Predictive prophecy Part four
Daniel chapter 7:1-28
A Vision of Four Beasts, the Ancient of Days, and the Son of Man: The Conflict of Christ and Antichrist.
Three important changes begin in this chapter. Up to chapter 7 the material is mainly historical. Henceforth it is mainly predictive. Heretofore Daniel has been God's agent in revelation, interpreting others' dreams. Hereafter, an angel interprets Daniel's own dreams and visions (7:16; 8:15-17; 9:20-23; 10:10-14). Heretofore the author has reported in the third person; hereafter he writes in the first, giving a much more intimate report of his experiences.
A transition from prophecy centered in Gentile nations to Jewish-centered prophecy takes place with the entrance of the "holy people" (rendered "saints" vv. 18,22,25). The Jews are the center of interest to the book's end.
The same succession of kingdoms that was found in chapter 2 appears here-four Gentile empires, then the kingdom of Messiah. The view that chapter 7 describes only events in the Mediterranean area at the close of this present age is ably set forth by G. H. Lang (The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel) in premillennial perspective.
The view that the four kingdoms are
(1) Babylon,
(2) Medo-Persia,
(3) Greece,
(4) the Greek successors of Alexander,
(5) Messiah's kingdom.
Messiah's kingdom is defended in reverent but non-millennial perspective by Moses Stuart (Commentary on Daniel) and in reverent amillennial perspective by the Roman Catholic work of C. Lattey (The Book of Daniel). After the usual historical setting (v. 1), there follow details of a series of visions (vv. 2-14,21,22), the new method of interpreting dreams and visions (vv. 15, 16), the interpretation (vv. 17-20, 23-27), and a concluding personal statement (v. 28).
1) Historical Setting. 7:1.
1. The first year of Belshazzar. About fourteen years before the events of chapter 5. It is likely that Babylonian weakness was already beginning to show through. Dream and visions. Not always clearly distinguished. Dreams are experiences in sleep; visions may occur in a waking condition, or, as here, may be successive "scenes" or stages in a dream. Then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters. He recorded it immediately (then or thereupon, or at that time, as the Aramaic 'edayin prefixed by b emphatically requires). It was written, contrary to current oral-transmission-of-prophecy theories (see Isa 30:8; cf. 8:1,16; Hab 2:2; Rev 1:19; 14:13; 21:5). It was a summary only, for the sum (Aram. head) or substance of the material was recorded. Similar use of Hebrew ro'shappears at Psa 119:16 (sum, ASV) and 137:6 (chief). (See Stuart, Comm., in loco).
- Details of the Visions. 7:2-14,21,22.
2. The four winds of the heaven. Usage elsewhere indicates that the winds represent God's providential power by which he controls the nations, setting them in commotion or settling them in peace (Rev 7:1-3; Jer 23:19; 49:36; 51:1; Zec 6:1-6, 7:14). Ruah may be rendered either "spirit" or "wind," and is here purposely ambiguous. (Note further Dan 4:17; 1Ti 2:1,2.) Jerome thought the winds represented angels. Upon the great sea. Not just any sea, the Mediterranean.
3. Four great beasts came up from the sea. Hence, the beasts, later described, are connected with the Mediterranean area. Likewise, as the prophetic, symbolical use of "sea" indicates, they arise with turmoil, unrest, boisterous talk, etc., diverse one from another. The beasts represent nations and each nation has its own special characteristics, though all share in common their brutal, irrational, bestial character. How different this inward view of the prophet from the glittering dignity of the pagan Nebuchadnezzar's dream image!
4. The lion symbolizes Babylon here and also in Jer 4:6,7. The eagle's wings speak of swiftness, as the lion of strength. These are natural symbols scarcely needing explanation,
(cf. 2Sa 1:23; Jer 49:19-22; Eze 17:3-24).
5. The bear is an apt symbol of the Medo-Persian kingdom. Strength and ferocity figure in almost every Biblical use of the bear. The ponderous bulk fits the massive Persian armies.
Xerxes is said to have moved two and one-half million men to attack Greece. Duality may be suggested by reference to the beast's side.
6. The sinewy four-winged leopard speaks, without doubt, of Alexander's Grecian (Macedonian) kingdom.
The four heads of the leopard represent the four generals that served under Alexander.
- DIVISION OF ALEXANDER’S EMPIRE AFTER HIS DEATH
Daniel had no ne to leave is kingdom to at his death so instead of one successor his kingdom was assumed by four generals who succeeded Alexander: Antigonus, Cassander, Ptolemy, and Seleucus.
After Alexander died, his empire was divided among the four generals. These generals spent 40 years fighting among themselves before three main dynasties merged:
1) the Antigonids of Asia Minor and Greece, a region referred to as Macedon;
2) the Ptolemies in Egypt (which included Cleopatra); The Ptolemies — the Macedonian-Greek dynasty founded by Ptolemy I — was arguably the most successful of the post-Alexander kingdoms. It ruled Egypt for more than 300 years. There were 15 Ptolemic leaders and they ruled from 332 B.C. to 30 B.C. from Alexandria. Cleopatra was the last of Ptolemies. When she died in 30 B.C., Romans took over territory formally controlled by the Ptolemies.
3) and the Selecuids, who occupied a stretch of land that extended from present-day Syria and Lebanon to Persia.
Seleucus, one of these generals, who became ruler of Babylon in 312 B.C., gradually reconquered most of Iran. Under Seleucus's son, Antiochus I, many Greeks entered Iran, and Hellenistic motifs in art, architecture, and urban planning became prevalent.
The Egyptian portion of Alexander’s kingdom was ultimately claimed by Ptolemy I, a Macedonian general and friend of Alexander since his early days. He served with Alexander from his first campaigns, and was the first ruler of the Ptolemy dynasty.
He played a principal part in the campaigns in Afghanistan and India and participated in the Battle of Issus, commanding troops on the left wing under the authority of Parmenion. He accompanied Alexander during his journey to the Oracle in the Siwa Oasis and commanded the campaign that captured the rebel Bessus. During Alexander's campaign in the Indian subcontinent, Ptolemy was in command of the advance guard at the siege of Aornos and fought at the Battle of the Hydaspes River. [Source: Wikipedia]
It took almost two generations of war for Ptolemies, the Seleucids and the Antigonid kings of Macedon to archieve a sustainable political and military balance. By this time Athens had faded as a political force, but Pergamum, Rhodes, Delos, Pontus on the Black Sea were all independent rising powers. Bactrian Greek rulers broke away from the Seleucid empire around 240 B.C. and held Afghanistan and parts of northwestern Pakistan and India and Central Asia for over a hundred years. The Parthians, whose era began in 247 B.C. were beginning to build up their power, which was to stretch from the Euphrates to the Indus.
As in chapter 2, the fourth stage of empire is Roman. Since this kingdom must prevail until the destruction of Antichrist (the little horn) and the establishment of the eternal, final, visible kingdom of Christ (cf. Rev 19:11-20:4), it must be regarded as prevailing today. Rulership passed from Nineveh (Assyria) to Babylon in 612 B.C.; from Babylon to Persia in 539 B.C., and from Darius III to Alexander in 331 B.C. 7,8.
The ten-fold form of the final stage, perhaps suggested by the ten toes of chapter 2, is clearly taught here and confirmed by Rev 17:3ff. Later in the chapter the little horn is identified with final Antichrist. 9-14.
This throne scene is fully elaborated in Revelation, chapters 4-20. Evidently the five verses of Daniel cover the same ground as the seventeen chapters of Revelation. It is a judgment scene wherein the Ancient of days, none other than "the high and lofty One that inhabits eternity" (Isa 57:15) takes possession of the earth's kingdoms through the Son of man, a name our Lord clearly claimed for himself (Mat 24:30). The dramatic action whereby the beast's kingdom is violently taken away fits the many Biblical predictions of the manner in which our Lord will judge the nations at the close of this age. 21,22.
Though separated by details of interpretation (vv.15-20), these two verses belong to the vision itself rather than to the interpretation. The saints of the most High ... the saints possessed the kingdom. Nothing is more sure than that all saints of all ages will share in Christ's ultimate triumph in his kingdom.
But this passage is affirming only a part of that truth. The perspective of the book, the meaning of the words, and the context here limit the application to Daniel's people, Israel, clearly identified in 10:14 (the equivalent Hebrew expression is used). "By the 'people of the saints of the Most High' to whom dominion is to be given (Dan 7:18-27), Daniel evidently could only understand the people of Israel, as distinguished from the heathen nation and kingdoms, which were to rule up till then (2:44); nor have we, according to strict exegesis, a right to apply the expression to any other nation; hence we cannot apply it immediately to the Church ... The prophet's words refer to the re-establishment of the kingdom to Israel" (C. A. Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John, pp. 216, 217).
3) The Method of Interpretation. 7:15,16.
Very strangely, an angel who is himself a part of the vision but likewise a real personal being, later identified as Gabriel, becomes the interpreter here and throughout the remainder of the book (cf. 8:16; 9:21). Though treated briefly by Daniel, this is an important feature.
4) Interpretation of the Visions. 7:17-20, 23-27.
Except as noted in remarks at the beginning of this chapter, it is generally agreed that the succession of four Gentile dominions to be followed by the Messianic kingdom is the same here as that contemplated in chapter 2. But beginning at verse 19, the prophecy advances far beyond the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, to give details of prediction concerning final Antichrist and the relations the people of God will have with him in eschatological times.
19 I would know the truth of the fourth beast. This beast is of special interest because it produces the "little horn," Antichrist, and is the final form of Gentile dominion (see vv. 23-25 and cf. comments on 2:40-43).
20. And of the ten horns. See verse 24. Ten kings shall arise in the final stage of the fourth (Roman) kingdom and shall reign contemporaneously (not successively; cf. Rev 17:12ff. as further explanation). Of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth, etc. All interpreters-Jewish, Christian, unbelievers-agree that this is Antichrist. Rationalists who say this was written in the Maccabean era insist that he is Antiochus Epiphanes (about 165 B.C.) and that our author, though mistaken, thought the Messianic kingdom would follow immediately.
Daniel 7:24-26. Note herein twelve facts about Antichrist:
(1) He will not create a tenfold confederacy; he will absorb one (v. 24).
(2) He will be just another king-"another ... horn" (v. 8), and he will be mortal (Rev 13:2; 2Th 2:9). It will be the Satanic power behind him that will make him significant.
(3) He will be obscure at first-"little" (Dan 7:8).
(4) His march to power will begin with his conquest of three kingdoms (v. 8; cf. v. 24).
(5) Yet something about him will be special (diverse from the first (ten), v. 24). See Rev 13:15; 2Th 2:4. Many extraordinary events will be connected with him (Rev 13:16,17; 2Th 2:9,10).
(6) He will be very intelligent-"eyes of a man" (Dan 7:8).
(7) He will be an orator of ability (v. 8).
(8) His appearance will be striking (v. 20; cf. Isa 53:2,3).
(9) He will be a blasphemer (Dan 7:25; cf. Rev 13:5,6).
(10) He will seek to make his accession a new epoch (Dan 7:25, change times).
11) He will seek to destroy Israel (v. 25a; cf. 9:26,27).
(12) His time will be short (v. 25), a time, (two) times, and the dividing (half) of time (cf.Rev 11:2; 13:5; Dan 9:25; 12:7-12).
Evidence for a Premillennial View Herein:
(1) Messiah's kingdom follows Antichrist's appearance (here described in personal rather than institutional terms), and destruction. The person has not yet appeared. This appears to make post- and a-millennial schemes identifying the Church with the Kingdom unfeasible
(2) The kingdom of Messiah here follows the Gentile kingdoms; it is at no time contemporary with them. It must, therefore, be still future.
3) The kingdom of Christ succeeds a final form of Gentile dominion which has not yet appeared.
(4) The Messianic kingdom is external in aspect here, not a kingdom in men's hearts, as Church-Kingdom theories require.
(5) This kingdom is in some sense Israelitish (cf. vv. 7,22,25,27 with 8:24). The "saints" or holy people referred to here are Israel and no other. The Church is not a Jewish kingdom.
