His Vision of Future World History--7:1-28, Part 1

II. DANIEL THE PROPHET--Chapters 7-12
A. His Vision of Future World History--7:1-28
1. The vision of the four great beasts- -vv. 1-8
a. The beasts in general--vv. 1-3
(I) The time of his vision
(A) The first year of King Belshazzar
(1) Nabonidus actually king beginning in 556 B. C.
(2) Belshazzar made coregent.
(B) Prior to the fall of Babylon
(1) Fourteen years before it
(2) Probably 553 B. C.
(3) This puts the lie to critics contention that Daniel is a Second Century book.
(C) Thus prior to the events of chapters 5 & 6
(II) The place of his vision
(A) In his head, thus a dream
(B) Upon his bed
(1) Thus, at night
(2) Confirmed by verse 2
(C) Wrote it down
(III) The nature of his vision
(A) He gives the details of the vision
(1) Saw and behold (or beheld) are the same verb.
(2) It can be rendered I was looking.
(B) Four winds
(1) Striving on a great sea --"Although the Scriptures does not tell us, in as much as the wind striving
with the world is a symbol of the sovereign power of God striving with men (Gen. 6:3; Jn. 3:8), the
prophetic meaning may be the sovereign power of God in conflict with sinful man. God often used
the wind as a means to attain His ends." (Walvoord, 152)
(2) Four winds suggest four directions or quarters of the heavens.
(3) The great sea is often a symbol of the mass of humanity (Today, the idea is used, for example, "sea
of faces.").-- "The great sea is not the Mediterranean (. . . ), 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 (. . .), corresponding to the prophetic comparison
found in Jer. xvii.12, xlvi.7f." (Keil, 222)
(4) The winds striving--"Under usual conditions, the established winds blow with great regularity of
motion and direction for the most part; ocean navigators for centuries have taken full advantage of
this fact as exhibited in the trade winds, the western Pacific monsoon, and others. In this vision,
however, the four winds of heaven are all violently in action together, suggesting a world-wide
commotion arising in all directions. No such universal upheaval characterized the individual rising
of the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, or Rome; therefore, while the initial arising of
these four dominions is undoubtedly included in the meaning of this vision, it seems evident that
principal reference is being made to four kingdoms which shall arise at the end of the age." (Newell,
78; italics are his.)
(C) The four beasts
(1) Different from each other
(2) Came up from the sea--arose from the turbulence of nations
b. The beasts specifically--vv. 4-8
(I) The first beast--v. 4
(A) Its description
(1) A lion
(2) Wings like an eagle
(3) Wings plucked
(4) Lifted up and made to stand as a man upon its feet.
(B) Its interpretation
(1) Interpreters agree that the first kingdom of Chapter 2 and Chapter 7 are the same.
(2) Royal power represented
(a) The lion
(b) The eagle
(c) Both were symbols used in Babylon
(3) The plucked wings --"In spite of the power indicated in the symbolism of the lion with eagle's
wings, Daniel in vision sees the wings plucked and the lion made to stand upon his feet as a man,
with a man's heart given to it. This is most commonly interpreted as the symbolic representation of
Nebuchadnezzar's experience in chapter 4 when he was humbled before God and made to realize
that, even though he was a great ruler, he was only a man. His lion-like character, or royal power
was his only at God's pleasure. The symbolism is accurate and corresponds to the historical facts."
(Walvoord, 153-4)
(4) That Babylon is in view is generally accepted.
(C) The subject of considerable prophecy
(1) Isaiah 13:1-22
(a) Described as similar to Sodom and Gommorah--vv. 1-16
(b) Mentioned in connection with the Medes--vv. 17-19
(c) Predicted as to future destruction--vv. 20-22:
(2) Jeremiah
(a) 25:11-14
(b) 29:10
(c) 50:1-51:62
(3) Ezekiel
(a) 17:12-24
(b) 29:18-20
(c) 30:10-25
(d) 32:1-32
(II) The second beast--v. 5
(A) Its description
(1) a bear
(2) raised on one side
(3) Three ribs in its mouth
(4) Instructed to arise and devour much flesh.
(B) Its interpretation
(1) Diversity of interpretations
(a) Liberals like to identify it with the Median Empire.
((I)) Based on a splitting of the Median Empire from the Persian.
((II)) Based on the assumption that Daniel is a Second Century forgery.
(b) Conservatives identify it as the Medo-Persian Empire.
(2) The answer
(a) The liberal view is wrong.
((I)) Book of Daniel nowhere separates the two empires.
((A)) Darius is called the Mede as to country of origin.
((B)) Cf. 6:8, 12
((II)) "Recent discoveries have proved beyond question that the second empire was in fact the
Medo-Persian Empire. The Persian ruler Cyrus himself came to conquer Babylon in less
than a month, and the myth of a separate Median empire at this time is not supported by the
facts." (Walvoord, 155)
(b) Conservative view
((I)) Represents the Medo-Persian Empire
((II)) Bear on its side--"Why, however, does the beast raise itself on one side? Although the
Scriptures do not answer directly, probably the best explanation is that it represented the
one-sided union of the Persian and Median Empires. Persia at this time, although coming up
last, was by far the greater and more powerful and had absorbed the Medes." (op. cit., 156)
((III)) Three ribs in its mouth
((A)) "Scripture does not tell us the meaning of the three ribs, and many suggestions have
been offered. Probably the best is that it refers to Media Persia, and Babylon as
representing the three major components of the Medo-Babylonian Empire." (Ibid.)
((B)) Alternate view--"An alternate view offered by Young is that it represents Babylon,
Lydia, and Egypt. Young's objection to Jerome's viewpoint is that it would make the
bear devour itself." (Ibid.)
((IV)) The devouring of much flesh--"This apparently refers to the additional conquests of the
Medes and Persians in the years which followed the fall of Babylon. Young errs in making
this command simply to devour the three ribs already in the mouth of the bear. It would
seem clear that the flesh is not the same as the ribs but refers to further conquests. As
Leupold expresses it, 'The question arises whether the command, "Arise, devour much flesh,"
implies that the flesh on the ribs is to be eaten, or whether, after substantial conquests have
been made, further conquests are to be attempted. The latter seems to be the more
reasonable interpretation.' Among the nations yet to be conquered were Lydia and Egypt."
(Leupold, 292; quoted in Walvoord, 156.)
(III) The third beast--v. 6
(A) Its description
(1) A leopard
(2) Four wings of a fowl
(3) Had four heads
(4) Given dominion
(B) Its interpretation
(1) A leopard is less majestic than either a lion or a bear.
(a) But it is swifter.
(b) Enhanced by its four wings--"Although these wings are not declared to be the wings of any
eagle as in the case of the first beast their presence emphasizes the concept of speed. Of
significance is the mention that there were precisely four wings in keeping with the four heads of
the beast, whereas in the first beast the number of wings is implied to be only two, like an
eagle." (op. cit., 157)
(2) Again interpretations differ.
(a) Liberals try to equate it with Persia.
(b) Conservatives state it is Greece.
((I)) Alexander the Great conquered the civilized world.
((II)) Conquered quickly
((III)) Alexander had four principal successors.
((A)) Ptolemy
((B)) Seleucus
((C)) Philip
((D)) Antigonus
((IV)) "In view of the transparent fact that Alexander did have four generals who succeeded him
and divided his empire into four divisions, neither more nor less, it would seem that the
interpretation of the four wings and the four heads as referring to the divisions of the Grecian
Empire with their rulers is the best interpretation. This would confirm the identification of the
third beast as the Grecian Empire." (Walvoord, 158)
(IV) The fourth beast--vv. 7, 8
(A) Its description }
(1) Dreadful and terrible
(2) Exceeding strong
(3) Great iron teeth which devoured and brake in pieces
(4) Stamped the residue with its feet
(5) Had ten horns
(6) Had also a little horn
(a) Came up among the ten horns
(b) Plucked up three of the ten
(c) Had the eyes of a man
(d) Had a mouth speaking great things
(B) Its interpretation
(1) "The crucial issue in the interpretation of the entire book of Daniel, and especially of chapter 7, is
the identification of the fourth beast. On this point, liberal critics generally insist that the fourth beast
is Greece or the kingdom of Alexander the Great. Conservative scholars with few exceptions
generally identify the fourth beast as Rome.” (op. cit., 159)
(2) Brief history of Rome
(a) Occupied Sicily 241 B. C.
(b) Spain conquered and then Carthage at the Battle of Zama in North Africa--202 B. C.
(c) Subjugated the area north of Italy
(d) Moved eastward conquering Macedonia, Greece and Asia Minor
(e) Jerusalem taken in 63 B. C. by Pompey
(f) Syria taken next
(g) Expanded to Britain, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany
(h) Reached a peak in 117 A. D.
(i) Declined slowly to 410 A. D. when Rome was seized by the Visigoths
(j) Continued in the Byzantine form to 1453 A. D. when Mohammed conquered Constantinople
(now Istanbul)
(3) "On this issue the question of whether the book of Daniel is a genuine sixth-century writing or a
second-century forgery is determinative." (Ibid.)
(a) In fairness to the liberal they may not be conscious of their bias of eliminating prophetic
elements.
((I)) Cf. 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4
((II)) They take the position that the fourth kingdom is Greece.
((III)) Rowley says--"Within the circle of those who hold the Greek view, therefore, there is
wide divergence on this point, and while up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, their reading
of history and of the visions run concurrently, and they may be considered together, the only
form of the Greek view which is here claimed to fit the prophecies is that which locates the
composition of these chapters, at any rate in the form in which they now stand before us, in
the Maccabean Age. On this view, the author was a man who was moved by the spirit of
God to encourage his fellows to resist the attack of Antiochus Epiphanes upon the religion
and culture of his race, and who rightly perceives that the victory must lie with them, if they
were to be loyal unto their God, but whose message was coloured with the Messianic hopes
that were not to be fulfilled." (Rowley, Harold Henry, Darius the Mede and the Four
World Empires in the Book of Daniel. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales, 1959; quoted
in Walvoord, 160)
((IV)) "In other words, Rowley himself says that the only sensible support for the Greek
interpretation is that the book of Daniel is a second-century production. In addition to
making the major admission that identification of the fourth empire as Grecian depends on
the thesis that the book of Daniel is a forgery of the second century, Rowley completely fails
to support the Grecian empire interpretation by any consensus among its followers, and his
discussion is a hopeless maze of alternating views which he either rejects or accepts often as
mere matters of opinion." (Ibid.)
(h) The general conservative interpretation is that this fourth beast is Rome.--"While the diversity of
interpretations is indeed confusing to any expositor of this portion of Scripture, if the book of
Daniel is a sixth-century writing, and therefore genuine Scripture, it follows, even as Rowley
indirectly admits, that the Roman view is more consistent than the Greek empire interpretation.
This is especially true among those following premillennial interpretation. The Roman view is
supported in the exegesis of the passage which follows, which endeavors to demonstrate that
the prophecies of Daniel are best explained by identifying the fourth kingdom as the Roman
Empire." (op. cit., 160-1)
(4) Some matters supporting Rome as the fourth beast
(a) Its description as dreadful and terrible and strong exceedingly was true of Rome.
(b) Its iron teeth correspond to the iron legs of the image of Chapter 2.
(c) "The description of the beast to this point more obviously corresponds to the Roman Empire
than to the empire of Alexander the Great. Alexander conquered by the rapidity of his troop
movements and seldom crushed the people whom he conquered. By contrast the Roman empire
was ruthless in its destruction of civilizations and peoples, killing captives by the thousands and
selling them into slavery by the hundreds of thousands. This hardly is descriptive of either
Alexander or the four divisions of his empire which followed." (op. cit., 161)
(d) The New Testament agrees with this interpretation--"Christ, in His reference to the 'abomination
of desolation' (Mt. 24:15) clearly pictures the desecration of the temple, here prophesied as a
future event. Even if Young wrongly identifying this with the destruction of the temple in A. D.
70, and the view is followed that it represents a still future event signaling the start of the great
tribulation, in either case, it is Roman not Grecian, as the Grecian view would require fulfillment
in the second century B. C. The New Testament also seems to employ the symbolism of Daniel
in the book of Revelation, presented as future even after the destruction of the temple." (Ibid.)
(5) The chief problem is the ten horns.
(a) "The interpretation identifying this as Rome immediately has a major problem in that there is no
real correspondence to the Roman Empire historically in the phrase, 'and it had ten horns.' This
and the succeeding matter has no correspondence either to the history of Greece ,or to the
history of Rome. The interpretation of the vision later in the chapter only serves to emphasize
this problem." (Walvoord, 162)
(b) Three general interpretations
((I)) Amillennial, two views--"Amillennial scholars like Young and Leupold tend to spiritualize
[allegorize] both the number ten and the number three, and thus escape the necessity of
finding any literal fulfillment. Both of them find literal fulfillment impossible because there are
no ten kings reigning simultaneously in the Roman period. Young, however, considers
fulfillment in the Roman Empire in the past, and no further fulfillment is necessary. Leupold
finds ultimate fulfillment at the second coming of Christ, rather than in past history." (Ibid.)
((II)) Premillennial--finds fulfillment in the future.
(6) The question of the little horn
(a) A human being----"If there were no commentary upon this passage and the interpreter was left
to find its meaning simply on what the text states, it would be a reasonable conclusion that the
little horn is a man, and that, therefore, the ten horns which precede were also men who were
rulers in relationship to the fourth kingdom. The fact that the horn has eyes and a mouth
identifies the human characteristics." (Ibid.)
(b) Is this little horn the same as in Chapter 8?
((I)) Most commentators identify the little horn of Chapter 8 to be Antiochus Epiphanes.
((II)) "This has been taken as evidence that the little horn of Daniel 7 is also from the Grecian or
Maccabean period in its latter stages." (Ibid.)
((III)) Similar titles or names does not of itself signify identity.
((A)) Although it can lead confusion
((B)) Example: John Doe, Sr., and John Doe, Jr.
((IV)) "It must be observed, however, that the little horn of chapter 8 comes out of an entirely
different context than the little horn of chapter 7. Although both horns are described as
'little,' the horn of chapter 7 is not said to grow like the horn of chapter 8, although in the
end he becomes a greater power than the little horn of chapter 8." (Ibid.)
((V)) Archer has an excellent summary--"There can be no question that the little horn in chapter
8 points to a ruler of the Greek empire, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes. The critics, therefore,
assume that since the same term is used, the little horn in chapter 7 must refer to the same
individual. This, however, can hardly be the case, since the four-winged leopard of chapter
7 clearly corresponds to the four-horned goat of chapter 8; that is, both represent the Greek
empire which divided into four after Alexander's death. The only reasonable deduction to
draw is that there are two little horns involved in the symbolic visions of Daniel. One of
them emerged from the third empire, and the other is to emerge from the fourth." (op. cit.,
163)

Click on the words to which you wish to return: Home Page, Book Page, or His Vision of Future World History--7:1-28, Part 2.