Daniel 7

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. Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven brake forth upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand upon two feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in his mouth between his teeth: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, terrible and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgement was set, and the books were opened. I beheld at that time because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and he was given to be burned with fire. And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. As for me Daniel, my spirit was grieved in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. Then I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was diverse from all of them, exceeding terrible, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; and concerning the ten horns that were on his head, and the other horn which came up, and before which three fell; even that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the ancient of days came, and judgement was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all the kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And as for the ten horns, out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise: and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the former, and he shall put down three things. And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High: and he shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time. But the judgement shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom is an ever-28 lasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. Here is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me, and my countenance was changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.

Chap. 7. In point of chronology this chapter comes between chap. 4 and 5. Years had elapsed between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and “the first year of Belshazzar;” years pregnant with those political convulsions which broke forth—so far as Babylonia was concerned—during the joint reign of Nabonadius and his son; years of silence and patient waiting on the part of the aging prophet. Daniel, in the comparative obscurity and retirement which was probably his lot, had not been a politician, a courtier, a man, had he not been keenly alive to the stirring events around him; he had not been the God-fearing, prayerful, trustful Israelite, had he not seen in them the probable results which should bring in “the kingdom of the saints of the Most High” (verse 18). The prophetic visions which commence with this chapter reflect both this natural and spiritual coloring. Full of remembrances of the dreams recorded in chaps. 2 and 4, they show the marked impression those dreams had made upon him both as a young and middle-aged man. If they are marked by a symbolism and imagery more striking than that of Ezekiel, it is one which modern research has shown to be probable, in accordance with the teaching and training of the “schools,” and impossible to a writer unfamiliar with what is here described. B. C.

What did God do in order to give Daniel an idea of the four phases through which the history of mankind was to pass before the coming of the Messiah? Did He give him an historical lecture upon the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Medes and Persians, the Greeks and Romans? No, He caused to pass before him five pictures or images, of which the remembrance remained indelible—a winged lion, symbol of the Babylonish power; a bear, with slow and heavy tread, emblem of the Persian majesty; a leopard with four heads, traversing the earth as on the wing, the visible representation of the Alexandrian monarchy, so rapidly founded, so speedily divided into four distinct States; then lastly, a monster with nothing corresponding to him in the terrestrial creation, trampling and devouring everything that comes in its way, image of the Roman empire, that State which has borne no resemblance to anything before known, and which absorbed everything into itself; and finally, as the last of these apparitions, the form of a Son of Man coming upon the clouds, emblem of the only really human power, of the love which comes down from heaven to found here below the kingdom of liberty and of truth. This is the manner in which God teaches history when He thinks good to make it known beforehand to His servants the prophets. He does not discuss, He does not catechise, He pictures. This method has the double advantage of making its appeal to man in his whole being, consequently not perverting the nature of faith, and of not rendering science superfluous by anticipating its future labors. All the researches of historians, all the discoveries of the investigators of ruins and of buried palaces, instead of being made useless by such revelation, only serve to make more exact, and to enrich the pictures by means of which it was accomplished. Godet.

This chapter gives the second of the four great prophecies of Daniel—a vision obviously in very close analogy with that of chap. 2: 31-45, and in partial parallel with that of chap. 8, and also that of chaps. 10-12. The prophet sees in succession four great beasts, the last of which has ten horns and ultimately an eleventh (verses 2-8); he then sees the fourth beast judged and slain (verses 9-11); next “one like a Son of Man,” receiving his eternal kingdom (verses 13, 14); finally, he asks and obtains an interpretation of this vision, especially of the fourth beast and his horns (verses 15-28). H. C.

2. The third person is used through the first six chapters of Daniel, and at the opening of the seventh. The first then takes its place to the end of chap. 9. The third recurs in the first verse of chap. 10, after which the first is used uninterruptedly. Thucydides begins his history in the third person, but changes to the first after a few chapters. In Book IV, he resumes the third. In Book V., chap. 26, he begins in the third, but runs on into the first, which he again uses in Book VIII., chap. 97. G.R. 2.3. The elements of nature in commotion symbolize convulsions in the political elements. These four great beasts come forth from the agitated sea, manifestly in succession, to denote succession in the order of time in the great empires of which they are the symbols. H.C. 4. The first was like a lion. This is the kingdom of the Babylonians; and the king of Babylon is in like manner compared to a lion by Jeremiah (chap. 4:7), and is said to fly as an eagle (chap. 48 : 40) ; and he is also compared to an eagle by Ezekiel (chap. 17 : 3, 12). The lion is esteemed the king of beasts and the eagle the king of birds ; and therefore the kingdom of Babylon, which is described as the first and noblest kingdom, and was the kingdom then in being, is said to partake of the nature of both. “The eagle’s wings” denote its swiftness and rapidity ; and the conquests of Babylon were very rapid—that empire being advanced to the height within a few years by a single person, by the conduct and arms of Nebuchadnezzar. Bp. Newton.

“Winged lions,” “winged bulls,” and even human figures with wings extending from the shoulders, have been disinterred in considerable numbers from the ruins of Nineveh within the present century, affording remarkable proof that these conceptions in this vision of Daniel, and also in Ezekiel (chap. 1) and elsewhere, are fully in keeping with the popular ideas and the artistic usages of the people living in the valley of the Euphrates during the age of these prophets. Moreover, the lion and the eagle were then, as now, symbols of royalty, figuring conspicuously in the memorial arms of sovereigns. So this first beast is a lion with eagle’s wings. As Daniel continued to study this beast, lo, a change comes over him. His wings are plucked ; he is lifted up to stand erect as a man, and a man’s heart is given him. This change is not from brutal to human intelligence, but from the brute force and resistless ferocity of the lion and the eagle to the comparative physical weakness of the man. The Chaldean empire is fast waning to its fall. Its glory has departed ; its pristine vigor has gone. The first three of these symbols—the lion, the bear, and the leopard—correspond so perfectly with the first three divisions of the great image—the head, the breast and arms, and the belly and thighs—that there is no occasion to raise any question for further explanation. It is not distinctly affirmed here that these beasts come forward in succession, each supplanting its predecessor. Yet it is very manifest that these beasts do follow each other in regular succession. The first has had great power, but is now seen shorn of it and ready to be vanquished. The second in its time is a devourer of nations ; to the third “dominion is given.” No other view can reasonably be taken of these beasts considered as great national powers, except that they sway the empire of the world successively—each being for his time supreme on the field of their location. H. C.

5. It had three ribs in the mouth. This was its booty or prey. Of the many interpretations which had been given, the most satisfactory are those which understand by these “three ribs” either a round number or the chief conquests of Cyrus—Lydia (and the kingdoms of Asia Minor), Bactria (and the vast tract between the Caspian and the Indus), and Babylonia. These kingdoms were grasped with a grasp as tenacious as that with which the bear would hold its prey between its fangs. Yet were these not to be the only conquests of the Medo-Persian power : “Arise, devour,” etc., was at once a charge and a prophecy which reached its climax in the mighty victories of the great Darius. B. C.

6. This beast, all commentators agree, is the Grecian empire of Alexander—winged to denote the velocity of its armies and the rapidity of its conquests. “Dominion given to it,” almost drops the figure of a beast, to give us in literal phrase the history of this power. Correspondingly the passage (chap. 2 : 39) has it, “Another third kingdom of brass which shall bear rule over all the earth.” H. C.

Another, like a leopard. This is the kingdom of the Macedonians or Grecians, who, under the command of Alexander the Great, overcame the Persians and reigned next after them. The leopard is remarkable for its swiftness (see Hab. 1 : 8) and for the impetuosity with which it springs upon its prey ; and Alexander and the Macedonians were amazingly swift and rapid in their conquests. This rapidity is further intimated by the “four wings on the back” of the beast. The Babylonian empire was represented with two wings, but this with four ; for, as Jerome saith, nothing was swifter than the victories of Alexander. The “four heads” of the beast denote the four kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander was divided at his death by his four captains—Cassander reigning over Macedon and Greece, Lysimachus over Thrace and Bithynia, Ptolemy over Egypt, and Seleucus over Syria.

7. This fourth kingdom can be no other than the Roman empire, which was “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly,” beyond any of the former kingdoms. It was “diverse from all kingdoms,” not only in its republican form of government, but likewise in strength, and power, and greatness, length of duration and extent of dominion. “It devoured, and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it ;” it reduced Macedon into a Roman province about one hundred and sixty-eight years, the kingdom of Pergamus about one hundred and thirty-three years, Syria about sixty-five years, and Egypt about thirty years before Christ. And besides the remains of the Macedonian empire, it subdued many other provinces and kingdoms, so that it might by a very usual figure be said to “devour the whole earth, and to tread it down and break it in pieces;” and became in a manner what the Roman writers delighted to call it, the empire of the whole world.

It had ten horns. Another remarkable property of this fourth beast is that “it had ten horns;” and, according to the angel’s interpretation (verse 24), “the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings” or kingdoms “that shall arise.” “Four kings” a little before (verse 17) signified four kingdoms; and so here “ten kings” are ten kingdoms, according to the usual phraseology of Scripture. We must look for these kingdoms amid the broken pieces of the Roman empire, represented under the fourth beast. The Roman empire was, by means of the incursions of the northern nations, dismembered into ten kingdoms, and Machiavel hath given us their names: (1) the Ostrogoths in Mæsia; (2) the Visigoths in Pannonia; (3) the Sueves and Alans in Gascoigne and Spain; (4) the Vandals in Africa; (5) the Franks in France; (6) the Burgundians in Burgundy; (7) the Heruli and Turingi in Italy; (8) the Saxons and Angles in Britain; (9) the Huns in Hungary; (10) the Lombards, at first upon the Danube, afterward in Italy. Bp. Newton.

The names of these ten kingdoms have been enumerated by several writers of the most respectable authority; and the few variations in their accounts may be readily explained from the confusion and uncertainty of the times of which they wrote. It is enough for us, and an illustrious verification of the prophecies of holy Scripture, that such a partition was noticed long before by Daniel; and that among other particularities mentioned as incident to the fourth beast, this of ten horns springing all together from its head was recorded as one; and that these horns were expressly interpreted to mean ten kings or kingdoms. Bp. Halifax.

In the ten horns we recognize at the first glance the ten toes of the second chapter. They are introduced merely to show (verse 8) how an cleventh has sprung up in their midst, a king in whom the full haughty hatred and rebellion of the world against God, His people, and His service, finds its representative. In the seventh chapter the distinction between iron and clay is omitted; in the second chapter there is no mention of this anti-Christian ruler of the world. In this description of the last monarchy the disdistinct and individual character of the two visions is most clearly manifested in the peculiar features to which each of them gives prominence. Auberlen.

8. Behold, there came up among them another little horn.** In all the several respects which the prophet notices, the Pope fully answers the character of the “little horn;” so that if exquisite fitness of application may assure us of the true sense of the prophecy we can have no doubt concerning the person. He is here called “a little horn;” and the power of the popes was originally very small, and their temporal dominions were little and inconsiderable in comparison with others of the ten horns. Bp. Newton.

Before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots. Three of the ten kingdoms—viz., those of the Heruli, the Ostrogoths and the Lombards, were successively plucked up or eradicated before the little horn, in the way of which they stood; and by the annexation of their dominions to the papacy, the Pope became also a temporal power. Hence he assumed the three keys in his arms, and the triple crown or mitre as a temporal prince; and “his look was more stout than his fellows,” whom he frequently awed by his anathemas and excommunications. Dr. Hales.

9. “Till the thrones are set up”—i.e., put in place to be occupied by the Ancient of Days. Instances of the usage are to be seen in Jer. 1: 15 and in Rev. 4: 2. The thrones were erected in the same manner and for the same purpose as in the thrilling vision of John, recorded in the Apocalypse: “I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away” (20: 11). Chambers.

9,10. The Ancient of Days upon the throne of judgment.** This portion of Daniel’s vision seems to indicate successive periods of duration. This we infer from the repeated use of the expression, “I beheld.” The word “thrones” refers, not to the empires whose history had just been outlined, but to the seats of judgment which were now firmly placed or established preparatory to use. These thrones were arranged for those spiritual beings who in the Apocalypse are represented as taking part with the Supreme Being in the exercise of judgment. References to this we find in the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Epistles.

There are points of similarity in the details of the vision of Daniel and that of Ezekiel. Both were familiar with the titles of the Chaldean gods and the peculiar modes of representing the attributes of these gods. The expression “an Ancient of Days,” here employed by Daniel, was one of these Chaldean titles. As used by him, it refers to Jehovah. As here described, the seeming was as of an aged man with white garments, indicating purity; with shining hair, a symbol of lasting existence; upon a throne (of fiery flame), represented as a movable chariot, with wheels whose movement threw out flashes as of fire. Similar symbols are employed by Ezekiel, first chapter. There we find Jehovah appearing upon a throne which rests upon a platform upheld by living creatures, strangely associated with living wheels and with the symbol of fire. Both prophets simply narrate a vision of symbols, not realities.

Corresponding with the river of water of life in Rev. 22, a fiery stream is here described as issuing forth from the throne of God. B.—Fire and the shining of fire are the constant phenomena of the manifestation of God in the world, as the earthly elements most fitting for the representations of the burning zeal with which the holy God not only punishes and destroys sinners, but also purifies and renders glorious His own people. Keil.

As in the Revelation also (chap. 5), an innumerable multitude, ready for active ministry, is here represented as surrounding the throne. And similarly, too, here we behold the judgment set—i.e., the judges upon their thrones; and the books in which were the materials upon which the judgment should be based. But with these naturally similar symbols and surroundings, the parallel ends. B.

9. We know that “when we shall be like ‘God,’ we shall see Him as He is.” God, we may be certain, sits on no throne, neither is He borne along on wheels. In His essence God is not to be conceived as He appeared to His prophet and holy men of old. By them He is described under various forms, in order that men, to whom He willed to give some sign of His presence, should be drawn to Him. Calvin.

9-14. Verses 9 and 10 disclose, in a sublime symbolic picture, the fact of a universal Divine judgment in continuous process of execution against nations in this world. This process is definitely applied in verse 11 to the kingdom of the fourth beast, and in retrospect, in verse 12, to the previous three kingdoms, while in the 13th and 14th verses the Messiah appears before the enthroned Deity, and to Him is assigned a final, universal and everlasting dominion in earth and heaven. This seems to exhaust the meaning of the whole passage, which therefore seems to have no direct reference to the final general judgment as distinguished from providential judgments in time. B.

Taking the main points of this passage in the order in which they stand, we have: (a) The Almighty God enthroned. Correspondingly in other Hebrew theophanies; Isaiah (6: 1) “saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up.” Micaiah (1 K. 22: 19) “saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left.” The psalmist (11: 4, 6) writes, “The Lord’s throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids try the children of men. . . . Upon the wicked He will rain fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest,” etc. “His garments white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool,” has its analogy in the Apocalypse (1: 14). “His head and His hairs were white like wool, as white as snow.” Age is venerable; its incidents are clustered upon this personage to bespeak for Him reverence and homage. He is “the Ancient of Days.” (b) This throne is on wheels, and has the aspect of fire and flame. So in Ezek. 1. The visible glory of Jehovah appears upon a throne, which itself reposes upon a “firmament” or elevated platform, supported by four living creatures, who are singularly connected with living wheels. Here also is the aspect of fire. “As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps; it went up and down among the living creatures, and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning” (Ezek. 1: 13). (c) Fire issues forth from God to devour His enemies. Here in Daniel, “A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him.” So Ps. 50: 5, “Our God shall come, a fire shall devour before Him; it shall be very tempestuous round about Him.” And Ps. 97: 3, “A fire goeth before Him and burneth up His enemies round about.” In David’s glowing description of the Lord’s coming to his aid against his foes (Ps. 18: 8) we read: “There went up a smoke out of His nostrils; fire out of His mouth devoured.” So also Moses (De. 5: 24), “For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.” So in Heb. 12: 29, “For our God is a consuming fire.” The fire sent on Sodom seems to have been a standing type or model of God’s judgments on corrupt nations, and to have supplied the figures of speech to express this idea. In Isa. 34: 9, 10, the allusion to that model is specially palpable. Of Idumea the prophet said,

“The streams thereof shall be turned into pitch and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever.” Hence fire became the usual symbol to denote the judgments which the Lord in His providence brings upon guilty nations in time, of which fact it may suffice to quote but one more passage (Isa. 66:15, 16): “For behold the Lord will come with fire and with His chariots like a whirlwind, to render His anger with fury and His rebuke with flames of fire; for by fire and by His sword will the Lord plead with all flesh; and the slain of the Lord shall be many.” The reader may add Mal. 4:1, 3. (d) Thousands of attendant ministering angels. Here it stands: “Thousand thousands ministered unto Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.” The fact that they ministered to Him shows them to be, not culprits at His bar, but servants awaiting His command. To “stand before Him” is also the customary attitude of His attendant angels. Not in the final judgment alone, but wherever the Lord appears in His glory and majesty and lets men see the realities of the spiritual world, angels are seen about Him as His executive agents. Micaiah saw all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left (1 K. 22:19). When on Sinai there “went forth from the Lord’s right hand a fiery law for them” (De. 33:2), “He came with ten thousand of saints,” holy ones; said by the psalmist (68:17) to have been “thousands of angels.” Zech. 14:5 has the same feature: “There comes the Lord my God! All the holy ones are with Thee.” (e) The forms of a judicial tribunal. The close analogy between the judicial proceedings of human courts and of the Divine, accounts most amply for these allusions. Thus Daniel: “The judgment was set and the books were opened;” and verse 26, “The judgment shall sit.” So elsewhere in those cases where the Lord comes down for the judgment of wicked nations. Ps. 50 is a case where the Lord “calls to the heavens from above and to the earth, that He may judge His people, for God is judge Himself.” Joel 3 is wholly in this strain. “Let the heathen be wakened and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat; for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.” I am not aware that any other Hebrew theophany save this of Daniel introduces the symbol of “the books” as witnessing records against the ungodly, but there is surely no reason for assuming that this symbol can be used of no other judgment than that at the end of the world. All the rest of these symbols are used, elsewhere than in Daniel, to denote the visitations of Divine judgment on guilty nations in time. (f) Let me add that this destruction of the fourth beast and his horns must correspond with the stone smiting the great image upon his feet of iron and clay (chap. 2:34, 35). As this smiting was a judgment in time, so is the judgment in the verses before us. H. C.

The judgment from heaven is connected with the end of the four universal monarchies and the destruction of antichrist. This alone suffices to show that the judgment here spoken of is not the last judgment; for at the last judgment there will be neither beast, nor kingdom, nor antichrist upon earth, but heaven and earth will then have passed away. Roos.—The judgment in question is to take place after the monarchies described shall have existed, and after the little horn, or papal power, shall have prevailed in the earth. That the reference is not to the final judgment, or, what is more emphatically called the “last day,” is evident, because here God the Father is said to occupy that judicial station which, in the New Testament, is universally ascribed to the Son; and because it is not the judgment of individuals, as when “small and great shall appear before God,” but of nations and of the great anti-Christian power. We must bear in continual recollection that this is a vision, that the circumstances are the decorative arrangements of a court of justice, and of the Jewish council in particular; and that, therefore, like all hieroglyphic symbols, all scriptural allusions to the personal appearance, the form, the countenance, or the hands, arm and feet of the Almighty, it is a figurative adumbration of the great reality of a just, final and awful retribution that awaits anti Christian nations. F. A. Cox.

11, 12. Successive judgments upon the beasts. Although the description of the judgment referred to here has many correspondences with the final and general judgment referred to in the Apocalypse, it is yet a wholly different one. The subjects of the judgment in Daniel’s vision are definitely described. They are the beasts or empires, whose history is outlined in the vision. The introductory and accompanying characteristics of the general judgment are wanting; and the Judge, in this special judgment, is the Eternal Father. It is a providential judgment, with limitation of its award to this world; a judgment upon nations as such, collectively, not a judgment that separates individuals of all nations into two great masses, and pronounces a changeless and enduring award upon each according to personal character.

Of the two interpretations respecting the “beast” or fourth kingdom, it would seem that the older and the more widely received, whatever difficulties properly belong to it, has yet a far stronger basis than the modern theory. A fatal objection to the latter appears to be this: that in a broad scheme of providential events, impliedly covering the whole series of world empires, that empire which was widest, grandest, and mightiest of all is utterly unmentioned and ignored. And the strange, strong figures, descriptive of the fourth kingdom, which admirably depict the wondrous history of the Roman empire, the modern view refers to persons and events of comparative insignificance. B.

The fourth kingdom is represented as “diverse from all that were before it,” and as “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly,” having “great iron teeth,” and devouring and breaking in pieces and stamping the residue with its feet, as it is also represented in chap. 2 by two great iron legs. This description is not at all applicable to the empire of the successors of Alexander, which, so far from being diverse from all that went before it, was merely a continuation of the Greek dominion which preceded it, and was at no time terrible, having only, in its integrity, a brief continuance of twenty years of confusion and weakness; and the cruelties of a king of a single one of the fragments of the empire does not accord with the representation of the prophet, that the empire before its division would be terrible and strong, like legs of iron, but the prophet’s description does apply to the Roman empire, which was entirely diverse from all the empires which preceded it, being the empire of a different race and a different civilization, and was terribly strong and fierce, trampling down with its armies all that opposed it, ruling with an iron sceptre, and destroying and stamping in pieces, as is illustrated in its treatment of Carthage and Jerusalem. Anon.

11. The “horn” referred to here is the “little horn” which was to spring up in the midst of the “ten horns” or kingdoms, into which the “beast” here spoken of (the fourth empire) would be broken up. B.

There was to spring up in the midst of the ten horns a “little horn,” politically and physically small, but, from its pretensions and its assumptions, terrible and influential. This little horn was to pull down three of the ten horns. It should be “a horn,” having political power, but should have eyes for seeing or superintending. It was also to have a mouth, speaking great things; a preacher of proud pretensions, or a doctor of despotic law. As another feature, it was to uproot three out of the ten kingdoms. Every feature of the prophecy is met and embodied in the history of the papal power. The three kingdoms that were rooted up by this little horn were the three kingdoms of the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and the Lombards, who were, after a succession of troubles, rooted up by the papacy, and constituted into the States of the Church; and the Pope wears upon his head at this very moment the tiara, or three-crowned cap, to denote the three kingdoms or horns which he rooted up, and over which he now reigns. Of the prediction that “he will make war with the saints,” the whole history of Europe is painfully conclusive evidence. Cumming.

The “great words which the horn spake” (verse 11) were haughty, blasphemous, tyrannous and persecuting words. The verse only intimates a judgment on this horn, while it predicts a destroying judgment against the fourth empire, of whose divisions it formed a part. “Concerning the rest of the beasts,” the other three world empires, Daniel further intimates the judgment of the enthroned “Ancient of Days”—that their nationalities and the results of their influence should continue for an undefined period after their sovereignty had ceased.

13,14. The Son of Man receives universal and everlasting dominion. When we note these clear, definite statements, we are not surprised at the agreement of all Jewish and Christian writers respecting their reference and meaning. This expression, “Son of Man,” used here by Daniel, is employed many times by Ezekiel. Daniel saw, not a “Son of Man,” but “one like a Son of Man;” no symbolic animal forms such as came before in the vision, typifying and representing mere human elements and forces concentrated in separate and successive empires, but a personal superhuman being, though in human form, coming not as the beasts from the earth, but appearing in the clouds of heaven, ensphered in the only known symbol of Deity—this personal being Daniel beheld coming to and standing beside the Ancient of Days. Two distinct persons of the Godhead are here clearly disclosed—the Eternal Father and the Eternal Son. And from this expression of Daniel was taken, of purpose, the title which Christ appropriated to Himself, and which His apostles never used concerning Him, Son of Man—a title which He used to emphasize the great fact of His humanity, upon which rested the vital efficacy of his redeeming work for man.

And here we have the grand announcement, so often referred to by patriarchs, prophets, psalmists and apostles, and by Christ Himself, of a universal, everlasting dominion given by the Eternal Father to the Eternal Son. Unlike all previous and subsequent earthly empires, this dominion is established in the hearts of its subjects, thus controlling the lives and rendering them tributary to the glory of the Divine Monarch. Unlike all earthly kingdoms, this links heaven with earth, eternity with time. Hence it cannot be destroyed; it cannot pass away. Its existence is decreed by the Infinite Mind, sustained by omnipotent might; its glory and blessedness are assured by an immutable promise. Seven centuries later, after the incarnation and ascension of the Eternal Son, another inspired seer disclosed in another vision the same sublime announcement. Nay, John goes further than Daniel; he reveals the Divine purpose as fulfilled, the Divine promise as consummated in the actual heavenly enthronement of the Lamb, the Eternal Son. And in this disclosure, so assuring, inciting and comforting, are we in these later days of the promise, and in closer proximity to its fulfilment, privileged to toil and endure, to rest and rejoice. B.

It is quite in keeping with the universal horizon of Daniel’s prophecy that Messiah is not designated as the Son of David, but, in general, as the Son of Man; no more as King of Israel only, but as King of the world. The Messiah is no longer represented as the theocratic King coming to the covenant people, but He appears a centre of unity both for the covenant people and the Gentile world. Auberlen.

Our Lord not only cites the prophet Daniel by name, when speaking of “the abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15), but He adopted from that book the designation of His kingdom and the title which He appropriates to Himself. The expressions, “kingdom of heaven” and “Son of Man,” are confessedly taken from the second and seventh chapters of Daniel. Of the latter expression, Meyer (Matt. 8:20) says: “Its simple meaning is, The Messiah. Jesus, inasmuch as in Him the Messiah was come, was, in the realization, that Son of Man whose form was seen in Daniel’s vision. As often, therefore, as Jesus in His discourses says ‘The Son of Man,’ He means ‘The Son of Man of that vision of Daniel’—that is, the Messiah.” The question of the genuineness and authenticity of Daniel cannot, therefore, be separated from that respecting the fallibility or infallibility of the Saviour. By asserting that the Book of Daniel is a forged and false prophecy, men charge our Lord with the uncritical ignorance of His times, or a deliberate application of a document which He knew to be false. McCaul.

The centring of biblical truth in the person of Christ receives its grandest illustration in the biblical doctrine of Christ’s mediatorial reign. This is the special teaching of the text before us. It is but a hint of a more resplendent revelation, which runs through the whole history of redemption. This “Son of Man” in the night visions of the prophet is He to whom “all power is given in heaven and on earth. God has highly exalted Him. At His name every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.”

We are not alone, then, in the interest we feel in Christ. He is the centre of thought also to the whole universe of mind. His is the empire of the universe. Sympathy with His work here is felt in distant worlds. Principalities and powers in heavenly places stand in awestruck study around this one spot where the mystery of redemption is unfolding. A strange gravitation draws them to this one globe above all others in inhabited space. Such is the impression which the biblical glimpses of other worlds leave upon us. This is known to the universe as the “world of the cross.” Lost spirits know it as the “world of the cross.” Ministering angels know it as the “world of the cross.” We do not know that another such world exists within the bounds of creation. If demoniacal alliances are formed against it, to clutch it from the hands of its Redeemer, from holy worlds come spiritual reinforcements in innumerable battalions to its rescue. Dr. Chalmers did no violence to the scriptural disclosures of the reign of Christ, when he represented the worlds of invisible being as pulsating and growing tremulous in sympathy with the conflicts of the cross. In the biblical story of redemption our atmosphere seems populous with spiritual legions marching and countermarching at the bidding of the Captain of our salvation. Phelps.

The human love of the Saviour attracts us human beings quite as much as His Divine love. He was called by His disciples the Son of God; He called Himself the Son of Man. By all means, as we point men’s eyes to Him, say,

“Ecce Deus!” for we may see His divinity shining through the veil of His humanity; but let us also say, “Ecce homo!” for it is His humanity which first meets our eye. In heaven, when we look up to it, we see “Him that sitteth on the throne,” but we see also “Him that was slain;” we see the throne, but “in the very midst of it a lamb as it had been slain.” McCosh.

18. The saints are the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), a congregation collected from Israel and all nations, and called to be saints (Ex. 19:6; De. 7:6; Isa. 4:3; 6:13; Rom. 9:6). These “take” the kingdom, or, rather, they “receive” it from Him who can alone give kingdoms and “possess” it with “power” (2:37; 4:30) “forever,” etc. B. C.

It is plain that these verses are intended for the comfort and support of the people of God in reference to the persecutions they were likely to sustain both from the one and from the other, and from all their proud enemies in every age; for it is written for their learning on whom the ends of the world are come, that they also, through patience and comfort of this Scripture, might have hope. H.

21. The same horn made war with the saints. And below, he “shall wear out the saints of the Most High” (verse 25)—that is, by wars, and massacres, and inquisitions, persecuting and destroying the faithful servants of Jesus and the true worshippers of God, who protest against his innovations and refuse to comply with the idolatry practised in the Church of Rome.

25. Or, as Symmachus interprets it, “he shall speak great words as the Most High;” setting up himself above all laws, Divine and human, arrogating to himself godlike attributes and titles of holiness and infallibility; exacting obedience to his ordinances and decrees in preference to and open violation of reason and Scripture; insulting men and blaspheming God.

And think to change times and laws. Appointing fasts and feasts, canonizing saints, granting pardons and indulgences for sins, instituting new modes of worship, imposing new articles of faith, enjoining new rules of practice, and reversing at pleasure the laws both of God and men. Bp. Newton.

Time and times and half a time. This expression has a closer definition in 8:14, “two thousand and three hundred days,” and is again typified in the “time, times, and a half” of 12:7; but of which it is best to say plainly with Saadias, “no one knows its meaning but

God alone.” What is thought and said about it is simply conjectural. The most satisfactory explanation of this very difficult phrase is that no full and complete period of power shall be given to the “little horn,” but that “the days shall be shortened” (Matt. 24:22; Mark 13:20), and some saved. B. C.

27. The dominion of the Lord Christ is eternal, and His kingdom as such cannot be destroyed. No power of this world can destroy it. Not even the last judgment shall put an end to it, but only give it a new and more glorious ‘appearance; for after the last judgment the New Jerusalem shall come down from heaven, and the throne of God and the Lamb will be in the midst of it. Roos.

In ancient history men often see nothing, and point out nothing but a succession of monarchies mutually overturning one another; nothing but a series of bloody wars, leaving behind them cities in ruin and nations crushed or carried into captivity. Behind these mighty convulsions of the ancient world men do not discern the real history—that of humanity laboring at the work of laying hold of, and understanding itself, and travailing in birth of man—the true man. As in the epochs anterior to man, behind the gigantic ferns, the voracious amphibians, and the monstrous quadrupeds, we recognize fundamentally one thing only—nature working its way up to man; so in the colossal monarchies which one after another, in the ages before Christ, filled the stage of history—in the Assyrian-Babylonish world, with its crushing military power; in the Medo-Persian kingdom, with its strong administrative organization; in the Greek race, with its incomparable artistic and scientific genius; in the Roman empire, with its powerful political centralization—the true historian recognizes one thing: humanity striving after the full development of its manifold faculties, the complete mastery of itself and of the world; man laboring to get full possession of himself, in prospect of a destiny which he does not yet clearly comprehend—that of voluntary self-surrender. Certainly it cannot be said that four thousand years was too long for such a work. Godet.

Daniel was permitted to behold the historic transfer of races, and governments, and trades, and destinies to their appointed owner, the King of kings and Lord of lords. These prophetic paragraphs, therefore, are a carefully-prepared chart, revealing the course of empire till it consummates and ends in the universal reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. Power, and greatness, and government shall descend, says the prophet, through successive administrations and intermediate thrones—the Assyrian, the Roman, the papal, to the last era—and the closing stage, when the saints of the Most High God shall take the kingdom and superintend it in the name of their Lord. Walter Clarke.

Christianity stands committed to the achievement of universal dominion. Its Founder puts it forward into history as the universal religion, foreordained to universal prevalence. For those of us who worship Christ as God this prophetic assurance of final victory is enough. Our lines might be much thinner than they are, our march much slower, our trophies fewer, and still we should not be disheartened. We should still stand fast by the ancient bond, which gives Christ the heathen for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession. Generation after generation might succeed to the arduous struggle, and still the Church would maintain the conflict, never doubting that the time will come, however distant, when her camp fires shall be kindled on every hilltop from the rising to the setting sun. R. D. Hitchcock.

The Heavenly Deliverer is called the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, the Son of David, the Son of God, and the Messiah, or anointed of the Lord. The series of predictions concerning Him runs from the first book of the Old Testament to the last book of the New. It may be divided into three volumes, the first of which culminates in Isaiah, the second in Daniel, and the third in the Revelation of John. The Messiah is described throughout as a king, a priest, and a prophet. The time and place of His birth are so plainly indicated that men were expecting Him when He came. He is declared to be the Son of Man, but at the same time the Son of God. Collateral predictions concerning persons or kingdoms that come into contact with Him or His people are communicated with the utmost ease and certainty. The most striking examples of this are the future of the Jews and the destinies of the four world monarchies. As we pass along the stream of actually past time, we can note the fulfilment of successive parts of this great system of prognostication. A culminating point in the progress of events was the birth, life and death of Immanuel, in which He performed the great priestly act of offering Himself a sacrifice for sin, so becoming the propitiation for the whole world. Murphy.

For Him, the Christ of the Old Testament and the New, we claim the first and foremost place in the annals of the world’s history, on the domain of religion, on the field of theological doctrine, in the sphere of individual and social life. For Him we vindicate, first of all, a prominent, central place in the history of the world and of mankind. When we contemplate this world from the right angle and in true light, there is only one view admissible, surpassing that of any philosophical system in depth, beauty and harmony of conception; it is that which makes the Son of Man the centre and axis of the world, and finds its expression in the words, “He is before all things, and by Him all things consist—properly have their consistency through Him alone—that in all things He might have the pre-eminence.” Christ is not only the crown and the glory, He is the core, the heart, the pulse, and the highest ideal of mankind, in whom its essence and destination is shown, unto whom the whole history of humanity tends, without whom its annals remain a book-roll closed with seven seals. He, the God-man, crowns the past, rules the present, conquers the future. For Him, again, we ask the first place on the domain of religion. Christianity is not merely a religion surpassing all others; it is the only true religion for mankind and men, because it alone manifests the special, the accomplished revelation of God’s grace and our salvation. And for this Christ we claim the first and central place on the field of theology, more especially of doctrinal and moral truth. From our standpoint, theology is and remains an independent, self-relying science, as the science of the faith in Him who, as being the true Life, makes the true Light radiate from the centre He occupies into all directions. Doctrinal and moral truth, no longer are they now separated, still less divided by a wide gap. They are one and indivisible now by the same Christocentric character. Christ Himself is the fountain and the focus of both. Lastly, for Him we require, with an undeniable claim, the first and central place in every sphere of individual and social life. It may be possible to know God in some measure by nature, but we can possess Him only by Christ. Christ, and He alone, the King for heart and soul, in the family and the society, in arts and science, in the free Church and in the free State! Van O.

The only matters of real moment pertaining to these and all other prophetic statements, belong to facts clearly revealed. The usual effect of any theory, pored over until it is blindly accepted as fact, cannot be good. “Secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those that are revealed belong to us, that we may do God’s law.” Here is a scriptural criterion that applies to the study of prophecy. Surely it is enough to know that the establishment of Christ’s kingdom is now going forward, and that it shall be consummated in God’s good time. The when, where and how which apply to the unknown future cannot be ascertained. Better engage all our mental and spiritual energies in filling our part in the advancement of the kingdom, and so hastening the transcendent consummation. A reverent, loyal spirit will overcome all discouragements in simple trust in God’s working and promise; it will stimulate us to work in our lot, to contribute of all that is entrusted us, of mind and heart, of voice and hand, of influence and of purse, of prayer and intercession—to contribute something every day to the incoming of Christ’s kingdom upon earth, and His ultimate everlasting dominion in glory. B.

A hundred years hence, perhaps another eighty years, will see the world generally Christianized, if the courage and enterprise of Christian disciples are at all a match for their great opportunity. Here then appears the immense and pressing duty of our time; pressing as the inexorable movement of the years, urgent as the moral and social need of mankind, superlative as the nature and work of the Lord! Here appears, too, our noblest privilege—the privilege of taking part in this majestic cosmical enterprise; of following in the line of those whose faith, consecration, and holy heroism have built Christendom, and have made the religion which to human eyes came out of Galilee familiar in its name, and in many of its principles, wherever thought has language for its vehicle; the privilege of coming to such fellowship with the Master as cannot be reached in song or sacrament, or in even the uplift and ecstasy of prayer. We touch His mighty and tender hand as nowhere else, when we are doing His work in the world. We come nearer to Him here than we can elsewhere until we see Him face to face; and many a distant missionary home, remote from civilization, planted amid an earthly darkness dense enough to be felt, is radiant with His manifest presence as the costliest chapel or the proudest cathedral never is. In this work we touch the future of the world, and put elements and forces into its history which shall be springing to their results long after the very stones at our graves shall have crumbled into dust. R. S. S.

The Question of the Identity of the “Little Horn” of Chap. 7:8, 20-22, and that of Chap. 8:9-12.

Our interpretation of the vision of the four beasts of Daniel has led us to look at the fourth as representing the Roman monarchy; which would presuppose in the author a knowledge truly prophetic. This application is rejected in modern times not only by authors of the rationalistic school, but also by such men as Delitzsch and Zöckler. The reason alleged by these latter is, that since the “little horn” in the seventh chapter, which appeared upon the fourth beast, must be the same as that in chap. 8, this latter having reference to the Grecian monarchy, it follows that the fourth monarchy in chap. 7 must be either the empire of Alexander or the kingdoms which grew out of it.

Let us first inquire whether the passage in Daniel can be explained if confined to the limits which such an interpretation would impose; and, next, whether the alleged identity between the two little horns of chaps. 7 and 8 is real.

The lion is identical with the head of gold in the vision of the image (chap. 2), as is shown by a comparison of the two visions with each other. And it follows from 2:37, 38 that these two emblems refer to Nebuchadnezzar, and to the Chaldean monarchy personified in him: “Thou, O king, art this head of gold.”

The bear which “raised itself up on one side, and had three ribs in the mouth of it,” corresponds to the breast and arms of silver in the statue. It is natural, then, to apply this emblem to the Persian monarchy, which superseded the Babylonian empire. But this application would make it difficult to avoid interpreting the fourth beast of the Roman empire; and an attempt has been made to get over this in two ways. Hitzig proposed to refer the emblem of the bear specially to Belshazzar, the last great Babylonish sovereign. But it is quite clear that this empire is already fully represented in the first beast, the lion. In the interpretation of the breast and arms of silver given in 2:39, we find it said to Nebuchadnezzar, not only, “Thou shalt have a successor inferior to thee,” but “after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee.” Here, then, the subject spoken of is a second monarchy, not a continuation of the first. Delitzsch and others feel this, and accordingly they apply the emblem of the bear to the Median empire, but making it distinct from the Persian. This distinction is rested upon 6:28: “In the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”

But this distinction between the Median and Persian monarchies is a pure fiction. The former would have lasted only two years, since Darius the Mede, who, according to this, founded it, died two years after the taking of Babylon, and Cyrus the Persian succeeded him! The fact is, that it never for an instant had an independent existence, since from the very first it was Cyrus the Persian who governed in the name of Darius the Mede. This latter reigned only in name. And that is precisely the meaning of the words in 6:28, which describe one and the same empire, with two sovereigns reigning simultaneously. And, besides, what would be the meaning of the expression, “devour much flesh,” as addressed to this supposed Median empire, which would only have lasted two years? Delitzsch replies: “It is the expression of a simple conatus, of a desire for conquest which was never realized.” As if an unfulfilled desire could have been admitted into a prophetic picture in which history is sketched on so large a scale! Lastly, the impossibility of this interpretation is clear from 5:28 and 6:12, which prove incontestably the identity of the two powers, of which it is desired to make distinct States: “Thy kingdom is given to the Medes and Persians;” and “the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.” The bear then represents unquestionably the Medo Persian monarchy. He supports himself on one side to signify that of the two nations which together constitute this empire, there is but one—the Persian—on which reposes the aggressive and conquering power of the monarchy. The three pieces of flesh (or three ribs, E. V.) which the bear holds in his mouth, represent the chief conquests of this second great empire. Some have thought of Lydia, Babylonia and Egypt; others substitute Phoenicia for Egypt. Judging from 8:3, 4, where the same kingdom is represented under the figure of a ram which had two horns, of which one (the Persian) was higher than the other (the Median), and which pushed with these horns in three directions, westward, northward and southward, I incline rather to the belief that these conquered countries are Bactriana (in the north), Babylonia and Lydia (in the west), and Egypt (in the south).

The next beast, the leopard, with four wings of a bird, and four heads, answers to the “belly and thighs of brass” in the image; it can only represent Alexander the Great and the Macedonian kingdom, which took the place of the Medo-Persian empire. From this point of view the emblems indicated are easily exexplained. The four wings represent the extraordinary rapidity of this young king’s conquests; and the four heads, the four contemporaneous kingdoms in which the Grecian monarchy makes its appearance on the stage of history. We know that these four States were Macedonia, Thrace, Syria and Egypt. The Grecian monarchy never existed in any other than this fourfold form after the premature death of its founder. Moreover, we find the literal explanation of these figures in chap. 8, where it is said of the he-goat coming from the west, which overthrew the ram with two horns (the Medo-Persian empire, 5:20): “The he-goat is the king of Grecia, and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king; now that being broken . . . four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation.” Notwithstanding these evidences, all those who are determined not to recognize in the fourth beast the Roman monarchy, apply the figure of the leopard to Cyrus and the Persian monarchy. But, in the first place, this interpretation involves the application of the figure of the bear either to Beishazzar, or to a Median kingdom distinct from the Persian, two suppositions which we have found to be inadmissible; besides, how are we then to explain the four wings and four heads? what have these emblems to do with the Persian monarchy? Rapidity of conquest, which is signified by the four wings, was not the distinctive feature of the Medo-Persian empire, while it is the salient characteristic of Alexander’s power. As to the four heads, they represent, it is pretended, the four first kings of Persia. This interpretation would be forced even if Persia had but four kings; for the four heads must represent four contemporaneous and not four successive powers. They belong to the form of the beast from his first appearance. But, further, Persia had many more than four sovereigns. What are we to make of the two Artaxerxes, Longimanus and Mnemon, and of the two last Dariuses, Ochus and Codoman? If the author writes as a prophet, how is it, we would ask, that he sees so dimly into the future? If he writes as an historian—that is to say, as a prophet who composes after the event—how, we would ask the rationalists, can he be so completely ignorant of the history which he is telling? And how, from this point of view, are we to get out of the difficulty of 8:21: “The he-goat (with four horns) is the king of Grecia”?

Lastly, appears the fourth beast, the beast without a name; this corresponds to the “legs of iron, and the feet, part of iron and part of clay,” of the image. This parallelism cannot be questioned. This fourth beast devours and breaks in pieces just as the iron feet of the image break everything in pieces; the ten horns of the beast answer to the ten toes of the image; this fourth beast immediately precedes the Messianic kingdom, just as the image is smitten and overthrown by the little stone, emblem of the Messiah. What is this last empire?

According to Delitzsch, Hitzig and many others, it is that of Alexander, or the Grecian monarchy, which—to follow the first of these authors—is confounded in the prophetic vision with the Romans, and with all the succeeding powers until the judgment. But we have seen that Alexander and the Grecian empire have been already prefigured by the winged leopard with four heads. And from this point of view, what would be the meaning of the ten horns? We are told that these are the ten kings of Syria who succeeded one another, from the time of Alexander to that of Antiochus Epiphanes, in which the author himself lived. But we know that Syria had only seven kings before Antiochus Epiphanes—Seleucus Nicator, Antiochus Soter, Antiochus Theos, Seleucus Callinicus, Seleucus Ceraunus, Antiochus the Great, and Seleucus Philopstor. That is true, it will be answered, but there are three men who might have reigned, and whom Antiochus Epiphanes kept from the throne: Heliodorus, the poisoner of Epiphanes’s predecessor, who did actually reign for a moment; Demetrius, the legitimate successor, who was kept at Rome as a hostage; and Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt, who had claims upon the throne of Syria. But could sovereigns only by right, or by desire, be counted among real kings, and numbered among the active horns of the fourth beast? Besides, why should the Grecian monarchy be thus confined to the family of the Seleucidae? Did it not also comprehend the dynasties of Macedonia, Thrace and Egypt? To avoid these difficulties, it occurred to Zöckler to distinguish between Alexander himself, who, according to this, would be represented by the third beast, and the sum total of the states which succeeded him and which, taken together, are represented by the fourth. The ten horns only signifying the indefinite multitude of sovereigns of the four contemporaneous Grecian States. But these four Grecian kingdoms had been before evidently prefigured in the four heads of the leopard; how should they come suddenly to be reckoned as a separate beast? Besides, is it according to the analogy of the prophetic intuition to combine four distinct kingdoms into one beast? Lastly, what are we to think of the number ten, which is to represent the indefinite mass of Macedonian and Thracian sovereigns, the Ptolemies and Seleucidae? This last attempt is evidently the resource of despair. After that it becomes so much the more evident that the fourth beast, the beast without a name, represents a monarchy later than that of the Grecian power; an empire which shall comprehend the whole known world; which shall be divided into a number of states bound together by a link of solidarity (the ten horns); and which shall only give place to the kingdom of the Messiah. I leave it to the reader to decide whether these characteristics apply to the Roman monarchy or not.

But what are we to think of the connection between the little horn of chap. 7, which comes forth from this fourth beast, and the little horn of chap. 8, which belongs to the ram, the emblem of the Grecian empire? I see no reason why they should be identified. A little horn signifies in Daniel the concentration and explosion of the evil forces inherent in an organism. The third monarchy, according to chap. 8, was to produce an excrescence of this kind; and everything proves that this figure applies to Antiochus Epiphanes, the furious enemy of the Jews, of their religion, and of their God. The fourth and last monarchy, according to chap. 7, is to terminate also in the appearance of an analogous and still more destructive power. That which distinguishes it clearly from the other is the fact that it issues from the midst of the ten horns of the nameless beast (7: 8, 24), while the former comes forth from the four horns of the he-goat, which typifies the king of Grecia (8: 9, 21). We should say, then, to use the language of the New Testament, that the little horn of chap. 7 is Antichrist, the man of sin (Paul), the beast of the Apocalypse (John), that power inimical to God and the Church, which will arise from the confederation of the European States, springing from the fourth monarchy; while that of chap. 8 represents Antiochus Epiphanes springing from the Grecian monarchy, who waged a corresponding war against the kingdom of God under the form of the Jewish theocracy.

There are then two declared adversaries of the kingdom of God indicated in the Book of Daniel—one issuing from the third monarchy, attacking the people of the ancient covenant; the other from the fourth, making war against that of the new. If any one will read from this point of view chaps. 7 and 8 of the Book of

Daniel, he will find that the difficulties will vanish which have led learned men into the forced interpretations we have just refuted. Godet.

The prophecies of the second part (chaps. 8-12) conclude with the death of Antiochus; those of the first part (chaps. 2-7) with the overthrow of the power of the world by the kingdom of the Messiah. Daniel himself marked the two divisions very distinctly by writing the first in Chaldee (chaps. 2-7) and the second (chaps. 8-12), as well as the introduction (chap. 1), in Hebrew. In the first part he used the language of the worldly power under which he lived; in the second, he used that of the people of God. Thus he signified that, in the one place, it was the history of the powers of the world; in the other, the history awaiting the people of God, which formed the centre of his prophecy. This accounts, simply and naturally, for the change of language.

Those who impugn the genuineness of our book are, in the first place, unable to account for the circumstance of the two dialects in general; and, secondly, for their occurrence in these definite chapters. From the time of the Exile the Chaldee-Aramaic dialect became more and more general among the Jews, and, in the age of the Maccabees, was the prevalent language. An interpolator would certainly have written the whole book in the holy language of the ancient prophets, in Hebrew. But, if he wished to write any portion in Aramaic, in order to be more easily understood by his contemporaries, he would much more naturally have chosen the second rather than the first part of the book for this purpose, as it had much more immediate and distinct reference to his own time, and was much more intended to influence the generation then living. But the distinct line of demarcation, which the change from one language to the other draws between the two parts, is of still greater importance. The dream of Nebuchadnezzar, in the second chapter, is recorded in a perfectly historical shape, and has a parallel, in the second dream, of the same thing narrated in the fourth chapter. And if the seventh chapter, containing the first of Daniel’s own visions, were joined to the second part, it would give some confirmation to the view, according to which this, as well as the other visions of the prophet, refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, and this would naturally affect also the interpretation of the second chapter, so that the four monarchies would be regarded as extending only to Antiochus. But the author himself has removed all grounds for such an hypothesis by writing the seventh chapter in Chaldee, and thus clearly indicating that it belongs to the first part. He thus shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the method of his book—how it consists of two parts, different both in form and contents.

A glance at the passages in chaps. 7 and 8 shows that all the preceding and subsequent elements in connection with the little horn are different in the two chapters, and that consequently the two horns cannot be identical. After the overthrow of the little horn in chap. 7, the kingdom of the Messiah follows; in chap. 8 it is not succeeded by anything.

In the seventh chapter we find ten horns, from between which the little horn arises; and in the eighth verse four, and the little horn arises from one of them. Thus, not only the number of the preceding horns is different, but also the relation in which the little horn stands to them; in the seventh chapter an independent eleventh horn, in the eighth not an independent fifth, but a new horn, which, with its branches, arises out of one of the four existing, and thus belongs and is annexed to it.

Still more striking and startling is the contrast between the beasts of the seventh and eighth chapters, which, according to the modern view, must be proved identical. Can the light, fleet he-goat, who flies over the whole face of the earth without touching the ground, be identical with the terrible fourth form, which devours and breaks in pieces the whole earth, and for whose terrible and exceeding dreadful appearance the prophet cannot find a corresponding beast (7:7, 19, 23)? Let him who is determined and is able, believe it. Does not the he-goat rather remind the reader at once of the leopard of the seventh chapter?

Turning now in the eighth chapter from the he-goat to the ram preceding it, we find it interpreted in the twentieth verse, to mean the Medo-Persian kingdom. What corresponds to it in the seventh chapter? According to our opponent’s view, the bear stands for the Median, and the leopard for the Persian kingdom. Accordingly, in chap. 8 the ram represents in one shape what is analyzed in chap. 7 into bear and leopard. This does not seem probable from the context; and, a priori, we should be inclined to prefer an explanation which avoids such a startling difference between two adjoining chapters, and does not require us to separate in the one what is joined in the other. We naturally expect and presuppose that the same harmony shall subsist between chaps. 7 and 8 as we found to exist between chaps. 2 and 7. But even if this were not the case, it would be

more natural to expect the reverse of what modern criticism finds—viz., that the eighth chapter, being more circumstantial than the general and extensive seventh, should contain in minuter analysis what the other represents in compendious unity.