious
writing which portended the doom of Babylon, Daniel says of one of
the words which suggested the Persians: “Perez: thy kingdom is
divided and given to the Medes and Persians” (v. 28). It is no doubt
true that Darius the Mede is mentioned as the first king; but then it is
to be noted, not only that Darius the Mede “received the kingdom,”
but that he and his councillors regarded the edict as unalterable,
“according to the law, of the Medes and Persians” Dan_6:8; Dan_
6:12; Dan_6:15).
(3) It is the only empire which fits the symbols. The symbol of the
second empire in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is “the breast and arms of
silver.” The symbol is emblematic of its inferiority to the first empire,
represented by the head of gold, and the two arms are the two people
61

62. who composed it. Its symbol in Daniel’s dream is the second wild
beast, “like to a bear, raised upon one side, with three ribs between
its teeth, to which it was said, Arise, devour much flesh.” The Medo-
Persian empire, like the bear, was powerful and destructive; one of
its two people, the Persians, like one of the sides of the bear, was
more prominent than the other; it had in its grasp, like the bear with
the three ribs in its mouth, the three kingdoms of Babylon, Lydia, and
Egypt; and it was sluggish, like the bear, and needed to be stimulated
in its destructive voracity. The Medo-Persian empire fits exactly both
symbols, while the empire of the Medes fits neither. On these three
grounds it seems certain that the second empire symbolised in the
two dreams was the Mede-Persian. The third world-empire is the
Greek or Macedonian. Its symbol in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar is
“the belly and thighs of brass”; in the dream of Daniel, a leopard with
four heads and four wings. The leopard is a fierce animal, remarkable
for its swiftness and agility. When the prophet wished to impress his
fellow-countrymen with the exceeding swiftness of the horses of the
Chaldeans, he described them as “swifter than leopards” (Hab_1:8).
This quality of swiftness is here intensified by the leopard “having the
four wings of a bird.” The lion, the symbol of the Babylonian empire,
had only two wings; but the leopard, the symbol of the Macedonian,
had four. The exceeding swiftness of such a wild beast is an emblem
of Alexander the Great in his conquering career. The rapidity of his
military movements was not only superior to those of
Nebuchadnezzar and of Cyrus, but perhaps unexampled in the history
of the world. The four heads of the leopard represent the four
kingdoms into which the Macedonian empire was divided after
Alexander’s death. The third wild beast seems in every, respect an apt
symbol of the Macedonian empire. The higher critics generally, on
the other hand, take the third wild beast to be a symbol of the Persian
empire. I have already given three reasons for thinking that the
second wild beast must be intended for the Medo-Persian empire.
After the Babylonian empire there was neither a Median nor a
Persian empire, but only a Medo-Persian empire; and if the second
wild beast refers to the Medo-Persian empire, then the third wild
beast must refer to the Macedonian empire, which immediately came,
after it. But in addition, the third wild beast is not an apt symbol of
the Medo-Persian empire. The four-winged leopard might be looked
upon as a fit symbol of Cyrus, though not nearly so apt as a symbol of
Alexander the Great, either for rapidity or ferocity; but it is
altogether inappropriate to the general character of the Medo-
Persian empire. Instead of being like a four-winged leopard, it
strikingly resembled the awkward, slow-moving bear. Again, the four
heads are not satisfactorily explained of the Medo-Persian empire by
supposing that they refer either to its universal dominion—the four
heads being understood as the four points of the compasstowards
which the empire spread—or to four of its rulers. The heads naturally
suggest kings or kingdoms, and the four heads being on the beast at
one and the same time suggest four contemporaneous, and not four
62

63. successive kings. The fourth world-empire is the Roman. The fourth
wild beast, as it appeared to Daniel in the dream, is said to be
“terrible and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron
teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with
its feet: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and
it had ten horns.” There are two striking points of resemblance
between this symbol and that of the fourth empire in
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. One is, that both have iron as a
characteristic feature. The fourth wild beast had great iron teeth, and
the fourth or lowest part of the colossal image was iron; and as iron
was an emblem of a breaking and subduing power, it strikingly
shadows forth the Roman empire. The other is, that both were
marked by the number ten. The fourth beast had “ten horns,” and the
iron portion of the image “ten toes.” The ten horns and the ten toes
represent the ten kingdoms into which the Roman empire would be
divided; and here, as elsewhere in Scripture, the definite number ten
seems to be used in an indefinite sense for a great many. But while an
apt symbol for the divided Roman empire, the number ten seems
totally inapplicable to the Grecian empire, which is the favourite view
of the higher critics. We come now to what is said about the Little
Horn. “I considered,” says Daniel, “the horns, and, behold, there
came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of
the first horns were plucked up by the roots; and, behold, in this horn
were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.”
He says also in the 21 and 22nd verses: “I beheld, and the same horn
made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 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.” The general opinion of the higher critics is that the little
horn is a symbol for Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the Grecian kings of
Syria (175 B.C-164 B.C.), and the arch-persecutor of the Jewish
people. But this empire cannot be correct if, as we have already tried
to show, the fourth world-empire is the Roman. Ahtiochus Epiphanes
belongs to the third world-empire, and not to the fourth. Besides,
there are two things in the symbol which show that it could not refer
to Antiochus Epiphanes. One is, that the little horn canto up after the
ten horns, and was distinct from them. Antiochus, on the other hand,
was one of the ordinary kings of Syria. His kingship was not distinct
from those of the divided empire. The other is, that the little horn
rooted out three of the ten. There is nothing corresponding, or
approaching to, this in the history of Antiochus Epiphanes. The little
horn means, I have no doubt, Papal Rome. In the fifth century of our
era the Roman empire was broken up by the invasion of northern
hordes; and amongst the kingdoms into which it was divided the
church in Rome, with its bishop, sprang into existence as one of the
kingdoms of the empire. This took place in 755 A.D., when Pepin, king
of the Franks, granted to the Pope for a temporal dominion the Ex-
archate of Ravenna, the Pentapolis, and the Duchy of Rome; and so,
according to the prophetic dream, the new kingdom came up after the
63

64. other ten. It was also a little horn, whether you look at the church in
Rome as an ecclesiastical body or at the temporal dominion with
which it was invested. The States of the Church, even with the
Dukedom of Spoleto, which Charlemagne added in 774 A.D., formed
only the central part of the Italian peninsula. In 1870 these States
were lost to the Church of Rome, and in 1871 formally annexed to the
kingdom of Italy, while the Italian parliament agreed to allow the
Pope to live in the Vatican as a sovereign, not subject to the laws of
the land, and to grant him an annual appanage of nearly three and a
quarter million of lires. So far, then, as temporal dominion is
concerned, the Pope has always been a little horn. Again, Papal
Rome, like the little horn, is diverse from the other horns of the
empire, inasmuch as the spiritual power is combined with the
temporal, the ecclesiastical with the political. Another thing noted of
the little horn is, that “before it three of the first horns were plucked
up by the roots.” This also is true of Papal Rome. Of the various
opinions as to what the three extinguished sovereignties were, I am
inclined to adopt that of Sir Isaac Newton, that they were the
kingdom of the Lombards, the Ex-archate of Ravenna which
represented the dominion of the Byzantine emperors, and the Duchy
of Rome. Gibbon, in the forty-fifth chapter of his great work, says:
“during a period of two hundred years, Italy was unequally divided
between the kingdom of the Lombards and the Ex-archate of
Ravenna.” And there can be no doubt that it was the Pope, by means
of Pepin and Charlemagne, who put down these two sovereignties in
the empire. The Duchy of Rome, which he also plucked up by the
roots, though small in size, was yet, on account of its prominence and
importance in the empire, well entitled to be represented as one of
the ten horns. And it is a memorable and suggestive fact that the
Pope, alone of all sovereigns, wears a triple crown. Again, Daniel says
of the little horn: “Behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a
man, and a mouth speaking great things, whose look was more stout
than his fellows.” The eye is the symbol of intelligence, and the eyes of
a man in the little horn imply that it would be distinguished amongst
the kingdoms of the world for its subtle and astute diplomacy. Its
intelligence would be that of a man as compared with that of a wild
beast. And such extraordinary intelligence has been a distinguishing
feature in the worldly policy of Papal Rome. Its diplomacy is
unrivalled for duplicity and craft. And no worldly power ever
approached it for speaking great swelling words of vanity. This is
what is said to the Pope at his coronation: “Receive the tiara
ornamented by the three crowns, and know that you are the father of
bishops and kings, the earthly governor of the world, the vicar of our
Saviour Jesus Christ to whom be honour, world without end.”
Another feature of the little horn, which belongs also to Papal Rome,
is its persecution of the people of God. “I beheld,” says Daniel (v. 21),
“and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against
them.” In interpreting this, the angel said to Daniel (v. 25): “And he
shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the
64

65. saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and
the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time, and times,
and half a time.” There is no need to enlarge upon the persecutions of
the Papacy, as there is no land in Christendom whose soil has not
been stained with the blood of the martyrs which she has shed.
Happily its power to persecute is for the present, at least to a large
extent, taken away. The next thing in the dream is the doom which
was to befall the little horn. First of all, there is the sitting of the
Heavenly court on the conduct of the little horn (v. 9, 10). There are
judgment days in Heaven continually occurring with regard to human
affairs. After the destruction of the little horn, the world-wide empire
of the Messiah begins. Daniel thus continues his dream (v. 13, 14).
(T.Kirk.)
The Vision of the Four Beasts
Let us attempt to get at the practical and permanent principles which
underlie this remarkable prophecy, and which are at once profoundly
suggestive and exceedingly important.
1. The terribly significant truth, that earthly power, in and of itself,
degenerates into brutality. The appropriate symbol of a great empire is a
wild beast. The kingdoms of the earth have stood on military conquest.
Might has taken the place of right. The sword has been the arbiter of
imperial dynasties, and the struggles between rival powers have been as
fierce and destructive as the contentions of wild animals in the jungle.
2. The tendency of this brutality is to increase. Note the order in which
the four beasts are set. Bad as the Babylonians were, they were outdone
by the Persians; these were exceeded by the Greeks; while the Romans
were the worst of all. Note that all this while the nations were growing in
what has been called culture and civisation. This was a merely
superficial thing, and served only to veneer the rottenness and cruelty
which were beneath.
3. The restoration of man to humanity must come, not from himself, but
from above. He who introduced the healing salt which is yet to purify
thoroughly the bitter fountain of our earthly life was sent forth from “the
ancient of days.” There are few more striking arguments for the Divine
origin of the Gospel, and the deity of its author, than that which may be
drawn from the contrast between the character of Jesus and that of His
age. Surely, the hope of the world lies in the diffusion of the Gospel of
Christ. Wherever the Gospel goes in power, it restores men to humanity
by bringing them back to God. Civilisation without the Gospel is only a
veneered brutality. (William M. Taylor, D.D.)
Daniel’s First Vision
This first vision of Daniel is confessed on all hands to be an expansion of the
65

66. dream of Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream had represented
human empire in its intelligent, well-proportioned might. It was man’s
power as formed, in some measure, in the image of God. The substance, the
strength, the character of the several empires were different; the form was
one. Daniel’s vision exhibits them on another side. The four winds of
Heaven are driving upon the great sea, that representative, throughout Holy
Scripture, of our troubled world, and out of it there arise forms of more
than human strength. The terrific and wasting power of the world-empires
is exhibited under the symbol of brute force. A sort of unity is given to them,
in that they are all exhibited at first to the prophet’s eye at once. God shows
them to him first, as He Himself sees all things, at once; then, as they arose
in fact, succeeding one another. Nor did they arise of their own power. “Not
without being acted upon by the winds of Heaven does the sea send forth
those beasts; not without being set in motion by the powers above, does the
heathen world form itself into those great empires” (Hoffmann.) As the
Babylonian empire had been exhibited to Nebuchadnezzar under the
symbol of the richest metal, “gold,” so now to Daniel under that of the solid
strength of the king of beasts of prey, with the swiftness of the royal bird,
the eagle. Jeremiah and Ezekiel had likened Nebuchadnezzar to both. The
second beast, the bear, corresponds with the solid, heavy, chest of
Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. The twofold division and the relative strength of
the two sides recur in this symbol also. It lifts itself heavily, in contrast to
the winged rapidity of the Chaldean conquests. The “three ribs in its mouth”
correspond accurately to the three kingdoms which the Medo-Persian
empire swallowed up, the Lydian, Babylonian, and Egyptian. It is bidden,
“Arise devour much flesh,” in conformity with the greedy character of the
animal: waste of human life was a characteristic of the Persian empire in its
heavy aggressiveness. Heaviness was, after Cyrus, the characteristic of its
wars. Of the third empire, the characteristics are insatiableness of
conquest, and swiftness, and fourfold division. The panther, an animal
insatiable above every other beast of prey, gifted with a swiftness which
scarce any prey can escape, is represented yet further with four wings. The
subdivision of the empire is indicated by its four heads. Its colour
corresponds to the brass of the image, its swiftness to the activity of the
loins and thighs of the image. Probably the multiplication of the heads was a
symbol of circumspection, of manifold, versatile intelligence. But, again, the
chief object of interest in the vision is the fourth empire. For the living
creature which can represent it there is no name. “In the former beasts,”
says Jerome, “there are single tokens of terribleness, in this, there are all.”
Of this last empire Daniel sees not only certain characteristics, but a
history. Intervals of its history are marked. It embraces a long period. Its
characteristic is stupendous strength. Permanent subdual characterised the
Roman empire, but it had not the power of consolidating into one the
disjointed materials of its greatness. The period after the destruction of the
whole fourth kingdom is indicated by the words: “And the rest of the beasts,
the other kingdoms, had their dominion taken away; yet their lives were
prolonged for a season and a time” (v. 12). This sentence seems to relate to a
time after the destruction of the fourth empire, but this, being still future,
we cannot explain certainly. The chief object of interest, that chiefly
66

67. expanded, is that in which all the kingdoms end—the Kingdom of God
victorious over the evil of the world . . . It is a sublime picture; man, with his
keen intellect, a look more stout than his fellows, overthrowing kings, doing
his own will, speaking against God, placing himself over against Him as His
antagonist, having, for a set time, all things in his hand; and above, out of
sight, God enthroned in the serenity of His majesty, surrounded by the
thousands of heavenly beings who serve Him; and near Him, One in human
form, born of a human birth, yet, like God, above in the clouds of Heaven,
the darkness shrouding Him from human eye, but reigning and to reign for
ever, His Kingdom neither to pass away by decay, nor to be destroyed by
violence. “God is patient, because He is eternal.” Below, all is tumult; above,
all is tranquility; the Heavenly King over against the earthly potentate, until
the last blasphemy draws down His lightnings upon him, the voice of his
great word ascends, the judgment, of God descends. (E. B. Pusey, D.D.)
The First Two Visions of the Book of Daniel
Two emblems are here used to describe the corruption of human states in
past ages, the great image and the four beasts of prey. False religion and
worldly ambition, with its natural fruits of cruelty and crime, are vividly
portrayed by this twofold emblem. The redemption of man from this
twofold fall must begin with their separate members. Let us, therefore,
trace, from the emblems themselves, the bright and holy contrast which is
waiting to be realised in the coming Kingdom of God.
1. Man, in his state of nature, is dead in trespasses and sins. In the
symbols of the prophecy he is an atom of the dazzling, but lifeless image;
a member incorporated in the wild beast of prey. The first work of
redemption is to deliver him from this state. The bestial nature is then
crucified and done away; and he becomes a living member of the body of
Christ. He is no longer a lifeless atom of clay in the feet of the image. The
breath of a new life has been breathed into his nostrils, and, like Adam in
the day of creation, he stands once mere erect in the image of God.
2. The prophecy leads us to contemplate the true character and
blessedness of a righteous nation. The closing part of those visions
teaches us:
(1) The intense reality of God’s providence here below.
(2) The true standard of national excellence and honour. Not wealth and
riches. Not military ambition. Not the cold and heartless theories of
political ungodliness; but ordinances of royalty and righteous dominion. (T.
R. Birks, M.A.)
67

68. 5 “And there before me was a second beast, which
looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its
sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between
its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of
flesh!’
BARNES, "And, behold, another beast, a second, like to a bear - That is,
after the lion had appeared, and he had watched it until it had undergone
these surprising transformations. There are several circumstances, also, in
regard to this symbol, all of which, it is to be supposed, were significant, and
all of which demand explication before it is attempted to apply them.
(a) The animal seen: the bear. For a full description of the bear, see
Bochart, Hieroz. lib. iii. c. 9: The animal is well known, and has properties
quite distinct from the lion and other animals. There was doubtless some
reason why this symbol was employed to denote a particular kingdom, and
there was something in the kingdom that corresponded with these peculiar
properties, as there was in the case of the lion. The bear might, in some
respects, have been a proper representative of Babylon, but it would not in
all nor in the main respects. According to Bochart (Hiefoz, vol. i. p. 812), the
bear is distinguished mainly for two things, cunning and ferocity. Aristotle
says that the bear is greedy as well as silly and foolhardy. (Wemyss, Key to
the Symbolic Language of Scripture.) The name in Hebrew is taken from his
grumbling or growling. Compare Isa_19:11:
“We roar all like bears.”
Compare Horace, Epod. 16, 51:
“Nec vespertinus circumgemit ursus ovile.”
Virgil mentions their ferocity:
“Atque in praesepibus ursi Saevire.”
- AEn. vii. 17.
The bear is noted as especially fierce when hungry, or when robbed of its
whelps. Jerome (on Hos_13:8) remarks, “It is said by those who have
studied the nature of wild beasts, that none among them is more ferocious
than the bear when deprived of its young, or when hungry.” Compare 2Sa_
68

69. 17:8; Pro_17:12; Hos_13:8. The characteristics of the kingdom, therefore,
that would be denoted by the bear would be ferocity, roughness, fierceness
in war, especially when provoked; a spirit less manly and noble than that
denoted by the lion; severe in its treatment of enemies, with a mixture of
fierce and savage cunning.
(b) Its rising up on one of its sides: “and it raised up itself on one side.”
The Chaldee word used here (רטשׁ sheṭar) occurs nowhere else. It means side
(Gesenius), and would be applied here to the side of an animal, as if he lifted
up one side before the other when he rose. The Latin Vulgate renders it, in
parte stetit. The Greek (Walton), έις μέρος ἕν ἐστάθη eis meros hen estathē - “it
stood on one part;” or, as Thompson renders it, “he stood half erect.” The
Codex Chisianus, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς πλευροῦ ἐστάθη epi tou henos pleurou estathē - “it
stood upon one side.” Maurer renders this, “on one of its forefeet it was
recumbent, and stood on the other,” and says that this is the figure
exhibited on one of the stones found in Babylon, an engraving of which may
be seen in Munter, Religion d. Babyl. p. 112. The animal referred to here, as
found in Babylon, says Lengerke, “lies kneeling on the right forefoot, and is
in the act of rising on the left foot.” Bertholdt and Havernick understand
this as meaning that the animal stood on the hindfeet, with the forepart
raised, as the bear is said to do; but probably the true position is that
referred to by Maurer and Lengerke, that the animal was in the act of
raising itself up from a recumbent posture, and rested on one of its forefeet
while the other was reached out, and the body on that side was partially
raised. This position would naturally denote a kingdom that had been quiet
and at rest, but that was now rousing itself deliberately for some purpose,
as of conquest or war - as the bear that had been couching down would rise
when hungry, or when going forth for prey.
(c) The ribs in its mouth: “and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between
the teeth of it.” Bertholdt understands this of fangs or tusks - or fangs
crooked or bent like ribs, p. 451, But the proper meaning of the Chaldee עלע
‛ala‛ is the same as the Hebrew עלצ tsēlâ‛ - “a rib.” - Gesenius. The Latin
Vulgate is, tres ordines- three rows; the Syriac and the Greek, three ribs.
This would be sufficiently characteristic of a bear, and the attitude of the
animal here seems to be that it had killed some other animal, and had, in
devouring it, torn out three ribs from its side, and now held them in its
mouth. It was slowly rising from a recumbent posture, with these ribs in its
mouth, and about to receive a command to go forth and devour much flesh.
The number three, in this place, Lengerke supposes to be a round number,
without any special significancy; others suppose that it denotes the number
of nations or kingdoms which the people here represented by the bear had
overcome. Perhaps this latter would be the more obvious idea as suggested
by the symbol, but it is not necessary, in order to a proper understanding of
a symbol, to press such a point too closely. The natural idea which would be
suggested by this part of the symbol would be that of a kingdom or people of
a fierce and rough character having already subdued some, and then, after
reposing, rising up with the trophies of its former conquests to go forth to
new victories, or to overcome others. The symbol would be a very striking
69

70. one to represent a conquering nation in such a posture.
(d) The command given to this beast: “and they said thus unto it, Arise,
devour much flesh.” That is, it was said to it; or some one having authority
said it. A voice was heard commanding it to go forth and devour. This
command is wholly in accordance with the nature of the bear. The bear is
called by Aristotle σαρκοφαγῶν sarkofagōn, flesh-eater, and ξῶον πάμφαγον xōon
pamphagon, a beast devouring everything (Hist. Nat. viii. 5), and no better
description could be given of it. As a symbol, this would properly be
applicable to a nation about receiving, as it were, a command from God to
go forth to wider conquests than it had already made; to arouse itself from
its repose and to achieve new triumphs.
The application of this symbol was not explained by the angel to Daniel;
but if the former pertained to Babylon, there can be little difficulty in
understanding to what this is to be applied. It is evidently to what succeeded
the Babylonian - the Medo-Persian, the kingdom ruled successively by
Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and Darius Nothus,
until it was overthrown by Alexander the Great. The only inquiry now is as
to the pertinency of the symbol here employed to represent this kingdom.
(a) The symbol of the bear. As already seen, the bear would denote any
fierce, rough, overbearing, and arbitrary kingdom, and it is clear that while
it might have applicability to any such kingdom, it would better represent
that of Medo-Persia than the lion would, for while, in some respects, either
symbol would be applicable to either nation, the Medo-Persian did not
stand so decidedly at the head of nations as the Babylonian. As to its
character, however, the bear was not an inappropriate symbol. Taking the
whole nation together, it was fierce and rough, and unpolished, little
disposed to friendliness with the nations, and dissatisfied while any around
it had peace or prosperity. In the image seen in Dan. ii., this kingdom,
denoted by the breast and arms of silver Dan. 7:32, is described in the
explanation Dan. 7:39 as “inferior to thee;” that is, to Nebuchadnezzar. For
a sufficiently full account of this kingdom - of the mad projects of Cambyses,
and his savage rage against the Ethiopians - well represented by the ferocity
of the bear; of the ill-starred expedition to Greece under Xerxes - an
expedition in its fierceness and folly well represented by the bear, and of the
degeneracy of the national character after Xerxes - well represented by the
bear as compared with the lion, see the notes at Dan_2:39. No one
acquainted with the history of that nation can doubt the propriety and
applicability of the emblem.
(b) The rising up on its side, or from a recumbent posture, as if it had been
in a state of repose, and was now arousing itself for action. Different
interpretations have been adopted of this emblem as applicable to the
Medo-Persians. The ancient Hebrew interpreters, as Jerome remarks,
explain it as meaning that that kingdom was “on one side” in the sense of
separate; that is, that this kingdom kept itself aloof from Judea, or did not
inflict injury on it. Thus also Grotius explains it as meaning that it did not
injure Judea - Judea nihil nocuit.” Ephraern the Syrian, and Theodoret,
explain it as meaning that the empire of the Medo-Persians was situated on
the side of Judea, or held itself within its proper bounds, in the sense that it
70

71. never extended its dominion, like Babylon, over the whole earth.
Rosenmuller explains it as meaning that in relation to the kingdom
represented by the lion, it was at its side, both occupying the regions of the
East. John D. Michaelis understands it as denoting that, as the bear was
raising itself up, one part being more raised than the other, the Medo-
Persian empire was composed of two kingdoms, one of which was more
exalted or advanced than the other.
Compare Lengerke. The true meaning however, is that, as seen by Daniel,
the nation that had been in a state of repose was now preparing itself for
new conquests - a state descriptive of, and in every way quite applicable to
the condition of the Medo-Persian empire, after the conquests by Cyrus, as
he overran the kingdom of Lydia, etc., then reposing, and now about
arousing to the conquest and subjugation of Babylon. The precise time,
therefore, indicated would be about 544 b.c. (Calmer), when, having
overcome the Medes, and having secured the conquest of Lydia, and the
dethronement of Croesus, he is meditating the destruction of Babylon. This
interval of repose lasted about a year, and it is at this time that the united
empire is seen, under the image of the bear rising on its side, arousing itself
to go forth to new conquests.
(c) The ribs in the mouth of the beast. This, as above remarked, would
properly refer to some previous conquest - as a bear appearing in that
manner would indicate that some other animal had been overcome and
slain by him, and torn in pieces. The emblem would be fulfilled if the power
here symbolized had been successful in former wars, and had rent
kingdoms or people asunder. That this description would apply to the
Medo-Persian power before its attack on Babylon, or before extending its
dominion over Babylon, and its establishment as the Medo-Persian
kingdoms, no one can doubt. Compare the notes at Dan_2:39. It has been
commonly supposed that Cyrus succeeded to the throne of Media without
war. But this is far from being the case - though so represented in what may
be regarded as the romance of the Cyropaedia In the Anabasis of Xenophon,
however, the fact of his having subdued Media by arms is distinctly
admitted, Dan_3:4, Dan_3:7, Dan_3:12. Herodotus, Ctesias, Isocrates, and
Strabo, all agree also in the fact that it was so. The Upper Tigris was the seat
of one campaign, where the cities of Larissa and Mespila were taken by
Cyrus. From Strabo we learn that the decisive battle was fought on the spot
where Cyrus afterward built Pasargardae, in Persia, for his capital. See
Kitto, Cyclo., art. “Cyrus.” In addition to this, we are to remember the well-
known conquests of Cyrus in Lydia and elsewhere, and the propriety of the
emblem will be apparent. It may not be certain that the number three is
significant in the emblem, but it is possible that there may have been
reference to the three kingdoms of Persia, Media, and Lydia, that were
actually under the dominion of Cyrus when the aggressive movement was
made on Babylon.
(d) The command to “arise and devour much flesh.” No one can fail to see
the appropriateness of this, considered as addressed to the Medo-Persian
power - that power which subdued Babylon; which brought under its
dominion a considerable part of the world, and which, under Darius and
Xerxes, poured its million on Greece. The emblem used here is, therefore,
71

72. one of the most striking and appropriate that could be employed, and it
cannot be doubted that it had reference to this kingdom, and that, in all the
particulars, there was a clear fulfillment.
CLARKE, "Another beast - like to a bear - This was the Medo-Persian
empire, represented here under the symbol of the bear, as the largest
species of these animals was found in Media, a mountainous, cold, and
rough country, covered with woods. The Medes and Persians are compared
to a bear on account of their cruelty and thirst after blood, a bear being a
most voracious and cruel animal; the bear is termed by Aristotle an all-
devouring animal; and the Medo-Persians are known to have been great
robbers and spoilers. See Jer_51:48-56. The Persians were notorious for the
cruelty of their punishments. See Calmet.
Raised up itself on one side - Cyrus arose on the borders of Chaldea, and
thus the bear appeared to put itself in the position to attack the lion.
It had three ribs in the mouth of it - As if it had just finished its repast on
some animal that it had seized. Some think three tusks curved like ribs, are
meant; others three throats, ןיעלע illin, by which it (Cyrus) had absorbed the
three empires of the Babylonians, Medes, and Persians; for these symbolic
animals do not so much denote four empires, as four kings. See Jer_51:17.
Others think three row of teeth are meant to denote the triple power of the
Medes, Persians, and Babylonians, conjoined. Or the east, north, and south,
which were subdued by the Persians. But the ribs being between the teeth of
the bear may show how Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt were ground and
oppressed by the bear - the Persians; though, as ribs strengthen the body,
they were a powerful support to their conquerors.
GILL, "And, behold, another beast, a second, like to a bear,.... Another
monarchy, and which succeeded the former, and rose up upon the ruins of
it, the Medo-Persian monarchy; and so the Syriac version prefixes to this
verse, by way of explanation,
"the kingdom of the Medes''
like to a bear, less generous and strong than the lion; more rough and
uncivil, but equally cruel and voracious; which describes the Medes and
Persians as a fierce and cruel people, and less polished, and more
uncivilized, than the Chaldeans; and answers to the silver breasts and arms
in Nebuchadnezzar's dream; see Isa_13:17,
and it raised up itself on one side; either of the lion, the first beast it
destroyed; or rather on one side of itself, on the side of Persia; from whence
Cyrus came, who was the principal instrument of raising this empire to the
pitch it was brought unto. Some render it, "and it raised up one
government" (d); one empire out of many nations and kingdoms it subdued:
72

73. and it had three ribs in the mouth of it, between the teeth of it; that is, three
ribs covered with flesh, which, it was devouring; the bear being very
voracious, and a great flesh eater: these, according to some, signify three
kings that followed Darius the Mede; Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Darius; so
Jarchi and Jacchiades; and, according to Jerom, three kingdoms, the
Babylonian, Median, and Persian: but neither of these kings nor kingdoms
can be said to be in its mouth, and between its teeth, as ground and
devoured by it, unless the Babylonian; wherefore it is better interpreted by
others, as Theodoret, the three parts of the world it conquered, westward,
northward, and southward, Dan_8:4, though it is best of all, with Sir Isaac
Newton and Bishop Chandler, to understand by them Babylon, Lydia, and
Egypt; which countries were ground and oppressed by the Medes and
Persians, as the ribs of any creature are ground in the mouth of a bear:
and they said thus unto it, arise, devour much flesh; which Jerom refers to
Haman's orders to destroy the Jews in the times of Ahasuerus; but it is
much better applied by others to Cyaxares or Darius sending for Cyrus to
take upon him the command of his army; and to the Hyrcanians, Gobryas,
and others, inviting him to avenge them on the Babylonians, promising to
join and assist him, as Xenophon (e)relates: or rather this is to be
interpreted of the divine will, and of the conduct of Providence by means of
angels stirring up the spirit of Cyrus, and of the Medes and Persians, to
attack and subdue many nations, and particularly the Babylonians, and fill
themselves with their wealth and substance; hence they are styled the
Lord's sanctified, whom he ordered and called to such service; see Isa_13:3.
JAMISON, "bear — symbolizing the austere life of the Persians in their
mountains, also their cruelty (Isa_13:17, Isa_13:18; Cambyses, Ochus, and
other of the Persian princes were notoriously cruel; the Persian laws
involved, for one man’s offense, the whole kindred and neighborhood in
destruction, Dan_6:24) and rapacity. “A bear is an all-devouringanimal”
[Aristotle, 8.5], (Jer_51:48, Jer_51:56).
raised ... itself on one side — but the Hebrew,“It raised up one dominion.”
The Medes, an ancient people, and the Persians, a modern tribe, formed one
united sovereigntyin contrast to the third and fourth kingdoms, each
originally one, afterwards divided. English Versionis the result of a slight
change of a Hebrewletter. The idea then would be, “It lay on one of its fore
feet, and stood on the other”; a figure still to be seen on one of the stones of
Babylon [Munter, The Religion of Babylonia,112]; denoting a kingdom that
had been at rest, but is now rousing itself for conquest. Media is the lower
side, passiveness; Persia, the upper, active element [Auberlen]. The three
ribs in its mouth are Media, Lydia,and Babylon,brought under the Persian
sway. Rather, Babylon, Lydia,and Egypt,not properly parts of its body, but
seized by Medo-Persia [Sir Isaac Newton]. Called “ribs” because they
strengthened the Medo-Persian empire. “Between its teeth,” as being much
grinded by it.
73

74. devour much flesh — that is, subjugate many nations.
K&D, "Dan_7:5
The second beast. -|
רֲאַו
signifies that this beast came first into sight after
the lion, which also the predicates
הָנָיְנִתיִרֳחָא
prove.
יִרֳחָא
expresses the
difference from the first beast,
הָנָיְנִת
the order in which it appears. The beast
was like a bear. Next to the lion it is the strongest among animals; and on
account of its voracity it was called by Aristotle ζῶον παμφάγον. The words
דַח־רַטְשִׁלתַמיִקֲה
present some difficulty. They have been differently
explained. The explanation of Rabbi Nathan, “and it established a
dominion,” with which Kranichfeld also agrees, is not only in opposition to
the
דַח
, but is also irreconcilable with the line of thought.
דַח
is not the
indefinite article, but the numeral; and the thought that the beast
established onedominion, or a united dominion, is in the highest degree
strange, for the character of a united or compact dominion belongs to the
second world-kingdom in no case in a greater degree than to the Babylonian
kingdom, and in general the establishing of a dominion cannot properly be
predicated of a beast = a kingdom. The old translators (lxx, Theod., Peshito,
Saad.) and the rabbis have interpreted the word
רַטְשׁ
in the sense of side, a
meaning which is supported by the Targ.
רַטְס
, and is greatly strengthened
by the Arabic s'thar, without our needing to adopt the reading
רַטְשׂ
, found in
several Codd. The object to the verb
תַמיִקֲה
is easily supplied by the context:
it raised up, i.e., its body, on one side. This means neither that it leaned on
one side (Ebrard), nor that it stood on its fore feet (Hävernick), for the sides
of a bear are not its fore and hinder part; but we are to conceive that the
beast, resting on its feet, raised up the feet of the one side for the purpose of
going forward, and so raised the shoulder or the whole body on that side.
But with such a motion of the beast the geographical situation of the
kingdom (Geier, Mich., Ros.) cannot naturally be represented, much less
can the near approach of the destruction of the kingdom (Hitzig) be
signified. Hofmann, Delitzsch, and Kliefoth have found the right
interpretation by a reference to Daniel 2 and 8. As in Daniel 2 the arms on
each side of the breast signify that the second kingdom will consist of two
parts, and this is more distinctly indicated in Daniel 8 by the two horns, one
of which rose up after the other, and higher, so also in this verse the double-
sidedness of this world-kingdom is represented by the beast lifting itself up
on the one side. The Medo-Persian bear, as such, has, as Kliefoth well
remarks, two sides: the one, the Median side, is at rest after the efforts
made for the erection of the world-kingdom; but the other, the Persian side,
raises itself up, and then becomes not only higher than the first, but also is
prepared for new rapine.
The further expression, it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth,
has also been variously interpreted. That
ןיִעְלִע
means ribs, not sides, is as
certain as that the ribs in the mouth between the teeth do not denote side-
74

75. teeth, tusks, or fangs (Saad., Häv.). The
ןיִעְלִע
in the mouth between the
teeth are the booty which the bear has seized, according to the undoubted
use of the word; cf. Amo_3:12; Psa_124:6; Job_29:17; Jer_51:44.
Accordingly, by the ribs we cannot understand either the Persians,
Medians, and Babylonians, as the nations that constituted the strength of
the kingdom (Ephr. Syr., Hieron., Ros.), or the three Median kings (Ewald),
because neither the Medes nor the three Median kings can be regarded as a
prey of the Median or Medo-Persian world. The “ribs” which the beast is
grinding between its teeth cannot be the peoples who constitute the
kingdom, or the kings ruling over it, but only peoples who constitute the
kingdom, or the kings ruling over it, but only peoples or countries which it
has conquered and annexed to itself. The determining of these peoples and
countries depends on which kingdom is represented by the bear. Of the
interpreters who understand by the bear the Median kingdom, Maurer and
Delitzsch refer to the three chief satrapies (Daniel 6:3 [Dan_6:2]). Not
these, however, but only the lands divided between them, could be regarded
as the prey between the teeth of the beast, and then Media also must be
excluded; so that the reference of the words to the three satrapies is
altogether inadmissible. Hitzig thinks that the reference is to three towns
that were destroyed by the Medians, viz., Nineveh, Larissa, and a third
which he cannot specify; v. Leng. regards the number three as a round
number, by which the voracity of the beast is shown; Kranichfeld
understands by the three ribs constituent parts of a whole of an older
national confederation already dissolved and broken asunder, of which,
however, he has no proof. We see, then, that if the bear is taken as
representing the Median kingdom, the three ribs in its mouth cannot be
explained. If, on the other hand, the Medo-Persian world-kingdom is
intended by the bear, then the three ribs in its mouth are the three
kingdoms Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt, which were conquered by the Medo-
Persians. This is the view of Hofm., Ebr., Zünd., and Klief. The latter,
however, thinks that the number “Three” ought not to be regarded as
symbolical, but as forming only the contrast to the number four in Dan_7:6,
and intimating that the second beast will not devour in all the regions of the
world, but only on three sides, and will make a threefold and not a fourfold
plunder, and therefore will not reach absolute universality. But since the
symbolical value of each number is formed from its arithmetical
signification, there is no reason here, any more than there is in the
analogous passages, Dan_8:4, Dan_8:22, to depart wholly from the exact
signification.
The last expression of the verse, Arise, devour much flesh, most
interpreters regard as a summons to go forth conquering. But this
exposition is neither necessary, nor does it correspond to the relative
position of the words. The eating much flesh does not form such a contrast
to the three ribs in the mouth between the teeth, that it must be interpreted
of other flesh than that already held by the teeth with the ribs. It may be
very well understood, with Ebrard and Kliefoth, of the consuming of the
flesh of the ribs; so that the command to eat much flesh is only an
explication of the figure of the ribs held between the teeth, and contains
only the thought that the beast must wholly consume the plunder it has
75

76. seized with its teeth. The plur.
ןיִרְמא
(they spoke) is impersonal, and is
therefore not to be attributed to the angel as speaking.
CALVIN, "Here the Prophet. proclaims how he was instructed by a dream
concerning the second beast. If we will only judge by the event, this beast doubtless
represented the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, although the Prophet specifies
the Persians, as the Medes had long ago submitted to their yoke. Behold, says he,
another beast like a bear. We know a bear to be a mean and foul animal, slothful
and inert, as well as cruel. In comparing the bear with the lion, its appearance is
foul and displeasing, while the lion is remarkable for beauty, although it is
formidable. He compares the Persians to a bear, on account of their barbarity, since
we have already pronounced that nation fierce and savage. Then, again, the
Persians were not civilized like the Assyrians and Chaldeans, who dwelt in the most
beautiful region in the whole world, and in a most lovely country like a most noble
theater; but the Persians lay hid like wild beasts in their caves. They dwelt among
their mountains, and lived like the brutes. Hence the Prophet compares them very
appositely to a bear; nay, God showed this form to his Prophet. He afterwards adds,
It stood on one side Some think this to have been added to express the more
contracted dominion of the Medes and Persians, but this opinion is unsuitable. We
know how extensive was the sway of the Medes before they came under the power of
Cyrus and the Persians. By themselves the Medes were most powerful; then the
Persians were added, and afterwards Cyrus seized upon the possessions of the
Chaldean monarchy. He possessed even the keys of Egypt, reigned in Syria, held
Judea, and extended beyond the sea, till at length he was conquered by the
Scythians. When, therefore, it is said, he stood on one side, the obscure origin of his
kingdom is intended, for the fame of the Persians was included within their
mountains until Cyrus acquired for them a name by his exploits. For he was a brave
warrior, and deservedly eclipsed the glory of all others. Hence, at first this beast
stood on one side; that is, the Persians were without fame or reputation; they had no
wealth, and never emerged from their lurking-places. We see how this particular is
restricted to their origin in consequence of its obscurity.
The Prophet then adds: Three ribs were in the beast’s mouth between its teeth; and
it was thus proclaimed, Arise, eat much flesh! Those who understand three definite
kingdoms by the three ribs, seem to refine far too minutely. I think the number
indefinite, because this beast had bitten by its mouth not one rib but more; because
the Persians, as we have said, drew to themselves the power of the Medes, and
afterwards subdued the Assyrians and Chaldeans, and Cyrus also subdued many
nations, until all Asia Minor acknowledged his authority. When, therefore, the
Prophet speaks of three ribs, it implies the insatiable nature of this beast, since it
was not content with a single body, but devoured many men together. For, by
“many ribs,” he meant much prey. This is the whole sense. I do not hesitate to
explain the following words,it was said to the beast, of angels, or of God himself.
Some prefer to understand this of the stimulus by which Cyrus was instigated to
cruelty. But since God exhibits to his Prophet the image of his Providence, what I
76

77. have lately suggested becomes very probable: namely, it was said to the beast, Arise,
eat much flesh; not; because God was the author of cruelty, but since He governs by
His secret counsel the events which men carry on without method, His authority is
here deservedly placed be/ore our eyes; for Cyrus would not have penetrated so
swiftly into different regions, and have drawn to himself so many empires, and
subjugated so many powerful nations, had not God wished to punish the world, and
had made Cyrus the instrument of slaughter. As therefore Cyrus executed God’s
vengeance by shedding so much human blood, the Prophet declares it to have been
said to him, Arise, and eat flesh. In one respect God was not pleased by the
slaughter of so many nations by Cyrus, and by the increase of one man’s power and
tyranny through so much human bloodshed; but in another respect God is said to
have commanded the conduct of Cyrus, since he wished to punish the world for its
ingratitude, to which the most desperate obstinacy and rebellion were added. There
was no remedy for these vices; hence God entrusted Cyrus with the duty of
executing His judgment,. I am compelled to stop here.
COFFMAN, ""And behold another beast, like to a bear; and it was raised up on
one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth; and they said thus unto
it, Arise, devour much flesh."
The big factor in the identification of this beast is that it came after the first thus
denoting that it was the empire that succeeded Babylon. All of the other details, it
appears to us are inert factors in the vision, collectively designed to show the
ruthless and destructive character of all the great pagan empires as they most surely
applied to the second beast also. We have discovered no reasonable interpretation of
the three ribs between its teeth.
For long ages, this second beast was identified by all scholars as the Medo-Persian
power which succeeded Babylon. The critical device of making this second beast
refer to the Median Empire and the third beast a reference to the Persian empire,
with only one thing in mind, namely that of making the fourth beast a prophecy of
Alexander's empire, is fraudulent. The Medo-Persian empire was not two different
empires, but one only. "History knows of no Median empire."[11] "This hypothesis
of Medo-Persia being two empires is destitute of every foundation."[12] In Daniel's
prophecy that Babylon would be divided and given to "the Medes and the Persians"
(Daniel 5:28), the fulfillment is given in Daniel 5:31, "Darius the Mede took the
kingdom," indicating that there was just one kingdom, Darius taking "the kingdom
of the Medes and the Persians."
COKE, "Daniel 7:5. A second, like to a bear— These animals are not only emblems
of strength and power, but must be allowed to be here used with peculiar propriety.
This second, is the kingdom of the Medes and Persians; and the largest bears were
found in Media, a mountainous, rough, cold country, covered with woods. The
Medes and Persians are compared to a bear, on account of their cruelty, and
greediness after blood; a bear being a most voracious and cruel animal. The
77

78. resemblance between the Persians and bears has been carried to great lengths by
learned authors; who suppose them to resemble each other in their gluttony, in the
remarkable length of their hair, in the restlessness of their disposition, &c. But the
chief likeness consisted in what we have mentioned above; and that this likeness was
principally intended by the prophet, may be inferred from the text itself; Arise,
devour much flesh. A bear is called by Aristotle an omnivorous, or all-devouring
animal; and Grotius informs us, that the Medo-Persians were great robbers and
spoilers; according to Jeremiah 48:47. See also Isaiah 13:18. Calmet observes, that
the Persians have exercised the most severe and cruel dominion that we know of.
The punishments used among them beget horror in those who read them. Bishop
Newton.
And it had three ribs, &c.— And it had three throats. Houbigant; who observes,
that these three throats are those by which it absorbed Cyrus, and had in its power
the three empires of the Chaldeans, Medes, and Persians. These animals denote not
so much kingdoms, as the founders of kingdoms; for in the 17th verse it is said to
Daniel, These four animals are four kings. Sir Isaac Newton and Bishop Chandler
explain these three ribs, of the kingdoms of Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt, which were
conquered by this beast; but were not properly parts and members of its body. They
might be called ribs, says Bishop Newton, as the conquest of them much
strengthened the Persian empire; and they might be said to be between the teeth of
the bear, as they were much grinded and oppressed by the Persians. See his
Dissertations, vol. 1: p. 446-448.
ELLICOTT, " (5) And behold another beast.—We are not told what became of the
first beast. (Comp. Daniel 7:12.) The word “behold” implies that this was the next
object which arrested the seer’s attention. The second beast corresponds to the
silver portion of the Colossus (Daniel 2).
One side.—In explaining this very difficult phrase, it must be remembered that the
two sides of the bear are parallel in meaning to the two breasts and two arms of the
Colossus. It is implied, therefore, that the second kingdom consists of two parts, and
the raising up of one side implies that one part of the kingdom would come into
greater prominence than the other. Such was the case with the Medo-Persian
Empire (comp. Daniel 8:3), in which the Persian element surpassed the Median.
Three ribs.—These cannot signify the people who constitute the second empire, but
rather some kingdoms which had already been subdued by it; and by the command,
“Arise and devour,” the second empire is permitted to make further conquests
before its disappearance. The three ribs have been understood from the time of St.
Hippolytus to mean three nations: the Babylonians, the Lydians, and the Egyptians.
TRAPP, "Daniel 7:5 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.
78

79. Ver. 5. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear.] Which is nothing so
generous and ingenuous as a lion; but slow, dull, cruel, ravenous. Such were the
Persians; a mountainous, rough, uncivil people, of barbarous and beastly cruelty.
And it raised up itself on one side,] scil., By joining with the Medes, by whose help
Cyrus subdued the Syrians, Assyrians, Arabians, Cappadocians, and many more
nations act easily reckoned, who, to gratify him, desired to be ruled according to his
pleasure. (a)
And it had three ribs in the mouth of it.] While they conquered three parts of the
known world, pushing westward, northward, and southward. [Daniel 8:4]
Westward by Cyrus, southward by Cambyses, and northward by Darius Hystaspis.
And they said (or, it was said) thus unto it, Arise, devour.] Intimating that it was
God who turned this bear loose upon the nations, and gave them to him for a prey.
Tyrants prosper by God’s permission. [Jo
BENSON, "Daniel 7:5. And behold another beast like a bear — This is the kingdom
of the Medes and Persians, who, for their cruelty and greediness after blood, are
compared to a bear, which is a most voracious and cruel animal. Bochart recounts
several particulars wherein the Persians resembled bears; but the chief likeness
consisted in what has been just mentioned, and this likeness was principally
intended by the prophet, as may be inferred from the words of the text, Arise,
devour much flesh. A bear, saith Aristotle, is an all-devouring animal; and so the
Medo-Persians were great robbers and spoilers, according to Jeremiah 51:48;
Jeremiah 51:56 : see Bishop Newton and the note on Isaiah 13:18. And it raised up
itself on one side — Some think the allusion is to the eastern quarter of the world,
from whence the Persians came; others, to the elevation of the Persians above the
Medes and Babylonians, which three powers are conceived to be meant by the three
ribs in the mouth of the bear: but Sir Isaac Newton and Bishop Chandler, with
great propriety, explain them as signifying the kingdoms of Babylon, Lydia, and
Egypt, which were conquered by it, but were not properly parts and members of its
body. They might be called ribs, as the conquest of them much strengthened the
Persian empire; and they might be said to be between the teeth of the bear, as they
were much grinded and oppressed by the Persians.
WHEDON, " 5. For the proof that the second beast was the Medo-Persian empire
see note Daniel 2:39; Daniel 8:20. The mention here of its two sides, one of which
was more active than the other, emphasizes again the duality of this empire; not its
torpidity, as Terry and others maintain. (See also Daniel 8:3.) Prince — though
believing that Daniel, through lack of historic knowledge, mentions a Median
empire separate from the Persian empire after Nebuchadnezzar — acknowledges
that ancient history establishes the closest connection between the Medes and
79

80. Persians, the Greeks frequently applying the common term “Medes” indifferently to
either nation (p. 116), and concludes: “It cannot of course be denied that the Medes
enjoyed a special prominence in the empire. Indeed the place which they occupied in
the inscriptions, next to the Persians, and the fact that Medes are found in the most
important and responsible positions, seem to point to such a conclusion. Part of
their powerful influence may have been due to the sacerdotal caste of the Magi, who
were probably originally of Median origin. The very fact that the name Mede
survived so long as almost a synonym for Persian certainly seems to show that the
individuality of the older people was extremely prominent throughout a long period
of the Persian history.… Throughout the entire Book of Daniel wherever both
nations are mentioned the Medes have the first place, while in the Book of Esther
Persia is put before Media except in Daniel 10:2, where an allusion is made to the
book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia — perhaps an old record”
(pp. 117, 121, 122). The Persians might therefore be represented by the active, and
the Medes by the passive side of this beast, although its standing “on one side” may
merely mean that its aggressiveness extended in one direction only (Cowles). The
three ribs in the lion’s mouth show that it has been killing and devouring already.
Many expositors name these ribs, which it is still crunching, as Babylonia, Egypt,
and Syria; Babylonia, Assyria, and Syria; or Babylonia, Lydia, and Egypt. Three,
however, was used as a round number for “several,” both in Judea and Babylonia,
and this phrase probably only means that when the successor of the Babylonian
empire first appeared it was already hungry for conquest and glutted with spoil.
Dr. Terry strongly maintains that the whole picture here is that of a torpid beast
who holds a few ribs in his mouth and cannot be urged to further killing; but if this
were the meaning there would surely be some indication given that this beast did not
obey the command to “arise and devour much flesh.” Even Bevan sees that the
picture, as given here, is that of a “ravenous beast… whose chief characteristic is
destruction.” Thomson thinks the bear exactly represents King Cyrus, who, like the
bear, came originally from the mountains, and who conquered various countries
before he attacked Babylonia. The idea of the old Jewish commentators that these
“three ribs” meant that the empire governed by Cyrus covered three quarters of the
globe is no less contrary to all the analogies of symbolism than that of Kuenen, who
thinks that its lifting itself up on one side shows that it was “threatening to fall,”
while the three ribs indicate that the empire was divided into three parts, or ruled
by three princes.
POOLE, " Another beast, viz. the Medes and Persians, a fierce, grim, ravenous
creature, and barbarously cruel, especially the mountainous part, as of Caucasus,
Armenia, and Media by The Caspian Sea near the Tartars, and that which borders
upon the Mogul, the Usbecks, and the Sasbuts; read Isaiah 13:17,18 Jer 51:48,53,
called
spoilers. See Jeremiah 51:11, &c. Thus God sent in the northern bears upon
Babylon to devour flesh. See how God calls them against Babylon, Jeremiah
80

81. 51:20-23,27,28; he reckons Ararat, Minni, and Ashchenaz, and the Medes, i.e.
Armenia, Parthia, Hyrcania, &c., the rough northern hungry bears.
On one side, i.e. the north side; for the Mede first arose and sent to Cyrus the
Persian to come in and assist him against the Assyrian, and made him general.
It had three ribs in the mouth of it: several of the Babylonian subjects revolted from
the Babylonian, (and all these made the three ribs,) as the Hyrcanians, and Gobrias.
PETT, " ‘And behold another wild beast, a second, like to a bear, and it was raised
up on one side, and three ribs were in his mouth between his teeth, and they said
thus to it. “Arise and devour much flesh.”
The second wild beast was ‘like a bear’. This reminds us that this was a dream.
What he saw reminded him of a bear. Next to the fierceness of the lion is the
fierceness of the bear. The two are often paralleled (Proverbs 28:15; Lamentations
3:10; Hosea 13:8; Amos 5:19). Thus this second empire is only slightly inferior to the
first. Compare the body and arms of silver of chapter 2. It is more ungainly, but still
to be feared.
‘And it was raised up on one side (shetar).’ The noun is difficult. It possibly comes
from a root ‘to write’ which develops into ‘officer, overseer, magistrate’, and thus
‘rulership’. It occurs in the form found here only this once. Thus we might translate
‘it raised up one rulership’. In view of the clear lack of total unity emphasised in
chapter 2 it may suggest combined nations with one ruler overall (combined because
one wild beast), which fits well with the Medo-Persian empire. Alternately it might
suggest having one side higher than the other, signifying an empire with a greater
and lesser part. We can compare Daniel 8:3 where one horn was higher than the
other, coming up last. All emphasise the duality yet oneness of the empire. The great
lumbering bear was actually a marvellous picture of the coming huge armies of
Medo-Persia.
The ‘three’ ribs between its teeth, which it is in process of devouring, probably
indicates completeness of conquest (it will ‘devour much flesh’), although some have
seen them as representing Lydia, Babylon and Egypt. Note the steady growth as we
go through the empires, two feet (Daniel 7:4), three ribs here, four wings and four
heads (Daniel 7:6), ten horns (twice five - Daniel 7:7). All is of a pattern.
‘And they said thus to it. “Arise and devour much flesh.” The previous beast arose
on its feet and became humane. This one arises to its feet, but to eat much flesh. It is
fiercer and more brutish, a downward step. Deterioration in empires is a feature of
the empires in chapter 2, and here it includes increase in wildness. The next beast
will not even stand up. It will remain on four legs. The nations are becoming more
beastly.
81

82. The command to ‘arise’ also suggests that God is now commanding it to arise to
carry out its foreordained task to capture Babylon (Belsahazzar is at present on the
throne) and the world around it. The ‘they’ may well be the watchers (Daniel
4:13-14; Daniel 4:17).
PULPIT, "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 שׂinstead of the סis an indication of antiquity in the word רַשְׂבּ(besar), which
becomes in the Targums דַסְבּ. It has been supposed that the reading should be רֵשִׁב
(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 Babylonia." There is no reference to locality at all. Moreover, as all the
animals come out of the sea, their relationship to Babylonia would be remote. It had
three ribs in 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 ןיעלע (‛il‛een) "ribs;" he maintains the true rendering to be "tusks." He
identifies עלע with עלצ (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
יבינ, 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
82

83. at the time when by the conquest of Babylon it came 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, Assyria, Syria. There is
no evidence, Biblical or other, that the Median Empire ever extended to Syria. If we
grant that the author of Daniel lived in the time of Epiphanes, then no authority
open to him, so tar as we know, brought the Medes into Syria before the day of the
Persian rule. We need not assume a blunder for our author, and then build further
assumptions on that assumed blunder. Moreover, by the conquest of Babylonia and
Assyria, the bear came into the apocalyptic succession, whereas he had already
devoured those provinces represented by ribs when he appears. Hitzig, following
Ben Ezra, takes the ribs as three cities—Nineveh and two others. 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—Babylonia, Lydia, and Egypt—sins again st
the symbol, which implies that the ribs are already in the bear's teeth when he
enters into the sphere of apocalyptic history. Jephet-ibn-Ali maintains the "three
fibs" to refer to the three quarters of the world over which the Persian Empire
ruled; and this is 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
Lydia or Armenia, as "two" was of Medo-Persia, "four" of Greece, "five" of Egypt,
and "ten" of Rome. It seems to 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 Ansan, Elam, 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
Babylon, and it is probable that Armenia had also to 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 Persian Empire. The second empire is not, as maintained
by Ewald, represented by a bear, "because its empire was less extensive than that of
Babylon," but because it was a falling off from the 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 Babylon, with all the concomitants of a city taken by
83

84. assault. Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:25) places the Medes with other nations under the
dominion of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon, and (Jeremiah 51:11, Jeremiah
51:28) he too asserts that the Modes will assail Babylon. There is nothing here to
indicate the expectation that Media should be a pre-eminently destructive power.
This applied correctly enough to Persia. Even on the assumption that the author of
Daniel was a Jew of the time of Epiphanes, it seems very improbable that he should
have placed Media as an empire coordinate with Babylonia, Persia, and the Greek
Empire of Alexander and his successors. Still more improbable that he should
attribute pre-eminent cruelty to it, when all the cruelty ascribed to the Medes by the
prophets was exercised against Babylon, and even that was not beyond the ordinary
measure exercised by a conqueror in a city taken by assault,
6 “After that, I looked, and there before me was
another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And
on its back it had four wings like those of a bird.
This beast had four heads, and it was given
authority to rule.
BARNES, "After this I beheld, and, lo, another, like a leopard - That is, as
before, after the bear had appeared - indicating that this was to be a
succeeding kingdom or power. The beast which now appeared was a
monster, and, as in the former cases, so in regard to this, there are several
circumstances which demand explanation in order to understand the
symbol. It may assist us, perhaps, in forming a correct idea of the symbol
here introduced to have before us a representation of the animal as it
appeared to Daniel.
(a) The animal itself: “a leopard.” The word used here -רמנ nemar- or in
Hebrew רמנ nâmêr- denotes a panther or leopard, so called from his spots.
This is a well-known beast of prey, distinguished for blood-thirstiness and
cruelty, and these characteristics are especially applicable to the female
panther. The animal is referred to in the Scriptures as emblematic of the
84

85. following things, or as having the following characteristics:
(1) As next in dignity to the lion - of the same general nature. Compare
Bochart, Hieroz. P. I. lib. iii. c. vii. Thus the lion and the panther, or
leopard, are often united in the Scriptures. Compare Jer_5:6; Hos_13:7. See
also in the Apocrypha, Ecclesiasticus 28:23. So also they are united in
Homer, r
Ὄυτε οἶν παρδάλιος τόσσον μένος, ὄυτε λέοντος.
Oute oun pardalios tosson menos, oute leontos.
“Neither had the leopard nor the lion such strength.”
(2) As distinguished for cruelty, or a fierce nature, as contrasted with the
gentle and tame animal. Isa_11:6, “and the leopard shall lie down with the
kid.” In Jer_5:6, it is compared with the lion and the wolf: “A lion out of the
forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil them, a leopard
shall watch over their cities.” Compare Hos_13:7.
(3) As distinguished for swiftness or fleetness. Hab_1:8: “their horses are
swifter than the leopards.” Compare also the quotations from the classics in
Bochart as above, p. 788. His fleetness is often referred to - the celerity of
his spring or bound especially - by the Greek and Roman writers.
(4) As insidious, or as lying in wait, and springing unexpectedly upon the
unwary traveler. Compare Hos_13:7: “As a leopard by the way will I observe
them;” that is, I will “watch” (רושׁא 'âshûr) them. So Pliny says of leopards:
Insidunt pardi condensa arborurn, occultatique earurn ramis in
prcetereuntia desiliunt.
(5) They are characterized by their spots. In the general nature of the
animal there is a strong resemblance to the lion. Thus, an Arabic writer
quoted by Bochart, deflates the leopard to be “an animal resembling the
lion, except that it is smaller, and has a skin marked by black spots.” The
proper idea in this representation, when used as a symbol, would be of a
nation or kingdom that would have more nobleness than the one
represented by the bear, but a less decisive headship over others than that
represented by the lion; a nation that, was addicted to conquest, or that
preyed upon others; a nation rapid in its movements, and springing upon
others unawares, and perhaps in its spots denoting a nation or people made
up, not of homogeneous elements, but of various different people. See
below in the application of this.
(b) The four wings: which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl. The
first beast was seen with the wings of an eagle, but without any specified
number; this appears with wings, but without specifying any particular kind
of wings, though the number is mentioned. In both of them celerity of
movement is undoubtedly intended - celerity beyond what would be
properly denoted by the animal itself the lion or the leopard. If there is a
difference in the design of the representation, as there would seem to be by
mentioning the kind of wings in the one case, and the number in the other,
it is probable that the former would denote a more bold and extended flight;
the latter a flight more rapid, denoted by the four wings. We should look for
the fulfillment of the former in a nation that extended its conquests over a
85

86. broader space; in the latter, to a nation that moved with more celerity. But
there is some danger of pressing these similitudes too far. Nothing is said in
the passage about the arrangement of the wings, except that they were on
the back of the animal. It is to be supposed that there were two on each side.
(c) The four heads: “the beast had also four heads.” This representation
must have been designed to signify either that the one power or kingdom
denoted by the leopard was composed of four separate powers or nations
now united in one; or that there were four successive kings or dynasties that
made up its history; or that the power or kingdom actually appeared, as
seen in its prevailing characteristic, as a distinct dominion, as having four
heads, or as being divided into so many separate sovereignties. It seems to
me that either one of these would be a proper and natural fulfillment of the
design of the image, though the second suggested would be less proper than
either of the others, as the heads appeared on the animal not in succession -
as the little horn sprung up in the midst of the other ten, as represented in
the fourth beast - but existed simultaneously. The general idea would be,
that in some way the one particular sovereignty had four sources of power
blended into one, or actually exerted the same kind of dominion, and
constituted, in fact, the one kingdom as distinguished from the others.
(d) The dominion given to it: “and dominion was given to it.” That is, it
was appointed to rule where the former had ruled, and until it should be
succeeded by another - the beast with the ten horns.
In regard to the application of this, though the angel did not explain it to
Daniel, except in general that a kingdom was represented by it. Dan_7:17, it
would seem that there could be little difficulty, though there has been some
variety in the views entertained. Maurer, Lengerke, and some others, refer
it to the Medo-Persian empire - supposing that the second symbol referred
to the kingdom of Media. But the objections to this are so obvious, and so
numerous, that it seems to me the opinion cannot be entertained, for
(1) the kingdom of Media did not, in any proper sense, succeed that of
Babylon;
(2) the representation of the bear with three ribs has no proper
application to Media;
(3) the whole description, as we have seen above, of the second beast,
accords entirely with the history of the Medo-Persian empire.
If this be so, then we naturally look for the fulfillment of this symbol - the
third head - in the kingdom or dynasty that followed directly that of Medo-
Persia - the Macedonian dynasty or kingdom founded by Alexander the
Great, extending over the same countries before occupied by Babylon and
the Medo-Persian empire, and continuing until it was swallowed up in the
conquests of Rome. We shall find that all the circumstances agree with this
supposition:
(a) The animal - the leopard. The comparative nobleness of the animal; a
beast of prey; the celerity of its movements; the spring or bound with which
it leaps upon its prey - all agree well with the kingdom of which Alexander
was the founder. Indeed there was no other kingdom among the ancients to
which it could be better applied; and it will be admitted that, on the
supposition that it was the design of Daniel to choose a symbol that would
86

87. represent the Macedonian empire, he could not have selected one that was
better adapted to it than the leopard. All the characteristics of the animal
that have been noticed -
(1) as next in dignity to the lion:
(2) as distinguished for a fierce nature;
(3) as characterized by fleetness;
(4) as known for lying in wait, and springing suddenly upon its prey; and
(5) in the point to be noticed soon - their spots - all agree with the
characteristics of Alexander, and his movements among the nations, and
with the kingdom that was founded by him in the East.
(b) The four wings. These represent well the rapidity of the conquests of
Alexander, for no more rapid conquests were ever made than were his in
the East. It was noticed that the leopard had four wings, as contrasted with
the first beast, in reference to which the number is not mentioned: the one
denoting a broader flight, and the other a more rapid one; and the one
agrees well with the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, and the other with those
of Alexander.
(c) The four heads united to one body. It is well known that when
Alexander died, his empire was left to four of his generals, and that they
came to be at the head of as many distinct dominions, yet all springing from
the same source, and all, in fact, out of the Macedonian empire. This fact
would not be so well represented by four distinct and separate animals, as
by one animal with four heads; that is, as the head represents authority or
dominion, one empire, in fact, now ruling by four distinct authorities. The
one empire, considered as Macedonian, continued its sway until it was
swallowed up by the Romans; that is, the Macedonian power or dominion as
distinct from that of Babylon or Medo-Persia; as having characteristics
unlike these; as introducing a new order of things, continued, though that
power was broken up and exercised under distinct manifestations of
sovereignty. The fact was, that, at the death of Alexander, to whom the
founding of this empire was owing, “Philip Aridaeus, brother of Alexander,
and his infant son by Roxana, were appointed by the generals of the army to
succeed, and Perdiccas was made regent. The empire was divided into
thirty-three governments, distributed among as many general officers.
Hence arose a series of bloody, desolating wars, and a period of confusion,
anarchy, and crime ensued, that is almost without a parallel in the history
of the world. After the battle of Ipsus, 301 b.c., in which Antigonus was
defeated, the empire was divided into four kingdoms - Thrace and Bithynia
under Lysimachus; Syria and the East under Seleucus; Egypt, under
Ptolemy Soter; and Macedonia under Cassander.” - Lyman Hist. Chart. It
was these four powers, thus springing out of the one empire founded by
Alexander, that was clearly represented by. the four heads.
(d) The dominion given to it. No one can doubt that a dominion was given
to Alexander and the Macedonian dynasty, which would fully correspond
with this. In fact the dominion of the world was practically conceded to that
kingdom.
(e) There is only one other circumstance to be noticed, though perhaps we
87

88. are not to seek an exact accomphshment for that in any specific events. It is
the fact tbat the leopard is marked by spots - a circumstance which many
have supposed had a fulfillment in the fact that numerous nations, not
homogeneous, were found in the empire of Alexander. So Bochart, Hieroz.
P. I. lib. iii. c. vii. p. 789, says: “The spots of the leopard refer to the different
customs of the nations over which he ruled. Among these, besides the
Macedonians, Greeks, Thracians, and Illyrians, in Europe, there were in
Africa the Libyans, Egyptians, and Troglodites; in Asia, almost all the
nations to the Ganges.” But, without insisting on this, no one can compare
the other particulars which were clearly designed to be symbolic, without
perceiving that they had a full accomplishment in the Macedonian empire.
CLARKE, "Another like a leopard - four wings - four heads - This was the
Macedonian or Greek empire; and Alexander the Great its king. Alexander
and his subjects are fitly compared to a leopard.
1. The leopard is remarkable for its swiftness. Alexander and the
Macedonians were very rapid in their conquests.
2. The leopard is a spotted animal; a proper emblem of the various
nations, with their various customs and languages, which constituted
the Macedonian empire. It may refer to the character of Alexander
himself, sometimes mild, at others cruel; sober and drunken;
continent and lecherous; having a great power of self-government, and
at other times being a slave to his passions.
3. The leopard, though small, is not afraid to attack the lion.
Four wings of a fowl - The Babylonian empire was represented with two
wings; and they sufficiently marked the rapidity of Nebuchadnezzar’s
conquests; but the Macedonian has here four wings; for nothing, in the
history of the world, was equal to the conquests of Alexander, who ran
through all the countries from Illyricum and the Adriatic Sea to the Indian
Ocean and the River Ganges; and in twelve years subdued part of Europe,
and all Asia.
The beast had also four heads - Signifying the empire after the death of
Alexander, divided between his four generals. Cassander reigning over
Macedon and Greece; Lysimachus, over Thrace and Bithynia; Ptolemy, over
Egypt; and Seleucus, over Syria.
Dominion was given to it - It was not owing to the skill, courage, or valor
of Alexander and his troops, that he made those wondrous conquests; the
nations were given to him. For, as Bishop Newton says, had he not been
assisted by the mighty power of God, how could he, with only thirty
thousand men, have overcome Darius with six hundred thousand; and in so
short a time have brought the countries from Greece as far as India into
subjection?
88

89. GILL, "After this I beheld, and, lo another, like a leopard,.... Another beast,
another monarchy, a third monarchy succeeding the Persian monarchy,
and which rose up on the ruins of that; Darius king of the Persians being
beaten by Alexander king of Macedon, who was the instrument of setting up
the Grecian monarchy here intended; compared to a leopard, a smaller
creature than a lion; signifying that this monarchy arose from a small
beginning; and a crafty one, Alexander having many wise counsellors of his
father's about him, though he himself was rash and hasty; and a spotted
one, denoting the various virtues and vices of Alexander, and his
inconstancy in them; sometimes exercising the one, and sometimes the
other; or rather the different nations, and the manners of them, he
conquered, of which this empire consisted; not to say anything of the
cruelty and swiftness of this creature, which are both to be observed in this
conqueror:
which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; denoting the swiftness of
Alexander in his conquests; who in a few years made himself master of the
whole world, at least as he thought, whose empire was greater than that of
Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans, to whom only two wings of an eagle are
given, Dan_7:4. Says Jerom,
"nothing was more swift than the conquest of Alexander, from Illyricum
and the Adriatic sea, unto the Indian ocean, and the river Ganges; he rather
ran through the world by victories than by battles, and in six years subdued
part of Europe, all Asia even unto India,''
to which may be added all Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. Arimazes being
master of a rock in Sogdiana, which was thought inaccessible and
impregnable, Alexander sent a messenger to him to demand the delivery of
it to him; but, among other things he proudly said, he asked the messenger,
with a sneer, if Alexander could fly; which, when the messenger reported,
nettled him much, that he should be insulted because he had not wings; and
vowed that the next night he would make him believe that the Macedonians
did fly; and accordingly they found ways and means to get to the top of it,
which, when the governor saw, he declared that Alexander's soldiers had
wings (f):
the beast also had four heads; which signify the four kingdoms into which
the Grecian empire was divided after Alexander's death, under four of his
generals, who were heads or governors of them: Macedonia under
Antipater, or, as others, Cassander; Egypt under Ptolemy; Syria under
Seleucus; and Asia under Antigonus, or, as others, Lysimachus:
and dominion was given to it; the dominion of the whole world, or,
however, a very large dominion; and this was given of God, and according to
his will, and the ordering of his providence; for to nothing else can it be
ascribed, that with thirty thousand men Alexander should beat an army of
six hundred thousand; and with such a handful of men subdue so many
kingdoms and nations, and that in the space of a few years.
89

90. JAMISON, "leopard — smaller than the lion; swift (Hab_1:8); cruel (Isa_
11:6), the opposite of tame; springing suddenly from its hiding place on its
prey (Hos_13:7); spotted. So Alexander, a small king, of a small kingdom,
Macedon, attacked Darius at the head of the vast empire reaching from the
Aegean Sea to the Indies. In twelve years he subjugated part of Europe, and
all Asia from Illyricum and the Adriatic to the Ganges, not so much fighting
as conquering [Jerome]. Hence, whereas Babylon is represented with two
wings, Macedon has four,so rapid were its conquests. The various spots
denote the various nations incorporated into his empire [Bochart]; or
Alexander’s own variation in character, at one time mild, at another cruel,
now temperate, and now drunken and licentious.
four heads — explained in Dan_8:8, Dan_8:22; the four kingdoms of the
Diadochior “successors” into which the Macedonian empire was divided at
the death of Alexander, namely, Macedon and Greece under Cassander,
Thrace and Bithynia under Lysimachus, Egypt under Ptolemy, and Syria
under Seleucus.
dominion ... given to it — by God; not by Alexander’s own might. For how
unlikely it was that thirty thousand men should overthrow several hundreds
of thousands! Josephus [Antiquities,11.6] says that Alexander adored the
high priest of Jerusalem, saying that he at Dium in Macedonia had seen a
vision of God so habited, inviting him to go to Asia, and promising him
success.
K&D, "Dan_7:6
The third beast, which Daniel saw after the second, was like a panther
(leopard), which is neither so kingly as the lion nor so strong as the bear,
but is like to both in rapacity, and superior to them in the springing agility
with which it catches its prey; so that one may say, with Kliefoth, that in the
subordination of the panther to the lion and the bear, the same gradation is
repeated as that this is found (of the third kingdom) in Daniel 2 of the
copper (brass). Of the panther it is said, that it had four wings of a fowl and
four heads. The representation of the beast with four wings increases the
agility of its movements to the speed of the flight of a bird, and expresses the
thought that the kingdom represented by that beast would extend itself in
flight over the earth; not so royally as Nebuchadnezzar, - for the panther has
not eagle's wings, but only the wings of a fowl, - but extending to all the
regions of the earth, for it has four wings. At the same time the beast has
four heads, not two only, as one might have expected with four wings. The
number four thus shows that the heads have an independent signification,
and do not stand in relation to the four wings, symbolizing the spreading
out of the kingdom into the four quarters of the heavens (Bertholdt, Häv.,
Kran.). As little do the four wings correspond with the four heads in such a
way that by both there is represented only the dividing of the kingdom into
four other kingdoms (Häv.. Comment., Auberl.). Wings are everywhere an
emblem of rapid motion; heads, on the contrary, where the beast signifies a
kingdom, are the heads of the kingdom, i.e., the kings or rulers: hence it
90

91. follows that the four heads of the panther are the four successive Persian
kings whom alone Daniel knows (Dan_11:2). Without regard to the false
interpretations of Dan_11:2on which this opinion rests, it is to be noticed
that the four heads do not rise up one after another, but that they all exist
contemporaneously on the body of the beast, and therefore can only
represent four contemporary kings, or signify that this kingdom is divided
into four kingdoms. That the four wings are mentioned before the four
heads, signifies that the kingdom spreads itself over the earth with the
speed of a bird's flight, and then becomes a fourfold-kingdom, or divides
itself into four kingdoms, as is distinctly shown in Dan_8:5. - The last
statement, and dominion was given to it, corresponds with that in Dan_
2:39, it shall bear rule over all the earth, i.e., shall found an actual and
strong world-empire.
CALVIN, "Daniel has already spoken of two empires, namely, the Chaldean and
Persian. Interpreters agree in the necessity for referring this vision to the
Macedonian Empire. He compares this kingdom to a leopard, or, as some translate,
a panther, since Alexander obtained his great power through swiftness alone; and
although it is not by any means a striking animal, yet it managed by its remarkable
speed to subdue the whole east Others bring forward many points of likeness, in
which the Grecian character is in accordance with the nature of the leopard. But I
fear these minutiae have but little weight: it is sufficient for me that the Spirit treats
here of the Third empire. It was not of any importance at first, and could neither
terrify distant regions, nor acquire subjects by its own worthiness. It then became
like some swift animal, if I may say so, since the swiftness of Alexander is notorious;
but he did not excel in either prudence, or gravity, or judgment, or in any other
virtues. Mere rashness seized upon him; and even if he had never tasted wine, his
ambition would have intoxicated him. Hence Alexander’s whole life was drunken;
there was neither moderation nor composure in him. We see, then, how suitably this
answers to the character of Alexander, although this is also extended to his
successors, all of whom partook largely of the nature of their prince. Daniel says,
therefore, A beast appeared to him like a leopard
He also says, It had four wings on its back, and four heads Some persons, as I think
perversely, distinguish between the wings and the heads. They suppose the kingdom
to be depicted as winged because Alexander seized upon manly kingdoms in a short
period; but the more simple sense is, this beast had four wings and four heads,
because Alexander had scarcely completed his victories when he died, contrary to all
expectation; and after his death, every one seized a portion of the prey for himself.
This, however, is certain: after the chief generals of his army had contended for
many years, all histories agree in stating that the supreme power centered in four.
For Seleucus obtained Asia Major, and Antigonus Asia Minor, Cassander was king
of Macedon, and was succeeded by Antipater, while Ptolemy the son of Lagus
became the ruler of Egypt They had agreed indeed otherwise among themselves; for
Alexander had a son by Roxana, first daughter of Darius; he had a brother,
Aridaeus, who grew up to manhood, but was epileptic and of weak intellect. Then,
91

92. since the generals of Alexander were cunning, they acted on this pretext, that all
should swear allegiance to their young ward, and then to Aridaeus, in case their
ward should die before he was of age. (8) Then Lysimachus was set over the
treasury, and another commanded the forces, and others obtained various
provinces. Fifteen or twenty leaders divided among themselves both offices and
power, while no one dared to assume the name of king. For Alexander’s son was the
lawful king, and his successor was that Aridaeus of whom I have spoken. But they
soon afterwards united; and that was an admirable specimen of God’s Providence,
which alone is sufficient to prove that passage of Scripture He who sheds man’s
blood, by man shall his blood be shed. (Genesis 9:6.) For none of Alexander’s
generals escaped in safety except those four whom we have mentioned. His mother,
at the age of eighty, suffered a violent death; his wife, Roxana, was strangled; his
son perished miserably; Aridaeus, his brother, a man of no intellect, and almost on a
level with the brutes, was slain with the rest — in truth, the whole family of
Alexander suffered violent deaths. With respect to the generals, they perished in
battles, some of them being betrayed by their soldiers, and others the victims of
their own negligence; and yet, although they expected a sanguinary end, they did
not escape it. But four only survived, and so the whole empire of Alexander was
divided into four parts. For Seleucus, whose successor was Antiochus, obtained
Upper Asia, that is, four eastern empire; Antigonus, Asia Minor, with a part of
Cilicia, and Phrygia, and other neighboring regions; Ptolemy seized upon Egypt and
a part of Africa; Cassander and then Antipater were kings of Macedon. By four
wings and four heads, Daniel means that partition which was made immediately
after the death of Alexander. Now, therefore, we understand what God showed to
his Prophet under this vision, when he set before him the image of a leopard with
four wings and heads.
He says, Power was given to the beast, because the success of Alexander the Great
was incredible. For who would have thought, ‘when he was crossing the sea, that he
would have conquered all Asia and the East? he led with him 50,000 men, and did
not undertake the war on his own responsibility alone, but by various arts, he
procured the nomination to the leadership of Greece from the Free States.
Alexander was therefore, a kind of mercenary of the Greeks, and was unable to lead
with him more than 30,000 men, as we have said he engaged in battle with 150,000,
then with 400,000, and then with almost a myriad. For Darius in his last battle had
collected above 800,000 men besides camp-followers, so that there were almost a
million with him. Alexander had already drawn to himself some auxiliaries from the
foreign nations whom he had conquered; but he could not trust them: hence his
whole strength lay in these 30,000, and on the day on which he conquered Darius, he
was so overcome by sleep that he could scarcely be aroused. The historians who
extol his prudence, excuse this by recording his sleeplessness during the preceding
night; besides, all agree in stating him to have been apparently dead, and when all
his generals approached they could scarcely wake him up, and then they purposely
raised a shout around his tent, though no one dared to enter. Alexander had
scarcely wiped his eyes, when Darius fled; hence the Prophet’s statement is true — a
beast’s power was given to him, since this happened beyond every natural
92

93. expectation and every human opinion, as by his aspect although he could frighten
all Greece, and lay prostrate so large an army. He states this of the Third Empire. I
will not repeat here all that can be said and can be gathered from history; for many
things must be put off till the eleventh chapter. I will therefore briefly compress
whatever points seem necessary for the interpretation of the passage. It now
follows, —
COFFMAN, ""After this I beheld, and, lo, another, like a leopard, which had upon
its back four wings of a bird; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given
to it."
This beast having four wings of a bird was thus represented as moving very rapidly;
and of all the empires ever to rise in human history, Alexander's came to power with
the greatest swiftness. Another factor that make it mandatory to apply this to the
Macedonian-Grecian empire is the mention of four heads. This simply cannot be
applied to Persia. It is obviously a prophetic reference to the four generals of
Alexander the Great who founded four different empires upon the territory
conquered by Alexander. This particular alone makes it impossible intellectually to
identify this third beast with any other except the empire of Alexander. The proof of
this is in Daniel 8:22, on which Keil made this comment:
"If the four horns of the he-goat represent four world-kingdoms rising up
together, then the four heads of the leopard can never represent four kings reigning
one after the other, even though it were the case, which it is not, that Daniel knew
only four kings of Persia."[13
COKE, "Daniel 7:6. Lo, another, like a leopard— This third kingdom is that of the
Macedonians or Grecians, who, under the command of Alexander the Great,
overcame the Persians, and reigned next after them; and it is most fitly compared to
a leopard upon several accounts. The leopard is remarkable for its swiftness; and
Alexander and the Macedonians were amazingly rapid in their conquest; insomuch,
that St. Jerome says, he seems rather to have overrun the world by his victories,
than by his battles. The leopard is a spotted animal, and so was a proper emblem of
the various nations which Alexander commanded, or of the various manners of
Alexander himself; who was sometimes merciful, and sometimes cruel; sometimes
temperate, and sometimes drunken; sometimes abstemious, and sometimes
incontinent. The leopard is of small stature, but of great courage, so as not to be
afraid to engage with the lion, and the largest beasts; and so Alexander, a little king
in comparison, and with a small army, dared to attack Darius, the king of kings,
whose kingdom extended from the AEgean sea to the Indies. This leopard had upon
its back four wings. The Babylonian empire was represented with two wings, but
this is described with four: for nothing was swifter than Alexander's conquests, who
ran through all the countries from Illyricum to the Adriatic sea, and through a great
part of India; not so much fighting, as conquering; and in twelve years subdued
part of Europe, and almost all Asia. The beast also had four heads, to denote the
four kingdoms into which this third kingdom should be divided, as it was after the
93

94. death of Alexander among his four captains; Cassander reigning over Macedon and
Greece, Lysimachus over Thrace and Bithynia, Ptolemy over Egypt, and Seleucus
over Syria. And dominion was given to it, which shews that it was not owing to the
fortitude of Alexander, but proceeded from the will of the Lord. And indeed, unless
he had been directed, preserved, and assisted by the mighty power of God, how
could Alexander, with 30,000 men, have overcome Darius with 600,000, and in so
short a time have brought the countries from Greece as far as to India, into
subjection? Bishop Newton.
ELLICOTT, "(6) A leopard.—More correctly, a panther. On the great vigilance
and swiftness of the panther, comp. Jeremiah 5:6; Hosea 13:7; Habakkuk 1:8. The
third beast corresponds to the copper belly and thighs of the image (Daniel 2). It
should be noticed that as unity characterises the first beast, and duality the second,
so quadruplicity marks the third. It has four wings—wings as of a bird, not of an
eagle—by which a degree of swiftness is implied inferior to that of the first beast. It
has four heads, indicating four kingdoms, into which the third kingdom should
develop itself. (Comp. Daniel 8:8, where the same predominance of the number
“four” is to be observed.)
TRAPP, "Daniel 7:6 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.
Ver. 6. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard.] Which is a creature cruel,
desirous of man’s blood, crafty, spotted, and very swift of foot. So were the
Grecians; Alexander especially (the founder of that third monarchy), active, bold,
and headlong, but directed much by those who had been counsellors to his father
Philip, a subtle prince; leopard-like, he was spotted by a mixture of virtues and
vices; he was very quick of despatch, Mηδεν αναβαλλομενος, never deferring any
enterprise; he much delighted in wine, and so took his death; like as the leopard is
no way else to be taken but by such a bait laid for him.
Which had upon the back of it four wings.] Denoting the rapidity and celerity of
Alexander and some other of the Grecian monarchs, in overrunning countries, as if
they had flown.
The beast had also four heads,] i.e., This monarchy was, after Alexander’s death,
divided into four satrapies, or rather kingdoms. Cassander had Macedonia;
Antigonus, Asia; Seleucus, Syria; and Ptolemy, Egypt.
BENSON, "Daniel 7:6. After this I beheld, and lo, another like a leopard — “This
third kingdom is that of the Macedonians, or Grecians, who, under the command of
Alexander the Great, overcame the Persians, and reigned next after them: and it is
94

95. fitly compared to a leopard upon several accounts. The leopard is remarkable for
swiftness, and Alexander and the Macedonians were amazingly swift and rapid in
their conquests. The leopard is a spotted animal, and so was a proper emblem,
according to Bochart, of the different manners of the nations which Alexander
commanded; or, according to Grotius, of the various manners of Alexander himself,
who was sometimes merciful, and sometimes cruel; sometimes temperate, and
sometimes drunken; sometimes abstemious, and sometimes incontinent. The
leopard, as Bochart observes, is of small stature, but of great courage, so as not to be
afraid to engage with the lion and the larger beasts; and so Alexander, a little king,
in comparison, of small stature too, and with a small army, dared to attack the king
of kings, that is, Darius, whose kingdom was extended from the Ægean sea to the
Indies. Which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl — The Babylonian
empire was represented with two wings, but this is described with four. For, as
Jerome says, nothing was swifter than the victories of Alexander, who ran through
all the countries from Illyricum and the Adriatic sea to the Indian ocean and the
river Ganges, not so much fighting as conquering; and in six years (he should have
said in twelve) subjugated part of Europe and all Asia to himself. The beast had also
four heads — To denote the four kingdoms into which this same third kingdom
should be divided, as it was after the death of Alexander, among his four captains;
Cassander reigning over Macedon and Greece, Lysimachus over Thrace and
Bithynia, Ptolemy over Egypt, and Seleucus over Syria. And dominion was given to
it — Which shows, as Jerome observes, that it was not owing to the fortitude of
Alexander, but proceeded from the will of the Lord. And, indeed, unless he had
been directed, preserved, and assisted by the mighty power of God, how could
Alexander, with thirty thousand men, have overcome Darius with six hundred
thousand, and in so short a time have brought all the countries, from Greece as far
as to India, into subjection.” — Bishop Newton.
WHEDON, " 6. Since the second animal could not represent an independent
Median empire, because, historically, there was no independent Median empire
between Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander, and because Daniel himself joins together
the Median and Persian law and kingdom as a unity (see note Daniel 2:39) —
therefore this four-winged, four-headed leopard does not represent the Persian
empire, but that of Alexander the Great (Daniel 8:21). Historically, no one doubts
that the empire following that of Nebuchadnezzar was the Persian (or Medo-
Persian,) whose first and greatest king was Cyrus, and that immediately following
this came the empire of Alexander. There is nothing here to indicate that Daniel did
not have a correct historic perspective; in which case this third empire must have
been that of Alexander. The wings here, as heretofore, symbolize world-wide and
rapid conquest under the protection of the gods. The four heads — corresponding to
the four horns of the rough goat (Daniel 8:22), which Daniel himself declares to be
the king or kingdom of Greece — would naturally represent the four kingdoms into
which the empire was divided at Alexander’s death. (See, further, Daniel 8:21.) The
leopard is a peculiarly swift animal, and nothing is more remarkable in the conquest
of Alexander than this characteristic; since in the insignificant space of nine years
95

96. he flew with his arms over the whole of Asia, and even made some parts of Europe
subject to him. Some expositors have also seen in Alexander’s personal courage,
variability of temper, and extreme smallness of size other peculiarities symbolized
by the leopard. Cowles offers an ingenious conjecture that the four heads of the
leopard are to intimate that the Grecian empire of Alexander was distinguished
more by the power of thought than by brute force. Among the great kingdoms of the
ancient world, this was the empire of brains. Though this interpretation seems too
ingenious to be true, yet it offers another reason why Alexander’s empire could not
be symbolized by the fourth beast (Daniel 7:7).
POOLE, " This
leopard was the Grecian monarchy; a leopard is less than a lion, so was this
monarchy at first, but yet durst fight with a lion; so did Alexander encounter Darius
with a force very small to the other. A
leopard also for his swiftness; therefore described with
four wings on his back.
The beast had also four heads, because his commanders that succeeded him were
four of his chief commanders, that divided that empire into four parts between
them; and these were the four heads to whom dominion was given, Ptolemy,
Seleucus, Philippus, Antigonus, or, as others, Perdiccas and Meleager, Daniel
8:21,22. Dominion was given to it: Alexander did this by the mighty power of God;
else how could he conquer Darius, that had six hundred thousand, with thirty
thousand, and in so short a time go conqueror over Asia to the East Indies, I mean
that part which now the Mogul possesseth, where he fought with Porus and beat
him?
PETT, " ‘After this I was beholding, and lo another, like a leopard which had on its
back four wings of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to
it.’
The third wild beast was ‘like a leopard’, and yet a leopard with wings. Chapter 8
tells us specifically that this was Greece (Daniel 8:21). The swift movement of the
leopard (Habakkuk 1:8) combined with the dual sets of wings of a bird indicates its
fierceness and swiftness, typical of the conquests of Alexander. It needs two sets of
wings because it remains an animal throughout. It needs to be able to land on four
feet.
Like the bear, the leopard is also paralleled with the lion as a fearsome creature
(Song of Solomon 4:8; Jeremiah 5:6; Hosea 13:7). It is a hunter. So this beast too is
swift and fearsome. The dual emphasis on four indicates that ‘four’ is intended to
96

97. mean something, and four indicates worldwideness. Thus the four heads indicate
‘worldwide’ rulership (he could have depicted it as having horns, as it had wings,
but horns would be contradictory to its being a leopard. A leopard kills with tooth
and claw). All is controlled from the head. But it also indicates that the one empire
will become four (see Daniel 8:22). The beast ‘was given dominion’. It had control
over the Mediterranean world.
On the death of Alexander the Great his empire was in fact split between his four
generals, two of whom were prominent in the Mediterranean world north and south
of Palestine. Most who hold this view think that they were Lysimachus (who ruled
over Thrace and Bithynia), Cassander (Macedonia and Greece), Seleucus (Syria,
Babylonia, and the eastern territories), and Ptolemy (Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia
Petrea). However, the exact identification of the rulers is debatable because it took
about 20 years for the kingdom to be successfully divided. But there is no question
about the fact that Greece split into four major parts (cf. Daniel 8:8; Daniel 8:22).
All is leading up to the final empire, the great apocalyptic empire of Daniel 2:40-43.
PULPIT, "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 LXX. rendering is shorter, "And after these things I saw another
beast, like a leopard, and four wings stretched over it (ἐπέτεινον), 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 ἐπὶτεινον, 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 ל and
שׁ. It is difficult, on the present text, to explain how the LXX. rendered "wings of a
fowl," "stretched over it." If, however, the original word were that used in the
Peshitta, see word (parehatha), it is explicable that this should have been read וּשַׁרְפ.
Theodotion and the Peshitta do not differ from the Massoretic text. The majority of
critical commentators maintain this to be the Persian Empire. A leopard is a less
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. No Jew of the age of the Maccabees could have
been under that impression. 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 defence 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
97

98. 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
Armenia; had relieved Media, Elam, and Persia from the alien yoke of the Manda;
and had conquered Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar, after the battle of Carehemish, had
advanced to the river of Egypt. We do not know the extent and direction of his
many campaigns, 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 than for that of the
Persians.
7 “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and
there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying
and frightening and very powerful. It had large
iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and
trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was
different from all the former beasts, and it had ten
horns.
BARNES 7-8, "After this I saw in the night visions - The other beasts were
seen also in a dream Dan_7:1, and this probably in the same night, though
as a subsequent part of the dream, for the whole vision evidently passed
before the prophet in a single dream. The succession, or the fact that he saw
one after the other, indicates a sucession in the kingdoms. They were not to
be at the same time upon the earth, but one was to arise after another in the
98

99. order here indicated, though they were in some respects to occupy the same
territory. The singular character of the beast that now appears; the number
of the horns; the springing up of a new horn; the might and terror of the
beast, and the long duration of its dominion upon the earth, attracted and
fixed the attention of Daniel, led him into a more minute description of the
appearance of the animal, and induced him particularly to ask an
explanation of the angel of the meaning of this part of the vision, Dan_7:19.
And, behold, a fourth beast - This beast had peculiar characteristics, all of
which were regarded as symbolic, and all of which demand explanation in
order that we may have a just view of the nature and design of the symbol.
As in reference to the three former beasts, so also in regard to this, it will
be proper to explain first the significance of the different parts of the
symbol, and then in the exposition (Dan_7:19, following) to inquire into the
application. The particulars of this symbol are more numerous, more
striking, and more important than in either of the previous ones. These
particulars are the following Dan_7:7-11:
(a) The animal itself Dan_5:7: “a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and
strong exceedingly.” The form or nature of the beast is not given as in the
preceding cases - the lion, the bear, and the leopard - but it is left for the
imagination to fill up. It was a beast more terrific in its appearance than
either of the others, and was evidently a monster such as could not be
designated by a single name. The terms which are used here in describing
the beast - “dreadful, terrible, exceedingly strong,” are nearly synonymous,
and are heaped together in order to give an impressive view of the terror
inspired by the beast. There can be no doubt as to the general meaning of
this, for it is explained Dan_7:23as denoting a kingdom that “should devour
the whole earth, and tread it down, and break it in pieces.” As a symbol, it
would denote some power much more fearful and much more to be
dreaded; having a wider dominion; and more stern, more oppressive in its
character, more severe in its exactions, and more entirely destroying the
liberty of others; advancing more by power and terror, and less by art and
cunning, than either. This characteristic is manifest throughout the symbol.
(b) The teeth Dan_7:7: “and it had great iron teeth.” Not only teeth or
tusks, such as other animals may have, but teeth made of iron. This is
characteristic of a monster, and shows that there was to be something very
peculiar in the dominion that was here symbolized. The teeth are of use to
eat or devour; and the symbol here is that of devouring or rending - as a
fierce monster with such teeth might be supposed to rend or devour all that
was before it. This, too, would denote a nation exceedingly fierce; a nation
of savage ferocity; a nation that would be signally formidable to all others.
For illustration, compare Jer_15:12; Mic_4:13. As explained in Dan_7:23, it
is said that the kingdom denoted by this would “devour the whole earth.”
Teeth - great teeth, are often used as the symbols of cruelty, or of a
devouring enemy. Thus in Pro_30:14: “There is a generation whose teeth
are as swords, and their jaw teeth are as knives, to devour the poor from off
the earth, and the needy from among men.” So David uses the word to
denote the cruelty of tyrants: Psa_3:7, “Thou hast broken the teeth of the
ungodly;” Psa_57:4, “whose teeth are spears and arrows;” Psa_58:6, “break
99

100. their teeth in their mouth; break out the great teeth of the young lions.”
(c) The stamping with the feet Dan_7:7: “it devoured and brake in pieces,
and stamped the residue with the feet of it.” That is, like a fierce monster,
whatever it could not devour it stamped down and crushed in the earth.
This indicates a disposition or purpose to destroy, for the sake of
destroying, or where no other purpose could be gained. It denotes rage,
wrath, a determination to crush all in its way, to have universal dominion;
and would be applicable to a nation that subdued and crushed others for the
mere sake of doing it, or because it was unwilling that any other should exist
and enjoy liberty - even where itself could not hope for any advantage.
(d) The fact that it was different from all that went before it Dan_7:7:
“and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it.” The prophet
does not specify particularly in what respects it was different, for he does
not attempt to give its appearance. It was not a lion, a bear, or a leopard, but
he does not say precisely what it was. Probably it was such a monster that
there were no animals with which it could be compared. He states some
circumstances, however, in which it was different - as in regard to the ten
horns, the little horn, the iron teeth, etc., but still the imagination is left to
fill up the picture in general. The meaning of this must be, that the fourth
kingdom, represented by this beast, would be materially different from
those which preceded it, and we must look for the fulfillment in some
features that would characterize it by which it would be unlike the others.
There must be something marked in the difference - something that would
be more than the common difference between nations.
(e) The ten horns Dan_7:7: “and it had ten horns.” That is, the prophet
saw on it ten horns as characterizing the beast. The horn is a symbol of
power, and is frequently so used as an emblem or symbol in Daniel Dan_
7:7-8, Dan_7:20, Dan_7:24; Dan_8:3-9, Dan_8:20-22and Revelation Rev_
5:6; Rev_13:1, Rev_13:11; Rev_17:3, Rev_17:12, Rev_17:16. It is used as a
symbol because the great strength of horned animals is found there. Thus in
Amo_6:13, it is said:
“Ye that rejoice in a thing of nought,
That say, Have we not taken dominion to ourselves By our own
strength?”
(Heb. horns.)
So in Deu_33:17:
“His beauty shall be that of a young bull,
And his horns shall be the horns of a rhinoceros:
With these he shall push the people to the extremities of the land:
Such are the ten thousands of Ephraim,
Such the thousands of Manasseh.”
- Wemyss.
So in 1Ki_22:11, we find horns used in a symbolic action on the part of the
false prophet Zedekiah. “He made him horns of iron, and said, Thus saith
Jehovah, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed
100

101. them.” In Zec_1:18, the four horns that are seen by the prophet are said to
be the four great powers which had scattered and wasted the Jews.
Compare Wemyss on the Symbolic Language of Scripture, art. “Horns.”
There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the symbol here, for it is
explained in a subsequent part of the chapter Dan_7:24, “the ten horns are
the ten kings that shall arise.” It would seem also, from that explanation,
that they were to be ten kings that would “arise” or spring out of that
kingdom at some period of its history. “And the ten horns out of this
kingdom are ten kings that shall arise;” that is, not that the kingdom itself
would spring out of ten others that would be amalgamated or consolidated
into one, but that out of that one kingdom there would spring up ten that
would exercise dominion, or in which the power of the one kingdom would
be ultimately lodged. Though Daniel appears to have seen these horns as
pertaining to the beast when he first saw him, yet the subsequent
explanation is, that these horns were emblems of the manner in which the
power of that one kingdom would be finally exerted; or that ten kings or
dynasties would spring out of it. We are, then, naturally to look for the
fulfillment of this in some one great kingdom of huge power that would
crush the nations, and from which, while the same general characteristic
would remain, there would spring up ten kings, or dynasties, or kingdoms,
in which the power would be concentrated.
(f) The springing up of the little horn Dan_7:8: “I considered the horns,
and, behold, there came up among them another little horn.” There are
several points to be noticed in regard to this:
(1) The fact that he “considered the horns;” that is, he looked on them
until another sprang up among them. This implies that when he first saw
the monster, it had no such horn, and that the horn sprang up a
considerable time after he first saw it - intimating that it would occur,
perhaps, far on in the history of the kingdom that was symbolized. It is
implied that it was not an event which would soon occur.
(2) It sprang up “among” the others (ןהיניב bēynēyhēn) - starting from the
same source, and pertaining to the same animal, and therefore a
development or putting forth of the same power. The language used here
does not designate, with any degree of certainty, the precise place which it
occupied, but it would seem that the others stood close together, and that
this sprang out of the center, or from the very midst of them - implying that
the new dominion symbolized would not be a foreign dominion, but one that
would spring out of the kingdom itself, or that would seem to grow up in the
kingdom.
(3) It was a little horn; that is, it was small at first, though subsequently it
grew so as to be emblematic of great power. This would denote that the
power symbolized would be small at first - springing up gradually. The
fulfillment of this would be found, neither in conquest nor in revolution,
nor in a change of dynasty, nor in a sudden change of a constitution, but in
some power that had an obscure origin, and that was feeble and small at the
beginning, yet gradually increasing, until, by its own growth, it put aside a
portion of the power before exercised and occupied its place. We should
naturally look for the fulfillment of this in the increase of some power
101

102. within the state that had a humble origin, and that slowly developed itself
until it absorbed a considerable portion of the authority that essentially
resided in the kingdom represented by the monster.
(4) In the growth of that “horn,” three of the others were plucked up by
the roots. The proper meaning of the word used to express this (ורקעתא
'eth
e
‛ăqârâv) is, that they were rooted out - as a tree is overturned by the roots,
or the roots are turned out from the earth. The process by which this was
done seems to have been by growth. The gradual increase of the horn so
crowded on the others that a portion of them was forced out, and fell. What
is fairly indicated by this was not any act of violence, or any sudden
convulsion or revolution, but such a gradual growth of power that a portion
of the original power was removed, and this new power occupied its place.
There was no revolution, properly so-called; no change of the whole
dynasty, for a large portion of the horns remained, but the gradual rise of a
new power that would wield a portion of that formerly wielded by others,
and that would now wield the power in its place. The number three would
either indicate that three parts out of the ten were absorbed in this way, or
that a considerable, though an indefinite portion, was thus absorbed.
(5) The eyes: “and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man.”
Eyes denote intelligence, as we see objects by their aid. The rims of the
wheels in Ezekiel’s vision were full of eyes Eze_1:18, as symbolic of
intelligence. This would denote that the power here referred to would be
remarkably sagacious. We should naturally look for the fulfillment of this in
a power that laid its plans wisely and intelligently; that had large and clear
views of policy; that was shrewd and far-seeing in its counsels and
purposes; that was skilled in diplomacy; or, that was eminent for
statesman-like plans. This part of the symbol, if it stood alone, would find
its fulfillment in any wise and shrewd administration; as it stands here,
surrounded by others, it would seem that this, as contrasted with them, was
characteristically shrewd and far-seeing in its policy. Lengerke, following
Jerome, supposes that this means that the object referred to would be a
man, “as the eyes of men are keener and sharper than those of other
animals.” But the more correct interpretation is that above referred to - that
it denotes intelligence, shrewdness, sagacity.
(6) The mouth: “and a mouth speaking great things.” A mouth indicating
pride and arrogance. This is explained in Dan_7:25, as meaning that he to
whom it refers would “speak great words against the Most High;” that is,
would be guilty of blasphemy. There would be such arrogance, and such
claims set up, and such a spirit evinced, that it would be in fact a speaking
against God. We naturally look for the fulfillment of this to some haughty
and blaspheming power; some power that would really blaspheme religion,
and that would be opposed to its progress and prosperity in the world. The
Septuagint, in the Codex Chisianus, adds here, “and shall make war against
the saints;” but these words are not found in the original Chaldee. They
accord, however, well with the explanation in Dan_7:25. What has been
here considered embraces all that pertains properly to this symbol - the
symbol of the fourth beast - except the fact stated in Dan_7:11, that the beast
was slain, and that his body was given to the burning flame. The inquiry as
102

103. to the fulfillment will be appropriate when we come to consider the
explanation given at the request of Daniel, by the angel, in Dan_7:19-25.
CLARKE, "I saw - a fourth beast - it had great iron teeth - This is allowed,
on all hands, to be the Roman empire. It was dreadful, terrible, and
exceeding strong: it devoured, and brake in pieces, and stamped the
residue, that is, the remains of the former kingdoms, with its feet. It
reduced Macedon into a Roman province about one hundred and sixty-eight
years before Christ; the kingdom of Pergamos about one hundred and
thirty-three years; Syria about sixty-five; and Egypt about thirty years
before Christ. And, besides the remains of the Macedonian empire, it
subdued many other provinces and kingdoms; so that it might, by a very
usual figure, be said to devour the whole earth, to tread it down, and break
it to pieces; and became in effect, what the Roman writers delight to call it,
the empire of the whole world.
It (the fourth beast) was diverse from all the beasts that were before it -
Not only in its republican form of government, but also in power and
greatness, extent of dominion, and length of duration.
It had ten horns - The ten kingdoms into which the Roman empire was
afterwards divided. Calmet says, ten Syrian kings: and he finds them thus: -
1. Seleucus Nicator.
2. Antiochus Soter.
3. Antiochus Theos.
4. Antiochus Callinicus.
5. Seleucus Ceraunus.
6. Antiochus the Great.
7. Seleucus, surnamed Philopater, brother of Antiochus Epiphanes.
8. Laomedon of Mitylene, to whom Syria and Phoenicia had been
intrusted.
9. Antigone. And,
10.His son Demetrius, who possessed those provinces, with the title of
kings.
This is too much like forced work. There are different opinions
concerning these ten kings; or rather which they were that constituted this
division of the Roman empire. They are reckoned thus: -
1. The Roman senate.
2. The Greeks, in Ravenna.
3. The Lombards in Lombardy.
4. The Buns in Hungary.
5. The Alemans, in Germany.
6. The Franks in France.
103

104. 7. The Burgundians in Burgundy.
8. The Saracens in Africa, and a part of Spain.
9. The Goths, in other parts of Spain.
10.And the Saxons, in Britain.
GILL, "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast,.... Not
in another night, as Jarchi; but in the same night, and in the same visions of
it; only after he had seen the other three successively, then last of all he saw
this fourth beast; and more being said of this than of the rest, shows that
this was the principal thing in the vision to be observed, as being to endure
until, and having a close connection with, the kingdom of the Messiah;
which, arising, shall destroy it, and take place of it: this is not the Turkish
empire, as Aben Ezra, and others: nor the kingdom of the Seleucidae, as
Grotius, and others; to which neither the characters, nor the duration of it,
agree; but the Roman empire, which succeeded the Grecian, so Gorionides
(g):
dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; exceeding powerful, as the
Roman empire was, and terrible to all the kingdoms of the earth; its armies,
wherever they came, struck terror among the nations, and threw them into
a panic, killing, wasting, robbing all they met with (h); and especially it was
terrible to Christians, by their persecutions of them, as both Rome Pagan
and Rome Papal have been. Rome has its name from strength with the
Greeks, and from height with the Hebrews, as Jerom (i)observes:
it had great iron teeth; which may design its generals and emperors, such as
Scipio, Pompey, Julius Caesar, and others; which crushed and devoured all
that came in their way: this monarchy answers to the legs and feet of iron in
Nebuchadnezzar's dream:
it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it;
it devoured nations, broke kingdoms in pieces, and brought them in
subjection to them; reducing them to the greatest servitude, and obliging
them to pay heavy taxes and tribute:
it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it: in its original,
language, laws, customs, and forms of government; it was such a monster,
that no name could be given it; there was no one beast in nature to which it
could be compared; it had all the ill properties of the other beasts, for craft,
cruelty oppression, and tyranny; and therefore John describes this same
beast as being like a leopard, having the feet of a bear and the mouth of a
lion. Rev_13:2,
and it had ten horns; which are explained of ten kings or kingdoms, Dan_
7:24, the same with the ten toes in Nebuchadnezzar's dream and with the
ten kings that received power as kings with the beast or ten kingdoms, into
104

105. which the Roman empire was divided about the time of the rise of
antichrist,see Gill on Rev_17:12.
JAMISON, "As Daniel lived under the kingdom of the first beast, and
therefore needed not to describe it, and as the second and third are
described fully in the second part of the book, the chief emphasis falls on
the fourth. Also prophecy most dwells on the end,which is the
consummation of the preceding series of events. It is in the fourth that the
world power manifests fully its God-opposing nature. Whereas the three
former kingdoms were designated respectively, as a lion, bear, and leopard,
no particular beast is specified as the image of the fourth; for Rome is so
terrible as to be not describable by any one, but combines in itself all that we
can imagine inexpressibly fierce in all beasts. Hence thrice(Dan_7:7, Dan_
7:19, Dan_7:23) it is repeated, that the fourth was “diverse from all” the
others. The formula of introduction, “I saw in the night visions,” occurs
here, as at Dan_7:2, and again at Dan_7:13, thus dividing the whole vision
into three parts - the first embracing the three kingdoms, the second the
fourth and its overthrow, the third Messiah’s kingdom. The first three
together take up a few centuries; the fourth, thousands of years. The whole
lower half of the image in the second chapter is given to it. And whereas the
other kingdoms consist of only one material, this consists of two, iron and
clay (on which much stress is laid, Dan_2:41-43); the “ironteeth” here
allude to one material in the fourth kingdom of the image.
ten horns — It is with the crisis,rather than the course,of the fourth
kingdom that this seventh chapter is mainly concerned. The ten kings
(Dan_7:24, the “horns” representing power), that is, kingdoms,into which
Rome was divided on its incorporation with the Germanic and Slavonic
tribes, and again at the Reformation, are thought by many to be here
intended. But the variation of the list of the ten, and their ignoring the
eastern half of the empire altogether, and the existence of the Papacy before
the breaking up of even the Westernempire, instead of being the “little
horn” springing up afterthe other ten, are against this view. The Western
Roman empire continued till a.d. 731, and the Eastern, till a.d. 1453. The ten
kingdoms, therefore, prefigured by the ten “toes” (Dan_2:41; compare Rev_
13:1; Rev_17:12), are the ten kingdoms into which Rome shall be found
finally divided when Antichrist shall appear [Tregelles]. These, probably,
are prefigured by the number tenbeing the prevalent one at the chief
turning points of Roman history.
K&D, "Dan_7:7-8
The fourth beast. - Introduced by a more detailed description, the fourth
beast is presented more distinctly before our notice than those which
preceded it. Its terribleness and its strength, breaking in pieces and
destroying all things, and the fact that no beast is named to which it can be
likened, represent it as different from all the beasts that went before. This
description corresponds with that of the fourth kingdom denoted by the legs
105

106. and the feet of the metallic image of the monarchies (Daniel 2). The iron
breaking in pieces all things (Dan_2:40) is here represented by the great
iron teeth with which this monster devoured and brake in pieces. In
addition to that, there are also feet, or, as Dan_7:19by way of supplement
adds, “claws of brass,” with which in the mere fury of its rage it destroyed
all that remained, i.e., all that it did not devour and destroy with its teeth. וגו
הָיְנַשְׁמאיִה
(it was made different) denotes not complete diversity of being,
from which Hitz. and Del. conclude that the expression suits only the
Macedonian world-kingdom, which as occidental was different in its nature
from the three preceding monarchies, which shared among themselves an
oriental home and a different form of civilisation and despotic government.
For although
הָיְנַשְׁמ
expresses more than
יִרֳחָא
(Dan_7:5), yet the
אָדּןִמאָדּןָיְנָשׁ
(diverse one from another), spoken (Dan_7:3) of all the beasts, shows that
הָיְנַשְׁמ
cannot be regarded as expressing perfect diversity of being, but only
diversity in appearance. The beast was of such terrible strength and
destructive rage, that the whole animal world could furnish no
representative by whose name it might be characterized. It had ten horns,
by which its terrible strength is denoted, because a horn is in Scripture
always the universal symbol of armed strength. With this the interpretation
(Dan_7:24), that these horns are so many kings or kingdoms, fully
corresponds. In the ten horns the ten toes of the image (Daniel 2) are again
repeated. The number ten comes into consideration only according to its
symbolical meaning of comprehensive and definite totality. That the horns
are on the head of the one beast, signifies that the unfolding of its power in
the ten kingdoms is not a weakening of its power, but only its full display.
CALVIN, "There is greater difficulty in this Fourth Monarchy. Those who are
endued with moderate judgment, confess this vision to be fulfilled in the Roman
Empire; but they afterwards disagree, since what is here said of the fourth beast
many transfer to the Pope, when it is added a Little Horn sprang up; but. others
think the Turkish kingdom is comprehended under the Roman. The Jews for the
most part incline this way, and they are necessarily compelled to do so, since Daniel
will afterwards add — I saw the throne of the Son of Man; since it is clear, from this
prediction, that Christ’s kingdom was erected by the overthrow of the Roman
dominion, the Jews turn round, and, as I have said, join the Turkish monarchy with
the Roman, since they do, not find their Christ according to their imagination. And
there are some of our writers who think this image ought not to be restricted to the
Roman Empire, but ought to include the Turkish. In nay view, there is nothing
probable in that opinion; I have no doubt that in this vision the Prophet was shown
the figure of the Roman Empire, and this will be more apparent as we go on.
He says a fourth beast appeared. He gives it no fixed name, because nothing ever
existed like it in the world. The Prophet, by adding no similitude, signifies how
horrible the monster was, for he formerly compared the Chaldean Empire to a lion,
the Persian to a bear, and the Macedonian to a leopard. In these comparisons there
was something natural; but when he descends to the fourth beast, he says, it was
106

107. formidable in its aspect, and terrible, and very brave or strong, and without; any
addition calls it “a beast.” We see then his wish to express something prodigious by
this fourth beast, as there is no animal so fierce or cruel in the world which can in
any way represent with sufficient strength the nature of this beast. Behold,
therefore, the fourth beast which was formidable, and fearful, and very strong. We
know of no such Monarchy before this. Although Alexander subdued the whole of
the East, his victory, we are sure, was not stable. He was content with fame alone;
he, granted liberty to all people; and as long as they flattered him, he sought nothing
else. But we know the Romans. to have been masters even as far as Babylon:; we
know the following countries to have been subdued by them: Asia Minor, Syria,
Cilicia, Greece, and Macedon, both the Spains, Gaul, Illyricum, and part of
Germany. At length Britain was subjugated by Julius Caesar. No wonder this beast
is called formidable and very strong! For before Julius Caesar became master of the
Empire, the whole Mediterranean Sea was in all its parts under subjection to the
Roman Empire. Its amazing extent is well known. Egypt had indeed its own kings,
but they were tributary; whatever edicts the Romans decreed, they were executed
immediately in Egypt. Mirror sovereigns existed in Asia Minor as a kind of spies,
but this state of things we shall treat presently. It is also well known that they
possessed supreme power throughout the Mediterranean Sea, and that by the
conquest of Mithridates. Pompey reduced Pontus under his dominion. In the East
affairs were all at peace. The Medes and Persians gave them some trouble, but they
never moved unless they were provoked. The Spains were not yet accustomed to the
yoke, but we know that there were always two praetors there. Julius Caesar was the
first who entered Britain after subduing Gaul. Hence we see how far and wide the
Romans extended their power, and with what immense cruelty. Hence Daniel calls
this beast, formidable and very strong
He afterwards adds, It had large iron teeth. This ought to be referred to its audacity
and insatiable greediness. We see how completely free their nation was from the fear
of death, for they were so hardened that if any one deserted his rank for the sake of
avoiding danger, he was afterwards branded with such marks of infamy, that he
was compelled either to strangle himself or to incur a voluntary death! There was,
then, a certain brutal cruelty in that nation, and we also know how insatiable they
were. For this reason Daniel says they had large iron teeth. He adds, it consumed,
and broke to pieces, and trod the remnant under foot. These things are spoken
allegorically, not only because this vision was offered to the holy Prophet, but also
because God wished to paint a kind of living image, in which he might show the
peculiar characters of each government. For we know how many lands the Romans
had consumed, and how they transferred to themselves the luxuries of the whole
world, and whatever was valuable and precious in Asia Minor, and Greece, and
Macedonia, as well as in all islands and in Asia Major — all was swept away — and
even this was insufficient to satisfy them! This, then, is the ravenousness of which
the Prophet now speaks, since they consumed, says he, and rubbed to pieces with
their teeth. He adds, they trod the remnant under their feet — a metaphor worthy of
notice, as we know they were accustomed to distribute the prey which they could not
carry with them. They devoured and tore with their teeth the treasures and costly
107

108. furniture and everything else; for their supplies were provided by tributes which
produced large sums of money. If there was any portion of the Mediterranean which
they could not defend without keeping a permanent garrison there, we know how
they engaged the services of tributary kings. Thus the kingdom of Eumenes
increased to a great extent till the time of his grandson Attalus, but they bestowed it
partly on the Rhodians, and partly on the Cyprians and others. They never
remunerated those Allies who almost exhausted their own possessions in aiding
them, out of their own resources, but enriched them with the spoils of others; and
they not only seized upon the property of one city and bestowed it on another, but
they set up their lands for sale. Thus, the liberty of the Lacedaemonians was
betrayed to the tyrant Nabis. They also enriched Masinissa with so much wealth,
that they acquired Africa for themselves by his means. In fine, they so sported with
kingdoms in seizing and giving them away, that they rendered provinces tranquil by
the wealth and at the expense of others. This was remarkably conspicuous in the
case of Judea, where they created out of nothing Ethnarchs and Tetrarchs and
kings, who were nothing but their satellites — and that too but for a moment. For as
soon as any change occurred, they retracted what they had given as easily as they
bestowed it. Hence, this their cunning liberality is called treading under foot; for
that remnant which they could not devour and consume with their teeth they trod
under foot, as they kept all those whom they had either enriched or increased
subject to themselves. Thus we see with what servility they were flattered by those
who had obtained anything through their generosity. And how degrading was the
slavery of Greece from the time the Romans entered the country! for as each state
acquired any new territory, it erected a temple to the Romans. They also sent their
ambassadors there to act as spies, who, under the pretense of punishing the
neighboring people for ‘plotting against them, enriched themselves by plunder.
Thus the Romans held under their feet whatever they had given. to others. We see
then how suitably and properly the Prophet speaks, when he says, the Romans trod
down the remnant; for whatever they could not consume, and what their
voraciousness could not devour, they trod under their feet.
He adds afterwards, And this beast different from all the former ones, and had ten
horns. When he says, this beast was different from the rest, he confirms what we
formerly said, namely, this was a horrible prodigy, and nothing could be compared
to it in the nature of things. And surely if any one attentively and prudently
considers the origin of the Romans, he would be astonished at their remarkable
progress to such great power; for it was an unusual monster, and nothing like it had
ever appeared. Interpreters treat in various ways what the Prophet subjoins
respecting the ten horns. I follow simple and genuine opinion, namely, the Prophet
means this Empire to belong to more persons them one For the angel will afterwards
assert the ten horns to be kings; not that so many kings ruled at Rome, according to
the foolish dream of the Jews, who are ignorant of all things; but the Prophet here
distinguishes the Fourth Monarchy from the rest, as if he had said it should be a
popular government, not presided over by one king, but divided into really heads.
For they even divided provinces among themselves, and made treaties with each
other, so that one was governor of Macedonia, another of Cilicia, and another of
108

109. Syria. Thus we see how numerous the kingdoms were. And with regard to the
number ten, we know this to be a frequent and usual form of speech in Scripture,
where ten signifies many. When plurality is denoted, the number ten is used. Thus
when the Prophet states the fourth beast to have ten horns, he means, there were
many provinces so divided, that each ruler, whether proconsul or praetor, was like a
king. For the supreme power was given to them, while the city and Italy were given
up to the consuls. The consul could indeed write to the provinces and command
whatever he pleased; then he could elevate to honor whom he pleased for the sake of
favor and friendship; but each of the praetors and proconsuls when he obtained a
province, became a kind of king, since he exercised the supreme power of life and
death over all his subjects. We need not be too anxious about the number, as we
have already explained it. Those who reckon the Roman provinces make great
mistakes; they omit the principal one; they make only one of Spain, and. yet we
know there were two. They do not divide Gaul, yet there were always two
proconsuls there, except under Julius Caesar, who obtained the control of both
Gauls. So also they speak of Greece, and yet, neither a proconsul nor s praetor was
ever sent into Greece. Finally, the prophet simply means that the Roman Empire
was complex, being divided into many provinces, and these provinces were governed
by leaders of great weight at Rome, whose authority and rank were superior to
others. Proconsuls and proctors obtained the provinces by lot, but favor frequently
prevailed, as the histories of those times sufficiently assure us. Let us proceed, —
COFFMAN, ""After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast,
terrible and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it
devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet: and it was
diverse from all the other beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I
considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another horn, a little
one, before which three of the other horns were plucked up by the roots: and,
behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great
things."
See the chapter introduction for some of the reasons why it is necessary to see this
fourth beast as a prophetic reference to the Roman Empire and to no other. In the
mid-19th century, Alexander Campbell debated Bishop Purcell of the Roman
Catholic Church, affirming that, "The Scriptures teach that the hierarchical Papacy
of the Roman Church is `The great Harlot' of John's apocalypse, `The Man of Sin'
of Paul, and `the Little Horn' of Daniel." It is the resistance of this interpretation
that leads to the false allegations seeking to deny this. This interpretation is still
true, no matter how men may resent it. Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest
intellectual giants of an entire millennium, unequivocally interpreted this `little
horn" as follows:
"The little horn is a little kingdom. It was a horn of the fourth beast, and rooted
up three of the first horns; and therefore we are to look for it among the nations of
the Latin Empire. But it was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten
109

110. kingdoms, having a life and soul peculiar to itself, with eyes and a mouth. By its eyes
it was a Seer;, and by its mouth speaking great things and changing times and laws,
it was a Prophet as well as a King. And such a Seer, Prophet, and King, is the
Church of Rome."[14]
There is not a Protestant church of any name on earth today that was not founded
upon the premise that this interpretation of "the little horn" is true and correct.
Furthermore, Sir Isaac Newton went on to identify in detail the "ten kingdoms" (the
ten horns) that succeeded the fall of Rome in 476 A.D., and to identify the "three"
which were rooted up by the "little horn," the same three being "The Exarchate of
Ravenna," "The kingdom of Lombardy," and "the Duchy of Rome," these three
becoming "the Patrimony of Peter," making the Roman church a small temporal
kingdom, which began about that time to coin money, and to assume other signs of
temporal authority, such as the establishment of an armed force (the Papal Guards),
etc. It was shortly after the development of this usurpation that the Papacy claimed
authority over the kings of the earth, one Pope even presuming to crown
Charlemagne as "King of the Holy Roman Empire" on Christmas Day, 800 A.D.[15]
The identification of the hierarchical apparatus of the Medieval apostate Church as
the little horn of Daniel has been accepted through the entire series of our
commentaries; and related passages in the Epistles, and in the Book of Revelation
are all synchronized with this interpretation. We do not feel that it is necessary to go
into all of this in detail here; but supporting passages in the New Testament should
be consulted in the commentaries for further comment on this interpretation.
Needless to say, there is absolutely nothing in the description of this fourth beast
that gives any hint whatever that the Greek empire is the world power represented
by that beast. The critics have tried to find "ten kings" in the Greek Empire; but
they are not there. Keil has devoted 22 pages of detailed studies to this question, pp.
245 to 267; and reference is here made to this very excellent study. Of all the
preposterous postulations the critical enemies of the truth have ever made, this
attempt to make the fourth beast mean the Greek empire is the most ridiculous and
unbelievable of all.
COKE, "Daniel 7:7. Behold, a fourth beast, &c.— The fourth kingdom is
represented by a fourth beast, dreaded, terrible, and exceeding strong. Daniel was
curious to know particularly what this might mean, Daniel 7:19 and the angel
answers him, Daniel 7:23. This kingdom can be no other than the Roman empire,
which answers this emphatical description better than any of the former kingdoms.
The beast devoured, and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue, that is, the
remains of the former kingdoms, with its feet. It reduced Macedon into a Roman
province about 168 years, the kingdom of Pergamus about 133 years, Syria about 65
years, and Egypt about 30 years before Christ. And besides the remains of the
Macedonian empire, it subdued many other provinces and kingdoms; so that it
might, by a very usual figure, be said to devour the whole earth, to tread it down,
110

111. and break it in pieces; and become in a manner what the Roman writers delighted
to call it, "The empire of the whole world." The words of Dionysius Halicarnassus
are very apposite to this subject: "The city of Rome (says he) ruleth over all the
earth, as far as it is inhabited; and commands all the sea, not only that within the
Pillars of Hercules, but also the ocean, as far as it is navigable; having first and
alone, of all the celebrated kingdoms, made the east and west the bounds of its
empire: and its dominion hath continued longer than that of any other city or
kingdom." This fourth was diverse from all the beasts; and thus Rome was different
from all the kingdoms, not only in its republican form of government, but also in
power and greatness, length of duration, and extent of dominion. See Bishop
Newton, Dr. Chandler's Vindication of Daniel, and the note on Daniel 7:24.
ELLICOTT, " (7) A fourth beast.—This is so different from the preceding three,
and so terrible in appearance, that Daniel can hardly find words to describe it. The
distinguishing feature of it is the power which it possesses of breaking and stamping
out all that it meets. In this way it corresponds to “iron that breaketh in pieces, and
subdueth all things.” (Comp. Daniel 2:40.) The description of the destructive might
of this beast is heightened by the mention of “iron teeth” and “brazen claws.” It
should be noticed that the horns imply strength, while the ten horns correspond to
the ten toes of the image.
The residue—i.e., what it did not destroy with its teeth it trampled upon and
annihilated with its feet.
TRAPP, "Daniel 7:7 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.
Ver. 7. Behold a fourth beast.] Not likened to any certain beast, because none can be
named so cruel which can express the cruelty of this fourth monarchy - viz., that of
the Romans, no, although it were
" Pροσθε λεων, μετοπισθε δρακων, μεσσηδε χιμαιρα." - Hom.
It is a nameless monster, made up of all the properties of the former beasts.
[Revelation 13:1-2] The Rabbis, with their "wild boar out of the wood," [Psalms
80:13] fall far short of it. Luther (a) not unfitly compareth the Church of God to a
silly poor maid, sitting in a wood or wilderness, and beset with hungry lions, wolves,
boars, bears, and with all manner of hurtful and cruel creatures.
Dreadful and terrible.] Because able and ready to annoy others with great evils.
And strong exceedingly.] So that it passed for a proverb, Irasci populo Romano
111

112. nemo impune potest. It is not safe for any nation to fall out with the Romans; for
they are sure to be tamed and tawed with their iron teeth.
And it had great iron teeth,] i.e., Conquering captains, such as Scipio - of whom
Ennius sang thus:
“ Si fas caedendo coelestia scaudere cuiquam,
Mi soli coeli maxima porta patet. ”
Pompey, who by his great acts and achievements merited the name of Magnus; and
Julius Caesar, who before the Pharsalian wars had taken a thousand towns,
conquered three hundred nations, took prisoner one million men, and slain as many.
(b)
And stamped the residue with the feet of it,] i.e., With their provincial magistrates,
such as were Verres, Pilate, Felix, &c., said to have nails of brass, [Daniel 7:19] and
fitly compared to petulant wild beasts, which, when they can feed no longer, trample
with their feet on the residue of the prey. The poor Jews had hard measure from
them always.
And it was diverse from all the beasts.] In respect of diversity and strange
multiplicity of forms of government.
And it had ten horns.] Which the angel afterwards interpreted as kings or
kingdoms. [Daniel 7:24] This occured not long after Constantine the Great, when
the Roman empire began to moulder and fall in pieces. About the year 456, it
appeared broken into ten parts, which by a learned interpreter are thus reckoned.
The kingdom of the Britons, of the Saxons, both in Brittany; of the Franks, of the
Burgundians, in France; of the West Goths in the southern part of France and part
of Spain; of the Sueves and Alanes in part of Spain; of the Vandals in Africa, a little
before in Spain; of the Allmanns in Rhetia and Noricum, provinces of Germany; of
the East Goths in Pannonia, a little after in Italy; of the Greeks in the remnant of
the empire.
BENSON, "Daniel 7:7. Behold a fourth beast — This fourth kingdom can be no
other than the Roman empire, which answers this emphatical description better
than any of the former kingdoms. Dreadful, and terrible, and strong exceedingly —
And therefore compared to iron, Daniel 2:40. It devoured and brake in pieces — It
spread its arms and its terrors to a much greater extent than any of the preceding
powers, and entirely subdued all the remains of the former kingdoms, and all the
nations that had been subject to them. It reduced Macedon into a Roman province
about one hundred and sixty-eight years, the kingdom of Pergamus about one
hundred and thirty-three years, Syria about sixty-five years, and Egypt about thirty
years, before Christ. And besides the remains of the Macedonian empire, it subdued
112

113. many other provinces and kingdoms; so that it might, by a very usual figure, be said
to devour the whole earth, to tread it down and break it in pieces; and become, in a
manner, what the Roman writers delighted to call it, “The empire of the whole
world.” The words of Dionysius Halicarnassus are very apposite to this subject.
“The city of Rome,” says he, “ruleth over all the earth as far as it is inhabited, and
commands all the sea, not only that within the Pillars of Hercules, but also the
ocean, as far as it is navigable; having first and alone, of all the celebrated
kingdoms, made the east and west the bounds of its empire, and its dominion hath
continued longer than that of any other city or kingdom.” And it was diverse from
all the beasts that were before it — This is intimated by its having no name, being
more cruel and horrid than any sort of beast whatever; and the Roman power was
so multiform, that it could not be pointed out by any one species of resemblance.
And it was different from all kingdoms in its republican form of government, its
greatness, length of duration, and extent of dominion. But its chief distinction
consisted in its having ten horns, which we find at Daniel 7:24 are ten kings or
kingdoms: see also Revelation 17:12. And these answer to the ten toes of the image,
Daniel 2:42. The empire continued in its greatness fill the reign of Theodosius the
Great, and soon afterward the partition happened, and the broken form remained,
for the ten kingdoms were to be no more united, till the Ancient of days should
come.
WHEDON, " 7. Modern expositors are almost unanimous in explaining this as
referring either to the Syriac-Egyptian kingdom, which filled the political horizon
around the Mediterranean after the death of Alexander and his immediate
successors (see Daniel 2:39; Daniel 8:20), or to these two successive dominions of
Alexander and the Syrian kings regarded as a unity. We have already explained
why we adhere to the former view and why the older opinion, that this fourth
empire was the Roman, can no longer be maintained (Daniel 2:39). These verses, as
Prince acknowledges, do not fitly describe the civilizing conquests of Alexander, but,
as even Bevan sees, are “singularly inappropriate” when applied to his victories.
They do, however, express precisely the Hebrew idea of the Seleucidae; and it is
very suggestive that even the scholars who make Alexander the head of this empire,
as Nebuchadnezzar was of the Babylonian, do not attempt to interpret these verses
as actually referring to Alexander and his immediate successors, but acknowledge
that the author of Daniel was really thinking of those Syrian kings who reigned
several centuries after Alexander.
Since secular historians without theological bias have seen that the empire founded
by Alexander came to an end with the death of Perdiccas (321 B.C.), there is no
reason, historically, why the author of Daniel may not be allowed to be consistent
with himself when he describes the chief activity of this fourth beast as occurring
not in Alexander’s era (fourth century B.C.) but in the era of Seleucus and
Antiochus Epiphanes. (See particularly chap. 11.) The argument which is made so
much of by opponents of this view, that the Seleucid beast-empire was not “diverse”
from all that had preceded it, is easily answered by the simple statement of the
113

114. acknowledged fact that from the Jewish standpoint it was exceedingly different
from all that had preceded. To the Jews no rulers since the Pharaohs had seemed so
“exceeding dreadful” (Daniel 7:19); whose iron teeth and brazen nails were so
“exceedingly strong” to devour the Hebrew patriots, and its mighty brutish feet to
stamp them into the dust. (See Daniel 11) To seek this “diversity” from all other
kingdoms in some difference in its origin, or its form of government, or its
constitution, or in the conquering kings’ unwillingness “to leave the subjugated
people in their former barbarism,” is to strangely miss the point. Gentile history was
important to the Hebrew prophet only as it touched the Hebrew nation, and the
fourth Gentile kingdom was “diverse” from the others because it was more cruel
and brutal in its persecution of the “saints of the Most High” (Daniel 7:25). The ten
horns do not symbolize that this empire was stronger than any which had preceded
it. The horns represent ten kings (Daniel 7:24).
POOLE, " A fourth beast: this was the Roman empire; for that followed the
Grecian, and was monstrous as to his rise and progress.
Stamped the residue with the feet of it. As to the variety and cruelty of the
government, it made use not only of Italians, but Spaniards, Gauls, Germans,
Britons, which made their armies hardy and hard as iron, which broke in pieces the
gold, silver, and brass. But it is plain this is the last kingdom of the Four, that was to
be destroyed by Christ’s kingdom, and this work was to be doing till the last age,
Daniel 7:13.
Ten horns, i.e. kings, Daniel 7:24 Revelation 17:12, called
horns. i.e. of iron, as the teeth were, i.e. cruel and persecuting; as beasts push and
gore with their horns.
PETT, "Verse 7-8
‘After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, terrible and
powerful, and exceedingly strong. And it had great iron teeth. It devoured and
broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. And it was different from all
the creatures which were before it. And it had ten horns. I considered the horns,
and behold there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three
of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold in this horn were eyes
like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.’
The terribleness of this beast is emphasised. It is worse than all. It was not ‘like’
anything that Daniel knew. It was a monster like no known beast. The great iron
teeth remind us of the fourth empire in chapter 2. Its devouring and breaking in
pieces, and stamping of what remains with the feet, makes it more terrible than the
bear (Daniel 7:5). It is different from all the creatures that were before it. It is
114

115. indescribably brutal.
Moreover it will eventually produce ‘ten’ kings, for horns represent strength and
power (Deuteronomy 33:17; 1 Samuel 2:1; 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalms 18:2), and
therefore kings. They ‘arise out of this kingdom’ (Daniel 7:24). It becomes a diverse
empire (Daniel 2:41). It was emphasised that the bear had one rulership. Then the
leopard developed into four rulerships. Here the empire develops into ten
rulerships, ‘a number of’ rulerships. It does not remain a united empire. It is a
second phase of the empire and illustrates that it is divided up. (In Scripture ‘ten’ is
regularly used to mean ‘a number of’).
We have noted before the succession presented, two arms, three ribs, four heads,
and now ten horns. This suggests that we might also see ‘ten’ as twice times five, an
intensification of five. Five is the number of covenant. Thus the beast imitates the
covenant community. It is Anti-God, setting itself over against God.
This intensifies in the final description. There is a later, final phase, the arising of
another horn, a small one. The emphasis on the smallness is derogatory. It will think
it is large but really it is ‘a small one’. ‘And behold in this horn were eyes like the
eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.’ Having the eyes of a man
indicates that it is but human in spite of its great claims. But there is there also the
idea of imitation and pretence. It seeks to give the impression of being truly human
(rational and godly), and of submitting to God (compare Daniel 7:4) but it is all a
pretence, it is all outward show, for it is given away by what comes from its mouth.
It is still a beast and yet it boasts about itself and makes great claims for itself and
for its future. It speaks ‘great things’. ‘Great things’ indicates above all the activity
of God (1 Samuel 12:24; 2 Samuel 7:21; 2 Samuel 7:23; 1 Chronicles 17:19; Job 5:9;
Job 9:10; Job 37:5; Psalms 71:9; Psalms 106:21; Psalms 126:2-3; Joel 2:21. Contrast
Joel 2:20). Thus it is setting itself up against God as an anti-God..
And it is a beast which finally begins to destroy itself. The horn, ‘the small one’,
attacks ‘three’ of the horns (three represents a group complete in itself, an alliance,
but not the whole). From the beginning the empire loves war, and now it is a divided
up empire out of control and indulging in ‘civil war, with kings attacking each other
(compare Mark 3:24-26). And this horn, this small one, will mercilessly attack, not
only its fellow rulers, but also especially the people of God (Daniel 7:21). But in the
end he will be dealt with at the judgment.
The picture is of a world continually at war, continually destructive, pursuing its
way without thought of true obedience to God, continually dividing up and yet
partially coming together in its later phase, first in an alliance and then under the
arrogant horn, ‘the small one’.
As with the fourth empire of chapter 2 this represents the eschatological empire
which grows out of the others, which is initially powerful and destructive, and
becomes weak and divided. It is the final empire of ‘the last days’, (as long as we
115

116. remember that in New Testament terms ‘the last days’, ‘the end of the ages’ began
when Jesus was crucified). Its beginnings may be seen as Rome, but it does not just
represent Rome, for it divides up into a number of smaller ‘empires’ under a
number of rulers. It represents the idea of ‘empire’, in opposition to God, the future
unidentifiable ‘empires’ going on to the end of time which take the place of Rome.
It is the ‘fourth’ empire, the summation of empire, the multiple empire to end all
empires, the empire with many rulers, encompassing the world. It is the world
divided and apart from God. And in its final phase will come ‘the horn, the small
one’, with the eyes of a man and the words of a god, speaking ‘great things’ (see
above), in defiance of God. Opposition to the people of God will have now reached
its ultimate.
This final figure is depicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10, the ultimate of the antichrists
that are always among us (1 John 2:18-19). It is expanded on in Revelation. And
behind it lies the power of the Evil One.
PULPIT, "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 version of the LXX.
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 LXX; 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 Roman Empire
to be meant. On the other hand, a very large number of 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 Rome. Even though we
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
116

117. 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 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. Mr. Bevan thinks "the actrocious massacres at Tyro and elsewhere, by
which Alexander endeavoured to strike terror into the conquered races," is
symbolized by the monster "devouring, crushing," etc. Mr. Bevan must never have
read the accounts of the conquests of Asshur-bani-pal. He seems to have forgotten
the treatment meted out to Samos and Miletus by the Persians.
8 “While I was thinking about the horns, there
before me was another horn, a little one, which
came up among them; and three of the first horns
were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like
the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke
boastfully.
117

118. CLARKE, "Another little horn - Among Protestant writers this is
considered to be the popedom.
Before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up - These were
probably,
1. The exarchate of Ravenna.
2. The kingdom of the Lombards. And,
3. The state of Rome.
The first was given to the Pope, Stephen II., by Pepin, king of France, a.d.
755; and this constituted the pope’s temporal princes. The second was given
to St. Peter by Charlemagne, in 774. The third, the state of Rome, was vested
in the pope, both in spirituals and temporals, and confirmed to him by
Lewis the pious. These are the three horns which were plucked up from the
roots before the little horn.
Were eyes like the eyes of a man - Intimating cunning and
superintendence; for the pope calls himself Episcopus episcoporum, the
Overseer of overseers.
And a mouth speaking great things - Full of boasting; pretending to
unlimited jurisdiction; binding and loosing at pleasure; promising to
absolve from all sins, present, past, and future; and threatening to send to
everlasting destruction all kings, kingdoms, and individuals, who would
dare to dispute his power and authority.
GILL, "I considered the horns,.... The ten horns of the fourth beast; these
the prophet particularly looked at, took special notice of them, carefully
observed them, their number, form, and situation, and pondered in his
mind what should be the meaning of them:
and, behold; while he was attentive to these, and thinking within himself
what they should be, something still more wonderful presented:
there came up among them another little horn; not Titus Vespasian, as
Jarchi; nor the Turkish empire, as Saadiah; nor Antiochus Epiphanes, as
many Christian interpreters; for not a single person or king is meant by a
horn, but a kingdom or state, and a succession of governors; as by the other
ten horns are meant ten kings or kingdoms; besides, this little horn is a part
of the fourth, and not the third beast, to which Antiochus belonged; and was
to rise up, not in the third or Grecian monarchy, as he did, but in the fourth
and Roman monarchy; and was to continue until the spiritual coming of
Christ; or, until his kingdom in a spiritual sense takers place; which is not
true of him: and since no other has appeared in the Roman empire, to
whom the characters of this horn agree, but antichrist or the pope of Rome,
he may be well thought to be intended. Irenaeus (k), an ancient Christian
writer, who lived in the second century, interprets it of antichrist; of whom
having said many things, has these words:
118

119. "Daniel having respect to the end of the last kingdom; that is the last ten
kings among whom their kingdom should be divided, upon whom the son of
perdition shall come; he says that ten horns shall be upon the beast, and
another little horn should rise up in the midst of them; and three horns of
the first be rooted out before him; and, "behold", saith he, "in this horn
were eyes as the eyes of man", &c.; of whom again the Apostle Paul, in 2Th_
2:8declaring together the cause of his coming, thus says, "and then shall
that wicked one be revealed &c."''
and in a following chapter (l)the same writer observes,
"John the disciple of the Lord in the Revelation hath yet more manifestly
signified of the last time, and of those ten kings in it, among whom the
empire that now reigns (the Roman empire) shall be divided; declaring
what shall be the ten horns, which were seen by Daniel; saying, "the ten
horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as
yet, &c."; therefore it is manifest, that of these he that is to come shall slay
three, and the rest shall be subject to him, and he shall be the eighth among
them;''
and Jerom on the place says, that this is the sense of
"all ecclesiastical writers, that when the Roman empire is destroyed, there
shall be ten kings who shall divide it among them; and an eleventh shall
arise, a little king, who shall conquer three of the ten kings; and having slain
them, the other seven shall submit their necks to the conqueror:''
who he further observes is not a devil or demon, but a man, the man of sin,
and son of perdition; so as that he dare to sit in the temple of God, making
himself as if he was God: now to the Roman antichrist everything here said
answers: he is a "horn", possessed of power, strength, authority, and
dominion, of which the horn is an emblem; a "little" one, which rose from
small beginnings, and came to his ecclesiastic power, from a common
pastor or bishop, to be a metropolitan of Italy, and then universal bishop;
and to his secular power, which at first was very small, and since increased;
and yet in comparison of other horns or kingdoms, but little; though, being
allowed to exercise a power within others, is, or at least has been, very
formidable: this "came up among" the other horns; when the northern
barbarous nations broke into the empire and set up ten kingdoms in it, this
little horn sprung up among them; and while they were forming kingdoms
for themselves, he was contriving one for himself; they rose at the same
time and reigned together; see Rev_17:12,
before whom, there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots;
before whom three kings or kingdoms fell, and were subdued as in Dan_
7:20which, according to Mr. Mede (m), were the kingdoms of the Greeks, of
the Longobards, and of the Franks; but, according to Sir Isaac Newton (n),
they were the exarchate of Ravenna, the kingdom of the Lombards, and the
senate and dukedom of Rome; or, according to the present bishop of
119

120. Clogher (o), the Campagnia of Rome, the exarchate of Ravenna, and the
region of Pentapolis, which were plucked up by Pipin and Charlemagne,
kings of France, and given to the pope; and were confirmed to him by their
successor Lewis the pious, and is what is called the patrimony of St. Peter;
in memory of which a piece of Mosaic work was made and put up in the
pope's palace, representing St. Peter with three keys in his lap; signifying
the three keys of the three parts of his patrimony; and to show his
sovereignty over them, the pope to this day wears a triple crown:
and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man; in some monstrous
births there have been eyes in the knees, and in the belly above the navel
(p); but never was there known such a monster as this, to have a horn, and
eyes in the horn; horns some monsters have but not eyes in them: these may
design the pretended sanctity and religion of the pope of Rome or
antichrist, who, though a beast, would be thought to be a man, a religious
creature; or his pretended modesty, humanity, and courtesy, when he is all
the reverse; or rather his insight into the Scriptures he makes pretension
to, setting himself up as an infallible judge of them, and of all controversies:
though they seem better to design what he really has than what he pretends
to; and may denote his penetration and sagacity, his craft and cunning, and
sharp looking out to get power and dominion, temporal and spiritual; and
his watchfulness to keep it, that it is not encroached upon, and took away
from him; and also all means and instruments by which he inspects his own
and others' affairs; particularly the order of the Jesuits, which are his eyes
everywhere, spies in all kingdoms and courts, and get intelligence of what is
done in the councils and cabinets of princes: how many eyes this horn had is
not said; nor is it easy to say how many the pope of Rome has; he has as
many as Argus, and more too, and these sharp and piercing:
and a mouth speaking great things as that he is Christ's vicar on earth,
Peter's successor, head of the church, and universal bishop; that he is
infallible, and cannot err; that he has all power in heaven, earth, and hell;
that he can forgive sin, grant indulgences, make new laws, and bind the
consciences of men; dispense with the laws of God and men; dispose of
kingdoms, and remove and set up kings at pleasure, with many others of the
like kind; see Rev_13:5.
JAMISON, "little horn — littleat first, but afterwards waxing greater than
all others. He must be sought “among them,” namely, the ten horns. The
Roman empire did not represent itself as a continuation of Alexander’s; but
the Germanic empire calls itself “the holy Roman empire.” Napoleon’s
attempted universal monarchy was avowedly Roman: his son was called
king of Rome. The czar (Caesar) also professes to represent the eastern half
of the Roman empire. The Roman civilization, church, language, and law
are the chief elements in Germanic civilization. But the Romanic element
seeks universal empire, while the Germanic seeks individualization. Hence
the universal monarchies attempted by the Papacy, Charlemagne, Charles
V, and Napoleon have failed, the iron not amalgamating with the clay. In the
king symbolized by “the little horn,” the God-opposing, haughty spirit of the
120

121. world, represented by the fourth monarchy, finds its intensest
development. “The man of sin,” “the son of perdition” (2Th_2:3). Antichrist
(1Jo_2:18, 1Jo_2:22; 1Jo_4:3). It is the complete evolution of the evil
principle introduced by the fall.
three of the first horns plucked up — the exarchate of Ravenna, the
kingdom of the Lombards and the state of Rome, which constituted the
Pope’s dominions at the first; obtained by Pope Zachary and Stephen II in
return for acknowledging the usurper Pepin lawful king of France
[Newton]. See Tregelles’ objections, Dan_7:7, “ten horns,” Note.The “little
horn,” in his view, is to be Antichrist rising three and a half years before
Christ’s second advent, having first overthrown three of the ten
contemporaneous kingdoms, into which the fourth monarchy, under which
we live, shall be finally divided. Popery seems to be afulfillment of the
prophecy in many particulars, the Pope claiming to be God on earth and
above all earthly dominions; but the spirit of Antichrist prefigured by
Popery will probably culminate in ONEindividual,to be destroyed by
Christ’s coming; He will be the product of the political worldpowers,
whereas Popery which prepares His way, is a Churchbecome worldly.
eyes of man — Eyes express intelligence (Eze_1:18); so (Gen_3:5) the
serpent’s promise was, man’s “eyes should be opened,” if he would but rebel
against God. Antichrist shall consummate the self-apotheosis, begun at the
fall, high intellectual culture, independent of God. The metals representing
Babylon and Medo-Persia, gold and silver, are more precious than brass
and iron, representing Greece and Rome; but the latter metals are more
useful to civilization (Gen_4:22). The clay, representing the Germanic
element, is the most plastic material. Thus there is a progress in culture;
but this is not a progress necessarilyin man’s truest dignity, namely, union
and likeness to God. Nay, it has led him farther from God, to self-reliance
and world-love. The beginnings of civilization were among the children of
Cain (Gen_4:17-24; Luk_16:8). Antiochus Epiphanes, the first Antichrist,
came from civilized Greece, and loved art. As Hellenic civilization produced
the first,so modern civilization under the fourth monarchy will produce the
lastAntichrist. The “mouth” and “eyes” are those of a man, while the
symbol is otherwise brutish, that is, it will assume man’s true dignity,
namely, wear the guise of the kingdom of God (which comes as the “Son of
man” from above), while it is really bestial, namely, severed from God.
Antichrist promises the same things as Christ, but in an opposite way: a
caricature of Christ, offering a regenerated world without the cross.
Babylon and Persia in their religion had more reverence for things divine
than Greece and Rome in the imperial stages of their history.
Nebuchadnezzar’s human heart,given him (Dan_4:16) on his repentance,
contrasts with the human eyesof Antichrist, the pseudo son of man,
namely, intellectual culture, while heart and mouth blaspheme God. The
deterioration politically corresponds: the first kingdom, an organic unity;
the second, divided into Median and Persian; the third branches off into
four; the fourth, into ten. The two eastern kingdoms are marked by nobler
metals; the two western, by baser; individualization and division appear in
the latter, and it is they which produce the two Antichrists.
121

122. K&D, "Dan_7:8
Here a new event is brought under our notice. While continuing to
contemplate the horns (the idea of continuance lies in the particip. with the
verb. fin.), Daniel sees another little horn rise up among them, which
uproots, i.e., destroys, three of the other horns that were already there. He
observes that this horn had the eyes of a man, and a mouth which spake
great things. The eye and the mouth suggest a human being as represented
by the horn. Eyes and seeing with eyes are the symbols of insight,
circumspection, prudence. This king will thus excel the others in point of
wisdom and circumspection. But why the eyes of a man? Certainly this is
not merely to indicate to the reader that the horn signified a man. This is
already distinctly enough shown by the fact that eyes, a mouth, and speech
were attributed to it. The eyes of a man were not attributed to it in
opposition to a beast, but in opposition to a higher celestial being, for whom
the ruler denoted by the horn might be mistaken on account of the
terribleness of his rule and government; ”ne eum putemus juxta
quorundam opinionem vel diabolum esse vel daemonem, sed unum de
hominibus, in quo totus Satanas habitaturus sit corporaliter,” as Jerome
well remarks; cf. Hofmann and Kliefoth. - A mouth which speaketh great
things is a vainglorious mouth.
ןָבְרְבַר
are presumptuous things, not directly
blasphemies (Häv.). In the Apocalypse, Rev_13:5, μεγάλαand βλασφημίαιare
distinguished.
CALVIN, "Daniel proceeds with his description of the fourth beast. First, he says,
he was attentive, with the intention of rousing us to serious meditation. For what is
said of the fourth beast, was remarkably memorable and worthy of notice. This,
then, is the reason why God struck the heart of his servant with wonder. For the
Prophet would not have given his attention to the consideration of the fourth beast,
unless he had been impelled to it by the secret instinct of God. The Prophet’s
attention, then, sprang from a heavenly impulse. Wherefore it is our duty not to
read carelessly what is here written, but to weigh seriously and with the greatest
diligence what the Spirit intends by this vision. I was attentive, therefore, says he, to
the horns, and behold one small one arose among them. Here interpreters begin to
vary; some twist this to mean the Pope, and others the Turk; but neither opinion
seems to me probable; they are both wrong, since they think the whole course of
Christ’s kingdom is here described, while God wished only to declare to his Prophet
what should happen up to the first advent of Christ. This, then, is the error of all
those who wish to embrace under this vision the perpetual state of the Church up to
the end of the world. But the Holy Spirit’s intention was completely different. We
explained at the beginning why this vision appeared to the Prophet — because the
minds of the pious would constantly fail them in the dreadful convulsions which
were at hand, when they saw the supreme dominion pass over to the Persians. And
then the Macedonians broke in upon them, and acquired authority throughout; the
whole of the East, and afterwards those robbers who made war under Alexander
suddenly became kings, partly by cruelty and partly by fraud and perfidy, which
122

123. created more strife than outward hostility. And when the faithful saw all those
monarchies perish, and the Roman Empire spring up like a new prodigy, they
would lose their courage in such confused and turbulent changes. Thus this vision
was presented to the Prophet, that all the children of God might understand what
severe trials awaited them before the advent of Christ. Daniel, then, does not
proceed beyond the promised redemption, and does not embrace, as I have said, the
whole kingdom, of Christ, but is content to bring the faithful to that exhibition of
grace which they hoped and longed for.
It is sufficiently clear, therefore, that this exhibition ought to be referred to the first
advent of Christ. I have no doubt that the little horn relates to Julius Caesar and the
other Caesars who succeeded him, namely, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius,
Nero, and others. Although, as we said before, the counsel of the Holy Spirit must be
attended to, which leads the faithful forwards to the beginning of the reign of
Christ, that is, to the preaching of the Gospel, which was commenced under
Claudius, Nero, and their successors. He calls it a little horn, because Caesar did not
assume the name of king; but when Pompey and the greater part of the senate were
conquered, he could not enjoy his victory without assuming to himself supreme
power. Hence he made himself tribune of the people and their dictator. Meanwhile,
there were always Consuls; there was always some shadow of a Republic, while they
daily consulted the senate and sat in his seat while the consuls were at the tribunals.
Octavius followed the same practice, and afterwards Tiberius also. For none of the
Caesars, unless he was consul, dared to ascend the tribunal; each had his own seat,
although from that place he commanded all others. It is not surprising, then, if
Daniel calls the monarchy of Julius and the other Caesars a little horn, its splendor
and dignity were not great enough to eclipse the majesty of the senate; for while the
senate retained the name and form of honor, it is sufficiently known that one man
alone possessed the supreme power. He says, therefore, this little horn was raised
among the ten others. I must defer the explanation of what follows, viz., three of
these ten were taken away.
ELLICOTT, "(8) I considered.—Literally, I kept on looking. Here, for the first time
in the course of the vision, there appears a change taking place in the object itself.
While the three beasts had passed away unchanged in any material addition, among
the ten horns of the fourth beast there was seen to grow up a “little horn.” which
destroyed three of the other horns. That a man, and not a kingdom, is intended,
though the man may be the representative of a kingdom, appears from the mention
of “the eyes of a man,” indicating craft and cunning, and “the mouth speaking great
things,” implying vain-glory and blasphemy.
TRAPP, "Daniel 7:8 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.
123

124. Ver. 8. And I considered the horns.] For without a serious and sedulous
consideration I could not have kenned it. So slyly and secretly worketh the mystery
of iniquity.
And behold there came up among them another little horn.] This is Antiochus
Epiphanes, say some, the Great Turk, say others, the Pope, say a third sort, and
with them I concur, whose kingdom is here called a "little horn," because the Pope
was at first a mean minister of the Roman Church, viz., till Constantine’s time.
Afterwards he was only primate and metropolitan of the churches of Italy. No man
took him for a prince, no, not when he began to write Volumns et iubemus, We will
and command you, A.D. 606; but he grew up by degrees, and cunningly got among
the ten horns, till at length he overtopped them.
Before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.] These
were, according to some, Chilperick the French king, Frederick the emperor, and
King John of England, whom he made his vassal. Others reckon them to be
Chilperick, the exarch of Italy in the time of Gregory II, and Desiderius, king of
Lombards, slain by Charles the Great at the instigation of the Pope. For three
kingdoms coming under him, let it be considered whether they be not Spain,
Germany, and France; or whether this prefigured not, saith one, his triple crown.
And, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man.] In respect to his feigned
courtesy and profound policy. To be sharp-sighted is commendable; but to be wittily
wicked is to do the devil doubty service.
And a mouth speaking great things.] Big swollen with blasphemies, both against
God and his viceregents upon earth. Pope Boniface wrote to Philip the Fair, king of
France, Volumus te scire te in temporali et spirituali nobis subiacere. (a) We would
you should know, sir, that you are to subject yourselves to us, both in temporals and
spirituals, &c. Accordingly he took upon him to overtop and command at pleasure
all Christian kings and emperors. The application that the malicious Jewish doctors
blasphemously make of this little horn to our Lord Jesus Christ is worthy of all
execration.
Verse 9
Daniel 7:9 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.
BENSON, "Daniel 7:8. I considered the horns — Viewed and observed them
exactly, otherwise he could not have observed the little horn, whose rise was scarce
discernible at first; and behold there came up among them — Much about the same
time, Revelation 17:12; another little horn — Distinct from the ten horns, and of a
different constitution. Some have understood by this the Turkish empire, and
consider Egypt, Asia, and Greece as being the three horns torn up or reduced
124

125. thereby; but the more generally received and probable opinion refers it to
antichrist, or the Papal hierarchy, which rose to the height here described from very
small beginnings: see on Daniel 7:24. The eyes, like human eyes, indicate the
perspicacity, foresight, and cunning of this power; and the mouth speaking great, or
presumptuous things, is not unlike the man of sin, described by St. Paul, “whose
coming should be after the working of Satan with all deceivableness of
unrighteousness,” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 : see also Revelation 13:5-6.
WHEDON, "Verse 8
8. This little horn and his horrible deeds will be described in detail later (Daniel
7:24-25; chap. 11). It may be noticed, however, that it is the conduct of the king
represented by this little horn which makes this fourth empire the most terrible and
most hated of all. (See note Daniel 7:7.) That this king, with the boastful and
blasphemous mouth (Daniel 7:25; Daniel 11:36) and “the eyes of a man”
(symbolizing keen sagacity, artfulness, and spying vigilance, compare Daniel 8:23),
was Antiochus Epiphanes even Zockler and Gutschmidt agree. Lagarde’s
conjecture (1891), that it designated Vespasian, hardly needs confutation. Konig
(Einleitung, p. 390) and others have shown how far Vespasian failed to fit the
description, even if the date of the book could permit such a reference. Kamphausen
well says that Lagarde’s guess is no more scientific than that of the old woman of
Freiburg who in 1882 declared that this little saucy horn was no doubt the Prussian
empire.
POOLE, "considered, and this calls upon us to consider the matter.
Another little horn: some will have the Turk meant; others, before him, Antiochus
Epiphanes; others Julius Caesar; others antichrist. It is certain the horn that riseth
out of the he-goat is Antiochus, Daniel 8:9-12, but the horn here mentioned riseth
out of the fourth beast, or under him. Therefore he must be the Turk, as some will
have it, or the Romish antichrist. Not the Turk, since,
1. The horn signified only one king, Daniel 7:24.
2. He must gain all the fourth kingdom.
3. He must reign before the kingdom of Christ is erected.
Before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: some will
have Egypt, Asia, and Greece to be the three which are possessed by the Turk; but
though he hath got the Egyptian and Constantinopolitan, which are two, must the
German be the third? He hath pushed hard for it now of late. A mouth speaking
great things: this again some interpret of Antiochus, some of Mahomet, some of the
Caesars, others of antichrist, all concerning their craft and blasphemies, which
125

126. properly can be meant but of one.
PULPIT, "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 cut 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 Daniel 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 Rome. If 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 Palestine; it was Titus, a third Roman
126

127. emperor, that captured Jerusalem. Some support may be found for the Jewish idea
that it is Titus personally. If we are permitted to take the ten horns as successive
emperors, he was the eleventh emperor, and three emperors were swept away before
the Flavian dynasty. We must reserve fuller discussion of this subject to a special
excursus.
9 “As I looked,
“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
BARNES, "I beheld - “I continued looking on these strange sights, and
contemplating these transformations.” This implies that some time elapsed
before all these things had occurred. He looked on until he saw a solemn
judgment passed on this fourth beast particularly, as if God had come forth
in his majesty and glory to pronounce that judgment, and to bring the power
and arrogance of the beast to an end.
Till the thrones were cast down - The Chaldee word (ןוסרכ kâr
e
sâvân)
means, properly, thrones - seats on which monarchs sit. So far as the word
is concerned, it would apply either to a throne occupied by an earthly
monarch, or to the throne of God. The use of the plural here would seem to
imply, at least, that the reference is not to the throne of God, but to some
other throne. Maurer and Lengerke suppose that the allusion is to the
thrones on which the celestial beings sat in the solemn judgment that was to
be pronounced - the throne of God, and the thrones or seats of the attending
inhabitants of heaven, coming with him to the solemn judgment. Lengerke
refers for illustration to 1Ki_22:19; Isa_6:1; Job_1:6, and Rev_5:11-12. But
127

128. the word itself might be properly applied to the thrones of earthly monarchs
as well as to the throne of God. The phrase “were cast down” (וימר r
e
mı̂yv), in
our translation, would seem to suppose that there was some throwing
down, or overturning of thrones, at this period, and that the solemn
judgment would follow this, or be consequent on this.
The Chaldee word (אמר r
e
mâh) means, as explained by Gesenius, to cast, to
throw Dan_3:21, Dan_3:24; Dan_6:16-17; to set, to place, e. g., thrones; to
impose tribute Ezr_7:24. The passage is rendered by the Latin Vulgate,
throni positi sunt- “thrones were placed;” by the Greek, ἐτέθησαν etethēsan-
“were placed.” So Luther, stuhle gesetzt; and so Lengerke, stuhle
aufgestellt - the thrones were placed, or set up. The proper meaning,
therefore, of the phrase would seem to be - not, as in our translation, that
the “thrones would be cast down” - as if there was to be an overturning of
thrones on the earth to mark this particular period of history - but that
there was, in the vision, a setting up, or a placing of thrones for the purpose
of administering judgment, etc., on the beast. The use of the plural is,
doubtless, in accordance with the language elsewhere employed, to denote
the fact that the great Judge would be surrounded with others who would
be, as it were, associated in administering justice - either angels or
redeemed spirits.
Nothing is more common in the Scripture than to represent others as thus
associated with God in pronouncing judgment on men. Compare Mat_
19:28; Luk_22:30; 1Co_6:2-3; 1Ti_5:21; Rev_2:26; Rev_4:4. The era, or
period, therefore, marked here, would be when a solemn Divine judgment
was to be passed on the “beast,” or when some events were to take place, as
if such a judgment were pronounced. The events pertaining to the fourth
beast were to be the last in the series preparatory to the reign of the saints,
or the setting up of the kingdom of the Messiah, and therefore it is
introduced in this manner, as if a solemn judgment scene were to occur.
And the Ancient of days did sit - Was seated for the purposes of judgment.
The phrase “Ancient of days” -ןימוי קיתע ‛attı̂yq yômı̂yn- is one that denotes an
elderly or old person; meaning, he who is most ancient as to days, and is
equivalent to the French L’Eternel, or English, The Eternal. It occurs only in
Dan_7:9, Dan_7:13, Dan_7:22, and is a representation of one venerable in
years, sitting down for the purposes of judgment. The appellation does not
of itself denote eternity, but it is employed, probably, with reference to the
fact that God is eternal. God is often represented under some such
appellation, as he that is “from everlasting to everlasting” Psa_90:2, “the
first and the last” Isa_44:6, etc. There can be no doubt that the reference
here is to God as a Judge, or as about to pronounce judgment, though there
is no necessity for supposing that it will be in a visible and literal form,
anymore than there is for supposing that all that is here represented by
symbols will literally take place.
If it should be insisted on that the proper interpretation demands that
there will be a literal and visible judgment, such as is here described, it may
be replied that the same rigid interpretation would demand that there will
be a literal “slaying of the beast, and a giving of his body to the flame” Dan_
128

129. 7:11, and more generally still, that all that is here referred to by symbols will
literally occur. The fact, however, is, that all these events are referred to by
symbols - symbols which have an expressive meaning, but which, by their
very nature and design, are not to be literally understood. All that is fairly
implied here is, that events would occur in regard to this fourth beast as if
God should sit in solemn judgment on it, and should condemn it in the
manner here referred to. We are, doubtless, in the fulfillment of this - to
look for some event that will be of so decisive and marked a character, that
it may be regarded as a Divine judgment in the case, or that will show the
strongly marked Divine disapprobation - as really as if the judgment-seat
were formally set, and God should appear in majesty to give sentence.
Sitting was the usual posture among the ancients, as it is among the
moderns, in pronouncing judgment. Among the ancients the judge sat on a
throne or bench while the parties stood before him (compare Zec_4:13),
and with the Greeks and Romans so essential was the sitting posture for a
judge, that a sentence pronounced in any other posture was not valid. -
Lengerke. It was a maxim, Animus sedendo magis sapit; or, as Servius on
the AEn. i. 56, remarks, Est enim curantis et solliciti sedere.
Whose garment was white as snow - Whose robe. The reference here is to
the long flowing robe that was worn by ancient princes, noblemen, or
priests. See the notes at Isa_6:1. Compare the notes at Rev_1:13. White was
an emblem of purity and honor, and was not an improper symbol of the
purity of the judge, and of the justness of the sentence which he would
pronounce. So the elder Pitt, in his celebrated speech against employing
Indians in the war with the American people, besought the bishops to
“interpose the unsullied purity of their lawn.” Lengerke supposes, as Prof.
Stuart does on Rev_1:13, that the whiteness here referred to was not the
mere color of the material of which the robe was made, but, was a celestial
splendor or brightness, as if it were lightning or fire - such as is appropriate
to the Divine Majesty. Lengerke refers here to Exo_19:18-24; Dan_2:22;
Mat_17:2; 1Ti_6:16; 2 Esdras 7:55; Ascension of Isa_8:21-25; Rev_1:13-14;
Rev_4:2-4. But the more correct interpretation is to suppose that this refers
to a pure white robe, such as judges might wear, and which would not be an
improper symbol of their office.
And the hair of his head like the pure wool - That is, for whiteness - a
characteristic of venerable age. Compare the notes at Rev_1:14. The image
here set before us is that of one venerable by years and wisdom.
His throne was like the fiery flame - The seat on which he sat seemed to be
fire. That is, it was brilliant and splendid, as if it were a mass of flame.
And his wheels as burning fire - The wheels of his throne - for, as in Ezek.
1; 10, the throne on which Jehovah sat appeared to be on wheels. In Ezekiel
Eze_1:16; Eze_10:9, the wheels of the throne appeared to be of the color of
beryl; that is, they were like precious stones. Here, perhaps, they had only
the appearance of a flame - as such wheels would seem to flash flames. So,
Milton, in describing the chariot of the Son of God:
“Forth rush’d with whirlwind sound
The chariot of Paternal Deity,
Flashing thick flames, wheel within wheel undrawn,
129

130. Itself instinct with spirit, but convoyed
By four cherubic shapes; four faces each
Had wondrous; as with stars their bodies all,
And wings were set with eyes; with eyes the wheels
Of beryl, and careering fires between.”
- Par. Lost, b. vi.
CLARKE, "The thrones were cast down -וימדmight be translated erected,
so the Vulgate, positi sunt, and so all the versions; but that ours is a proper
translation, is sufficiently evident from Dan_3:6, Dan_3:16, Dan_3:20;
Dan_6:17, etc.; where the original word can be used in no other sense than
that of throwing or casting down. There is a reference here to preparations
made for a general assize, or to the convocation of the sanhedrin, where the
father of the consistory sat with his assessors on each side in the form of a
semicircle, and the people stood before them.
The Ancient of days - God Almighty; and this is the only place in the sacred
writings where God the Father is represented in a human form.
GILL, "I beheld till the thrones were cast down,.... On which the governors
of the above monarchies sat; and those of the ten kings, signified by the ten
horns; and also that of the little horn. The prophet kept looking on the
objects before him, till he in his dream, and the visions of the night, saw all
those empires and kingdoms demolished, and all rule, power, and
authority, put down, and way made for the glorious kingdom of the
Messiah, and his saints with him; to this sense Aben Ezra, Saadiah, and
Jacchiades, interpret the word used; but the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin,
Syriac, and Arabic versions, render it, "until the thrones were set up" (q);
for the judges to sit upon to try, judge, and condemn the four beasts or
monarchies; in order to make way for the kingdom of the Son of man to take
place in the spirituality and glory of it: here are more thrones than one; see
Rev_20:4, one for the Ancient of days, and another for him who was like to
the Son of man, brought near before him; and so the Jews (r)say, here were
two thrones pitched and prepared, one for the Ancient of days, and another
for David, that is, the Messiah, or Son of David; and so Jarchi paraphrases
the words,
"the thrones were pitched and prepared to sit upon in judgment:''
and this sense is confirmed by the use of the word in Ezr_7:24and in the
Targum on 2Ki_18:14and to this agrees best the following clause:
and the Ancient of days did sit; on one of the thrones pitched, as chief
Judge: this is to be understood of God the Father, as distinct from the
Messiah, the Son of God, said to be like the Son of man brought unto him,
130

131. Dan_7:13and is so called, not only because he is from everlasting, and
without beginning of days; but chiefly because he is permanent, and
endures for ever; his years fail not, and of his days there will be no end; and
he will be when these empires, signified by the four beasts, will be no more;
and very fit to be Judge of them, because of his consummate wisdom and
prudence, signified also by this phrase; and the divine Father of Christ is
still more proper, because it is in Christ's cause the judgment will proceed;
and this in order to introduce him openly into his dominions in the world:
whose garment was white as snow; denoting the purity of his nature, the
brightness of his majesty, and his uncorruptness in judgment:
and the hair of his head like the pure wool; signifying his venerableness,
gravity, wisdom, and ripeness of judgment; being wonderful in counsel, and
excellent in working:
his throne was like the fiery flame; expressive of him, as awful and
formidable, as a consuming fire; and of his piercing judgment, and the
severity of it:
and his wheels as burning fire; the wheels of his throne; alluding to such
seats and thrones as were made to turn about, and to be moved from place
to place; denoting the power and providence of God everywhere; the clear
view he has of all things, in all places; and his swiftness in the execution of
his judgments.
HENRY 9-14, "Whether we understand the fourth beast to signify the
Syrian empire, or the Roman, or the former as the figure of the latter, it is
plain that these verses are intended for the comfort and support of the
people of God in reference to the persecutions they were likely to sustain
both from the one and from the other, and from all their proud enemies in
every age; for it is written for their learning on whom the ends of the world
have come, that they also, through patience and comfort of this scripture,
might have hope. Three things are here discovered that are very
encouraging: -
I. That there is a judgment to come, and God is the Judge. Now men have
their day, and every pretender thinks he should have his day, and struggles
for it. But he that sits in heaven laughs at them,for he sees that his day is
coming,Psa_37:13. I beheld(Dan_7:9) till the thrones were cast down,not
only the thrones of these beasts, but all rule, authority, power,that are set
up in opposition to the kingdom of God among men ( 1Co_15:24): such are
the thrones of the kingdoms of the world, in comparison with God's
kingdom; those that see them set up need but wait awhile, and they will see
them cast down. I beheld till thrones were set up(so it may as well be read),
Christ's throne and the throne of his Father. One of the rabbin confesses
that these thrones are set up,one for God,another for the Son of David.It is
the judgmentthat is here set,Dan_7:10. Now, 1. This is intended to
proclaim God's wise and righteous government of the world by his
providence; and an unspeakable satisfaction it gives to all good men, in the
131

132. midst of the convulsions and revolutions of states and kingdoms, that the
Lord has prepared his throne in the heavens and his kingdom rules over all
(Psa_103:19), that verily there is a God that judges in the earth,Psa_58:11.
2. Perhaps it points at the destruction brought by the providence of God
upon the empire of Syria, or that of Rome, for their tyrannizing over the
people of God. But, 3. It seems principally designed to describe the last
judgment, for though it follow not immediately upon the dominion of the
fourth beast, nay, though it be yet to come, perhaps many ages to come, yet
it was intended that in every age the people of God should encourage
themselves, under their troubles, with the belief and prospect of it. Enoch,
the seventh from Adam, prophesied of it, Jud_1:14. Does the mouth of the
enemy speak great things,Dan_7:8. Here are far greater things which the
mouth of the Lord has spoken. Many of the New Testament predictions of
the judgment to come have a plain allusion to this vision, especially St
John's vision of it, Rev_20:11, Rev_20:12. (1.) The Judge is the Ancient of
dayshimself, God the Father,the glory of whose presence is here described.
He is called the Ancient of days,because he is God from everlasting to
everlasting.Among men we reckon that with the ancient is wisdom,and
days shall speak;shall not all flesh then be silent before him who is the
Ancient of days?The glory of the Judge is here set forth by his garment,
which was white as snow,denoting his splendour and purity in all the
administrations of his justice; and the hair of his headclean and white, as
the pure wool,that, as the white and hoary head, he may appear venerable.
(2.) The throne is very formidable. It is like the fiery flame,dreadful to the
wicked that shall be summoned before it. And the throne being movable
upon wheels, or at least the chariot in which he rode the circuit, the wheels
thereof are as burning fire,to devour the adversaries; for our God is a
consuming fire,and with him are everlasting burnings,Isa_33:14. This is
enlarged upon, Dan_7:10. As to all his faithful friends there proceeds out of
the throne of God and the Lamb a pure river of water of life(Rev_22:1), so
to all his implacable enemies there issues and comes forth fromhis throne a
fiery stream, a stream of brimstone(Isa_30:33), a firethat shall devour
before him.He is a swift witness, and his word a word upon the wheels. (3.)
The attendants are numerous and very splendid. The Shechinah is always
attended with angels; it is so here (Dan_7:10): Thousand thousands
minister to him,and ten thousand times ten thousand stand before him. It
is his glory that he has such attendants, but much more his glory that he
neither needs them nor can be benefited by them. See how numerous the
heavenly hosts are (there are thousands of angels), and how obsequious
they are - they stand before God,ready to go on his errands and to take the
first intimation of his will and pleasure. They will particularly be employed
as ministers of his justice in the last judgment day, when the Son of man
shall come, and all the holy angels with him.Enoch prophesied that the
Lord should come with his holy myriads.(4.) The process is fair and
unexceptionable: The judgment is set,publicly and openly, that all may
have recourse to it; and the books are opened.As in courts of judgment
among men the proceedings are in writing and upon record, which is laid
open when the cause comes to a hearing, the examination of witnesses is
produced, and affidavits are read, to clear the matter of fact, and the statute
132

133. and common-law books are consulted to find out what is the law, so, in the
judgment of the great day, the equity of the sentence will be as incontestably
evident as if there were books opened to justify it.
II. That the proud and cruel enemies of the church of God will certainly be
reckoned with and brought down in due time, Dan_7:11, Dan_7:12. This is
here represented to us, 1. In the destroying of the fourth beast. God's
quarrel with this beast is because of the voice of the great words which the
horn spoke,bidding defiance to Heaven, and triumphing over all that is
sacred; this provokes God more than any thing, for the enemy to behave
himself proudly,Deu_32:27. ThereforePharaoh must be humbled, because
he has said, Who is the Lord?and has said, I will pursue, I will overtake.
Enoch foretold that thereforethe Lord would come to judge the world,that
he might convince all that are ungodly of their hard speeches,Jud_1:15.
Note, Great words are but idle words, for which men must give account in
the great day. And see what becomes of this beast that talks so big: He is
slain,and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame.The Syrian
empire, after Antiochus, was destroyed. He himself died of a miserable
disease, his family was rooted out, the kingdom wasted by the Parthians and
Armenians, and at length made a province of the Roman empire by Pompey.
And the Roman empire itself (if we take that for the fourth beast), after it
began to persecute Christianity, declined and wasted away, and the body of
it was destroyed. So shall all thy enemies perish, O Lord!and be slain
before thee.2. In the diminishing and weakening of the other three beasts
(Dan_7:12): They had their dominion taken away,and so were disabled
from doing the mischiefs they had done to the church and people of God;
but a prolonging in life was given them, for a time and a season,a set time,
the bounds of which they could not pass. The power of the foregoing
kingdoms was quite broken, but the people of them still remained in a
mean, weak, and low condition. We may allude to this in describing the
remainders of sin in the hearts of good people; they have corruptions in
them, the lives of which are prolonged, so that they are not perfectly free
from sin, but the dominion of them is taken away, so that sin does not reign
in their mortal bodies.And thus God deals with his church's enemies;
sometimes he breaks the teeth of them (Psa_3:7), when he does not break
the neck of them, crushes the persecution, but reprieves the persecutors,
that they may have space to repent. And it is fit that God, in doing his own
work, should take his own time and way.
III. That the kingdom of the Messiah shall be set up, and kept up, in the
world, in spite of all the opposition of the powers of darkness. Let the
heathen rage and fret as long as they please, God will set his King upon his
holy hill of Zion.Daniel sees this in vision, and comforts himself and his
friends with the prospect of it. This is the same with Nebuchadnezzar's
foresight of the stone cut out of the mountain without hands,which broke
in pieces the image; but in this vision there is much more of pure gospel
than in that. 1. The Messiah is here called the Son of man -one like unto the
Son of man;for he was made in the likeness of sinful flesh,was found in
fashion as a man. I saw one like unto the Son of man,one exactly agreeing
with the idea formed in the divine counsels of him that in the fulness of time
was to be the Mediator between God and man. He is like unto the son of
133

134. man,but is indeed the Son of God. Our Savior seems plainly to refer to this
vision when he says (Joh_5:27) that the Fatherhas therefore given him
authority to execute judgmentbecause he is the Son of man,and because he
is the person whom Daniel saw in vision, to whom a kingdom and dominion
were to be given. 2. He is said to come with the clouds of heaven.Some refer
this to his incarnation; he descended in the clouds of heaven,came into the
world unseen, as the glory of the Lord took possession of the temple in a
cloud. The empires of the world were beasts that rose out of the sea;but
Christ's kingdom is from above: he is the Lord from heaven.I think it is
rather to be referred to his ascension; when he returned to the Father the
eye of his disciples followed him, till a cloud received him out of their sight,
Act_1:9. He made that cloud his chariot, wherein he rode triumphantly to
the upper world. He comes swiftly, irresistibly, and comes in state, for he
comes with the clouds of heaven.3. He is here represented as having a
mighty interest in Heaven. When the cloud received him out of the sight of
his disciples, it is worth while to enquire (as the sons of the prophets
concerning Elijah in a like case) whither it carried him, where it lodged
him; and here we are told, abundantly to our satisfaction, that he came to
the Ancient of days;for he ascended to his Father and our Father,to his
God and our God(Joh_20:17); from him he came forth, and to him he
returns, to be glorified with him, and to sit down at his right hand. It was
with a great deal of pleasure that he said, Now I go to him that sent me.But
was he welcome? Yes, not doubt, he was, for they brought him near before
him;he was introduced into his Father's presence, with the attendance and
adorations of all the angels of God,Heb_1:6. God caused him to draw near
and approach to him,as an advocate and undertaker for us (Jer_30:21),
that we through him might be made nigh.By this solemn near approach
which he made to the Ancient of days it appears that the Father accepted the
sacrifice he offered, and the satisfaction he made, and was entirely well
pleased with all he had done. He was brought near,as our high priest, who
for us enters within the veil, and as our forerunner, 4. He is here
represented as having a mighty influence upon this earth, Dan_7:14. When
he went to be glorified with his Father he had a power given him over all
flesh,Joh_17:2, Joh_17:5. With the prospect of this Daniel and his friends
are here comforted, that not only the dominion of the church's enemies
shall be taken away (Dan_7:12), but the church's head and best friend shall
have the dominion given him;to him every knee shall bowand every
tongue confess.Phi_2:9, Phi_2:10. To him are given glory and a kingdom,
and they are given by him who has an unquestionable right to give them,
which, some think with an eye to these words, our Savior teaches us to
acknowledge in the close of the Lord's prayer, For thine is the kingdom, the
power, and the glory.It is here foretold that the kingdom of the exalted
Redeemer shall be, (1.) A universal kingdom, the only universal monarchy,
whatever others have pretended to, or aimed at: All people, nations, and
languages,shall fear him,and be under his jurisdiction, either as his
willing subjects or as his conquered captives, to be either ruled or overruled
by him. One way or other, the kingdoms of the world shall all become his
kingdoms. (2.) An everlasting kingdom. His dominionshall not pass away
to any successor, much less to any invader, and his kingdom is thatwhich
134

135. shall bot be destroyed.Even the gates of hell, or the infernal powers and
policies, shall not prevail against it. The church shall continue militant to
the end of time, and triumphant to the endless ages of eternity.
JAMISON, "I beheld till — I continued looking till.
thrones ... cast down — rather, “thrones were placed” [Vulgateand
Luther], namely, for the saints and elect angels to whom “judgment is
given” (Dan_7:22), as assessors with the Judge. Compare Dan_7:10,
“thousand thousands ministered unto Him” ( Mat_19:28; Luk_22:30; 1Co_
6:2, 1Co_6:3; 1Ti_5:21; Rev_2:26; Rev_4:4). In English Versionthe thrones
cast downare those of the previously mentioned kings who give place to
Messiah.
Ancient of days — “The everlasting Father” (Isa_9:6). HE is the Judge
here, as THE SON does not judge in His own cause, and it is His cause which
is the one at issue with Antichrist.
sit — the attitude of a judge about to pass sentence.
white — The judicial purity of the Judge, and of all things round Him, is
hereby expressed (Rev_1:14).
wheels — as Oriental thrones move on wheels. Like the rapid flame, God’s
judgments are most swift in falling where He wills them (Eze_1:15, Eze_
1:16). The judgment here is not the last judgment, for thenthere will be no
beast, and heaven and earth shall have passed away; but it is that on
Antichrist (the last development of the fourth kingdom), typical of the last
judgment: Christ coming to substitute the millennial kingdom of gloryfor
that of the cross(Rev_17:12-14; Rev_19:15-21; Rev_11:15).
K&D 9-10, "The judgment on the horn speaking great things and on the
other beasts, and the delivering of the kingdom to the Son of Man.
After Daniel had for a while contemplated the rising up of the little horn
that appeared among the ten horns, the scene changed. There is a solemn
sitting in judgment by God, and sentence is pronounced. Seats or chairs
were placed.
ויִמְר
, activ. with an indefinite subject: they were thrown, i.e.,
they were placed in order quickly, or with a noise. Seats, not merely a
throne for God the Judge, but a number of seats for the assembly sitting in
judgment with God. That assembly consists neither of the elders of Israel
(Rabb.), nor of glorified men (Hengstb. on Rev_4:4), but of angels (Psa_
89:8), who are to be distinguished from the thousands and tens of
thousands mentioned in Dan_7:10; for these do not sit upon thrones, but
stand before God as servants to fulfil His commands and execute His
judgments.
ןיִמ
|י
קיִתַּע
, one advanced in days, very old, is not the Eternal; for
although God is meant, yet Daniel does not see the everlasting God, but an
old man, or a man of grey hairs, in whose majestic from God makes Himself
visible (cf. Eze_1:26). When Daniel represents the true God as an aged man,
he does so not in contrast with the recent gods of the heathen which
135

136. Antiochus Epiphanes wished to introduce, or specially with reference to
new gods, as Hitzig and Kran. suppose, by reference to Deu_32:17and Jer_
23:23; for God is not called the old God, but appears only as an old man,
because age inspires veneration and conveys the impression of majesty.
This impression is heightened by the robe with which He is covered, and by
the appearance of the hair of His head, and also by the flames of fire which
are seen to go forth from His throne. His robe is white as snow, and the hair
of His head is white like pure wool; cf. Rev_1:14. Both are symbols of
spotless purity and holiness. Flames of fire proceed from His throne as if it
consisted of it, and the wheels of His throne scatter forth fire. One must not
take the fire exclusively as a sign of punishment. Fire and the shining of fire
are the constant phenomena of the manifestation of God in the world, as the
earthly elements most fitting for the representation of the burning zeal with
which the holy God not only punishes and destroys sinners, but also purifies
and renders glorious His own people; see under Exo_3:3. The fire-
scattering wheels of the throne show the omnipresence of the divine throne
of judgment, the going of the judgment of God over the whole earth
(Kliefoth). The fire which engirds with flame the throne of God pours itself
forth as a stream from God into the world, consuming all that is sinful and
hostile to God in the world, and rendering the people and kingdom of God
glorious.
יִה
|
מָדֳקןִמ
(from before Him) refers to God, and not to His throne. A
thousand times a thousand and ten thousand times ten thousand are
hyperbolical expressions for an innumerable company of angels, who as His
servants stand around God; cf. Deu_33:2; Psa_68:18. The Keripresents the
Chaldaic form
ןיִפְלַא
for the Hebraizing form of the text
םיִפְלַא
(thousands),
and for
ןָוְבִר
the Hebraizing form
ןָבְבִר
(myriads), often found in the Targg.,
to harmonize the plur. form with the singular |
בִּר
going before.
Forthwith the judgment begins.
בִתְיאָניִדּ
we translate, with most
interpreters, the judgment sets itself.
אָניִדּ
, judgment, abstr. pro concreto,
as judiciumin Cicero, Verr. 2. 18. This idea alone is admissible in Dan_7:26,
and here also it is more simple than that defended by Dathe and Kran.: “He”
(i.e., the Ancient of days) “sets Himself for judgment,” - which would form a
pure tautology, since His placing Himself for judgment has been already
(Dan_7:9) mentioned, and nothing would be said regarding the object for
which the throne was set. - ”The books were opened.” The actions of men
are recorded in the books, according to which they are judged, some being
ordained to eternal life and others condemned to eternal death; cf. Rev_
20:12, and the notes under Dan_12:1. The horn speaking great things is first
visited with the sentence of death.
CALVIN, "Daniel now relates how he saw another figure, namely, God sitting on
his throne to exercise judgment. We shall see it afterwards concerning Christ, but
Daniel now teaches only the appearance of God in his character of a judge. This was
the reason why many persons extend this prophecy to the second Advent of
Christ — an interpretation by no means correct, as I shall show more copiously in
136

137. the proper place. But first it is worth while to consider here, why he says — the
Ancient of days, meaning the eternal Deity himself, ascended the throne judgment.
This scene seems unnecessary, because it is the peculiar office of God to govern the
world; and as we know this cannot be done without upright judgment, it follows
that God has been a perpetual judge from the creation of the world. Now, even a
moderate acquaintance with the Scriptures shows how well this passage suits us by
appealing to our senses; for unless God’s power is made conspicuous, we think it
either abolished or interrupted. Hence those forms of expression which occur
elsewhere; as, “How long art thou silent, O Lord; and how long wilt thou cease from
us?” (Psalms 13:1; Psalms 9:7, and elsewhere,) and — God ascends his throne — for
we should not acknowledge him as a judge, unless he really and experimentally
proved himself such. This then is the reason why Daniel says God himself was seated
in judgment.
But before we proceed further, we must observe the sense in which he says —
thrones were either erected or east down — for the word םור, rum can be taken in
either sense. Those who translate it, “Thrones were removed,” interpret it. of the
Four monarchies already mentioned. But; for my part, I rather incline to a different
opinion. If any one prefers explaining’ it of these Monarchies, I do not contend with
him, for that; sense is probable; and as far as the pith of the matter is concerned,
there is not much difference. But I think the thrones or seats are here proceed to
exhibit; the divine judgment, because the Prophet will immediately’ represent
myriads of angels standing before God. We know’ how often angels are adorned
with this title as if they were, assessors of Deity; and the form of speech which
Daniel uses when he says, “The judgment was set,” will also agree with this. He
speaks here of assessors with the judge, as if God did not sit alone, but had
councilors joined with him. In my opinion the most suitable explanation is, —
thrones were created for the Almighty to sit on with his councilors; not implying his
need of any council, but. of his own goodwill and mere favor he dignifies angels with
this honor, as we shall see immediately. Daniel therefore describes, after our human
fashion, the preparations for judgment; just as if any king should go publicly forth
for the purpose of transacting any business of moment, and should ascend his
tribunal. Councilors and nobles would sit around him on both sides, not partaking
of his power, but rather increasing the splendor of his appearance. For if the king
alone should occupy the whole place, the dignity would not be so magnificent as
when his nobles, who depend upon him, are present on all sides, because they far
surpass the ordinary multitude. Daniel, therefore, relates the vision presented to
him in this form; first, ‘because he was a man dwelling in the flesh; and next, he did
not see it for himself personally, but for the common benefit of the whole Church.
Thus God wished to exhibit a representation which might infuse into the Prophet’s
mind and into those of all the pious, a feeling of admiration, and yet might have
something in common with human proceedings. Thrones, therefore, he says, were
erected; afterwards, the Ancient of days was seated. I have already expounded how
God then began to seat himself, as he had previously appeared to be passive, and not
to exercise justice in the world. For when things are disturbed and mingled with
much darkness, who can say, “God reigns?” God seems to be shut up in heaven,
137

138. when things are discomposed and turbulent upon earth. On the other hand, he is
said to ascend his tribunal when he assumes to himself the office of a judge, and
openly demonstrates that he is neither asleep nor absent, although he lies hid from
human perception.
This form of speech was very appropriate for denoting the coming of Christ. For
God then chiefly displayed his supreme power, as Paul quotes a passage from the
Psalms, (Psalms 68:8, in Ephesians 4:8,) “Thou hast ascended on high.” When the
subject treated is the first coming of Christ, it ought not to be restricted to the
thirty-three years of his sojourn in the world, but it embraces his ascension, and that
preaching of the gospel which ushered in his kingdom;-this will be said again more
clearly and copiously. Daniel appropriately relates how God was seated when the
first advent of Christ is depicted, since the majesty of God shone in the person of
Christ; for which reason he is called
“The invisible image of God and the character of his glory,” (Hebrews 1:3;)
that is, of the substance or person of the Father. God therefore, who had seemed for
so many ages not to notice the world nor to care for his elect people, ascended his
tribunal at the advent of Christ. To this subject the Psalms, from the 95th to the
100th, all relate — “God reigns, let the earth rejoice;” “God reigns, let the islands be
afraid.” In truth, God had not dwelt in complete privacy before Christ’s advent;
but. the empire which he had erected was hidden and unseen, until he showed forth
his glory in the person of his only begotten Son. The Ancient of days, therefore, was
seated
He now says, His raiment was white like snow the hair of his head was like pure
wool. God here shows himself to his Prophet in the form of man. We know how
impossible it is for us to behold God as he really exists, till we ourselves become like
Him, as John says in his canonical epistle. (1 John 3:2.) As our capacity cannot
endure the fullness of that surpassing glory which essentially belongs to God,
whenever he appears to us, he must necessarily put on a form adapted to our
comprehension. God, therefore, was never seen by the fathers in his own natural
perfection; but as far as their capacities allowed, he afforded them a taste of his
presence for the sure acknowledgment of his Deity; and yet they comprehended him
as far as it was useful for them and they were able to bear it. This is the reason why
God appeared with a white garment, which is characteristic of heaven; and with
snowy hair, like white and clean wool. To the same purpose is the following: His
throne was like sparks of fire, that is, like glowing fire; his wheels were like burning
fire. God in reality neither occupies any throne, nor is carried on wheels; but, as I
already said, we ought not to imagine God in his essence to be like any appearance,
to his own Prophet and other holy fathers, but he put on various appearances,
according to man’s comprehension, to whom he wished to give some signs of his
presence. I need not dwell longer on these forms of speech, though subtle allegories
are pleasing to many. I am satisfied with holding what is solid and sure. It now
follows: —
138

139. COFFMAN, ""I beheld till the thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of
days did sit: his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool;
his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire. A fiery stream
issued and came forth from before him: thousands of thousands ministered unto
him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set,
and the books were opened. I beheld at that time because of the great words which
the horn spake; I beheld even till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it
was given to be burned with fire. And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion
was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time."
This passage is undeniably a prophecy of the eternal judgment. (See extensive
comment upon the thoughts here as expanded and developed in Revelation 20.) This
is the so-called "Great White Throne Judgment." The Ancient of Days should here
be capitalized as it could not possibly refer to anyone else except Almighty God; and
the fact that in the New Testament (Revelation 20) it is Christ who sits on this
throne, such is a natural result of the early church's acceptance of Our Lord as
indeed Deity, to whom the Father has committed the judgment of all men.
It is surprising that the "other beasts" here are represented as being present even
until the destruction of the final beast. This is a remarkable consonance with the
Apostle John's Apocalypse, in which it appears that "the kings of the earth" (all of
them), the Great Harlot (apostate religion), and Satan himself shall all perish
simultaneously in the "lake of tire."
COKE, "Verse 9-10
Daniel 7:9-10. I beheld till the thrones were cast down— Till thrones were set or
placed. The metaphors and figures here used are borrowed from the solemnities of
earthly judicatures, and particularly the great Sanhedrin of the Jews; where the
father of the consistory sat, with his assessors placed on each side of him, in the
form of a semicircle, and the people standing before him: and probably from this
description was also taken that of the day of judgment in the New Testament. See
Bishop Newton. Instead of the judgment was set, we may read, the council sat.
ELLICOTT, " (9) I beheld.—Literally, I kept on looking, and suddenly seats were
placed, on which the assessors of the Great Judge were to sit. These have been
interpreted from Psalms 89:7 to be the angels, but a truer explanation is to be found
in Matthew 19:28. It should be noticed that those who sat on the thrones are
distinguished from the countless multitude mentioned in Daniel 7:10.
Ancient of days.—Literally, a very aged man. (Comp. Ezekiel 1:26-28.) The
attribute of age expresses the majesty of the judge. (Comp. Psalms 55:19;
Deuteronomy 33:27.) It may be remarked that notwithstanding the title “Ancient” is
applied to the Deity, “Anou,” yet His titles, “generator and father of the gods,” are
139

140. so completely at variance with Old Testament doctrines that it is inconceivable that
Daniel should have incorporated in his vision any portions of Babylonian
mythology. Similar remarks apply to Silik-moulou-khi, between whom and the Son
of man (Daniel 7:13) a parallel has been pointed out. The conception of the former is
completely different from what is revealed about the latter.
White as snow.—Indicating, like the “pure wool,” the purity and justice of the
Judge.
Fiery flame.—Fire appears in Scripture sometimes as a metaphor for affliction or
punishment (e.g., 1 Corinthians 3:13, &c.), sometimes as a symbol of the chastening
and punitive righteousness of God (Ezekiel 1:13-14; Ezekiel 1:27-28). Elsewhere it
sets forth the fiery indignation which devours the enemies of God (Hebrews 10:27;
Revelation 19:11-12). The figure of speech is here used in each of these senses. The
“wheels” represent the omnipresence of Almighty God.
TRAPP, "Ver. 9. I beheld till the thrones were cast down.] All these tyrannous
dominions overturned. Some read it, "till the thrones were set up"; for till the last
judgment Antichrist is to continue. [Daniel 7:21-22; Daniel 7:25-26]
And the Ancient of days did sit,] i.e., God Almighty, whom Thales, also a heathen
philosopher, called πρεσβυτατον των οντων, the most ancient of all that are. (a) The
poets say also that Saturn, the father of their gods, had his name from his fulness of
years, (b) God’s eternity and wisdom is set forth; by this title here, like as also is, by
his "white garments," his majesty and authority; by his "hair as pure wool," his
innocence and integrity in judgment; by his "throne like the fiery flame," his just
anger and severity, against the man of sin especially; by his "wheels" - or the wheels
thereof, viz., of his throne; for princes’ thrones used in those days to be set upon
wheels - "as burning fire" is set forth his facility and dexterity in executing his
judgments, his efficacy also, since all things are fiery.
BENSON, "Daniel 7:9-10. I beheld till the thrones were cast down — Till all these
earthly kingdoms were brought to an end, and all enemies and opposite powers
were destroyed. But the word וימר, here used, maybe rendered, were pitched, or
placed, namely, for the reception of God, and his assessors in judgment, the saints
and angels. Thus the LXX., εως οτου οι θρονοι ετεθησαν, till the thrones were
placed, or set, or fixed; and so the Vulgate. And the verb in the text is used in the
same sense in the Chaldee paraphrase on Jeremiah 1:15 ; where our translation
reads, They shall set every one his throne, &c. The following words justify this
translation; And the Ancient of days did sit — That is, the eternal Judge of the
world, who has been from everlasting, who is at present, and who shall always be:
and whom the prophet thus describes, to adapt himself to human apprehensions,
and to make the following part of his description more intelligible; but no similitude
is pointed out, nor ought we from hence to attempt to represent the invisible God by
140

141. any figure. The metaphors here used, says Bishop Newton, “are borrowed from the
solemnities of earthly judicatories, and particularly of the great sanhedrim of the
Jews, where the father of the consistory sat, with his assessors seated on each side of
him, in the form of a semicircle, with the people standing before him: and from this
description again was borrowed the description of the day of judgment in the New
Testament.” Whose garment was white as snow — Signifying the unspotted
righteousness of his proceedings. He is elsewhere described as covering himself with
light as with a garment, Psalms 104:2 : see also 1 John 1:5. Kings and princes used
anciently to wear white garments, as an emblem of perfect justice. And the hair of
his head like the pure wool — To denote the eternity and maturity of his counsels,
and that his decisions are all perfectly right and true, without the least mixture of
any partial affections. His throne was like the fiery flame — Denoting his awful
majesty, and the severity of his judgments on the ungodly; and his wheels of
burning fire — Emblematical of the revolutions and dispensations of his providence,
Ezekiel 1:15, being dreadfully severe and destructive to the wicked. The reader will
observe, God’s throne is here described in the nature of a triumphal chariot,
supported by angels as so many fiery wheels. Grotius remarks, that the ancient
thrones and sellæ curules had wheels. A fiery stream issued and came forth from
before him — Signifying his justice and wrath in giving forth and executing
sentence against the ungodly. Thousand thousands ministered unto him — His
retinue was an innumerable company of angels; and ten thousand times ten
thousand stood before him — To receive their sentence from his lips. The judgment
was set — That is, the court, namely, God the supreme judge, and the saints as his
assessors, made their public appearance. And the books were opened — That is,
“those evidences which contained the laws and will of God, whether natural or
revealed; those in which the actions of men, with all their circumstances of
aggravation or extenuation were recorded; those from which the clearest and
completest conviction might be adduced, in order to render the judgment such as
that all should be obliged to acknowledge it to be the result of the most perfect truth
and consummate justice: see Revelation 20:12.” — Wintle.
WHEDON, " 9. Thrones were cast down — Literally, thrones were placed. This
“Ancient of the Day” (Meinhold) is a new name for Jehovah, expressing the well-
recognized idea of his eternity (Psalms 90:2; Psalms 93:2), while the color of his hair
and garments symbolizes the purity and holiness of the Judge who lives in light and
who is enthroned upon cycles of flame. (Compare, especially notes, Ezekiel 1, 10;
Psalms 18:9-14.)
POOLE, "thrones cast down must be meant the kingdoms of this world, destroyed
by Christ the King and Judge of all, called the Ancient of days, because of his
eternal Deity;
without beginning and end of days. Whose garment was white as snow; thus kings’
viceroys were clothed, as Joseph in fine silk, Genesis 41:42, and Mordecai, Esther
141

142. 8:15.
The hair of his head like the pure wool; see Revelation 1:14; noting his innocence,
and righteousness in judgment, Isaiah 42:4.
His throne was like the fiery flame: this notes his majesty in judgment: see Psalms
1:3,4 Mal 4:1 Revelation 19:11,12.
His wheels as burning fire; arguing the greatest and most formidable state of the
last Judge and judgment; alluding to the kings who had movable thrones, which had
wheels: it notes also God’s swiftness in judgment, Malachi 3:5.
PETT, "Verse 9-10
A Flashback. The Scene in Heaven While the Empires Strut on Earth (Daniel
7:9-10).
‘I was beholding until thrones were placed,
And one who was the ancient of days did sit.
His clothing was white as snow,
His throne was fiery flames
And its wheels burning fire.
A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before him.
A thousand thousands ministered to him,
And ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The judgment was set
And the records were opened.’
This is put in poetic metre to emphasise its heavenly nature, and to stress that it is
not just following on what has gone before. Notice that there is here no ‘after this’.
This is a totally new aspect on things from a heavenly viewpoint. He was continuing
to watch but has now switched to a new aspect of his vision, going back to look at
things from this viewpoint of heaven. It was this court that in fact adjudicated on
142

143. what Nebuchadnezzar was doing to God’s people, that observed the behaviour of
Belshazzar, and that watched over Daniel in the den of lions. They were ‘the
watchers’.
(Daniel 7:12 is quite crucial on this. It demonstrates that the court was sitting and
passing judgment from the very first empire).
Until now the impression in the dream has been that God appeared to have been
almost silent as the wild beasts trod the world scene. But now we are privileged to
see behind the scenes. The truth is that the world was not just being left to itself, it
was being observed by the watchers, and the reports were being examined by the
court as they came in, and judgment passed on them. God was constantly aware of
what was happening to His own.
Note the careful order to bring this out, the growth of the three beasts (4-6), the
growth of the fourth beast (7-8), the court scene in heaven (9-10), the fourth beast
dealt with by the court (11), the three beasts dealt with by the court previously (12).
‘I was beholding.’ This is not just ‘I beheld’. It is a more complicated construction,
‘I was beholding’ (also in Daniel 7:6; Daniel 7:11; Daniel 7:13). ‘We might
paraphrase, ‘I went on dreaming until I saw’. His dream was continuing, and
another vision came before him. But this was not just a chronological continuation
of what had gone before. There is no ‘after this’ and the poetic metre brings out that
here is a new aspect on things. For in his visions, as he was surveying the scenes
coming before him, he saw a whole new change of scene. He was now going to see
what God was doing all this while, while the empires raged on. The vision of the
wild beasts and the vision of the heavenly court were in parallel. Note Daniel
7:11-12, where first the fourth beast is dealt with, and then, moving backwards in
time, the three other beasts are dealt with. These were decisions of this court at
different times. The visions go forwards and backwards.
We can compare this heavenly vision with John’s vision in Revelation 4-5, which
draws on this scene. There too the court is continual, observing and worshipping
continually through the ages. As with the seven seals God’s judgment is a continual
operation. The last judgment is only its final summation. It is a travesty to assume
that God only judges at the end of time. He judges and punishes continually (as
Daniel has already demonstrated).
‘Thrones were placed.’ Unknown to the world, while the world was strutting its
piece, the heavenly court was being set up (note that there is no ‘after this’ here -
contrast Daniel 7:6-7). While earth was in turmoil heaven also was to be busy. Here
Daniel saw the deliberate placing of the thrones, in order to deal with the thrones
spoken of below, the beast-like kings. But on these thrones is one King. We may see
this specific assembly as having been set up almost from the beginning of the time
covered by the vision, or even before (it might be a flashback to when man had first
to be judged). It explains the words of the watcher to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel
143

144. 4:14-17). These were the watchers whose decree determined events on earth. This
serene scene is in direct contrast with the tumult of the nations. While the world
suffered under the activities of the wild beasts, here all was unity, centred on the
figure on the throne.
It is, however, possibly significant that more than one throne was placed and yet
there is only mention of One Who takes His seat. The only mention of any other
person worthy of enthronement in this whole passage is the son of man who comes
on the clouds of heaven to whom rulership and dominion is to be given (Daniel
7:14). Perhaps then the other throne(s) is (are) there awaiting His arrival with His
people. (The ‘son of man’ represents both the Prince and His people). All was
waiting for that day.
Alternately we may see the thrones as the heavenly equivalent of all the thrones in
the world so that the One Who takes His throne sits as One upon all thrones,
represented by His throne. Or it may be seen as a plural of majesty stressing the
majesty of His throne (compare Psalms 122:5), but having a contrast with the many
thrones on earth in mind.
Others see it as representing thrones for heavenly attendants, whose sitting is not
mentioned lest it take men’s eyes off the One on the throne. But there is no such idea
anywhere else in the Old Testament. We may compare Psalms 89:5; Psalms 89:7,
but there is no suggestion of sitting; or 1 Kings 22:19, but there we are actually told
that they stand around Him; or Isaiah 6:2, but there the seraphim also stood and
shielded themselves with their wings. So no such angelic thrones are ever mentioned
elsewhere in the Old Testament, and the thought of others sitting in the presence of
the King was not likely to be an acceptable thought then. Occupation of such a
throne would require a unique and exceptional figure.
We cannot read Revelation 4:4 back into Daniel. That was after the Lamb had been
slain so that the representatives of the people of God could then sit on thrones
before the King (see Revelation 3:21).
Finally we might translate, ‘thrones were cast down’ indicating the commencement
of the dethroning of all earthly rulers, for the same verb is used of the casting into
the fiery furnace and the casting into the den of lions. This may then be seen as
God’s response to those situations, ‘I was watching until thrones were cast down’ as
God’s servants had previously been. But this translation is generally not considered
probable.
Then enters One Who takes His seat in the great court. He is the ‘ancient of days’.
Age was looked on as venerable, an indication of wisdom, and of worthiness to
judge, and thus the representation is of the all-wise and reliable judge and arbiter,
in such contrast with the earthly beast-kings below who pass away one by one. But
here was the everlasting One Who was even the ‘ancient of days’ in heaven. He
could look back to the growth of the first empire in Genesis 10:9-10; Genesis 11:1-9.
144

145. He goes back to the beginning of time, before empires ever existed.
He was clothed in white, with hair like pure wool. White is always the symbol of
purity and righteousness (Daniel 11:35; Daniel 12:10; Psalms 51:7; Isaiah 1:18;
Lamentations 4:7) which is here outwardly revealed and grows from Him. All here
is pure and righteous, and eternal.
‘His throne was fiery flames and its wheels burning fire. A fiery stream issued and
came forth from before him.’ We see here the chariot throne of God as depicted by
Ezekiel (see Ezekiel 1; Ezekiel 3:13; Ezekiel 10). All is fire, the fire of glory and of
judgment (see Ezekiel 1:4; Ezekiel 1:13; Ezekiel 1:27 and compare Exodus 19:18;
Exodus 24:17; Deuteronomy 4:24; Deuteronomy 9:3; Deuteronomy 18:17; Psalms
18:8; Psalms 50:3), for God is a consuming fire. For the fiery stream see Daniel 7:11
and compare Deuteronomy 32:22; Deuteronomy 33:2; 2 Kings 1:10; 2 Kings 1:14;
Isaiah 30:33; Jeremiah 15:14; Jeremiah 17:4; Revelation 4:5). With fire He will
finally destroy all evil.
‘A thousand thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand
stood before him.’ Gathered around the throne was a countless multitude of
heavenly beings, attentive to serve Him and do His will (compare Deuteronomy
33:2; Psalms 68:17; Psalms 89:5; Psalms 89:7; Psalms 103:21; 1 Kings 22:19). He is
the Most High, above all things, unique on His throne, before Whom all things bow
and worship. The emphasis is on His power and glory.
‘The judgment was set and the records were opened.’ God will not act arbitrarily.
The truth must be examined and known. It is all recorded and will be recorded
through time (Daniel 10:21; Isaiah 65:6; Jeremiah 2:22; Jeremiah 17:1; Psalms
56:8-9; Psalms 139:16). The ‘records’ here are the records as they are brought to the
court through the ages by those appointed to watch activities on earth, like a great
king would expect to receive continual intelligence reports from his sub-rulers
(compare the Amarna letters). This is not the final judgment, but part of God’s
continual judgment, continuing on during the activities of the four beasts, dealing
with one after another (Daniel 7:12), although it leads up to the final judgment. It is
also explaining the background to what happens in chapters 3 to 6 when the court
sends dreams to warn men, passes sentence on them, punishes them, and delivers
the righteous.
PULPIT, "Daniel 7:9, Daniel 7:10
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. 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
145

146. 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 (Behrmann); 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 scat 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
Revelation 14:9 -22. Enoch's description is derived from this, but amplified to a
great extent. Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times tea
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 Revelation 1:9 (Charles's trans), "Lo! he comes with ten thousands of his
holy ones, to execute judgment upon them." 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
146

147. yet more solemn, in the last Apocalypse. 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.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before
him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.
BARNES, "A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him -
Streams of fire seemed to burst forth from his throne. Representations of
this kind abound in the Scriptures to illustrate the majesty and glory of God.
Compare Rev_4:5, “And out of the throne proceeded lightnings, and
thunderings, and voices.” Exo_19:16; Hab_3:4; Psa_18:8.
Thousand thousands ministered unto him - “A thousand of thousands;”
that is, thousands multiplied a thousand times. The mind is struck with the
fact that there are thousands present - and then the number seems as great
as if those thousands were multiplied a thousand times. The idea is that
there was an immense - a countless host. The reference here is to the angels,
and God is often represented as attended with great numbers of these
celestial beings when he comes down to our world. Deu_33:2, “he came with
ten thousands of saints;” that is, of holy ones. Psa_68:17, “the chariots of
God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels.” Compare Jud_1:14.
The word “ministered” means that they attended on him.
And ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him - An innumerable
host. These were not to be judged, but were attendants on him as he
pronounced sentence. The judgment here referred to was not on the world
at large, but on the beast, preparatory to giving the kingdom to the one who
147

148. was like the Son of man Dan_7:13-14.
The judgment was set - That is, all the arrangements for a solemn act of
judgment were made, and the process of the judgment commenced.
And the books were opened - As containing the record of the deeds of
those who were to be judged. Compare Rev_20:12. The great Judge is
represented as having before him the record of all the deeds on which
judgment was to be pronounced, and to be about to pronounce sentence
according to those deeds. The judgment here referred to seems to have been
some solemn act on the part of God transferring the power over the world,
from what had long swayed it, to the saints. As already remarked, the
necessary interpretation of the passage does not require us to understand
this of a literal and visible judgment - of a personal appearing of the
“Ancient of days” - of a formal application to him by “one like the Son of
man” Dan_7:13- or of a public and visible making over to him of a kingdom
upon the earth. It is to be remembered that all this passed in vision before
the mind of the prophet; that it is a symbolic representation; and that we
are to find the fulfillment of this in some event changing the course of
empire - putting a period to the power represented by the “beast” and the
“horn,” and causing that power to pass into other hands - producing a
change as great on the earth as if such a solemn act of judgment were
passed. The nature of the representation requires that we should look for
the fulfillment of this in some great and momentous change in human
affairs - some events that would take away the power of the “beast,” and that
would cause the dominion to pass into other hands. On the fulfillment, see
the notes at Dan_7:26.
CLARKE, "A fiery stream issued - This is not spoken of the final judgment;
but of that which he was to execute upon this fourth beast, the Roman
empire; and the little boasting horn which is a part of the fourth beast, and
must fall when the other falls.
GILL, "A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him,.... Or, "a
river of fire" (s); which denotes the copious judgments of God, the
abundance of them; the full flow of his wrath, and the fierceness of it; and
also its rapidity, which cannot be resisted and stopped:
thousand thousands ministered unto him; attended upon him, waiting his
orders, and ready to execute them; an innumerable company of angels,
Psa_103:20,
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; to be judged by him;
the numerous inhabitants of the several monarchies, with their kings;
particularly all the antichristian states, and the worshippers of the beast,
whom the whole world went after, Rev_13:3,
the judgment was set; that is, the court was set; the Judge was upon the
148

149. bench, and all his assessors and apparitors about him, and that ministered
to him:
and the books were opened; both to take the trial in writing, and to produce
evidence against the criminals; the book of God's purposes and decrees
concerning these beasts; the book of prophecies relating to them; the book
of God's remembrance, and of their own consciences, with respect to the
evils committed by them; and the book of records, statutes, and laws made
in such cases; even the book of the Scriptures, which contains the revelation
of the will of God. In some things there is a likeness between this and the
last and future judgment, and in other things a disagreement; the Judge in
both is a divine Person, the eternal God, omniscient, omnipotent, holy, just,
and true, which is absolutely necessary for carrying on such a process; none
but God over all is equal to such a work: in the last judgment, as in this,
there will be thrones; the throne of God and of the Lamb, particularly a
great white throne, a symbol of purity, justice, and equity, on which the
Judge himself will sit, and execute judgment, from whose presence the
earth and heaven will flee away; and besides, there will be other thrones for
the martyrs of Jesus, and true professors of his name, to sit upon as
spectators, witnesses, and approvers of the solemn procedure, and shall
reign with Christ a thousand years: likewise the number of the persons
judged, as here, will be very great, even innumerable; all, both small and
great, as to age or dignity, will stand before the Judge, to be judged by him,
and receive their sentence from him; and there will be books for that
purpose, as here, even the same, and particularly the book of life, in which,
if a man's name is not written, he will be cast into the lake of fire; see Rev_
20:4, but in other things they differ; here the Judge is God the Father, the
first Person in the Trinity, called the Ancient of days, distinguished from
Christ, said to be like the Son of man; whereas the last and future judgment
will be committed to the Son of God, the second Person, who is ordained
Judge of quick and dead; and who will come a second time to judge the
world in righteousness; and, though the description of the Ancient of days
will agree well enough with him, he having the same glorious perfections
his Father has, which qualify him for a Judge; see Rev_1:14, yet it is certain
not he, but his divine Father, is intended: nor in the account of the future
judgment is there any mention of "a fiery stream" issuing forth before him,
as here, for the burning of the body of the beast; unless the lake of fire may
be thought to answer to it, into which will be cast all such who have no part
in the Lamb, nor a name in his book of life: however, the accounts of both
are very awful and striking; and this may be considered as a type, example,
presage, and pledge, of the future judgment; this will be at the beginning of
the spiritual reign of Christ, when antichrist will be destroyed with the
breath of his mouth, and the brightness of his coming; the judgment of the
saints will be at the beginning of his personal reign, even of the quick and
dead, those that will be found alive, and those that will be raised from the
dead, at his appearing and kingdom; and the judgment of the wicked will be
at the close of it, or at the end of the Millennium; see Rev_20:5.
149

150. JAMISON, "thousand ... ministered unto him — so at the giving of the law
(Deu_33:2; Psa_68:17; Heb_12:22; Jud_1:14).
ten ... thousand before him — image from the Sanhedrim, in which the
father of the consistory sat with his assessors on each side, in the form of a
semicircle, and the people standing before him.
judgment was set — The judges sat (Rev_20:4).
books ... opened — (Rev_20:12). Forensic image; all the documents of the
cause at issue, connected with the condemnation of Antichrist and his
kingdom, and the setting up of Messiah’s kingdom. Judgmentmust pass on
the world as being under the curse, before the glory comes; but Antichrist
offers glory without the cross, a renewed world without the world being
judged.
CALVIN, "Daniel proceeds with what he commenced in the former verse. He says a
splendor or stream of fire; for רהנ, neher, may be used in both senses, since רהנ,
neher, signifies both “to flow” and “to shine.” Yet, since he previously spoke of
splendor, the word “stream” will suit the passage very well; for a fiery stream issued
from the presence of God, which both inundated and burnt up the land. Without
doubt God wished to inspire his Prophet with fear for the purpose of arousing him
the better, as we never sufficiently comprehend his majesty unless when humbled;
and we cannot experience this humility without fear. This is the reason why God
always shows something terrible when he appears to his servants, not merely to
create astonishment, but to excite their fear and reverence. Hence God seems to
have considered this point in this vision, when the stream took its rise from his
appearance, even a river of flame. Afterwards he adds, numberless attendants stood
before him. Without the slightest doubt, the Prophet here speaks of angels. he says
there were thousands of thousands, or ten times a hundred thousand; and again, ten
thousand times ten thousand, that is, ten thousand myriads. Here the numbers are
not reckoned, but God signifies his having at hand the greatest forces obedient to his
will, and far surpassing any armies which the greatest; and most powerful princes
collect. This passage teaches us that angels were created for the purpose of receiving
and executing the commands of God, and of being the ministers of God, as it were
his hands in heaven and in earth. As regards numbers, no wonder many myriads
are enumerated by the Prophet. Christ said,
“Can I not ask the Father and he will send a legion?”
(Matthew 26:53.)
So, in this passage, Daniel says there were numberless angels under God’s hand,
and there was no need of collecting armies after the manner of princes, since they
are always present and intent on obedience. Thus they immediately fulfill all his
commands, as angels run swiftly throughout heaven and earth. We also perceive the
supreme power of the Almighty denoted here, as if the Prophet had said — God is
not like a king or a judge merely by title, but he possesses the greatest and most
150

151. unlimited power; he has myriads of satellites ever at hand for the purpose of
fulfilling and executing his supreme will. And in this sense he says, they stood before
him. He uses the word for ministry or service, and afterwards, adds,to stand. For
ministers cannot always render their service as quickly as their rulers desire. But
the angelic method is different. Not only were they prepared to obey, but in a
moment they understand what God wishes and commands without needing time for
compliance. We see even the greatest princes cannot immediately carry out their
decrees, because their ministers are not always at hand. But there is no necessity for
dwelling longer upon angels. Daniel adds, The judgment was fixed, and the books
were opened. Although God alone is eminent and conspicuous above the angels, and
the height of their glory and dignity does not obscure the supreme empire of the
Almighty, yet, as we have formerly said, he deems them worthy of the honor of
being placed as councilors on each side of him, and that for the sake of illustrating
his own majesty. For we have stated that nobles do not sit at the side of monarchs to
diminish his majesty or to attract it to themselves, but rather to reflect the
magnitude and power of the monarch more fully. This is the reason why the
Prophet joins angels with God, not as allies, but simply as his councilors.
I refer the phrase, the books were opened, to the preaching of the gospel. Although
God was recognized in Judea, as it is said in the 76th Psalm, (Psalms 76:2,) yet this
acknowledgment was but slight and involved in many figures. God was revealed
through enigmas until Christ’s coming; but then he manifested himself truly, just
like opening books previously shut. There is therefore a contrast to be observed here
between that obscure season which preceded the coming of Christ, and the clearness
which now shines under the gospel. Because, therefore, God was plainly made
known after the Sun of righteousness arose, according to the Prophet Malachi,
(Malachi 4:2,) this is the reason why the books are now said to have been opened at
that season. Meanwhile, we confess that God was not altogether hidden, nor did he
speak from astonishment, but this is said comparatively by the Prophet, as the
books were opened whenever God openly appeared as the Judge, Father, and
Preserver of the world, in the person of his only begotten Son. It afterwards
follows: —
TRAPP, "Daniel 7:10 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.
Ver. 10. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him.] The last and great
judgment must needs be very dreadful, where, beside that wicked men shall give
account with all the world flaming about their ears, the law they shall be judged by
is a fiery law, [Deuteronomy 33:2] the tribunal of fire, [Ezekiel 1:27] the judge a
consuming fire; [Hebrews 12:29] his attendants flaming seraphims; his pleading
with sinners shall be in flames of fire; [2 Thessalonians 1:8] the trial of their works
shall be by fire; [1 Corinthians 3:13] the place of punishment a lake of fire, fed with
tormenting temper, and kindled by the breath of the Lord. [Isaiah 30:33] Well may
151

152. the "sinners in Zion be afraid, and fearfulness surprise hypocrites"; well may they
run away, if they can at least tell whither, with these words in their mouths, "Who
among us shall dwell with this devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with
everlasting burnings?" [Isaiah 33:14]
Thousand thousands ministered unto him.] There is an innumerable company of
angels, [Hebrews 12:22] and when Christ cometh to judge the world, he shall bring
them all with him, not one being left behind him in heaven, [Matthew 16:27] that he
may have their assistance in the sentence and execution of judgment. [1 Corinthians
6:2-3]
The judgment was set, (a) and the books were opened.] Terms taken from
judgments among men, wherein indictments are read, proofs are produced, laws
also are considered. The books that shall here be opened are God’s records and
conscience’s register. Quae scripta sunt non atramento sed flagitiorum
inquinamento, saith Ambrose, which are written, not with ink, but with sin’s filth.
I beheld then because of the voice of the great words.] As Antichrist shall be judged
for his blasphemies, so shall all ungodly men for their hard speeches, [ 1:15] yea, for
their waste words. [Matthew 12:36]
WHEDON, "10. This vision of Jehovah’s judgment seat is worthy of Ezekiel. (See
Ezekiel 1, 10). The dreamer cannot count the angelic hosts which stand by the
thousand thousands in humble obedience before Him as “the judgment is set” (or,
“the assize is begun”). It was no new idea that all the deeds of men were recorded by
a heavenly scribe. This appears in the Egyptian records centuries before the era of
Moses or Joseph, and was an early belief among the Hebrews (Exodus 12:1; Exodus
32:32; Isaiah 4:3; Malachi 3:16; compare Revelation 20:12). The Old Testament
generally emphasizes the fact that there is a “book of life” in which the names and
sufferings of the pious are recorded; but in this passage it is the sins of evil empires,
and especially the blasphemies of the “little horn” which the open book reveals.
Thomson says: “We are not to regard this as the final judgment. Daniel is, rather,
admitted into the presence of God in the heavens and sees his judgment being
continually prepared against the wicked.”
POOLE, " A fiery stream issued; see Psa 1 3; noting his justice and wrath, in giving
sentence and executing it.
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: this is the great assize.
The judgment was set, and the books were opened: see Revelation 20:11,12. This,
say some, is spoken agreeable to the Synedrium or Sanhedrim, and after the manner
of men, and notes the book of life, of God’s eternal decree, the book of God’s
omniscience, &c.
152

153. 11 “Then I continued to watch because of the
boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept
looking until the beast was slain and its body
destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire.
BARNES, "I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the
horn spake - I was attracted by these words - by their arrogance, and
haughtiness, and pride; and I saw that it was on account of these mainly
that the solemn judgment proceeded against the beast. The attitude of the
seer here is this - he heard arrogant and proud words uttered by the “horn,”
and he waited in deep attention, and in earnest expectation, to learn what
judgment would be pronounced. He had seen Dan_7:8that horn spring up
and grow to great power, and utter great things; he had then seen,
immediately on this, a solemn and sublime preparation for judgment, and
he now waited anxiously to learn what sentence would be pronounced. The
result is stated in the subsequent part of the verse.
I beheld - I continued beholding. This would seem to imply that it was not
done at once, but that some time intervened.
Even until the beast was slain - The fourth beast: what had the ten horns,
and on which the little horn had sprung up. This was the result of the
judgment. It is evidently implied here that the beast was slain on account of
the words uttered by the horn that sprang up, or that the pride and
arrogance denoted by that symbol were the cause of the fact that the beast
was put to death. It is not said by whom the beast would be slain; but the fair
meaning is, that the procuring cause of that death would be the Divine
judgment, on account of the pride and arrogancy of the “horn” that sprang
up in the midst of the others. If the “beast” represents a mighty monarchy
that would exist on the earth and the “little horn” a new power that would
spring out of that, then the fulfillment is to be found in such a fact as this -
that this power, so mighty and terrible formerly, and that crushed down the
nations, would, under the Divine judgment, be ultimately destroyed, on
account of the nature of the authority claimed. We are to look for the
153

154. accomplishment of this in some such state of things as that of a new power
springing out of an existing dominion, that the existing dominion still
remains, but was so much controlled by the new power, that it would be
necessary to destroy the former on account of the arrogance and pride of
what sprang from it. In other words, the destruction of the kingdom
represented by the fourth beast would be, as a Divine judgment, on account
of the arrogancy of that represented by the little horn.
And his body destroyed - That is, there would be a destruction of the
kingdom here represented as much as there would be of the beast if his
body was destroyed. The power of that kingdom, as such, is to come to an
end.
And given to the burning flame - Consumed. This would represent, in
strong terms, that the power here symbolized by the beast would be utterly
destroyed. It is not, however, necessary to suppose that this is to be the
mode in which it would be done, or that it would be by fire. It is to be
remembered that all this is symbol, and no one part of the symbol should be
taken literally more than another, nor is it congruous to suppose there
would be a literal consuming fire in the case anymore than that there would
be literally a beast, or ten horns, or a little horn, The fair meaning is, that
there would be as real a destruction as if it were accomplished by fire; or a
destruction of which fire would be the proper emblem. The allusion is here,
probably, to the fact that the dead bodies of animals were often consumed
by fire.
CLARKE, "I beheld then because of the voice (or, the beast will be
destroyed because) of the great words which the horn spake - his body
destroyed - When the dominion was taken from the rest of the beasts, their
bodies were not destroyed, but suffered to continue still in being; but when
the dominion shall be taken away from this beast, his body shall be totally
destroyed; because other kingdoms succeeded to those, but no other earthly
kingdom shall succeed to this. - Bishop Newton.
GILL, "I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn
spake,.... Or, "from the voice" (t); from the time it was heard, the prophet
continued looking to see what would be the issue of all this; especially from
the time he heard the little horn speak such blasphemous things against
God, and Christ, and his people, which were so intolerable, that he
concluded some notice would be taken of them in a way of correction and
punishment; and the rather, when he saw the Judge appear with so much
majesty and grandeur, and all things prepared for a judicial process:
I beheld even till the beast was slain; the fourth beast, the Roman
monarchy, to which a period will be put, and be utterly abolished in every
form and shape, and with it the little horn or Papacy; when the beast on
which the whore of Rome sits and rules, and by whom she is supported, will
go into perdition; and she herself shall be made desolate and naked, her
154

155. flesh eaten, and she burned with fire by the ten horns, or kings, that shall
rise up against her, being filled with hatred to her, Rev_17:3,
and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame; when Rome with all
its power and wealth shall cease, and be no more, the whole body of the
antichristian states shall perish; the city of Rome shall be burnt with fire;
the beast and false prophet shall be taken and cast into a lake of fire,
burning with brimstone, Rev_18:8.
JAMISON, "Here is set forth the execution on earth of the judgment
pronounced in the unseen heavenly court of judicature (Dan_7:9, Dan_
7:10).
body ... given to ... flame — (Rev_19:20).
K&D, "The construction of this verse is disputed. The second
תיֵוֲההֵזָח
(I
was seeing) repeats the first for the purpose of carrying on the line of
thought broken by the interposed sentence.
ןִיַדאֵבּ
(then) is separated by the
accents from the first
תיֵוֲההֵזָח
and joined to the clause following: “then on
account of the voice of the great words.” By this interposed sentence the
occasion of the judgment which Daniel sees passed upon the beast is once
more brought to view.
לָקןִמ
, “on account of the voice of the words,” i.e., on
account of the loud words, not “from the time of the words, or from the time
when the voice of the great words made itself heard” (Klief.). The following
expression,
יִדּדַע
(till that), does not by any means require the temporal
conception
ןִמ
. To specify the terminus a quoof the vision was as little
necessary here as in the
יִדּדַעתיֵוֲההֵזָח
, Dan_7:9. The temporal conception of
ןִמ
alters not only the parallelism of the passage Dan_7:9and Dan_7:11, but
also the course of thought in the representation, according to which Daniel
remains overwhelmed during the vision till all the separate parts of it have
passed before his view, i.e., till he has seen the close of the judgment. The
first part of this scene consists of the constituting of the judgment (Dan_7:9,
Dan_7:10), the second of the death and extinction of the horn speaking
great things (Dan_7:11), with which is connected (Dan_7:12) the mention of
the destruction of the dominion of the other beasts. If one considers that the
words “I beheld till that” correspond with the like expression in Dan_7:9,
he will not seek, with Kran., in the
יִדּדַע
a reference to a lasting process of
judicial execution ending with destruction. The thought is simply this:
Daniel remained contemplating the vision till the beast was slain, etc.
אָתְויֵח
(the beast) is, by virtue of the explanatory sentence interposed in the first
hemistich, the horn speaking great things. The ungodly power of the fourth
beast reaches its climax in the blaspheming horn; in this horn, therefore,
the beast is slain and destroyed, while its body is given to the burning.
אָשֶּׁא
תַדֵקיִל
(to the burning fire) corresponds with the Hebr.
שֵׁאתַפֵרְשִׂל
, Isa_
64:10. The burning in the fire is not the mere figure of destruction, specially
155

156. justified by the thunder-storm which gathered as a veil around the scene of
judgment (Kran.), for there is no mention of a storm either in Dan_7:9or
anywhere else in this entire vision. The supposition that the burning is only
the figure of destruction, as e.g., in Isa_9:4, is decidedly opposed by the
parallel passages, Isa_66:14, which Daniel had in view, and Rev_19:20and
Rev_20:10, where this prophecy is again taken up, and the judgment is
expressed by a being cast into a like of fire with everlasting torment; so that
v. Lengerke is right when he remarks that this passage speaks of the fiery
torments of the wicked after death, and thus that a state of retribution after
death is indicated.
CALVIN, "Since the presumptuous speaking of the little horn terrified the Prophet,
he now says he was attentive in considering this portion. He next says, The beast
was slain, and his body was consumed by the burning of fire. This ought clearly to
be referred to the end of the Roman empire. For, from the time when foreigners
obtained the mastery, the fourth beast ceased to flourish. The name was always
retained, yet with great mockery of that ancient monarchy. I now omit all mention
of Caligula, Nero, Domitian, and similar monsters. But when Spaniards and
Africans acquired the absolute sway, can we call Rome any longer the mistress of
the world? Surely this would be foolish indeed! To this very day the Germans also
say they possess the Roman empire; but while the title of empire has passed to the
Germans, clearly enough Rome is at this very day in slavery. For as to the Pope
having erected his own throne there, this empire is unworthy of the name of
monarchy; but whatever be our view of this point, for about 1500 years the Romans
have been in bondage as slaves to foreign princes. For, after the death of Nero:,
Trajan was his successor, and from that time scarcely a single Roman obtained the
empire; and God branded it with the, most disgraceful marks of ignominy, when a
swine-herd was created emperor, and that too by the lust of the soldiery! The senate
retained its name till then; But. if it pleased the soldiers to create any one a Caesar,
the senate was immediately compelled to submit to their dictation. Thus, the
Prophet with great propriety says, The beast was slain shortly after the
promulgation of the gospel. Then the presumptuous speaking of the little horn was
at an end, and the fourth beast was extinct about the same time. For then no Roman
became an Emperor who claimed for himself any share of power; but Rome itself
fell into disgraceful slavery, and not only foreigners reigned there most shamefully,
but even barbarians, swine-herds, and cow-herds! All this occurred in fulfillment of
what God had shown to his Prophet, namely, after the coming of Christ and the
opening of the books, that is — after the knowledge which shone upon the world
through the preaching of the gospel — the destruction of that fourth beast and of
the Roman empire was close at hand.
COKE, :Daniel 7:11. I beheld then because of the voice, &c.— The beast will be
destroyed, because of the great words which the horn spake. The destruction of the
beast will be the destruction of the horn also; and consequently the horn is a part of
the fourth beast, or of the Roman empire. Bishop Newton.
156

157. ELLICOTT, " (11) Because of . . .—The blasphemy uttered by the little horn was
the cause of the judgment, and being such, it attracted Daniel’s attention. We might
have expected that the crowning scene of this vision would have been the uprooting
of the little horn and the complete destruction of it, but it appears that the
blaspheming spirit with which it was inspired issued from the fourth monster,
which “was slain and burned.”
Burning flame.—Such is the doctrine of final retribution, as revealed to Daniel.
(Comp. Isaiah 66:24; Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:10.)
TRAPP, "Daniel 7:11 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.
Ver. 11. I beheld even till the beast was slain.] Till the whole body of the monster,
and with it the Papal kingdom, came to ruin. This Bellarmine confesseth, and
lamenteth that ever since we began to call the Pope Antichrist, the Church of Rome
hath suffered loss. Cotton, the Jesuit, confesseth that the authority of the Pope is
incomparably less than it was, and that now the Christian Church is but a
diminutive.
And his body destroyed and given to the burning flame.] The Revelation, which is a
heavenly commentary upon this prophecy, hath it thus, "The beast and the false
prophet were cast alive," for more torment, "into a lake of fire burning with
brimstone." [Revelation 19:20]
BENSON, "Verse 11-12
Daniel 7:11-12. I beheld then — Chaldee, תיוה הזח, I was attentive, spectabam
attentus, I beheld attentively, as Grotius renders it; because of the voice of the great
words which the horn spake — See on Daniel 7:25 . I was desirous of knowing, and
looked carefully to see what would be the end of this matter, more particularly on
account of the arrogant and boasting words which the horn spake. I beheld even till
the beast was slain, and his body destroyed — This signified, that no other earthly
kingdom should succeed to this, but that when an entire end should be put to it, and
the ten kingdoms included in it, then the kingdom of Christ should succeed, as is
more fully set forth toward the end of this chapter. We may observe, that it is not
only said of this fourth beast, that he was slain, but that his body was destroyed and
given to the burning flame; that is, made entirely extinct, as every thing is that is
burned in the fire; whereas it is said, concerning the rest of the beasts, that though
they had their dominion taken away, their lives were prolonged for a season and
time. Their bodies were not destroyed, as that of the fourth beast, but they were
157

158. suffered to continue still in being; that is, other kingdoms of the same nature,
though different in some particulars, succeeded to them. The destruction of the
beast, it must be observed, will be the destruction of the horn also, and consequently
the horn is a part of the fourth beast, or of the Roman empire.
WHEDON, " 11. The crimes of the beast (the Syrian empire, Daniel 7:7) having
been revealed from the open book, the divine judgment of death by fire is
pronounced. The burning of the beast is because of the blasphemies of the little
horn. “The punishment among the Babylonians was burning.” — Thomson. This
symbolism is elaborated by a later and greater apocalyptist (Revelation 19:20).
PETT, "Verse 11-12
‘I was beholding then (what would result) from the voice of the great words which
the horn spoke, I beheld even until the beast was slain, and his body was destroyed,
and he was given to be burned with fire. And as for the rest of the beasts, their
dominion was taken away. Yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.’
These two verses warn us against assuming that in the vision one thing just follows
after another. It is a summary of what happens, and what has happened previously,
without regard for chronology. It starts at the end and backtracks. It is a dream.
Firstly he declares what will be the effect of God’s activity through the court
because of the great words spoken by the horn (the small one), what will result from
his words. Its result will be that the beast on which it grew will be slain. Its body will
be destroyed, it will be handed over to the fire, just as had happened to God’s
people in chapter 3. God’s people had been accused of blasphemy and handed over
to the fire. So will it be done to the great and terrible beast because of the blasphemy
of the little horn. The fires of God (Daniel 7:10) will destroy it.
But then Daniel 7:12 deals with previous judgments of the court, God’s activity on
the other three beasts as He observed them through the centuries. One by one their
dominion had been taken away from them by sentence of the court, but they had
been allowed to go on as parts of other empires until the final end of the fourth
beast. Their lives had been preserved ‘for a season and a time’, that is, for God’s
determined period.
To be consistent with chapter 2, where all are destroyed together, this must refer
back to the times when each one was replaced, but was allowed to continue,
although without having the dominion, until the destruction of the fourth beast,
when they too will be destroyed. But there will be no amelioration or delay in
respect of the fourth beast. Its destruction will be total and complete, and at that
time all empire will be destroyed. So the scene in heaven above refers to a continual
judgment scene which monitors activities on earth and deals with them as they arise.
158

159. PULPIT, "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, "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 Rome, and the little horn the 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 Roman Empire; yet it was none the less
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 (The other beasts had been stripped of their
authority, but were allowed to live for a period of
time.)
BARNES, "As concerning the rest of the beasts - They had been
superseded, but not destroyed. It would seem that they were still
represented in vision to Daniel, as retaining their existence, though their
power was taken away, and their fierceness subdued, or that they still
seemed to remain alive for a time, or while the vision was passing. They
were not cut down, destroyed, and consumed as the fourth beast was.
They had their dominion taken away - They were superseded, or they no
longer exercised power. They no more appeared exerting a control over the
nations. They still existed, but they were subdued and quiet. It was possible
to discern them, but they no longer acted the conspicuous part which they
had done in the days of their greatness and grandeur. Their power had
passed away. This cannot be difficult of interpretation. We should naturally
159

160. look for the fulfillment of this in the fact that the nations referred to by
these first three beasts were still in being, and could be recognized as
nations, in their boundaries, or customs, or languages; but that the power
which they had wielded had passed into other hands.
Yet their lives were prolonged - Margin, as in Chaldee, “a prolonging in
life was given them.” That is, they were not utterly destroyed and consumed
as the power of the fourth beast was after the solemn judgment. The
meaning is, that in these kingdoms there would be energy for a time. They
had life still; and the difference between them and the kingdom represented
by the fourth beast was what would exist between wild animals subdued but
still living, and a wild animal killed and burned. We should look for the
fulfillment of this in some state of things where the kingdoms referred to by
the three beasts were subdued and succeeded by others, though they still
retained something of their national character; while the other kingdom
had no successor of a civil kind, but where its power wholly ceased, and the
dominion went wholly into other hands - so that it might be said that that
kingdom, as such, had wholly ceased to be.
For a season and time - Compare the notes at Dan_7:25. The time
mentioned here is not definite. The phrase used (ןדעו ןמז־דע ‛ad-zeman
v
e
‛ı̂ddân) refers to a definite period, both the words in the original referring
to a designated or appointed time, though neither of them indicates
anything about the length of the time, anymore than our word time does.
Luther renders this, “For there was a time and an hour appointed to them
how long each one should continue.” Grotius explains this as meaning,
“Beyond the time fixed by God they could not continue.” The true meaning
of the Chaldee is probably this: “For a time, even a definite time.” The mind
of the prophet is at first fixed upon the fact that they continue to live; then
upon the fact, somehow apparent, that it is for a definite period. Perhaps in
the vision he saw them one after another die or disappear. In the words
used here, however, there is nothing by which we can determine how long
they were to continue. The time that the power represented by the little
horn is to continue explained in Dan_7:25, but there is no clue by which we
can ascertain how long the existence of the power represented by the first
three beasts was to continue. All that is clear is, that it was to be lengthened
out for some period, but that that was a definite and fixed period.
GILL, "As concerning the rest of the beasts..... The other three which
represent the Babylonian, Persian and Grecian monarchies:
they had their dominion taken away; not at this time when the fourth beast,
or Roman empire, is destroyed, but long ago; and not together, but
successively; the dominion was taken away from the Babylonians, and given
to the Persians; and then their dominion was taken away, and given to the
Grecians; and after that the dominion of the Grecians was taken away from
them, and given to the Romans: the prophet having observed what became
of the fourth beast, he was most intent upon, just in a few words takes
notice of the fate of the other three, before this:
160

161. yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time: these monarchies did
not at once become extinct, as the fourth beast or monarchy will, but by
degrees; and the kingdoms of which they consisted are still in being, though
in another form of government, and in different hands; whereas, when the
fourth monarchy is destroyed, all rule and authority will be put down, and
the kingdom be given to Christ and his saints, as follow:
JAMISON, "the rest of the beasts — that is, the three first, had passed
away not by directdestroying judgments, such as consumed the little horn,
as being the finally matured evil of the fourth beast. They had continued to
exist but their “dominionwas taken away”; whereas the fourth beast shall
cease utterly, superseded by Messiah’s kingdom.
for a season ... time — Not only the triumph of the beasts over the godly,
but their very existence is limited to a definite time,and that time the
exactly suitableone (compare Mat_24:22). Probably a definite period is
meant by a “season and time” (compare Dan_7:25; Rev_20:3). It is striking,
the fourth monarchy, though Christianized for fifteen hundred years past,
is not distinguished from the previous heathen monarchies, or from its own
heathen portion. Nay, it is represented as the most God-opposed of all, and
culminating at last in blasphemous Antichrist. The reason is: Christ’s
kingdom nowis not of this world (Joh_18:36); and only at the second
advent of Christ does it become an external power of the world. Hence
Daniel, whose province it was to prophesy of the world powers, does not
treat of Christianity until it becomes a world power, namely, at the second
advent. The kingdom of God is a hidden one till Jesus comes again (Rom_
8:17; Col_3:2, Col_3:3; 2Ti_2:11, 2Ti_2:12). Rome was worldly while
heathen, and remains worldly, though Christianized. So the New Testament
views the present aeon or age of the world as essentially heathenish, which
we cannot love without forsaking Christ (Rom_12:2; 1Co_1:20; 1Co_2:6,
1Co_2:8; 1Co_3:18; 1Co_7:31; 2Co_4:4; Gal_1:4; Eph_2:2; 2Ti_4:10;
compare 1Jo_2:15, 1Jo_2:17). The object of Christianity is not so much to
Christianize the present world as to save souls out of it, so as not to be
condemned with the world (1Co_11:32), but to rule with Him in His
millennium (Mat_5:5; Luk_12:32; Luk_22:28-30; Rom_5:17; 1Co_6:2; Rev_
1:6; Rev_2:26-28; Rev_3:21; Rev_20:4). This is to be our hope,not to reign
in the present world course (1Co_4:8; 2Co_4:18; Phi_3:20; Heb_13:14).
There must be a “regeneration” of the world, as of the individual, a death
previous to a resurrection, a destructionof the world kingdoms, before they
rise anew as the kingdoms of Christ (Mat_19:28). Even the millennium will
not perfectly eradicate the world’s corruption; another apostasy and
judgment will follow (Rev_20:7-15), in which the world of natureis to be
destroyed and renewed, as the world of historywas before the millennium
(2Pe_3:8-13); then comes the perfect earth and heaven (Rev_21:1). Thus
there is an onward progress, and the Christian is waitingfor the
consummation (Mar_13:33-37; Luk_12:35, Luk_12:36, Luk_12:40-46; 1Th_
1:9, 1Th_1:10), as His Lord also is “expecting” (Heb_10:13).
161

162. In this verse it is in addition remarked, that the dominion of the other
beasts was also destroyed, because the duration of their lives was
determined for a time and an hour. The construction of the words forbids us
(with Luther) to regard the first part of Dan_7:12as dependent on
יִדּדַע
of
Dan_7:11. The object
אָתָויֵחרָאְשׁוּ
(the rest of the beasts) is presented in the
form of an absolute nominative, whereby the statement of Dan_7:12is
separated from the preceding.
ויִדְּעֶה
, impersonal, instead of the passive, as
וּקָדּ
in Dan_2:35: “their dominion was made to perish,” for “their dominion
was destroyed.” “The other beasts” are not those that remained of the seven
horns of the fourth beast, which were not uprooted by the horn coming up
amongst them, the remaining kingdoms of the fourth monarchy after the
destruction by that horn, for with the death of the beast the whole fourth
world-monarchy is destroyed; nor are they the other kingdoms yet
remaining at the time of the overthrow of the fourth world-monarchy or the
destruction of the fourth beast (J. D. Mich., v. Leng.), which only lose their
political power, but first of all would become subject to the new dominant
people (Hitzig), for such other kingdoms have no existence in the prophetic
view of Daniel, since the beasts represent world-kingdoms whose dominion
stretches over the whole earth. The “remaining beasts” are much rather the
first three beasts which arose out of the sea before the fourth, as is rightly
acknowledged by Chr. B. Mich., Ros., Häv., Hofm., Maur., Klief., and Kran.,
with the old interpreters. Although the four world-kingdoms symbolized by
those beasts follow each other in actual history, so that the earlier is always
overthrown by that which comes after it, yet the dominion of the one is
transferred to the other; so in the prophetic representation the death or the
disappearance of the first three beasts is not expressly remarked, but is
here first indicated, without our needing for that reason to regard
ויִדְּעֶה
as
the pluperfect. For the exposition of this verse also we may not appeal to
Daniel 2, where all the four world-kingdoms are represented in one human
image, and the stone which rolled against the feet of this image broke not
only the feet, but with them the whole image to pieces (Dan_2:34.), which in
Dan_2:44is explained as meaning that the kingdom of God will bring to an
end all those kingdoms. From this we cannot conclude that those kingdoms
had long before already perished at the hour appointed for them, but that a
remainder (
רָאְשׁ
) of them yet continued to exist (Häv.), for the
representation in this chapter is different; and the rest of the beastscannot
possibly mean that which remained of the beasts after their destruction, but
only the beasts that remained after the death of the fourth beast. The mas.
suff. to ן|
הֵנָטְלָשׁ
(their dominion) and ן|
הְל
refer ad sensumto the possessor
or ruler of the world-kingdom represented by the beasts. With that
interpretation of “the rest of the beasts” the statement also of the second
half of the verse does not agree, for it proves that the subject is the
destruction of the dominion of all the beasts which arose up before the
fourth. The length or duration of life is the time of the continuance of the
world-kingdoms represented by the beasts, and thus the end of life is the
destruction of the kingdom. The passive pret.
תַביִהְי
is not to be taken thus as
the imperf.: “a period of life was appointed to them,” but as the pluperf.:
162

163. “had been granted to them,” and the passage formally connected by the
simple וis to be taken as confirming the preceding statement.
ןָדִּעְוןַמְז
(placed together as Dan_2:21in the meaning there explained) is not to be
identified with
אָנְמִז
, Dan_7:22(v. Leng., Kran.). The form (stat. absol., not
emphat.) shows that not a definite time, the time of the divine judgment of
the fourth beast, is meant, but the time of the continuance of the power and
dominion for each of the several beasts (kingdoms), foreseen only in the
counsel of the Most High, and not further defined. In accordance with this,
the statement of Dan_7:12is that the first three beasts also had their
dominion taken away one after another, each at its appointed time; for to
each God gave its duration of life, extending to the season and time
appointed by Him. Thus Kliefoth, with the older interpreters, correctly
regards the connecting of the end of the first three beasts with that of the
last as denoting that in the horn not merely the fourth kingdom, but also the
first three kingdoms, the whole world-power, is brought to an end by the
last judgment. This thought, right in itself, and distinctly announced in the
destruction of the image (Daniel 2), appears, however, to lie less in the
altogether loose connection of Dan_7:12with Dan_7:11than in the whole
context, and certainly in this, that with the fourth beast in general the
unfolding of the world-power in its diverse phases is exhausted, and with
the judgment of this kingdom the kingdom of God is raised to everlasting
supremacy.
CALVIN, "Without doubt the Prophet refers to what ought to come first in order,
as the empires of which he is speaking were extinct before the Roman. Hence these
verbs ought to be taken in the pluperfect tense, because the power had been already
removed from the other three beasts. For the Hebrews were, accustomed to repeat
afterwards anything which had been omitted, and they do not always observe the
order of time in their narratives. Thus, after he had said the fourth beast was slain
and consumed by burning, he now adds what he had omitted concerning the
remaining three, namely, their dominion had been take, from them. He adds also
what is worthy of notice, Length, or continuance, in life was granted to them even
for a time and a time. There are two different words used here, but they signify one
and the same thing, namely, a convenient time. Here the Prophet understands how
nothing happens accidentally, but all things are carried on in the world in their own
time, as God has decreed them in heaven. Perhaps when the subject-matter of the
discourse is length of life, it signifies the protracted period of these afflictions, as
they should not pass away suddenly like clouds. Not. only severe but lengthened
trials are said to await the faithful, which must afflict their minds with weariness,
unless the hope of a better issue propped them up. Thus, the Holy Spirit predicts
how God would at length deliver his Church when he had exercised its patience for
a length of time. From the rest of the beasts power was taken away. The copula in
the word הכרא, ve-arkeh, “and length,” may be resolved in this way — “because
length in life;” as if he had said, The trials by which the sons of God were to be
oppressed should not be perpetual, because God had prescribed and defined a fixed
163

164. period.A continuance, therefore, in life was granted to them, namely, for a time and
a time. The copula may be treated as “an adversative particle” as if he had said,
“although a continuance,” that is, although the people should not immediately
escape from those sorrowful cares which oppressed them, yet God’s opportunity
would at length arrive, that is, the time at which it pleased God to redeem his own
Church. But the former exposition seems more genuine and more consistent,
because length of time has its own limits and boundaries. There is also a contrast
between, the words הכרא,arkeh, “length,” and ןמז,zemen, “time,” and ןדע, gneden,
“time,” because length or “prolonging” has reference to our perceptions; for when
we are suffering pain, the greatest speed seems delay. Thus, any one in anxiety for
an improved state of things counts every moment, and is so flagrant in his desires as
to call the Almighty in question for any delay. As, then, the impatience of men is so
great, when they are expecting with anxiety this freedom from adversity, the
Prophet says, in the ordinary acceptation of the phrase, length of time was granted
to the beasts; but he opposes a fit time; as if he had said — They act preposterously
who thus indulge their own passions. Since God has fixed his own time, they require
patience, and need not reckon the years; but this one thing must be concluded, when
the Lord pleases he will not delay his help. This, therefore, is the full sense of the
verse. It follows: —
COKE, "Daniel 7:12. As concerning the rest, &c.— When the dominion was taken
away from the rest of the beasts, their bodies were not destroyed, but suffered to
continue still in being: but when the dominion shall be taken away from this beast,
his body shall be totally destroyed, because other kingdoms succeeded to those, but
none other earthly kingdom shall succeed to this. Ibid.
ELLICOTT, "(12) The rest of the beasts—i.e., the three first beasts which Daniel
had seen coming out of the sea. He now learns what had befallen them. Their
dominions had passed away, and their lives had been prolonged up to that definite
point and time which had seemed fit to God, and no further. The period of life
allotted to them by God was only a little while. (On “times” and “seasons,” see Note
on Daniel 2:21.)
TRAPP, "Daniel 7:12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion
taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
Ver. 12. As concerning the rest of the beasts.] The four great monarchies, as was
before noted, had their times and their turns - their rise and their ruin.
Yet their lives were prolonged for a season.] Such is the Lord’s lenity, respiting his
enemies for a time. [1 Kings 21:29] The Persian and Turk are yet puissant princes.
The success that the Antichristian rout yet hath in some places maketh good that
which was sometimes said of dying Carthage, Morientium nempe bestiarum
violentiores esse morsus, i.e., The bites of dying beasts are more violent than
ordinary.
164

165. POOLE, " They had their dominion taken away; the prophet chiefly intends the
fourth empire, and therein the proud, blasphemous horn; yet did not wholly omit to
speak of the three first empires, and what became of them. He saith they were
wholly taken away, that is, successively, as histories tell us. The beast and the horn
perish together, for the Holy Ghost tells us that the horn shall prevail against the
saints till the
Ancient of days come to sit in judgment, and because the session of judgment in
Daniel’s vision was principally to pluck up by the roots that wicked horn, Daniel
7:26 following, Daniel’s expectation had failed him, if the horn had not perished
with the beast. Besides, the state of the beast under the horn was to be a time, times,
and the dividing of time, Daniel 7:25, of which more when we come to it.
PULPIT, "As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken
away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. The version of the LXX.
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 Babylon lost imperial
power, it still continued for a time a highly important province in the Persian
Empire, and the sensibilities of the inhabitants were considered throughout the
whole period of the Persian rule. After the Persian Empire was overturned by
Alexander, there was still the province of Persis; and from the remains of the
Persian Empire sprang up Parthia, and then the second Persian Empire; and after
the rule of the caliphs had been broken, Persia revived as a Mohammedan power.
When the Greek Empire fell, Greece still survived, not independent, but still
influential. It is difficult to see what meaning this verse could have to one living at
the time of the Maccabees, especially it' he thought the Greek Empire was the
fourth. Parthia certainly might represent Persia, but where was Media? "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."
165

166. 13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there
before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming
with the clouds of heaven. He approached the
Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
BARNES, "I saw in the night visions - Evidently in the same night visions,
or on the same occasion, for the visions are connected. See Dan_7:1, Dan_
7:7. The meaning is, that he continued beholding, or that a new vision
passed before him.
And, behold, one like the Son of man ... - It is remarkable that Daniel does
not attempt to represent this by any symbol. The representation by symbols
ceases with the fourth beast; and now the description assumes a literal
form - the setting up of the kingdom of the Messiah and of the saints. Why
this change of form occurs is not stated or known, but the sacred writers
seem carefully to have avoided any representation of the Messiah by
symbols. The phrase “The Son of Man” -שׁנא רב bar 'ĕnâsh- does not occur
elsewhere in the Old Testament in such a connection, and with such a
reference as it has here, though it is often found in the New, and is, in fact,
the favorite term by which the Saviour designates himself. In Dan_3:25, we
have the phrase “the Son of God” (see the note at that passage), as
applicable to one who appeared with the three” children” that were cast
into the burning furnace; and in Ezekiel, the phrase “son of man” often
occurs as applicable to himself as a prophet, being found more than eighty
times in his prophecies, but the expression here used does not elsewhere
occur in the Old Testament as applicable to the personage intended. As
occurring here, it is important to explain it, not only in view of the events
connected with it in the prophecy, but as having done much to mould the
language of the New Testament. There are three questions in regard to its
meaning: What does it signify? To whom does it refer? And what would be
its proper fulfillment?
(1) The phrase is more than a mere Hebrew or Chaldee expression to
denote man, but is always used with some peculiar significancy, and with
relation to some peculiar characteristic of the person to whom it is applied,
or with some special design. To ascertain this design, regard should be had
to the expression of the original. “While the words שׁיא 'ı̂yshand השׁיא 'ı̂iyshâh
are used simply as designations of sex, שׁונא 'ĕnôsh, which is etymologically
akin to שׁיא 'ı̂ysh, is employed with constant reference to its original
meaning, to be weak, sick; it is the ethical designation of man, but םדא 'âdâm
166

167. denotes man as to his, physical, natural condition - whence the use of the
word in such passages as Psa_8:4; Job_25:6, and also its connection with ןב
bênare satisfactorily explained, The emphatic address םדא ןב bên 'âdâm- Son
of man - is therefore (in Ezekiel) a continued admonition to the prophet to
remember that he is a man like all the rest.” - Havernick, Com. on, Eze_
2:1-2, quoted in the Bibliotheca Sacra, v. 718. The expression used here is
שׁונא־רב bar-'ĕnôsh, and would properly refer to man as weak and feeble, and
as liable to be sick, etc. Applied to anyone as “a Son of man,” it would be
used to denote that he partook of the weakness and infirmities of the race;
and, as the phrase “the Son of man” is used in the New Testament when
applied by the Saviour to himself, there is an undoubted reference to this
fact - that he sustained a peculiar relation to our race; that he was in all
respects a man; that he was one of us; that he had so taken our nature on
himself that there was a peculiar propriety that a term which would at once
designate this should be given to him. The phrase used here by Daniel would
denote some one
(a) in the human form;
(b) some one sustaining a peculiar relation to man - as if human nature
were embodied in him.
(2) The next inquiry here is, to whom, this refers? Who, in fact, was the
one that was thus seen in vision by the prophet? Or who was designed to be
set forth by this? This inquiry is not so much, whom did Daniel suppose or
understand this to be? as, who was in fact designed to be represented; or in
whom would the fulfillment be found? For, on the supposition that this was
a heavenly vision, it is clear that it was intended to designate some one in
whom the complete fulfillment was to be found. Now, admitting that this
was a heavenly vision, and that it was intended to represent what would
occur in future times, there are the clearest reasons for supposing that the
Messiah was referred to; and indeed this is so plain, that it may be assumed
as one of the indisputable things by which to determine the character and
design of the prophecy. Among these reasons are the following:
(a) The name itself, as a name assumed by the Lord Jesus - the favorite
name by which he chose to designate himself when on the earth. This name
he used technically; he used it as one that would be understood to denote
the Messiah; he used it as if it needed no explanation as having a reference
to the Messiah. But this usage could have been derived only from this
passage in Daniel, for there is no other place in the Old Testament where
the name could refer with propriety to the Messiah, or would be understood
to be applicable to him.
(b) This interpretation has been given to it by the Jewish writers in
general, in all ages. I refer to this, not to say that their explanation is
authoritative, but to show that it is the natural and obvious meaning; and
because, as we shall see, it is what has given shape and form to the language
of the New Testament, and is fully sanctioned there. Thus, in the ancient
book of Zohar it is said, “In the times of the Messiah, Israel shall be one
people to the Lord, and he shall make them one nation in the earth, and
they shall rule above and below; as it is written, “Behold, one like the Son of
167

168. man came with the clouds of heaven;” this is the King Messiah, of whom it is
written, And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a
kingdom which shall never be destroyed, etc.” So in the Talmud, and so the
majority of the ancient Jewish rabbis. See Gill, Com. in loc. It is true that
this interpretation has not been uniform among the Jewish rabbis, but still
it has prevailed among them, as it has among Christian interpreters.
(c) A sanction seems to be given to this interpretation by the adoption of
the title “Son of man” by the Lord Jesus, as that by which he chose to
designate himself. That title was such as would constantly suggest this place
in Daniel as referring to himself, and especially as he connected with it the
declaration that “the Son of man would come in the clouds of heaven, etc.”
It was hardly possible that he should use the title in such a connection
without suggesting this place in Daniel, or without leaving the impression
on the minds of his hearers that he meant to be understood as applying this
to himself.
(d) It may be added, that it cannot with propriety be applied to any other.
Porphyry, indeed, supposed that Judas Maccabeus was intended; Grotius
that it referred to the Roman people; Aben Ezra to the people of Israel; and
Cocceius to the people of the Most High (Gill); but all these are unnatural
interpretations, and are contrary to what one would obtain by allowing the
language of the New Testament to influence his mind. The title - so often
used by the Saviour himself; the attending circumstances of the clouds of
heaven; the place which the vision occupies - so immediately preceding the
setting up of the kingdom of the saints; and the fact that that kingdom can
be set up only under the Messiah, all point to him as the personage
represented in the vision.
(3) But if it refers to the Messiah, the next inquiry is, What is to be
regarded as the proper fulfillment of the vision? To what precisely does it
relate? Are we to suppose that there will be a literal appearing of the Son of
man - the Messiah - in the clouds of heaven, and a passing over of the
kingdom in a public and solemn manner into the hands of the saints? In
reply to these questions, it may be remarked
(a) that this cannot be understood as relating to the last judgment, for it is
not introduced with reference to at all. The “Son of man” is not here
represented as coming with a view to judge the world at the winding-up of
human affairs, but for the purpose of setting up a kingdom, or procuring a
kingdom for his saints. There is no assembling of the people of the world
together; no act of judging the righteous and the wicked; no pronouncing of
a sentence on either. It is evident that the world is to continue much longer
under the dominion of the saints.
(b) It is not to be taken literally; that is, we are not, from this passage, to
expect a literal appearance of the of man in the clouds of heaven,
preparatory to the setting up of the kingdom of the saints. For if one portion
is to be taken literally, there is no reason why all should not be. Then we are
to expect, not merely the appearing of the Son of man in the clouds, but also
the following things, as a part of the fulfillment of the vision, to wit: the
literal placing of a throne, or seat; the literal streaming forth of flame from
his throne; the literal appearing of the “Ancient of days,” with a garment of
168

169. white, and hair as wool; a literal approach of the Son of man to him as
seated on his throne to ask of him a kingdom, etc. But no one can believe
that all this is to occur; no one does believe that it will.
(c) The proper interpretation is to regard this, as it was seen by Daniel, as
a vision - a representation of a state of things in the world as if what is here
described would occur. That is, great events were to take place, of which
this would be a proper symbolic representation - or as if the Son of man, the
Messiah, would thus appear; would approach the “Ancient of days;” would
receive a kingdom, and would make it over to the saints. Now, there is no
real difficulty in understanding what is here meant to be taught, and what
we are to expect; and these points of fact are the following, namely,:
1. That he who is here called the “Ancient of days” is the source of power
and dominion.
2. That there would be some severe adjudication of the power here
represented by the beast and the horn.
3. That the kingdom or dominion of the world is to be in fact given to him
who is here called “the Son of man” - the Messiah - a fact represented here
by his approaching the “Ancient of days,” who is the source of all power.
4. That there is to be some passing over of the kingdom or power into the
hands of the saints; or some setting up of a kingdom on the earth, of which
he is to be the head, and in which the dominion over the world shall be in
fact in the hands of his people, and the laws of the Messiah everywhere
prevail. What will be the essential characteristics of that kingdom we may
learn by the exposition of Dan_7:14, compared with Dan_7:27.
Came with the clouds of heaven - That is, he seemed to come down from
the sky encompassed with clouds. So the Saviour, probably intending to
refer to this language, speaks of himself, when he shall come to judge the
world, as coming in clouds, or encompassed by clouds, Mat_24:30; Mat_
26:64; Mar_13:26; Mar_14:62. Compare Rev_1:7. Clouds are an appropriate
symbol of the Divinity. See Psa_97:2; Psa_104:3. The same symbol was
employed by the pagan, representing their deities as appearing covered
with a cloud:
“Tandem venias, precamur,
Nube candentes humeros amictus,
Augur Apollo!”
- Horace, Lyr. I. 2.
The allusion in the place before us is not to the last judgment, but to the
fact that a kingdom on tho earth would be passed over into the hands of the
Messiah. He is represented as coming sublimely to the world, and as
receiving a kingdom that would succeed those represented by the beasts.
And came to the Ancient of days -Dan_7:9. This shows that the passage
cannot refer to the final judgment. He comes to the “Ancient of days” - to
God as the source of power - as if to ask a petition for a kingdom; not to
pronounce a judgment on mankind. The act here appropriately denotes that
God is the source of all power; that all who reign derive their authority from
him, and that even the Messiah, in setting up his kingdom in the world,
169

170. receives it at the hand of the Father. This is in accordance with all the
representations in the New Testament. We are not to suppose that this will
occur literally. There is to be no such literal sitting of one with the
appearance of age - denoted by the “Ancient of days” - on a throne; nor is
there to be any such literal approaching him by one in the form of a man to
receive a kingdom. Such passages show the absurdity of the attcmpts to
interpret the language of the Scriptures literally. All that this symbol fairly
means must be, that the kingdom that was to be set up under the Messiah on
the earth was received from God.
And they brought him near before him - That is, he was brought near
before him. Or, it may mean that his attendants brought him near. All that
the language necessarily implies is, that he came near to his seat, and
received from him a kingdom.
CLARKE, "One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven - This
most certainly points out the Lord Jesus, שנא רב bar enosh, the Son of
miserable man; who took our nature upon him that he might redeem us
unto himself. To prove himself to be the Messiah he applies, before the high
priests, these words of the Prophet Daniel to himself Mat_24:30.
Near before him - The Ancient of days.
GILL, "I saw in the night visions,.... Very probably the same night in which
he had the dream and vision of the four beasts; but this that follows, being a
new object presented, is introduced and prefaced after this manner; as well
as, being something wonderful and worthy of attention, has a "behold"
prefixed to it:
and, behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; not
Judas Maccabaeus, as Porphyry; nor the Roman people, as Grotius; nor the
people of Israel, as Aben Ezra; nor the people of the saints of the most High,
as Cocceius; but the Messiah, as most Christian interpreters, and even the
Jews themselves, both ancient and modern, allow. In the ancient book of
Zohar (u)it is said,
"in the times of the Messiah, Israel shall be one people, to the Lord, and he
shall make them one nation in the earth, and they shall rule above and
below; as it is written, "behold, one like the Son of man came with the
clouds of heaven"; this is the King Messiah of whom it is written, "and in the
days of these kings shall the God of heaven, set up a kingdom which shall
never be destroyed", &c. Dan_2:44''
So in the Talmud (w)this prophecy is thus reconciled with another,
concerning the Messiah, in Zec_9:9, to what R. Alexander said, R. Joshua
ben Levi objects what is written,
170

171. and, behold, one like to the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; and
it is written, "poor, and riding upon an ass": which is thus adjusted,
"if they (the Israelites) are worthy, he (the Messiah) comes with the clouds
of heaven; but if they are not worthy, he comes poor, and riding on an ass;''
and so it is interpreted in their ancient Midrashes (x), or expositions, as
well us in more modern ones: Jarchi on the text says,
"he is the Messiah;''
and so R. Saadiah Gaon and Jacchiades, this is Messiah our righteousness;
and Aben Ezra observes, that this is the sense R. Jeshua gives, "that one like
to the Son of man" is the Messiah; and he adds, it is right, only along with
him must be joined the holy people, who are the Israelites: and, with the
Jews, Anani, which signifies "clouds", is the name of the Messiah, founded
upon this text, in the Targum of 1Ch_3:24, where mention is made of the
name of a person, Anani, it is added,
"who is the Messiah that is to be revealed;''
so in an ancient book called Tanchuma (y), speaking of Zerubbabel, it is
asked, from whence did he spring? it is answered from David, as it is said,
1Ch_3:10"and Solomon's son was Rehoboam", &c.; and so all in the line are
mentioned unto Anani, Dan_7:24and then it is asked, who is this Anani?
this is the Messiah, as it is said, Dan_7:13,
and I saw in the visions of the night, and, behold, one like to the Son of man
came with the clouds of heaven. He is said to be "as", or "like the Son of
man", in agreement with the style of these visions, Dan_7:4, or because as
yet he was not really incarnate, only appeared in a human form; or this as is
not a note of similitude, but of truth and reality, as in Joh_1:14or because
he was more than a man: and his coming with the clouds of heaven denotes
the majesty, visibility, and swiftness, with which he came to take open
possession of his kingdom and glory. Saadiah interprets them of the angels
of heaven, with which he will be attended:
and came to the Ancient of days; his divine Father, from whom, as man and
Mediator, he receives his mediatorial kingdom, is invested with it, and
insisted it, to it; see Rev_5:7this is not to be understood of his first coming
in the flesh, which was from his Father, and not to him; nor of his ascension
to heaven, exaltation and session at the right hand of God, when he indeed
received the kingdom from the Father, and was made and declared Lord
and Christ; but this seems to respect what shall be upon the destruction of
the fourth beast, when Christ shall receive and take to himself his great
power, and reign, and more visibly appear by his Father's designation and
appointment, and his open glory, to be King and Lord over all:
and they brought him near before him; not Elijah the prophet, as
171

172. Jacchindes; rather the angels, as others; or the saints by their prayers, who
hasten to, and hasten thereby, the coming and kingdom of Christ in a more
spiritual and glorious manner; or it may be rendered impersonally,
"he was brought near before him,''
as by the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions.
JAMISON, "Son of man — (See on Eze_2:1). Not merely Son of David, and
King of Israel, but Head of restored humanity(corresponding to the world-
wide horizon of Daniel’s prophecy); the seed of the woman, crushing
Antichrist, the seed of the serpent, according to the Prot-evangel in
Paradise (Gen_3:15). The Representative Man shall then realize the original
destiny of man as Head of the creation (Gen_1:26, Gen_1:28); the center of
unity to Israel and the Gentiles. The beast, which taken conjointly
represents the four beasts, ascends from the sea (Dan_7:2; Rev_13:1); the
Son of man descends from “heaven.” Satan, as the serpent, is the
representative head of all that bestial; man, by following the serpent, has
become bestial. God must, therefore, become man, so that man may cease to
be beast-like. Whoever rejects the incarnate God will be judged by the Son
of man just because He is the Son of man (Joh_5:27). This title is always
associated with His coming again, because the kingdom that then awaits
Him in that which belongs to Him as the Savior of man, the Restorer of the
lost inheritance. “Son of man” expresses His VISIBLE state formerly in his
humiliation hereafter in His exaltation. He “comes to the Ancient of days”
to be invested with the kingdom. Compare Psa_110:2: “The Lord shall send
the rod of thy strength (Messiah) out of Zion.” This investiture was at His
ascension “with the clouds of heaven” (Act_1:9; Act_2:33, Act_2:34; Psa_
2:6-9; Mat_28:18), which is a pledge of His return “in like manner” in the
clouds” (Act_1:11; Mat_26:64), and “with clouds” (Rev_1:7). The kingdom
then was given to Him in titleand invisibleexercise; at His second coming it
shall be in visibleadministration. He will vindicate it from the misrule of
those who received it to hold for and under God, but who ignored His
supremacy. The Father will assert His right by the Son, the heir, who will
hold it for Him (Eze_1:27; Heb_1:2; Rev_19:13-16). Tregelles thinks the
investiture here immediately precedesChrist’s coming forth; because He
sits at God’s right hand untilHis enemies are made His footstool, thenthe
kingdom is given to the Son in actual investiture, and He comes to crush His
so prepared footstool under His feet. But the words, “with the clouds,” and
the universal power actually, though invisibly, given Him then (Eph_
1:20-22), agree best with His investiture at the ascension, which, in the
prophetic view that overleaps the interval of ages, is the precursor of His
coming visibly to reign; no event of equal moment taking place in the
interval.
K&D 13-14, "The giving of the kingdom to the Son of Man. -The judgment
does not come to an end with the destruction of the world-power in its
various embodiments. That is only its first act, which is immediately
172

173. followed by the second, the erection of the kingdom of God by the Son of
man. This act is introduced by the repetition of the formula, I saw in the
night-visions(Dan_7:7and Dan_7:2). (One) like a son of man came in the
clouds of heaven.
יֵנָנֲעםִע
, with the clouds, i.e., in connection with them, in
or on them as the case may be, surrounded by clouds; cf. Rev_1:7, Mar_
13:26, Mat_24:30; Mat_26:64. He who comes is not named, but is only
described according to his appearance like a son of man, i.e., resembling a
man (
שָׁנֱארַבּ
as
םָדָאןֶב
= שׁ|
נֱא
or
םָדָא
). That this was a man is not implied in
these words, but only that he was like a man, and not like a beast or some
other creature. Now, as the beasts signify not beasts but kingdoms, so that
which appeared in the form of a man may signify something else than a
human individuum. Following the example of Aben Ezra, Paulus, and
Wegscheider, Hofmann (Schriftbew. ii. 1. 80, and 2, p. 582f.), Hitzig,
Weisse, Volkmar, Fries (Jahrbb.f. D. Theol. iv. p. 261), Baxmann, and
Herzfeld (Gesch. des V. Isr. ii. p. 381) interpret this appearance in the form
of a man not of the Messiah, as the Jewish and Christian interpreters in
general do, but of the people of Israel, and adduce in support of this view
the fact that, in the explanation of the vision, Dan_7:27, cf. Dan_7:24, the
kingdom, the dominion, and the power, which according to Dan_7:14the
son of man received, was given to the people of the saints of the Most High.
But Dan_7:27affords no valid support to this supposition, for the angel
there gives forth his declaration regarding the everlasting kingdom of God,
not in the form of an interpretation of Daniel's vision, as in the case of the
four beasts in Dan_7:17and Dan_7:23, but he only says that, after the
destruction of the horn and its dominion, the kingdom and the power will
be given to the people of the saints, because he had before (Dan_7:26, cf. 22)
spoken of the blasphemies of the horn against God, and of its war against
the saints of the Most High. But the delivering of the kingdom to the people
of God does not, according to the prophetic mode of contemplation, exclude
the Messiah as its king, but much rather includes Him, inasmuch as Daniel,
like the other prophets, knows nothing of a kingdom without a head, a
Messianic kingdom without the King Messiah. But when Hofmann further
remarks, that “somewhere it must be seen that by that appearance in the
form of a man is meant not the holy congregation of Israel, but an
individual, a fifth king, the Messiah,” Auberlen and Kranichfeld have, with
reference to this, shown that, according to Dan_7:21, the saints appear in
their multiplicity engaged in war when the person who comes in the clouds
becomes visible, and thus that the difference between the saints and that
person is distinctly manifest. Hence it appears that the “coming with the
clouds of heaven” can only be applied to the congregation of Israel, if we
agree with Hofmann in the opinion that he who appeared was not carried by
the clouds of heaven down to the earth, but from the earth up to heaven, in
order that he might there receive the kingdom and the dominion. But this
opinion is contradicted by all that the Scriptures teach regarding this
matter. In this very chapter before us there is no expression or any
intimation whatever that the judgment is held in heaven. No place is named.
It is only said that judgment was held over the power of the fourth beast,
which came to a head in the horn speaking blasphemies, and that the beast
was slain and his body burned. If he who appears as a son of man with the
173

174. clouds of heaven comes before the Ancient of days executing the judgment
on the earth, it is manifest that he could only come from heaven to earth. If
the reverse is to be understood, then it ought to have been so expressed,
since the coming with the clouds of heaven in opposition to the rising up of
the beasts out of the sea very distinctly indicates a coming down from
heaven. The clouds are the veil or the “chariot” on which God comes from
heaven to execute judgment against His enemies; cf. Psa_18:10., Psa_
97:2-4; Psa_104:3, Isa_19:1; Nah_1:3. This passage forms the foundation for
the declaration of Christ regarding His future coming, which is described
after Dan_7:13as a coming of the Son of man with, in, on the clouds of
heaven; Mat_24:30; Mat_26:64; Mark 18:26; Rev_1:7; Rev_14:14. Against
this, Hofmann, in behalf of his explanation, can only adduce 1Th_4:17, in
total disregard of the preceding context, Dan_7:16.
(Note: The force of these considerations is also recognised by Hitzig.
Since the people of the saints cannot come from heaven, he resorts to the
expedient that the Son of man is a “figure for the concrete whole, the
kingdom, the saints - this kingdom comes down from heaven.” The
difficulties of such an idea are very obvious. Fries appears to be of
opinion, with Hofmann, that there is an ascension to heaven of the
people of the saints; for to him “clear evidence” that the “Son of man” is
the people of Israel lies especially in the words, “and came to the Ancient
of days, and they brought him near before Him,” which necessitates the
adoption of the opposite terminus a quofrom Mat_24:30; Mar_14:62;
Rev_1:7; and hence makes the direct parallelism of Dan_7:13with the
passages named impossible (?).)
With all other interpreters, we must accordingly firmly maintain that he
who appears with the clouds of heaven comes from heaven to earth and is a
personal existence, and is brought before God, who judges the world, that
he may receive dominion, majesty, and a kingdom. But in the words “ as a
man” it is not meant that he was only a man. He that comes with the clouds
of heaven may, as Kranichfeld rightly observes, “be regarded, according to
current representations, as the God of Israel coming on the clouds, while
yet he who appears takes the outward from of a man.” The comparison (
ְכ
,
asa man) proves accordingly much more, that this heavenly or divine being
was in human form. This “Son of man” came near to the Ancient of days, as
God appears in the vision of the judgment, Dan_7:9, and was placed before
Him. The subject to
יִהוּבְרְקַה
is undefined; Kran. thinks that it is the clouds
just mentioned, others think it is the ministering angels. Analogous
passages may be adduced in support of both views: for the first, the νεφέλη
ὑπέλαβεν αὐτόνin Act_1:9; but the parallel passages with intransitive verbs
speak more in favour of the impersonal translation, “they brought him” =
he was brought. The words, “dominion, and glory, and a kingdom were
given to him,” remind us of the expression used of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan_
2:37., but they are elevated by the description following to the conception of
the everlasting dominion of God. God gave to Nebuchadnezzar, the founder
and first bearer of the world-power, a kingdom, and might, and majesty,
and dominion over all the inhabitants of the earth, men, and beasts, and
birds, that he might govern all nations, and tribes, and tongues (Dan_
174

175. 5:18-19), but not indeed in such a manner as that all nations and tribes
should render him religious homage, nor was his dominion one of
everlasting duration. These two things belong only to the kingdom of God.
חַלְפּ
is used in biblical Chaldee only of the service and homage due to God;
cf. Dan_7:27; Dan_3:12-13, Dan_3:17., Ezr_7:19, Ezr_7:24. Thus it indicates
here also the religious service, the reverence which belong to God, though
in the Targg. it corresponds with the Heb.
דַבָע
in all its meanings, colere
Deum, terram, laborare. Regarding the expression “nations, tribes, and
tongues,” see under Dan_7:3, Dan_7:4. The eternity of the duration of the
dominion is in this book the constant predicate of the kingdom of God and
His Anointed, the Messiah; cf. Daniel 3:33; Dan_4:31; Dan_2:44. For
further remarks regarding the Son of man, see at the close of this chapter.
CALVIN, "After Daniel has narrated how he saw God on the throne of judgment,
openly exercising his power and laying open to the world what was formerly hidden
from it, namely, his supreme authority in its government, he now adds the second
part of the vision, As it were the Son of man appeared in the clouds. Without doubt
this is to be understood of Christ, and the Jews, perverse as they are, are ashamed to
deny it, although they differ afterwards about Christ. But the object of the vision
was to enable the faithful certainly to expect the promised Redeemer in his own
time. He had been endued with heavenly power, and was seated at his Father’s right
hand. Hence Daniel says, He was intent on these nightly visions. And this repetition
is by no means superfluous, as it informs us of the Prophet’s alertness when God
shews himself present. Daniel expresses this fully in his own words, for he roused
himself when he perceived important, and rare, and singular matters set before him.
This attentive disposition of the Prophet ought to stir us up to read his prophecy
without listlessness, and with awakened minds earnestly to derive from heaven true
and sincere intelligence. I was, then, says he, attentive in visions of the night, and
beheld as it were the Son of man. I have already said this passage cannot be
otherwise taken than concerning Christ. We must now see why he uses the word
“like” the Son of man; that is, why he uses the letter כ, ke, the mark for likeness.
This might be twisted in favor of the folly of the Manichees, who thought Christ’s
body to be only imaginary. For, as they wrest the words of Paul, and pervert their
sense, that Christ was in likeness as a man, (Philippians 2:7.) so also they may abuse
the Prophet’s testimony, when Christ is not said to be a man but only like one. With
respect to Paul’s words, he is not speaking of the essence of his human nature, but
only of his state; for he is speaking of Christ being made man, of his condition being
humble and abject, and even servile. But in the passage before us the reason is
different. For the Prophet says, He appeared to him as the Son of man, as Christ
had not yet taken upon him our flesh. And we must remark that saying of Paul’s:
When the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman. (Galatians
4:4.) Christ then began to be a man when he appeared on earth as Mediator, for he
had not assumed the seed of Abraham before he was joined with us in brotherly
union. This is the reason why the Prophet does not pronounce Christ to have been
man at this period, but only like man; for otherwise he had not been that Messiah
175

176. formerly promised under the Law as the son of Abraham and David. For if from the
beginning he had put on human flesh, he would not have been born of these
progenitors. It follows, then, that Christ was not a man from the beginning, but only
appeared so in a figure. As also Irenaeus (18) says: This was a “prelude,” he uses
that word. Tertullian also says: “Then the Son of God put on a specimen of
humanity.” (19) This was a symbol, therefore, of Christ’s future flesh, although that
flesh did not yet exist. We now see how suitably this figure agrees with the thing
signified, wherein Christ was set forth as the Son of man, although he was then the
eternal Word of God.
It afterwards follows, He came to the Ancient of days This, in my judgment, ought
to be explained of Christ’s ascension; for he then commenced his reign, as we see in
numberless passages of Scripture. Nor is this passage contrary to what the Prophet
had previously said — he saw the Son of man in the clouds. For by this expression
he simply wishes to teach how Christ, although like a man, yet differed from the
whole human race, and was not of the common order of men; but excelled the whole
world in dignity. He expresses much more when he says, in the second clause, He
came even unto the Ancient of days For although the Divine Majesty lay hid in
Christ, yet he discharged the duty of a slave, and emptied himself, as Paul says,
(Philippians 2:7.) So also we read in the first chapter of John, (John 1:14,) Glory
appeared in him as of the only begotten Son of God; that is, which belongs to the
only begotten Son of God. Christ, therefore, thus put off his glory for the time, and
yet by His miracles and many other proofs afforded a clear and evident; specimen of
his celestial glory. He really appeared to Daniel in the clouds, but when he ascended
to heaven, he then put off this mortal body, and put on a new life. Thus Paul also, in
the sixth chapter to the Romans, says, he lives the life of God, (Romans 6:10;) and
other phrases often used by our Lord himself agree very well with this, especially in
the Evangelist John, “I go to the Father.” “It is expedient for me to go to the Father,
for the Father is greater than I,” (John 16:7; John 14:28;) that is, it is expedient for
me to ascend to that royal tribunal which the Father has erected for me by his
eternal counsel, and thus the whole world will feel the supreme power to have been
entrusted to. me. Now, therefore, we understand the full meaning of the Prophet’s
words.
But as there are many fanatics who wrest what has been said of the person of the
Mediator, as if Christ were not the true God, but had a beginning from the Father
at some definite period of time, we must observe how the Prophet’s expression are
neither the human nor the divine nature of Christ properly speaking, but a
Mediator is here set before us who is God manifest in flesh. For if we hold this
principle that Christ is described to us, not as either the word of God, or the seed of
Abraham, but as Mediator, that is, eternal God who was willing to become man, to
become subject to God the Father, to be made like us, and to be our advocate, then
no difficulty will remain. Thus he appeared to Daniel like the Son of man, who
became afterwards truly and really so. He was in the clouds, that is, separated from
the common lot of mankind, as he always carried with him some marks of deity,
even in his humility. He now arrives as the Ancient of days, that is, when he ascends
176

177. to heaven, because his divine majesty was then revealed. And hence he says, It is
expedient for you, for me to go to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.
(John 14:28.) Christ here detracts nothing from his deity, but as his nature was not
known in the world, while his divine majesty lay hid in the form of a servant, he
calls the Father simply God; as if he had said, If I remain with you upon earth, what
would the presence of my flesh profit you? But when I ascend to heaven, then that
oneness which I have with the Father will become conspicuous. When, therefore, the
world shall understand that I am one with the Father, and that the Deity is one, the
hope of all the pious will become more firm and unconquered against all
temptations; for they will know themselves to be equally under the protection of
both God and man. If, therefore, Christ were always dwelling upon earth, and had
borne witness a thousand times to his being given to us by his Father as the
guardian of our salvation, yet there always would have been some hesitation and
anxiety. But when we know him to be seated at his Father’s right hand, we then
understand him to be truly God, because all knees would not be bent before him,
unless he had been the eternal God. We must hold that passage of Isaiah, (Isaiah
42:8,) As I live, saith the Lord, my glory I will not give to another. As, therefore,
God’s glory can never be transferred to either man or any other creature, the true
unity and nature of God necessarily shines forth in the human nature of Christ, for
every knee is bent before him. Now, therefore, we understand the sense in which the
Prophet says, Christ came as the Son of man, that is, like a man, even to the Ancient
of days For after Christ had passed through the period of his self-abasement,
according’ to Paul, (Philippians 2:7,) he ascended into heaven, and a dominion was
bestowed upon him, as the Prophet says in the next verse. This passage, then,
without the slightest doubt, ought to be received of Christ’s ascension, after he had
ceased being mortal man. He says, He was represented before God, namely, because
he sits at his right hand. It follows, —
COFFMAN, "Verse 13
"I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one
like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of Days, and they brought
him near before him: and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom,
that all the peoples, and 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."
This paragraph somewhat out of chronological sequence relates to the setting up or
the establishment of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. Note the statement that
he was brought near unto God (the Ancient of Days) "with the clouds of heaven,"
corresponding exactly with the facts related in the New Testament, that upon
Christ's ascension to the Father to receive the kingdom that he was taken up "with
the clouds of heaven" (Acts 1:9-11). Keil and other usually dependable scholars are
mistaken in their view that "coming with the clouds of heaven" indicates Christ's
coming down from heaven to earth. We are sure that the words refer to Christ's
177

178. "coming with the clouds of heaven" is a reference not to the Second Coming, but to
His Ascension to heaven "to receive the kingdom."
"One like unto a son of man ..." This expression should be capitalized. "Son of
Man," by far and away Jesus' favorite title for himself, simply cannot refer to
anyone else who ever lived. See extensive discussion of this title under John 1:51 in
this series of Commentaries.
The problem encountered by the position of this paragraph relates to the fact that it
appears that Christ received the kingdom only after the total and final destruction
of the world kingdoms. However, the placement of this paragraph cannot indicate
the chronological sequence of the event of Jesus' receiving the everlasting kingdom.
Daniel 7:9-12 merely indicate the fact of the vision's continuing until the time of the
judgment and the destruction of the four beasts. These verses do not teach that all of
the world powers were destroyed before Christ's kingdom was established.
Daniel 7:13-14 simply announce the establishment of Christ's kingdom with no
word whatever of exactly when this magnificent achievement took place. The Great
Commission in Matthew 28:18-20 states categorically that at the time of Christ's
giving that commission, "All authority in heaven and upon earth" were at that time
in the possession of Christ. Without this light from the New Testament, it would be
difficult to discern this. Daniel 2:44, however, which is parallel to the visions here
and must be consulted in connection with the interpretation, makes it very plain
that the kingdom was to be established "in the days of those kings," not in the days
after the kings were destroyed.
COKE, "Daniel 7:13. I saw in the night visions— This has always been, and can
only be, understood of the Messiah. Hence the expression, Son of man, was a known
phrase for the Messiah among the Jews, as appears from several of their own
writers. יננע Anani, the word here used, and which signifies clouds, was also a
known name for the Messiah; so that he who assumed the one, was supposed to
affect the character of the other. This will appear evidently from what passed at the
trial of our blessed Saviour. The high-priest adjuring him to declare whether he was
the Son of God, Jesus answered him, in the words of our prophet, Hereafter shall ye
see the SON OF MAN sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds
of heaven. Every one took this for a declaration that he was the Messiah. The high-
priest rent his clothes, as if he had spoken blasphemy, and the people reproached
him for it. Art thou then the Christ?—Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who struck
thee? Christ only said, that he was Daniel's Son of man, the Anani; that is to say, He
who cometh in the clouds: the rest was their own inference, for which they could
have no other foundation, than that Daniel was known to prophesy of the Messiah
in this passage. Clouds are a known symbol of heaven, and of divine power and
majesty; and the ascribing of this symbol to one like the Son of man, according to
Saadiah Gaon, an eminent Jewish writer, "is a declaration of the supreme
magnificence and authority which God shall give to that Son of Man, the Messiah."
It seems, indeed, farther to imply, that this Son of man was then in heaven, when
178

179. Daniel prophesied, and in high dignity before this new commission was given him.
See Bishop Newton, p. 492 and Bishop Chandler's Defence, p. 107.
ELLICOTT, "(13) The Son of man.—Hence our Saviour adopts the title which
designates Him as Judge (Matthew 24:27, &c.). The title implies one descended from
man; but as this Person is spoken of as being “like” one of human descent, it follows
that He was not merely a man. The early Jewish and Christian interpretations that
this is the Messiah are confirmed by our Saviour’s solemn appropriation of the title
to Himself (Matthew 24:30). In this verse the judgment is supposed to have already
taken place upon earth, and the Son of man comes in the clouds to claim His
kingdom.
TRAPP, "Daniel 7:13 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.
Ver. 13. I saw in the night visions, &c.] Here comes in the fifth monarchy, properly
so called, the kingdom being wrested from the fourth tyrant. Well might Jerome call
Daniel Polyhistora, the general historian.
And, behold, one like the Son of man.] So Christ showed himseff often to the
fathers, before his incarnation, for their confirmation in that article which, being
the ground of his passion, was to be especially believed, for the foundation of
Christian faith. Christ’s Godhead also, another main article, is here not obscurely
deciphered, while he is said to be like the Son of man; therefore he is more than a
mere man. Again, he came with the clouds. Compare Matthew 24:30, "Then shall
they see the Son of man coming in the clouds," as in his chariot of state. Add
hereunto his solemn, glorious access unto the Father, that Ancient of days, that is,
the eternal God, as being his co-equal, of the same nature, power, glory, &c., with
his Father, and coeternal unto him. So the Lamb is said to approach to him that sat
upon the throne to receive the book. [Revelation 5:7]
And they brought him near before him.] (a) The angels did, as great men’s
attendants are said to bring their masters to the courts.
Verse 14
Daniel 7:14 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.
Ver. 14. And there was given him dominion.] Christ hath a manifold right to the
kingdom; it is his by inheritance, conquest, donation, &c. This is comfortable to
consider, forasmuch as he will not reign without his members, who all hold all in
capite; and have all already, (1.) In precio; in prayer (2.) In promisso; in promise
179

180. (3.) In primitiis. in starting.
That all people, nations, and languages, &c.] Christ’s kingdom is first universal,
secondly perpetual; so was none of the former, though the Roman was very large,
reaching from Euphrates to Great Britain, and the Assyrian very lasting, of a
thousand and four hundred years’ duration.
Verse 15
Daniel 7:15 I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of [my] body, and the
visions of my head troubled me.
Ver. 15. I Daniel was grieved in my spirit.] Chald., My spirit was scabbed through,
so that my body became as an empty sheath or scabbard. Oh, the terror of that last
judgment, when such a man as Daniel was so frightened to see the manner of it in
vision only! "If the righteous scarcely be saved," &c.
In the midst of my body.] Chald., Of my sheath: the body is but the soul’s sheath
(Pliny, (a) in the history of Hermotinus Clazomenius, maketh use of the same
metaphor), and compared to the soul it is but as a clay wall that encompasseth a
treasure, as a wooden box of a jeweller, as a coarse case to a rich instrument, or as a
mask to a beautiful face.
BENSON, "Daniel 7:13. I saw in the night visions, &c. — Here is described by what
means these changes were to be brought about; behold, one like the Son of man
came with the clouds of heaven — One in the shape and likeness of a man, but
clothed with such ensigns of majesty and honour, (signified here by the clouds of
heaven,) as showed him to be an extraordinary person, (compare Revelation 1:13;
Revelation 14:14,) indeed no less than the Messiah, as the following description of
him declares. As the two foregoing verses declare why the fourth beast was
destroyed, this part of the vision shows by whom it was done; setting Christ forth in
his judicial capacity, and describing him by that title, which, in allusion to this
place, he often gave himself, namely, the Son of man. He particularly alludes to this
text, Matthew 26:64, where he speaks of his coming in the clouds of heaven; by
which expression he acknowledged himself to be the true Messiah here described,
and gave a direct answer to the question there proposed to him, Art thou the Christ,
the Son of the blessed? Compare Mark 14:61-62; Revelation 1:7. Whereupon they
condemned him as guilty of blasphemy. A learned prelate, in his Defence of
Christianity from the ancient Prophecies, p. 131, observes, that יננע, anani, the
clouds, was a known name of the Messiah among the Jewish writers, which shows
that they understood this text as spoken of him.
WHEDON, " 13. The Son of man — Rather, “a son of man” (R.V.). There has been
much discussion whether this refers to the coming of a personal Messiah or is
merely a personification of the “saints of the Most High” (Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:22;
180

181. Daniel 7:27). It is agreed that it must refer either to the Messianic King or to the
Messianic kingdom personified. Kuenen argues that the personal application,
“although capable of being reconciled with the author’s own words,” yet is not
necessitated or “recommended” by them. It was the Israelitish nation which was to
be crowned with everlasting dominion (Daniel 7:14). The Israelite appears in the
vision in human form, in contrast with the brutish heathen kings previously seen,
and the prophecy only means that the human kingdom of God shall supersede the
kingdom of the beasts (Prophecy and Prophets in Israel, pp. 223, 224, 529, 531). This
view is substantially adopted even by evangelical and conservative scholars such as
Konig and Stanton. Behrmann, however, shows that a personal Messiah was
understood here by all expositors down to Aben Ezra, and urges the point that if the
little horn is an individual, the one “like a Son of man” must be an individual also.
(Compare Briggs, Messianic Prophecy.) Various Jewish rabbis, though the view was
not universal, spoke in the same way of the Messiah as a person previous to the
coming of Christ. (See Hebraica, 4:179.) Notwithstanding the objections of
Lietzmann, Konig, and Wellhausen, the passages in the Book of Enoch which speak
of the personal Messiah in Danielic phraseology seem certainly early and certainly
Jewish; though later Jewish rabbis (through antipathy to the Christian
interpretation) actually sought to make this passage (and Daniel 7:8; Daniel 11:37) a
polemic against Christianity! Even the LXX. translated the “branch” (Psalms 80:15,
Hebrews) as “Son of man,” and the Targum gives as a synonym for this term “the
King Messiah” (Eb. Nestle). Even if some of these passages in the Book of Enoch,
etc., be late, yet the interpretation must have been early, for it certainly would not
have been originated by the rabbis after the Christian argument for Christ’s
Messiahship had been promulgated. “Son of man” in Aramaic does not necessarily
mean simply “man” or “a man,” as has been proved by Professor Dalman (Die
Worte Jesu, 1898). The Gospel writers do not use this term as a synonym for man —
which proves that Jesus himself in his original speech also made this distinction. It
was felt then, as we feel now, that, while we are “children of men,” there could be
but one such Son of man (Gess, Die Inspiration, p. 357). It is certain, as Professor
Dalman shows, that, although some of the hearers of Christ may have
misunderstood the reference, Jesus himself did mean by his use of the term “Son of
man” to claim that he was destined to be the ruler of the world, and that in him the
vision of Daniel was being fulfilled. Although “Son of man” was not universally
considered a Messianic title — otherwise Jesus could not have been using this term
freely while at the same time wishing to postpone the public announcement of his
Messiahship (Matthew 16:13; Matthew 16:16) — yet when he did plainly declare
that he himself was the Son of man of whom Daniel spoke he was at once
condemned to death as a pretender to Messianic honors. It was entirely in
accordance with the method of our Lord that he should select for himself a title
which to the ordinary hearer might only emphasize his humanity — the evangelists
never report any hearer or disciple using this title in addressing our Lord, which
shows that it was not a recognized title of honor — but which when explained to his
select few in the last days of his life, and later upon the witness stand, would open
out with a new deep meaning (Matthew 24:23-30; Matthew 26:64-65). As a man of
vision has said, Jesus, by his emphasis and underscoring of this prophetic name, not
181

182. only dignified our humanity, as he thus completely identified himself with the race,
but “he stepped up at once to David’s vacant throne, and gathering up the scattered
lights of prophecy he drew them as a rainbow about himself. He is the Son of man
among men, but separated by infinite distances from all other sons of men” (R.W.
Dale, Expositor, November, 1896). Professor Schmidt, of Cornell University, has
just made the suggestion that Michael, the guardian angel of Israel, was meant by
this “one like a son of man.” Dr. Terry had formerly suggested that this Son of man
was identical with the Messianic Prince of Daniel 9:25-26, who was presented also
again in Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1 (on which see notes), under the symbolical name
of Michael. It rather seems to the present writer that this “one like unto a son of
man” is to be explained by Ezekiel’s reference to “the likeness as the appearance of
a man” which he saw on Jehovah’s throne. (See notes on Ezekiel 1:26-28.) While the
kings of the beast kingdoms came up from the sea, this King of saints comes like
Jehovah in the storm and in the clouds (Ezekiel 1:28; Isaiah 19:1; Psalms 18:9-11).
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi explains, “If they be worthy, he [the Messiah] will come with
the clouds of heaven; if not, he will come lowly, and riding upon an ass”
(Sanhedrim, fol. 98, Colossians 1). Saadia interprets, “He comes in humility, riding
upon an ass (Zechariah 9:9), yet with the clouds of heaven, that is, with the angels of
the heavenly hosts, which is the great glory which the Creator will give the
Messiah.” (See Hebraica, 4:179, etc.)
POOLE, " One like the Son of man; that is, the Messiah: this is the same with the
stone, Da 2; he came with the clouds of heaven, Matthew 24:30, i.e. gloriously,
swiftly, and terribly, Jeremiah 4:13.
They brought him near before him: this relates to his ascension, Acts 1:9-11, at
which time, though King before, Matthew 2:2, yet now, and not before, he seems to
receive his royal investiture for the protection of his church and the curbing of their
enemies, which he says he had before, Matthew 28:18 1 Corinthians 15:25 Daniel
2:44.
PULPIT, "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
182

183. 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 its 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 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 LXX. Version of Deuteronomy
32:43 as applied by the writer of the Hebrews.
14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign
power; all nations and peoples of every language
worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting
dominion that will not pass away, and his
kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
BARNES, "And there was given him dominion - That is, by him who is
represented as the “Ancient of days.” The fair interpretation of this is, that
he received the dominion from him. This is the uniform representation in
the New Testament. Compare Mat_28:18; Joh_3:35; 1Co_15:27. The word
dominion here means rule or auhority - such as a prince exercises. He was
set over a kingdom as a prince or ruler.
And glory - That is the glory or honor appropriate to one at the head of
183

184. such an empire.
And a kingdom - That is, he would reign. He would have sovereignty. The
nature and the extent of this kingdom is immediately designated as one that
would be universal and perpetual. What is properly implied in this language
as to the question whether it will be literal and visible, will be appropriately
considered at the close of the verse. All that is necessary to be noticed here
is, that it is everywhere promised in the Old Testament that the Messiah
would be a king, and have a kingdom. Compare Psa_2:1-12; Isa_9:6-7.
That all people, nations, and languages should serve him - It would be
universal; would embrace all nations. The language here is such as would
emphatically denote universality. See the notes at Dan_3:4; Dan_4:1. It
implies that that kingdom would extend over all the nations of the earth,
and we are to look for the fulfillment of this only in such a universal reign of
the Messiah.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion ... - The others, represented by
the four beasts, would all pass away, but this would be permanent and
eternal. Nothing would destroy it. It would not have, as most kingdoms of
the earth have had, any such internal weakness or source of discord as
would be the cause of its destruction, nor would there be any external
power that would invade or overthrow it. This declaration affirms nothing
as to the form in which the kingdom would exist, but merely asserts the fact
that it would do so. Respecting the kingdom of the Messiah, to which this
undoubtedly alludes, the same thing is repeatedly and uniformly affirmed
in the New Testament. Compare Mat_16:18; Heb_12:28; Rev_11:15. The
form and manner in which this will occur is more fully developed in the
New Testament; in the vision seen by Daniel the fact only is stated.
The question now arises, What would be a fulfillment of this prediction
respecting the kingdom that will be given to the saints? What, from the
language used in the vision, should we be legitimately authorized to expect
to take place on the earth? In regard to these questions, there are but two
views which can be taken, and the interpretation of the passage must
sustain the one or the other.
(a) One is what supposes that this will be literally fulfilled in the sense
that the Son of God, the Messiah, will reign personally on earth. According
to this, he will come to set up a visible and glorious kingdom, making
Jerusalem his capital, and swaying his scepter over the world. All nations
and people will be subject to him; all authority will be wielded by his people
under him.
(b) According to the other view, there will be a spiritual reign of the Son of
God over the earth; that is, the principles of his religion will everywhere
prevail, and the righteous will rule, and the laws of the Redeemer will be
obeyed everywhere. There will be such a prevalence of his gospel on the
hearts of all - rulers and people; the gospel will so modify all laws, and
control all customs, and remove all abuses, and all the forms of evil; men
will be so generally under the influence of that gospel, that it may be said
that He reigns on the earth, or that the government actually administered is
his.
In regard to these different views, and to the true interpretation of the
184

185. passage, it may be remarked,
(1) That we are not to look for the literal fulfillment of this; we are not to
expect that what is here described will literally occur. The whole is evidently
a symbolic representation, and the fulfillment is to be found in something
that the symbol would properly denote. No one can pretend that there is to
be an actual sitting on the throne, by one in the form of an old man - “the
Ancient of days” - or that there is to be a literal coming to him by one “like
the Son of man,” to receive a kingdom. But if one part of the representation
is not to be literally interpreted, why should the other be? It may be added,
that it is nowhere said that this would literally occur.
(2) All that is fairly implied here is found in the latter interpretation. Such
a prevalence of the principles of the gospel would meet the force of the
language, and every part of the vision would find a real fulfillment in that.
(a) The fact that it proceeds from God - represented as “the Ancient of
days.”
(b) The fact that it is given by him, or that the kingdom is made over by
him to the Messiah.
(c) The fact that the Messiah would have such a kingdom; that is, that he
would reign on the earth, in the hearts and lives of men.
(d) The fact that that kingdom would be universal - extending over all
people.
(e) And the fact that it would be perpetual; that is, that it would extend
down to the end of time, or the consummation of all things here, and that it
would be then eternal in the heavens.
For a very full and ample illustration of this passage - so full and ample as
to supersede the necessity of any additional illustration here, see the notes
at Dan_2:44-45.
CLARKE, "And there was given him dominion - This also is applied to our
Lord Jesus by himself, after his resurrection, Mat_28:18.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion - Christianity shall increase, and
prevail to the end of the world. See the parallel passages in the margin.
GILL, "And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom,....
That is, a large, powerful, and glorious kingdom; not but that he had a
kingdom before, but now it will be more extensive, and appear in greater
glory: this will be fulfilled when the kingdoms of this world shall become
his, and all nations shall serve and worship him, Rev_11:15, as follows:
that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him; embrace his
Gospel, submit to his ordinances serve and worship him in every religious
duty; every people, of all nations, and of every language under heaven;
which will be the case when the everlasting Gospel will be preached to them
all with success, Rev_14:6,
185

186. his dominion is an everlasting dominion; it shall never have an end, as the
rest of the monarchies, signified by the four beasts, have had, or will have;
see Psa_14:6,
which shall not pass away; or be removed from one to another, like the
above monarchies:
and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed; or "corrupted" (z)
abolished and brought to nothing, as the said monarchies were one by
another; and, at last, all of them by the stone cut out of the mountain; see
Dan_2:44.
CALVIN, "The Prophet; confirms and explains more clearly in this verse what he
had said in the former one. For we may collect from it how the personage previously
mentioned arrived at the Ancient of days, who is God, namely, because power was
given to him. For although Christ truly ascended into heaven, (Matthew 28:18,) yet
we ought clearly to weigh the purpose of his doing so. It was to acquire the supreme
power in heaven and in earth, as he himself says. And Paul also mentions this
purpose in the first and second chapters of the Ephesians. (Ephesians 1:21;
Ephesians 2:7.) Christ left the world and ascended to the Father; first, to subdue all
powers to himself, and to render angels obedient; next, to restrain the devil, and to
protect and preserve the Church by his help, as well as all the elect of God the
Father. So, therefore, Daniel now proceeds with what he formerly said concerning
the approach of Christ to God. Thus the madness of those who argue against Christ;
being true and eternal God, because he is said to have come to the Ancient of days,
is refuted. First of all, as we have said, this is understood of the person of the
Mediator; next, all doubt is taken away when the Prophet adds, Power was given
unto him. Behold, therefore, a certain explanation. We will not say it was bestowed
with relation to his being, and being called God. It was given to him as Mediator, as
God manifest in flesh, and with respect to his human nature. We observe how well
all these things agree, when the Prophet here says, The chief power was given to
Christ We must hold therefore its reference to that manifestation, because Christ
was from the beginning the life of men, the world was created by him, and his
energy always sustained it, (John 1:4;) but power was given to him to inform us how
God reigned by means of his hand. If we were required to seek God without a
Mediator, his distance would be far too great, but when a Mediator meets us, and
offers himself to us in our human nature, such is the nearness between God and us,
that our faith easily passes beyond the world and penetrates the very heavens. For
this reason therefore, All power, honor, and kingdom was given to Christ. He adds
also, All nations shall serve him, that is, they may serve him; for the copula ought to
be translated thus, — That all nations, people, and tongues should serve him. We
have shewn how this ought properly to be understood of the commencement of the
reign of Christ, and ought not to be connected with its final close, as many
interpreters force and strain the passage. Meanwhile we must add, that the events
which the Prophet here narrates are not yet complete; but this ought to be familiar
186

187. to all the pious, for whenever the kingdom of Christ is treated of, his glory
magnificently extolled, as if it were now absolutely complete in all its parts. It is not
surprising, if according to the frequent and perpetual usage of Scripture, the
Prophet should saypower was given to Christ, to subdue all people, nations, and
languages to himself, as it is said in Psalms 110:1, — Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit
thou on my right hand, until I make thy enemies the footstool of thy feet. We see,
then, how Christ was raised to his own empire to govern his Church in the name
and with the power of his Father, while at the same time many enemies rise up
against him. Still the obstinacy of the devil and of all impious men continues,
although Christ governs heaven and earth, and is the supreme king before whom
every knee is bent. We also know how marked the difference is between the
beginning of his kingdom and its final completion. Whatever the meaning, this
vision suits very well with many assertions of Christ, where he bears witness to the
power given him by the Father. (Matthew 28:18, and elsewhere) He does not here
speak of the last judgment, but is only teaching us, the object of his ascension to
heaven.
This view the Prophet confirms by saying, his dominion is the dominion of an age,
which is mot taken away, and his kingdom can never be corrupted or abolished. For
by these words he teaches familiarly and openly, why Christ is the Supreme King,
namely, for the perpetual government of his Church in this world. We ought to look
up to heaven in very deed whenever the state of the Church is under consideration,
since its happiness is neither earthly, nor perishable, nor temporary, though nothing
sublunary is either firm or perpetual. But when the Prophet says Christ’s dominion
is eternal, he doubtless signifies the constant endurance of his monarchy, even to the
end of the world, when he shall gather his people together to a happy life and an
eternal inheritance. Although, therefore, celestial immortality is comprehended
under these words, yet in a former passage the Prophet pointed out the perpetual
existence of the Church in this world, because Christ will defend it, although daily
subject to numberless causes of destruction. And who would not assert the almost
daily perishing of the Church, if God did not wonderfully preserve it by the hand of
his only begotten Son? Hence it is correct to understand the phrase, His kingdom
shall be the kingdom of an age. And thus we receive no common consolation, when
we see the Church tossed about amidst various fluctuations, and almost buried and
devoured by continual shipwrecks, yet Christ is ever stretching forth his hand to
preserve it, and to save it from every sorrowful and horrible species of destruction.
It now follows, —
COKE, "Daniel 7:14. There was given him dominion— All these kingdoms shall in
their turns be destroyed, but the kingdom of the Messiah shall stand for ever. It was
in allusion to this prophesy that the angel said of Jesus before he was conceived in
the womb, He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there
shall be no end, Luke 1:33. After what manner these great changes will be finally
and completely effected, we cannot at present say, but in the way of conjecture. We
see the remains of the ten horns, which arose out of the Roman empire: (see on
Daniel 7:24.) we see the little horn still subsisting, though not in full strength and
187

188. vigour, but, as we hope, upon the decline, and tending fast towards a dissolution.
And, having seen so many of these particulars accomplished, we can have no reason
to doubt that the rest also will be fulfilled in due season; though we can only
conjecture at present, how Christ will be manifested in glory; how the little horn
with the body of the fourth beast, will be given to the burning flame, or how the
saints will take the kingdom, and possess it for ever. See Bishop Newton, p. 493.
BENSON, "Daniel 7:14. There was given him dominion, &c. — “All these kingdoms
shall in their turns be destroyed, but the kingdom of the Messiah shall stand for
ever. It was in allusion to this prophecy that the angel said of Jesus, before he was
conceived in the womb, Luke 1:33, He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever,
and of his kingdom there shall be no end. After what manner these great changes
will be effected, we cannot pretend to say, as God hath not been pleased to reveal it.
We see the remains of the ten horns which arose out of the Roman empire. We see
the little horn still subsisting, though not in full strength and vigour, but as we hope
upon the decline, and tending toward a dissolution. And having seen so many of
these particulars accomplished, we can have no reason to doubt that the rest also
will be fulfilled in due season; though we cannot frame any conception how Christ
will be manifested in glory; how the little horn, with the body of the fourth beast,
will be given to the burning flame; or how the saints will take the kingdom, and
possess it for ever and ever. It is the nature of such prophecies, not to be perfectly
understood till they are fulfilled. The best comment upon them will be their
completion.” — Bishop Newton.
WHEDON, "14. This prophecy could never be fulfilled by any merely Jewish king
or Jewish nation. These are the same expressions used of the kingdom of Daniel’s
God (Daniel 2:44; Daniel 4:3; Daniel 4:34; Daniel 6:26). He who has the appearance
as the likeness of a man (Ezekiel 1:26) is now seen coming in the cloud chariot of
Jehovah to take rule over the world. Dr. Terry says: “His receiving dominion and
glory and a kingdom is explained in John 5:22; John 5:27, ‘The Father hath given
all judgment unto the Son, and he gave him authority to execute judgment because
he is the Son of man;’ so too in Matthew 28:18, ‘There has been given to me all
authority in heaven and upon earth.’” It is not to be supposed that the Christian era
lay open before the author of Daniel and that he saw Jesus when he uttered these
words. The prophets often spake more wisely than they knew. That this prophecy
refers to Christ’s first coming to set up the New Testament “kingdom of heaven,”
and not to his inauguration as King after the universal Resurrection and General
Judgment, Professor Cowles has satisfactorily and thoroughly established.
PETT, "Verse 13-14
The Reception and Crowning of the Prince (Daniel 7:13-14).
188

189. ‘I was beholding in the night visions:
And behold with the clouds of heaven,
Came one like a son of man,
And he came to the ancient of days,
And they brought him near before him.
And to him was given 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 one
That will not be destroyed.’
Again there is a change of scene. Again a scene in heaven is put in poetic metre.
No indication is given of how these verses tie in timewise with the surrounding
narrative. The previous verse has indeed looked back to the ending of the first three
empires.
The vision refers to the entry of ‘one like a son of man’ into the presence of God on
His throne. As with the wild beasts ‘one like’ is dream language. In appearance he
seemed like a son of man, that is, a true man. The description is in contrast with the
beasts, who were four kings (Daniel 7:17) and also kingdoms (Daniel 7:23). Thus
unlike the previous kings who were like brute beasts this one was rational, spiritual
and moral, revealing the image of God. It too represents a king and a kingdom.
This one enters the presence of God to receive dominion, glory and a kingdom.
Later we learn that the kingdom and the dominion (but not the glory) is to be given
to the saints (holy ones) of the Most High (Daniel 7:27). Thus this ‘son of man’, this
representative of His people and of the true humanity as revealed by His people,
comes as their prince and representative to receive his due glory, and to receive the
kingdom and the dominion on their behalf. It is difficult to see how anyone could
fail to recognise that this must be the promised son of David who would come to be
prince to his people and who was to be set over the everlasting kingdom (Ezekiel
34:23-24; Ezekiel 37:24-25; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1-4; Psalms 89:3-4). (Whether we
call it Messianic or not is simply a matter of definition). And the subsequent verse
shows that He was crowned. Was He also seated on the empty throne?
189

190. ‘And behold with the clouds of heaven came one like a son of man.’ The beasts arose
out of the sea. This Man came with the clouds of heaven. The starting point of the
beasts was world tumult, mire and dirt (Isaiah 57:20; Isaiah 5:30), the starting point
of this Man was among the clouds. In Psalms 104:3 God is described as the One
Who makes the clouds His chariot (compare Isaiah 19:1), and we may see here that
He has given the use of His chariot to His chosen prince. For the One Who usually
travels with clouds is God Himself (Psalms 18:11-12; Psalms 97:2; Ezekiel 10:4
compare Deuteronomy 4:11). So while this does not necessarily here imply His full
divinity, (for that we must look elsewhere), it does imply a very special relationship
with God, and even more so when we realise that He receives an everlasting
kingdom.
‘And he came to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.’
Arriving in the heavenly court, the prince is brought into the King’s presence,
presumably by angels. And there he is given dominion, glory and a kingdom; an
everlasting dominion, an indestructible kingdom, and authority over the whole
world. Daniel 7:27 tells us that it was on behalf of his people who would share with
Him in His kingdom.
Thus one day in Daniel’s future he knew that the chosen prince of the house of
David would come into the presence of God to receive the kingdom. But it is to the
New Testament that we must turn in order to discover when, and how, and to
discover Who He really is.
That Jesus came using of Himself the title of ‘Son of man’ we know. He did so partly
as the equivalent of the Messiah without the misunderstanding that the title gave,
and partly because He was the true representative Man, the second Adam, but He
also used it to claim that He was the One Who would enter God’s presence on the
clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64 - note the ‘henceforth’) and would return again in
glory for His people, and as judge (Mark 8:38; Mark 13:26; Matthew 16:27;
Matthew 24:30).
And we are also told the time when He received His kingship. On earth He had
proclaimed that the Kingly Rule of God could be entered by all who would respond
to His words and believe in Him, but it was after His resurrection that He appeared
to His disciples and said, ‘All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth’
(Matthew 28:18), and that Peter said, ‘Let all the house of Israel therefore know
assuredly that God has made Him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus Whom you
crucified’ (Acts 2:36 compare Acts 2:33).
Stephen adds his testimony, ‘Behold I see the heavens opened and the Son of man
standing on the right hand of God’ (Acts 7:56), and Paul says, ‘For this reason also
God highly exalted Him, and gave to Him the name which is above every name --
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the
Father’ (Philippians 2:9-11), when He ‘made Him to sit at His right hand in the
190

191. heavenlies, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion’ (Ephesians
1:20-21 compare also Romans 14:9; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Peter 3:22). And
this in order that His people might be transferred out of the power (kingdom) of
darkness into the kingdom of His beloved Son (Colossians 1:13).
So this coming of the son of man with the clouds of heaven refers to the immediate
time that follows the resurrection of Christ when He received dominion and glory
and a kingdom, although it is true that its full manifestation to the world awaits His
second coming. But this was not His manifestation to the world, it was His crowning
in heaven. And Paul tells us that at that time His people received kingship along
with Him (Ephesians 2:6). Then began the destruction of the fourth wild beast,
which will finally be concluded by the brightness of His appearing (2 Thessalonians
2:8), as He comes to receive His own (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17) and renders
vengeance on ‘the wild beast’ (in the end those who believe not) in flaming fire (2
Thessalonians 1:8).
And it is at this time that His true people will finally share fully with Him the glory
of kingship (Daniel 7:27; Revelation 3:21). But as we have seen they do also receive
it in part when they become His (Ephesians 2:6), so that there are two aspects to the
revelation and crowning of the prince, and two aspects to the blessing of His people.
The first occurs when the fourth empire is still in its beginnings. But He reigns on in
heaven and it is this kingship finally revealed on earth (Revelation 19:11-16) that
will finalise the work of the smiting stone and will literally bring the fourth empire
finally crashing down.
PULPIT, "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
honour, and glory, and blessing." 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 Daniel 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 theft empire, bestows boundless empire on the Messiah
(Comp. Psalms 2:1-12. and 72.). Jeremiah's account of the state of matters on the
return from the Captivity (Jeremiah 30:21)is compared to this by Hitzig; 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.
Ecursus on The Son of Man.
191

192. 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
favourite 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; Psalms 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 שׁיִאand
םָדָא־ןֶבּ. In the Psalms we have benee adam and benee ish contrasted: Psalms 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 barenasho, 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 bareh 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) 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.
As to the question of the reference of the title, it has been doubted whether it is to be
held as applying to the Messiah, the Messianic kingdom, or to the people of Israel.
The last view is that of Hitzig and many other critics of his school. It practically
involves a denial of the truth of the idea that the Jews ever had Messianic hopes. In
the present case there is nothing to indicate any reference to Israel personified.
While there might be some plausibility in arguing from each of the four beasts
representing empires that this "Son of man" should represent an empire also; it
must be observed that in all the other cases there is a peculiarity which marks off
the animal as merely a symbol: the lion has wings; the bear has three ribs in its
teeth; the leopard has four heads and four wings; and the last, unnamed, beast has
ten heads and iron teeth. Further, this "Son of man" is brought to the Ancient of
days, and does not merely appear as do the "beasts." He has thus many of the
characteristics of a person. The other view, that the "Son of man" indicates the
Messianic kingdom, thus comes into line with the view of Hitzig. 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.
192

193. If we look at the phenomenon of prophetism, we shall find ourselves open to another
view of the matter. From 1 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 indeffiniteness, 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 Matthew 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
Sen 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. The late Professor Fuller saw reference here to the function occupied
by Silik-mooloo-Khi as mediator between Hea and mankind, and to the further
development of this in the Zoroastrian doctrine of a sosiosh, or redeemer. The fall
investigation of this is beside our present purpose.
193