Daniel 7 1 14 commentary

DANIEL 7 1-14 COMMENTARY
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

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 -
‫ראשׁ‬ 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

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

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
dream for his own use, lest he should forget it as a dream which passes
away; and he told the sum of the matters to 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 matters that 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 external political aspect, but here according to the mind of God
concerning them, and their moral features. 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 his position 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 animal nature 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 physical force
the beasts excel man, man has essentially spiritual powers.
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_8:1-9 with Gen_1:26-28. Humanity is
impossible without divinity: it sinks to bestiality (Psa_32:9; Psa_49:20;
4

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_13:8 would occur to him while viewing those
ensigns of the world power. Compare Jer_2:15; Jer_4:7; Jer_5:6.
Belshazzar — Good Hebrew manuscripts have “Belshazzar”; meaning “Bel
is to be burnt with hostile fire” (Jer_50:2; Jer_51:44). In the history he 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

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 (‫ין‬ ִ‫לּ‬ ִ‫מ‬
‫אשׁ‬ ֵ‫)ר‬ which he had seen in the dream. ‫ר‬ ַ‫ֲמ‬‫א‬, to say, to relate, is not opposed
to ‫ב‬ ַ‫ת‬ ְ‫,כּ‬ 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 - ‫מגיחן‬ 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 (‫גיח‬ 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

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

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 first beast 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

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 second beast 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 side against 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 arms in 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 this much 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. Dominion was given to 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

commanders were the great iron teeth with which they devoured and broke
in pieces the people of God, and they trampled upon the residue of them.
The ten horns are then supposed to be ten kings that reigned successively in
Syria; and then the little horn is 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. Babylon did not border on the
Mediterranean, nor rule Jerusalem, till Nebuchadnezzar’s time, when both
things took place simultaneously. Persia encircled more of this sea, namely,
from the Hellespont to Cyrene. Greece did 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 all the Mediterranean.
K&D 2-3, "With Dan_7:2 Daniel begins his written report: “Daniel began
and said,” introduces the matter. ‫ֵי‬‫ו‬ְ‫ז‬ ֶ‫ח‬ ‫ָא‬‫י‬ ְ‫יל‬ ֵ‫ם־ל‬ ִ‫,ע‬ visions in (during) the
night, cf. Dan_2:19. Dan_7:2 and Dan_7:3 describe 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) ‫ַגּמא‬‫י‬ ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ is explained by ‫א‬ָ‫ע‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫א‬ ‫ן‬ ִ‫.מ‬ ַ‫יח‬ִ‫גּ‬
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

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_7:6 and Dan_7:7 teach, 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 kingdoms is not to be dealt with, as many
interpreters seem inclined to do, as one only of different kings of 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

Daniel 7 1 14 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Daniel 7 1 14 commentary

Similar to Daniel 7 1 14 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (18)

Daniel 7 1 14 commentary