DANIEL 7 15-28 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

The Interpretation of the Dream15 “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me.

BARNES, "I Daniel was grieved in my spirit - That is, I was troubled; or my heart was made heavy and sad. This was probably in part because he did not fully understand the meaning of the vision, and partly on account of the fearful and momentous nature of what was indicated by it. So the apostle John Rev_5:4 says, “And I wept much because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book.”

In the midst of my body - Margin, as in the Chaldee, sheath. The body is undoubtedly referred to, and is so called as the envelope of the mind - or as that in which the soul is inserted, as the sword is in the sheath, and from which it is drawn out by death. The same metaphor is employed by Pliny: Donec cremato co inimici remeanti animae velut vaginam ademerint. So, too, a certain philosopher, who was slighted by Alexander the Great on account of his ugly face, is said to have replied, Corpus hominis nil est nisi vagina gladii in qua anima reconditur. - Gesenius. Compare Lengerke, in loc. See also Job_27:8, “When God taketh away his soul;” or rather draws out his soul, as a sword is drawn out of the sheath. Compare the note at that place. See also Buxtorf’s Lexicon Tal. p. 1307. The meaning here is plain -that Daniel felt sad and troubled in mind, and that this produced a sensible effect on his body.And the visions of my head troubled me - The head is here regarded as the seat of the intellect, and he speaks of these visions as if they were seen by the head. That is, they seemed to pass before his eyes.

CLARKE, "I Daniel was grieved, etc. - The words in the original are 1

uncommonly emphatic. My spirit was grieved, or sickened, בגו נדנה bego nidneh, within its sheath or scabbard. Which I think proves,

1. That the human spirit is different from the body.2. That it has a proper subsistence independently of the body, which is only its sheath for a certain time.3. That the spirit may exist independently of its body, as the sword does independently of its sheath.

GILL, "I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body,.... Or "sheath" (a); the soul being in the body as a sword in its scabbard; where it was "cut" (b) and pierced, as the word signifies; and was wounded, distressed, and grieved at the vision seen; not at the sight of the Son of man, and the glorious and everlasting kingdom given to him; but of the four beasts, and especially the last, and more particularly the little horn, and the look, and words, and actions of that, as well as the awful scene of judgment presented to his view: and the visions of my head troubled me; the things he saw, which appeared to his fancy as real things, gave him a great deal of uneasiness, and chiefly because he did not understand the meaning of them; it was not so much the things themselves, as ignorance of them, that cut him to the heart, and grieved and troubled him; for what is more so to an inquisitive mind, that has got a hint of something great and useful to be known, but cannot as yet come to the knowledge of it?

HENRY, "Here we have, I. The deep impressions which these visions made upon the prophet. God in them put honour upon him, and gave him satisfaction, yet not without a great allay of pain and perplexity (Dan_7:15): I Daniel was grieved in my spirit, in the midst of my body. The word here used for the body properly signifies a sheath or scabbard, for the body is no more to the soul; that is the weapon; it is that which we are principally to take care of. The visions of my head troubled me, and again (Dan_7:28), my cogitations much troubled me. The manner in which these things were discovered to him quite overwhelmed him, and put his thoughts so much to the stretch that his spirits failed him, and the trance he was in tired him and made him faint. The things themselves that were discovered amazed and astonished him, and put him into a confusion, till by degrees he recollected and conquered himself, and set the comforts of the vision over against the terrors of it.

JAMISON, "body — literally, “sheath”: the body being the “sheath” of the soul.

2

K&D, "The interpretation of the vision. - Dan_7:14 concludes the account of the contents of the vision, but not the vision itself. That continues to the end of the chapter. Dan_7:15. The things which Daniel saw made a deep impression on his mind. His spirit was troubled within him; the sight filled him with terror. It was not the mystery of the images, nor the fact that all was not clear before his sight, that troubled and disquieted him; for Dan_7:28 shows that the disquietude did not subside when an angel explained the images he had seen. It was the things themselves as they passed in vision before him - the momentous events, the calamities which the people of God would have to endure till the time of the completion of the everlasting kingdom of God - which filled him with anxiety and terror. רוחיstands for the Hebr. נפשי, and דניאל אנה is in apposition to the suffix in רוחי, for the suffix is repeated with emphasis by the pronoun, Dan_8:1, Dan_8:15; Ezr_7:21, and more frequently also in the Hebr.; cf. Winer, Chald. Gram. §40, 4; Ges. Hebr. Gram. §121, 3. The emphatic bringing forward of the person of the prophet corresponds to the significance of the vision, which made so deep an impression on him; cf. also Dan_10:1, Dan_10:7; Dan_12:1-13 :15. In this there is no trace of anxiety on the part of the speaker to make known that he is Daniel, as Hitzig supposes. The figure here used, “in the sheath” (E. V. “in the midst of my body”), by which the body is likened to a sheath for the soul, which as a sword in its sheath is concealed by it, is found also in Job_27:8, and in the writings of the rabbis (cf. Buxt. Lex. talm. s.v.). It is used also by Pliny, vii. 52. On “visions of my head,” cf. Dan_7:1.CALVIN, "Daniel says, his spirit was either cut off or vanished, as if he suffered some mental deficiency. In this way God wished to communicate to his servant the magnitude of the vision. And he inspires us also with reverence for this vision, lest we should treat it coldly and commonly. But we ought to understand how God opens up to Daniel, his servant, and to us by his assistance and ministry, these mysteries which meaning; be otherwise comprehended by our human senses. For if Daniel, whom we know to have been a remarkable Prophet, felt his spirit to be so deficient and nearly vanishing away, surely we who as yet know so little of God’s mysteries, nay, who have scarcely tasted their first rudiments, never can attain so great a height, unless we overcome the world and shake off all human sensations. For these things cannot be perceived by us unless our minds are clear and completely purified.He says, therefore, in the first place, his spirit was cut off, or vanished, in the midst of his body; as if he had said he was almost lifeless and nearly dead. And he added, as reason, the visions of his head had frightened him No one can faint away — an event which sometimes happens — with-out a cause. When that terror called a panic seizes upon some persons, we observe how they become deprived of self-possession, and lie almost lifeless. But Daniel, to shew himself separate from such persons, says he was frightened or disturbed by visions of his head; as if he had said, he was not

3

disturbed without occasion, but it was caused by the mystery of which the vision had been offered to him. He came to one of those standing by. He had said a short time before, ten thousand times ten thousand were at the right hand of the tribunal of God. Without the slightest doubt, the Prophet asked one of these angels. And here we must notice his modesty and docility in flying to some instructor, because he was conscious of his own ignorance and found no other remedy. At the same time, we are taught by the Prophet’s example not to reject all visions, but to seek their interpretation from God himself. Although God in these days does not address us by visions, yet he wishes us to be content with his Law and Gospel, while angels do not appear to us, and do not openly and conspicuously descend from heaven; but, since Scripture is obscure to us, through the darkness in which we are involved, let us learn not to reject whatever surpasses our capacity, even when some dark veil envelops it, but let us fly to the remedy which Daniel used, not to seek the understanding of God’s word from angels, who do not appear to us, but from Christ himself, who in these days teaches us familiarly by means of pastors and ministers of the gospel. Now, as a supreme and only Master has been given us from the Father, so also he exercises the office of teacher by his own ministers whom he set over us. (Matthew 23:8.) Therefore, as Daniel approached the angel who was near him, so we are daily commanded to approach those who have been entrusted with the gift of interpretation and who can faithfully explain to us things otherwise obscure. Our confidence, too, ought to be increased by what follows directly: The angel spoke, and opened the interpretation of the words. Daniel here shews his modesty and humility not to have been in vain, as God commanded the angel to explain all obscurities. So, without doubt, Christ will at this time satisfy our prayers, if we are truly his disciples; that is, if, after those mysteries which surpass and absorb all our senses have terrified us, we fly to that order which he has prescribed for us, and seen from faithful ministers and teachers the interpretation of those things which are difficult and obscure, and entirely concealed from us.

COFFMAN, ""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."There is no wonder at Daniel's grief. Such terrible monsters as appeared in the vision were a dreadful indication that terrifying times were in store for the troubled races of men."One of them that stood by," indicates some heavenly being, perhaps an angel, who explained to Daniel the significance of the visions.

BENSON, "Verses 15-18Daniel 7:15-18. I Daniel was grieved in my spirit — Upon account of the extraordinary changes which seemed to be signified by the vision, the particulars of

4

which troubled me, though I had not a perfect apprehension of their meaning. I came near unto one of them that stood by — Namely, to one of the angels who were attending as ministering spirits. And asked him the truth, &c. — Desired him to give me a clear understanding of all this. So he told me, &c. — Explained to me the true and plain meaning of these things. These great beasts are four kings — Four kingdoms, or monarchies. So the word king is used Isaiah 23:15. Which shall arise out of the earth — Which shall raise themselves merely upon carnal, worldly grounds and considerations, and that by wars and troubles, and which shall think of and concern themselves with only earthly things; whereas the kingdom of Christ is described, in the next verse, as a heavenly, spiritual kingdom, fitting men for heaven. But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom — When the earthly kingdom shall be destroyed, the heavenly, or spiritual kingdom of the saints shall commence; they shall enter upon it on earth, but shall retain it in heaven for ever. The Chaldee word עליונין, rendered Most High, is literally high ones, as it is translated in the margin: and these saints are indeed high ones, being children and heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. Sometimes, however, the one true God is spoken of in the plural number by way of eminence, as Joshua 24:19, where it is in the Hebrew, He is the holy Gods. The expression may therefore mean as we have it rendered.

WHEDON, "Verse 15-1615, 16. Daniel being unable to understand the vision asks one of Jehovah’s attendants (Daniel 7:10) to explain it to him. Marti, by a slight change of text, reads, “on account of that” instead of in the midst of my body (Daniel 7:15).

PETT, "Verse 15-16Daniel Is Concerned About The Meaning Of His Vision (Daniel 7:15-16).‘As for me, Daniel, my spirit was grieved in the midst of my body (literally ‘my sheath’), and the visions of my head troubled me. I came near to one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me that he would make me to know the interpretations of the things.’Meanwhile Daniel was concerned over what he had seen, indeed greatly troubled. What could all this mean? And such was the vividness of his dream that in it he approached one of the heavenly beings to ask him what the truth was about his visions. And the heavenly being promised to give him his answer, and to interpret the dream for him.

PULPIT, "Daniel 7:15-185

I Daniel was grieved in my spirit 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 of 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 take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. The version of the Septuagint differs in some points from the Massoretic. In the fifteenth verse there is no reference to the spirit being in the body; it adds "of the night" after "visions," and changes "my head" into "my thoughts." The sixteenth verse presents no essential points of difference. In the seventeenth verse the differences are more considerable, "These great beasts are four kingdoms, which shall be destroyed from the earth." There seems a good deal to be said for the reading behind this version. The first variation, "kingdoms" instead of "kings," may be due to logic, but it has further "destroyed from" instead of "arising out of," which cannot have resulted from the Massoretic. The verb qoom, "to stand up," followed by min, "from," is not elsewhere used in the sense which we find in the Massoretic here. When one is prone on the earth, as Saul before the revelation of the witch of Endor, "he stood up from the earth" (1 Samuel 28:23, Targum Jonathan)—word for word as here. When Abraham (Genesis 23:3, Targum Onkelos) arose from before his dead, we have a similar construction. In 2 Samuel 11:2, "David arose from his couch." This construction involves Change of position, either directly or implicitly. It is difficult to understand how the one reading arose from the other. The condensation of the sense as it appears in the Septuagint is not likely to be attained by a falsarius. In 2 Samuel 11:18 there is nothing calling for remark, save that the reduplication of "for ever and ever "is omitted. While Theodotion is nearer the Massoretic text, he too differs from it in some points—his rendering of nidnay by ἕξις. Schleusner thinks this probably a false reading for ἐκστάσις. However, in 14:9 we have ἕξις used for "body." In the seventeenth verse we have "kingdoms" instead of "kings." The last clause agrees with the Massoretic, but there is subjoined αἱ ἀρθήσονται, "which shall be taken away"—an addition that suggests that some of the manuscripts before Theodotion had the same reading as that before the Septuagint translator. He renders yeqoomoon min by ἀναστήσονται ἐπί, showing that at all events he had a different preposition. The reduplication of "for ever and ever" is omitted. The Peshitta 14:15 has "in the midst of my couch" instead of "in the midst of my body." In the sixteenth verse it resolves the bystanders into "servants." In the seventeenth verse the preposition is not min, but ‛al. Jerome, instead of corpus, "body," has in his, "in these,"—as if he had read b‛idena instead of nidnay; he also in 14:17 reads regna, not reges. The Massoretic text has some peculiarities. The first words afford one of the rare instances where we have the 'ithpael instead of the hithpael; it may be due to scribal correction. In the seventeenth verse 'inoon (K'thib) affords an instance of the frequent Syriasm in Daniel. The "Most High" is rendered by a plural adjective, עליונין (‛elyoneen); it is explained differently. Kranichfeld and Stuart regard it as pluralis excellentiae. Bevan and Behrmann regard it as a case of attraction, the latter giving as parallel instances, benee 'ayleem (Psalms 29:1) and benee nebeem. The difficulty remains that neither the pluralis excellentiae nor

6

change of number is known in Aramaic. The fact that this strange form has produced no effect on any of the versions makes the reading suspicious. Professor Fuller sees in this word a proof of Babylonian influence, but he does not assign his reason, We now enter a new stage in the development of this vision. After the wonderful assize has ended, Daniel dreams that he is still standing among these innumerable multitudes, and, feeling that all these things are symbols, he is grieved because he cannot comprehend what is meant by them. So from one of those attendants who crowd the canvas of his vision he asks an explanation, or rather "the certainty," of this vision; he wishes to know whether it is s mere vision or of the nature of a revelation. This is a perfectly natural psychological condition in dreaming. In the act of dreaming we question ourselves whether we are dreaming or not; we may even ask one of the characters in our dream the question. The interpretation is interesting, but has been already, to some extent forestalled. A difficulty is seen by some commentators—how these four kingdoms could be said to arise, when one of them was nearing its fall. If we take the reading of the Septuagint, this difficulty is obviated. Saadia Gaon makes these four kings the nominative to the verb "receive" (wrongly translated in our Authorized Version, "take"), and maintains each of these empires shall hold the kingdom of Israel until the Messiah shall come. This view would necessitate grammatically that the Messiah should never come, but that the reign of these four world-empires should be prolonged into eternity. "The saints of the Most High," in the thought of Daniel would be, of necessity, the Jews; for we need not discuss the possibility of the angels being the holy ones implied here—they always have the kingdoms of the world under them—but we may see the Israel of faith in this figure. The believers in Christ are the true Israel, and the kingdom of heaven which Christ set up is thus promised to fill the earth. The Church is thus the true ultimate state. If we regard the Church as a society formed of those who are mutually attracted to each other. have a mutual love for each other, end have a common love to God, then all the history of the world is tending towards the establishment of such a society, universal as the world. National hatreds are much less acute now than they were. Despite the efforts to rouse class against class, there seems more sympathy between classes than there was. The final break-down of national and class oppositions, not necessarily by the abolition of either class or nation, will prepare the way for the Christ-commanded love which is the tie that unites the members of the true eternal Church of God.

16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this.

7

“So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things:

BARNES, "I came near unto one of them that stood by - That is, to one of the angels who appeared to stand near the throne. Dan_7:10. Compare Dan_8:13; Zec_4:4-5; Rev_7:13. It was natural for Daniel to suppose that the angels who were seen encircling the throne would be able to give him information on the subject, and the answers which Daniel received show that he was not mistaken in his expectation. God has often employed angels to communicate important truths to men, or has made them the medium of communicating his will. Compare Rev_1:1; Act_7:53; Heb_2:2.

So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things - He explained the meaning of the symbols, so that Daniel understood them. It would seem probable that Daniel has not recorded all that the angel communicated respecting the vision, but he has preserved so much that we may understand its general signification.

GILL, "I came near unto one of them that stood by,.... To one of the angels that attended, either the throne of judgment, or, the Son of man in his approach to his divine Father:and asked him the truth of all this; the substance of these visions; what these images, presented to his view, were shadows and representations of; so type and truth, shadow and substance, are opposed to each other. The real meaning of all this was what he asked; nor need any be ashamed to ask of whomsoever they can hope to get knowledge of truth, and especially of superiors, of the angels of the churches, or pastors of them:

8

so he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things; he interpreted everything in the vision to him, and gave him the true meaning and real design of the whole, as follows: this was asked and told, not when Daniel was awake, and was considering of what he had dreamed; but in his dream, in his vision by night; this was all transacted in a visionary way, both the things and the interpretation of them.

HENRY 16-17, "II. His earnest desire to understand the meaning of them ( Dan_7:16): I came near to one of those that stood by, to one of the angels that appeared attending the Son of man in his glory, and asked him the truth (the true intent and meaning) of all this. Note, It is a very desirable thing to take the right and full sense of what we see and hear from God; and those that would know must ask by faithful and fervent prayer and by accomplishing a diligent search.

III. The key that was given him, to let him into the understanding of this vision. The angel told him, and told him so plainly that he made him know the interpretation of the thing, and so made him somewhat more easy.

1. The great beasts are great kings and their kingdoms, great monarchs and their monarchies, which shall arise out of the earth, as those beasts did out of the sea,Dan_7:17. They are but terraefilii - from beneath; they savour of the earth, and their foundation is in the dust; they are of the earth earthy, and they are written in the dust, and to the dust they shall return.

2. Daniel pretty well understands the first three beasts, but concerning the fourth he desires to be better informed, because it differed so much from the rest, and was exceedingly dreadful, and not only so, but very mischievous, or it devoured and broke in pieces, Dan_7:19. Perhaps it was this that put Daniel into such a fright, and this part of the visions of his head troubled him more than any of the rest. But especially he desired to know what the little horn was, that had eyes, and a mouth that spoke very great things, and whose countenance was more fearless and formidable than that of any of his fellows, Dan_7:20. And this he was most inquisitive about because it was this horn that made war with the saints, and prevailed against them, Dan_7:21. While no more is intimated than that the children of men make war with one another, and prevail against one another, the prophet does not show himself so much concerned ( let the potsherds strive with the potsherds of the earth, and be dashed in pieces one against another); but when they make war with the saints, when the precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold,are broken as earthen pitchers, it is time to ask, “What is the meaning of this? Will

9

the Lord cast off his people? Will he suffer their enemies to trample upon them and triumph over them? What is this same horn that shall prevail so far against the saints?” To this his interpreter answers (Dan_7:23-25) that this fourth beast is a fourth kingdom, that shall devour the whole earth, or (as it may be read) the whole land. That the ten horns are ten kings, and the little horn is another king that shall subdue three kings, and shall be very abusive to God and his people, shall act, (1.) Very impiously towards God. He shall speak great words against the Most High,setting him, and his authority and justice, at defiance. (2.) Very imperiously towards the people of God. He shall wear out the saints of the Most High; he will not cut them off at once, but wear them out by long oppressions and a constant course of hardships put upon them, ruining their estates and weakening their families. The design of Satan has been to wear out the saints of the Most High, that they may be no more in remembrance; but the attempt is vain, for while the world stands God will have a church in it. He shall think to change times and laws, to abolish all the ordinances and institutions of religion, and to bring every body to say and do just as he would have them. He shall trample upon laws and customs, human and divine. Diruit, aedificut, mutat quadrata rotundis - He pulls down, he builds, he changes square into round, as if he meant to alter even the ordinances of heaven themselves. And in these daring attempts he shall for a time prosper and have success; they shall be given into his hand until time, times, and half a time(that is, for three years and a half), that famous prophetical measure of time which we meet with in the Revelation, which is sometimes called forty-two months, sometimes 1260 days, which come all to one. But at the end of that time the judgment shall sit and take away his dominion (v. 26), which he expounds (v. 11) of the beast being slain and his body destroyed. And (as Mr. Mede reads v. 12) as to the rest of the beast, the ten horns, especially the little ruffling horn (as he calls it), they had their dominion taken away. Now the question is, Who is this enemy, whose rise, reign, and ruin, are foretold? Interpreters are not agreed. Some will have the fourth kingdom to be that of the Seleucidae, and the little horn to be Antiochus, and show the accomplishment of all this in the history of the Maccabees; so Junius, Piscator, Polanus, Broughton, and many others: but others will have the fourth kingdom to be that of the Romans, and the little horn to be Julius Caesar, and the succeeding emperors (says Calvin), the antichrist, the papal kingdom (says Mr. Joseph Mede), that wicked one, which, as this little horn, is to be consumed by the brightness of Christ's second coming. The pope assumes a power to change times and laws, potestas autokratorike  - an absolute and despotic power, as he calls it. Others make the little horn to be the Turkish empire; so Luther, Vatablus, and others. Now I cannot prove either side to be wrong; and therefore, since

10

prophecies sometimes have many fulfillings, and we ought to give scripture its full latitude (in this as in many other controversies), I am willing to allow that they are both in the right, and that this prophecy has primary reference to the Syrian empire, and was intended for the encouragement of the Jews who suffered under Antiochus, that they might see even these melancholy times foretold, but might foresee a glorious issue of them at last, and the final overthrow of their proud oppressors; and, which is best of all, might foresee, not long after, the setting up of the kingdom of the Messiah in the world, with the hopes of which it was usual with the former prophets to comfort the people of God in their distresses. But yet it has a further reference, and foretels the like persecuting power and rage in Rome heathen, and no less in Rome papal, against the Christian religion, that was in Antiochus against the pious Jews and their religion. And St. John, in his visions and prophecies, which point primarily at Rome, has plain reference, in many particulars, to these visions of Daniel.

K&D, "Dan_7:16Daniel turned himself towards an angel who stood by, with a request for an

explanation of these things. One of them that stood by refers to those mentioned in Dan_7:10, who stood around the throne of God; whence it is obvious that the vision is still continued. אבעא is not the preterite, I asked him, but the subjunctive, that דענני I might ask. So also (ו) יה is to be taken with the וgoing before: he spake to me, that he informed me, namely by his speaking.TRAPP, "Daniel 7:16 I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.Ver. 16. I came near unto one of them that stood by,] i.e., To one of the holy angels. {as Daniel 7:10} Let us have recourse in like case to Christ’s ministers, who are called "angels of the churches"; like as angels, by a like change of name, are called "ministering spirits." [Hebrews 1:14] The preaching of the gospel is taken from the angels, [Luke 2:10] and given to the ministers: hence Paul was sent to Ananias for further direction, [Acts 9:10-11] and Cornelius to Peter. [Acts 10:3-5]And asked him the truth,] i.e., The thing hereby signified. See John 1:17; John 14:7; holy minds are industrious after knowledge.

11

17 ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth.

BARNES, "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings - Four kings or four dynasties. There is no reason for supposing that they refer to individual kings, but the obvious meaning is, that they refer to four dominions or empires that would succeed one another on the earth. So the whole representation leads us to suppose, and so the passage has been always interpreted. The Latin Vulgate renders it regna; the Septuagint βασιλεῖαι basileiai; Luther, Reiche; Lengerke, Konigreiche. This interpretation is confirmed, also, by Dan_7:23, where it is expressly said that “the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth.” See also Dan_7:24.

Which shall arise out of the earth - In Dan_7:2 the beasts are represented as coming up from the sea - the emblem of agitated nations. Here the same idea is presented more literally - that they would seem to spring up out of the earth, thus thrown into wild commotion. These dynasties were to be upon the earth, and they were in all things to indicate their earthly origin. Perhaps, also, it is designed by these words to denote a marked contrast between these four dynasties and the one that would follow - which would be of heavenly origin. This was the general intimation which was given to the meaning of the vision, and he was satisfied at once as to the explanation, so far as the first three were concerned; but the fourth seemed to indicate more mysterious and important events, and respecting this he was induced to ask a more particular explanation.

CLARKE, "These great beasts - are four kings - See the preceding verses, where the following explanations are inserted and illustrated.

GILL, "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings,.... Or kingdoms, as the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, and Arabic versions; and so Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Saadiah; so the fourth beast is called the fourth kingdom, Dan_7:23 or a succession of kings in four kingdoms or monarchies, comparable to beasts for their strength, cruelty, and tyranny: these are the words of him that stood by, of one of the angels Daniel applied to, to know the meaning of his dream; and might be better rendered, "as to these (c) great beasts,

12

which are four"; for their quality beasts, for their quantity great, and for number four. The meaning is, four kings shall arise out of the earth; or kingdoms; which have an earthly original and foundation; are supported by earthly and worldly means, and with earthly and worldly views; and are different from the kingdom of Christ and his saints, which is not of the world, though it may be in it: this explains what is meant by the great sea, from whence these beasts are said to come up, Dan_7:3, nor is it any material objection that the first of these kingdoms, the Babylonian, was risen already, and almost at an end; since the denomination is taken from the larger number; three of them were to arise, and the first was of the same original with them; thus it is said, Dan_11:2, that three kings of Persia should stand up, and yet Cyrus, who was one of them, reigned already.

JAMISON, "kings — that is, kingdoms. Compare Dan_7:23, “fourth kingdom”; Dan_2:38; Dan_8:20-22. Each of the four kings represents a dynasty. Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, Antiochus, and Antichrist, though individually referred to, are representatives of characteristic tendencies.

K&D, "Dan_7:17-19In Dan_7:17-27 the angel gives the wished-for explanation. In Dan_7:17and Dan_7:18 he gives first a general interpretation of the vision. The words, these great beasts, of which there were four, form an absolute nominal clause: “as for the beasts;” as concerning their meaning, it is this: “they represent four kings.” The kings are named as founders and representatives of world-kingdoms. Four kingdoms are meant, as Dan_7:23

shows, where the fourth beast is explained as מלכו, “dominion,” “kingdom.” Compare also Dan_8:20 and Dan_8:21, where in like manner kings are named and kingdoms are meant. From the future יקומון (shall arise) Hitzig concludes that the first kingdom was yet future, and therefore, that since Daniel had the vision under Belshazzar, the first king could only be Belshazzar, but could not represent the Chaldean monarchy. But if from the words shall arise it follows that the vision is only of kings who arise in the future, then, since Daniel saw the vision in the first year of Belshazzar, it cannot of course be Belshazzar who is represented by the first beast; and if Belshazzar was, as Hitzig thinks, the last king of Chaldea, than the entire Chaldean monarchy is excluded from the number of the four great beasts. Kranichfeld therefore understands this word as modal, and interprets it should arise. This was the divine decree by which also the duration of their kingdoms was determined (Dan_7:12, Dan_7:25). But the modal interpretation does not agree with Dan_7:16, according to which the angel wishes to make known the meaning of the matter to Daniel, not to show what was determined in the divine counsel, but what God had revealed to him by the beasts rising up out of the sea. The future, shall arise, is rather (Ros., v. Leng., Maur., Klief., etc.) for the purpose of declaring that the

13

vision represents the development of the world-power as a whole, as it would unfold itself in four successive phases; whereupon the angel so summarily interprets the vision to the prophet, that, dating from the time of their origin, he points out the first world-kingdom as arising along with the rest, notwithstanding that it had already come into existence, and only its last stages were then future. The thought of this summary interpretation is manifestly nothing else than this: “Four kingdoms shall arise on the earth, and shall again disappear; but the saints of God shall receive the kingdom which shall have an everlasting duration.” יקבלון, receive; not found and establish by their own might, but receive through the Son of man, to whom God (Dan_7:14) has given it. נין עלי (cf. Dan_7:22, Dan_7:25, Dan_7:27) is the name of God, the Most High, analogous to the plur. forms הים .קדשים ,א“The saints of the Most High,” or briefly “the saints” (Dan_7:21, Dan_7:22), are neither the Jews, who are accustomed to call themselves “saints,” in contrast with the heathen (v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig, etc.), nor the converted Israel of the millennium (Hofmann and other chiliasts), but, as we argue from Exo_19:6; Deu_7:6, the true members of the covenant nation, the New Testament Israel of God, i.e., the congregation of the New Covenant, consisting of Israel and the faithful of all nations; for the kingdom which God gives to the Son of man will, according to Dan_7:14, comprehend those that are redeemed from among all the nations of the earth. The idea of the everlasting duration of their kingdom is, by the words עלמיא עלם (for ever and ever), raised to the superlative degree.

The angel does not here give further explanations regarding the first three kingdoms. Since the second chapter treats of them, and the eighth also gives further description of the second and third, it is enough here to state that the first three beasts represent those kingdoms that are mentioned in Daniel 2. The form of the fourth beast, however, comprehends much more regarding the fourth world-kingdom that the dream-image of Nebuchadnezzar did. Therefore Daniel asks the angel further for certain information (certainty) regarding the dreadful form of this beast, and consequently the principal outlines of the representation before given of it are repeated by him in Dan_7:19-21, and are completed by certain circumstances there omitted. Thus Dan_7:19 presents the addition, that the beast had, along with iron teeth, also claws of brass, with which it stamped to pieces what it could not devour; and Dan_7:20, that the little horn became greater than its fellows, made war against the people of God and overcame them, till the judgment brought its dominion to an end. צבית.I wished or sure knowledge, i.e., to experience certainty regarding it ,ליצבא

CALVIN, "Here the angel answers Daniel concerning the four beasts which had been shewn him in the vision. He says, therefore, Four kingdoms arose, and by the name kingdom he means monarchy; for we know that the Persians had many kings until Alexander transferred to himself the empire of the East. Although Cyrus had seven or eight successors, yet the Persian empire continued through them all. And as we saw before, although whatever Alexander had acquired by his arms was divided

14

among his four successors, yet it still remained the Macedonian kingdom. The same thing must be said concerning the fourth kingdom. Although we know consuls to have been created yearly at Rome, yet that government lasted till Julius Caesar destroyed it, and consumed the strength of the empire, so as to surpass by his power the splendid altitude which had been long and widely conspicuous in the world. Hence the angel replied, By the four beasts four kingdoms are denoted: he says, shall arise; and yet the Chaldean had long ago arisen, and was now verging under Belshazzar to its fall. But it was proposed by the angel to teach the Prophet and all the people that there was no reason why revolutions should disturb them too much. The Israelites then saw themselves lying as if dead, yea, actually buried and concealed under the earth. For exile was to them equivalent to the tomb. For this reason, then, the angel announcesthe springing up of four kingdoms, while the first was then flourishing; but, as I have already said., this suits very well within the scope and object of the prophecy. He had formerly said from the sea, but the word “sea” is used metaphorically, since the condition of the earth was turbulent through many ages. As, therefore, nothing was stable, God appropriately set forth the whole world under the figure of the sea. He afterwards adds, They will obtain the kingdom of the holy lofty ones Here interpreters vary considerably, because, as I have before explained it, some take this prophecy to relate to the kingdom of Turkey, others to the tyranny of the Pope of Rome, and extend what the Prophet here says to the final judgment. There is nothing surprising, then, in this diversity of opinion shewing itself more fully in the various details. By sacred holy ones some understand angels; but there is still much controversy about the words, for the noun of saints is “in regimen,” as if the Prophet, had said saints of lofty ones, properly speaking. (23) Similar passages justify those who take it “in the absolute state.” But if we follow the grammatical construction, we cannot explain it otherwise; but the former noun may be put in a state of regimen, as we have said. And I embrace this opinion. Some refer it to the one God, but. I think this a profane way of expression. I have no doubt about the Prophet meaning sons of God by sacred lofty ones, because, though they are pilgrims in the world: yet they raise their minds upwards, and know themselves to be citizens of the heavenly kingdom. Hence by the word עליונין, gnelionin, “lofty ones,” I have no doubt; the Prophet means heavenly powers; that is, whatever we can conceive of divinity, and whatever is exalted above the world. I will1 now give my reasons shortly why I like this sense the best.If we call the holy lofty ones God himself, what sense can we elicit from the passage? Did the Chaldeans and the rest of the monarchies usurp and transfer to themselves the power of God? There, is some truth in this, because all who domineer without submitting to the one God despoil him of his peculiar honor, and are rather robbers than kings. But the Prophet, in my opinion, understood something else from the angel, namely, that the Church should lose all form and dignity in the world during the flourishing of these four monarchies. We know the sons of God to be heirs of the world; and Paul, when speaking of the promise given to Abraham, says, he was chosen by God as heir of the world. (Romans 4:13; Hebrews 1:2) And this doctrine is sufficiently known — the world was created for the sake of the human race. When

15

Adam fell from his lawful rights, all his posterity became aliens. God deprived them of the inheritance which he had designed for them. Now, therefore, our inheritance must be restored through Christ, for which reason he is called the only heir of the world. Thus it is not surprising if the angel says that tyrants, when they exercise supreme dominion, assume and arrogate to themselves the peculiar property of the sacred lofty ones, meaning the people of God. And this suits very well with the assertions of the present passage concerning the Church being deprived of its dignity, eminence, and visibility in the world. For then God’s people were like a putrid carcass, the limbs of which were separated and dispersed on all sides, without any hope of restoration. Lastly, although by the permission of Darius, and the edict and liberality of Cyrus, some portion of them returned to their country, yet what was that nominal return? They had but a precarious dwelling in the inheritance divinely promised them; they were pressed on all sides by their enemies, and were subject to the lust and injustice of them all. For the Church had no empire under the Persians. After the third change we know how miserably they were afflicted, especially under Antiochus. That nation was always opposed to them, but then they were almost reduced to extremities, when Antiochus endeavored furiously to abolish the whole law and worship of God. Under the Macedonian kingdom the Jews were in constant slavery; but when the Roman army penetrated those regions, they felt the horrible tyranny of the fourth beast, as we have already seen. Lastly, it is sufficiently evident from the continual history of those times, that the sons of God were always under the yoke, and were not only cruelly but ignominiously treated.

COFFMAN, ""These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, that shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom, forever, even forever and ever."There is practically no disagreement from the understanding that "kings" in this vision are to be understood as "kingdoms" or "world-governments." "Four" in the numerology of the Hebrews is the number of the earth; and what is indicated here is that monstrous world-governments shall continue throughout the world's history (Isn't it true?)."But the saints of the Most High shall possess the kingdom ..." Exactly when this event takes place was not indicated here; but Daniel 2:44 and supplemental information from the New Testament indicate that the possession was to take place in the days of the "fourth" great beast, namely, the days of the Roman Empire.

16

Daniel 7:22 also mentions the saints' possession of the kingdom; and apparently that reference is focused upon the everlasting phase of the kingdom mentioned by the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:10-11. Thus the "possession of the kingdom" is not a single date at all. Christian baptism admits one into the kingdom (Colossians 1:13); but it is fidelity that grants one, at last, admission "into the eternal kingdom" (2 Peter 1:10-11). Such facts as these were not revealed to Daniel; and it is therefore quite normal that there should have appeared some evidence of ambiguity on these particular points in the vision.

TRAPP, "Daniel 7:17 These great beasts, which are four, [are] four kings, [which] shall arise out of the earth.Ver. 17. These great beasts … are four kings,] i.e., A succession of kings, all of them truculent and savage towards the saints.Which shall arise out of the earth.] And as toads, strive who shall die with most earth in their mouths.

WHEDON, "Verse 17-1817, 18. The four beasts symbolize four kings (or, rather, kingdoms, Daniel 7:23), at the end of whose brutal rule the kingdom of the saints, ruled over by “one like unto a son of man,” shall take the sovereignty. “As Michael, ‘the great prince,’ is not identical with the people of God (Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1), but is rather their representative and defender, so here it seems most satisfactory to understand the Son of man (Daniel 7:13) as the personal representative and Prince of the people of the saints (Daniel 7:27). ” — Terry. So the saints of Christ shall reign with him in glory (Romans 8:17; 2 Timothy 2:12; Matthew 19:28; Revelation 2:26-27, etc.).

PETT, "Verse 17-1817

A Brief Explanation of the Vision (Daniel 7:17-18).‘These great beasts which are four, are four kings who will arise from the earth. But the saints of the most high will receive the kingdom, and will possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. ’Note that the interpretation states that the kings arise from the earth, not from the sea. The idea of the sea was conveying ideas, but was not to be taken literally. And they are four kings. This has in mind the four kings who are most prominent in the empires as depicted, but the kings represent their empires. In Daniel 7:23 they are four empires, growing from the work of the four kings. However, the people of God need not be concerned about these kings and empires, for in the end the kingdom, the everlasting kingdom, will be theirs. Note the emphasis on its everlastingness. (This has nothing to do with any Millennial kingdom). We are probably to see the four kings as Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander the Great and the Anti-God, (the horn, the small one).‘The holy ones (saints) of the Most High.’ This does not mean Israel as such, but those who are faithful to God and His covenant and thus separated to Him. Apart from this passage the word ‘holy ones’, used in this way, is found also in Daniel 8:24 (‘people of the holy ones’, thus the holy people); see also Psalms 16:3; Psalms 34:9. Note that they ‘receive the kingdom’. It is not obtained by their own strength and power. But once received it is their possession for eternity.

18 But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’

18

BARNES, "But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom - That is, they shall ultimately take possession of the rule over all the world, and shall control it from that time onward to the end. This is the grand thing which the vision is designed to disclose, and on this it was evidently the intention to fix the mind. Everything before was preparatory and subordinate to this, and to this all things tended. The phrase rendered the Most High - in the margin “high ones, i. e., things or places” eleyônıyn‛ - עליונין - is in the plural number, and means literally high ones; but there can be no doubt that it refers here to God, and is given to Him as the word אלהים 'ĕlohıym is (Gen_1:1, et saepe), to denote majesty or honor - pluralis excellentice. The word rendered saints means the holy, and the reference is undoubtedly to the people of God on the earth, meaning here that they would take possession of the kingdom, or that they would rule. When true religion shall everywhere prevail, and when all offices shall be in the hands of good men - of men that fear God and that keep his commandments - instead of being in the hands of bad men, as they generally have been, then this prediction will be accomplished in respect to all that is fairly implied in it.

And possess the kingdom for ever, even forever and ever - This is a strong and emphatic declaration, affirming that this dominion will be perpetual. It will not pass away, like the other kingdoms, to be succeeded by another one. What is here affirmed, as above remarked, will be true if such a reign should continue on earth to the winding up of all things, and should then be succeeded by an eternal reign of holiness in the heavens. It is not necessary to interpret this as meaning that there would be literally an eternal kingdom on this earth, for it is everywhere taught in the Scriptures that the present order of things will come to a close. But it does seem necessary to understand this as teaching that there will be a state of prevalent righteousness on the earth hereafter, and that when that is introduced it will continue to the end of time.

CLARKE, "But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom - I doubt whether this be the true sense of the original Chaldee, ויקבלון מלכותא קדשיvikabbelun malcutha kaddishey elyonin עליונון , “But the supreme holy ones shall receive the kingdom;” or, “they shall receive the kingdom of the supreme saints.” Properly translated by Montanus, Et suscipient regnum sanctorum altissimorum. Whatever we may think of the patriarchs and the Jews in their best times, there has never been so much holiness of heart possessed,

19

and so much righteousness practiced, as by the genuine disciples of Christ. Christianity alone has provided a full redemption for man. They are the chief saints, and to them God gives the kingdom: and this Gospel dispensation, called often the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of heaven, shall last for ever, during the whole lapse of time; and for ever and ever -throughout eternity, shall they and its blessings endure.

GILL, "But the saints of the most High,.... Or, "of the most high Ones" (d), Father, Son, and Spirit, separated by God the Father in election, and in that sense his servants, or sanctified ones, Jud_1:1, and redeemed by the Son, and sanctified with his blood, or their sins atoned by it, and to whom he is made sanctification, and so his saints, Heb_13:12 and sanctified by the Spirit, who in conversion implants principles of grace and holiness in them, 1Co_6:11, or, "the saints of high" (e), places or things; who are born from above, and are called with a high and heavenly calling, towards which they are pressing, reckoning themselves strangers here below: these shall take the kingdom; or "receive" (f) it, as a free gift from God; and not by force, and rapine, and violence, as the beasts did: and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever; after the four monarchies are destroyed, a fifth kingdom shall be set up; and this will be given to, and put into the possession of, the saints; they shall have the rule and government in the world, even in the whole world, as well as reign with Christ spiritually; which manner of rule shall last long; and then after the first resurrection they shall reign with him a thousand years on earth, and afterwards in heaven to all eternity. There is another rendering and sense of the words given, "and they (the beasts) shall receive the kingdom of the saints of the most High" (g), &c.; and so Saadiah interprets them, "and these kingdoms shall receive the kingdom of Israel, who are the saints of the most High, until the world to come, until the Messiah reigns;'' and this way go many others, who understand the words of those several monarchies possessing the land of Judea, and ruling over it; and of the continuance of it in the hands of Papists or Turks for a long, time, even until the glorious kingdom of Christ takes place; but this does not agree with the accentuation of the words, their form of construction, their connection, and strong manner of expression, "for ever and ever"; and especially if compared with Dan_7:22.

HENRY 18-28, "He has a joyful prospect given him of the prevalency of God's kingdom among men, and its victory over all opposition at last. And it is very observable that in the midst of the predictions of the force and fury of the enemies this is brought in abruptly (Dan_7:18 and again Dan_7:22), before it comes, in the course of the vision, to be interpreted, Dan_7:26, Dan_7:27. And this also refers, (1.) To the prosperous days of the Jewish

20

church, after it had weathered the storm under Antiochus, and the power which the Maccabees obtained over their enemies. (2.) To the setting up of the kingdom of the Messiah in the world by the preaching of his gospel. For judgment Christ comes into this world, to rule by his Spirit, and to make all his saints kings and priests to their God. (3.) To the second coming of Jesus Christ, when the saints shall judge the world, shall sit down with him on his throne and triumph in the complete downfall of the devil's kingdom. Let us see what is here foretold. [1.] The Ancient of days shall come, Dan_7:22. God shall judge the world by his Son, to whom he has committed all judgment, and, as an earnest of that, he comes for the deliverance of his oppressed people, comes for the setting up of his kingdom in the world. [2.] The judgment shall sit, Dan_7:26. God will make it appear that he judges in the earth, and will, both in wisdom and in equity, plead his people's righteous cause. At the great day he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained. [3.] The dominion of the enemy shall be taken away, Dan_7:26. All Christ's enemies shall be made his footstool, and shall be consumed and destroyed to the end: these were the apostle uses concerning the man of sin, 2Th_2:8. He shall be consumed with the spirit of Christ's mouth and destroyed with the brightness of his coming.[4.] Judgment is given to the saints of the Most High. The apostles are entrusted with the preaching of a gospel by which the world shall be judged. All the saints by their faith and obedience condemn an unbelieving disobedient world; in Christ their head they shall judge the world, shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel, Mat_19:28. See what reason we have to honour those that fear the Lord; how mean and despicable soever the saints now appear in the eye of the world, and how much contempt soever is poured upon them; they are the saints of the Most High; they are near and dear to God, and he owns them for his, and judgment is given to them. [5.] That which is most insisted upon is that the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, Dan_7:18. And again (Dan_7:22), The time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. And again (Dan_7:27), The kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heavens, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High. Far be it from us to infer hence that dominion is founded on grace, or that this will warrant any, under pretence of saintship, to usurp kingship. No; Christ's kingdom is not of this world; but this intimates the spiritual dominion of the saints over their own lusts and corruptions, their victories over Satan and his temptations, and the triumphs of the martyrs over death and its terrors. It likewise promises that the gospel kingdom shall be set up, a kingdom of grace, the privileges and comforts of which now, under the heavens, shall be the earnest and first-fruits of the kingdom of glory in the heavens. When the empire became Christian, and princes used their power for the defence and advancement of Christianity, then the saints possessed the kingdom. The saints rule by the Spirit's ruling in them (and this is the victory overcoming the world, even their faith) and by making the kingdoms of this world to become Christ's kingdom. But the full accomplishment of this will be in the everlasting happiness of the saints, the kingdom that cannot be moved, which we, according to his promise, look for (that is the greatness of the kingdom), the crown of glory that fades not 21

away - that is the everlasting kingdom. See what an emphasis is laid upon this (Dan_7:18): The saints shall possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever; and the reason is because he whose saints they are is the Most High and his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, Dan_7:27. He is so, and therefore theirs shall be so. Because I live, you shall live also, Joh_14:19. His kingdom is theirs; they reckon themselves exalted in his exaltation, and desire no greater honour and satisfaction to themselves than that all dominions should serve and obey him, as they shall do, Dan_7:27. They shall either be brought into subjection to his golden sceptre or brought to destruction by his iron rod.Daniel, in the close, when he ends that matter, tells us what impressions this vision made upon him; it overwhelmed his spirits to such a degree that his countenance was changed, and it made him look pale; but he kept the matter in his heart. Note, The heart must be the treasury and store-house of divine things; there we must hide God's word, as the Virgin Mary kept the sayings of Christ, Luk_2:51. Daniel kept the matter in his heart, with a design, not to keep it from the church, but to keep it for the church, that what he had received from the Lord he might fully and faithfully deliver to the people. Note, It concerns God's prophets and ministers to treasure up the things of God in their minds, and there to digest them well. If we would have God's word ready in our mouths when we have occasion for it, we must keep it in our hearts at all times.

JAMISON, "e Most High — the emphatic title of God in this prophecy, who delegates His power first to Israel; then to the Gentiles (Dan_2:37, Dan_2:38) when Israel fails to realize the idea of the theocracy; lastly, to Messiah, who shall rule truly for God, taking it from the Gentile world powers, whose history is one of continual degeneracy culminating in the last of the kings, Antichrist. Here, in the interpretation, “the saints,” but in the vision (Dan_7:13, Dan_7:14), “the Son of man,” takes the kingdom; for Christ and His people are one in suffering, and one in glory. Tregelles translates, “most high places” (Eph_1:3; Eph_2:6). Though oppressed by the beast and little horn, they belong not to the earth from which the four beasts arise, but to the most high places.CALVIN, "Thus this prophecy was fulfilled, namely, The four beasts took upon themselves the empire which properly belonged to the sacred lofty ones; that is, to God’s elect sons, who, though dwellers on earth, are dependent on heaven. In this interpretation I see nothing forced, and whoever prudently weighs the matter will, as I hope, recognize what I have said as the meaning of the Prophet. The latter clause now follows. They shall obtain the kingdom, says he,for ever, and even for ever and ever A difficult question arises here, because by these words Daniel, or the angel addressing him, seems to express a perpetual condition under these four monarchies;. Belshazzar was the last king of the Babylonian dynasty, and at the perform of this vision the overthrow of that monarchy was at hand. With regard to the Persian kings, there were only eight of them besides Cyrus. And concerning

22

Alexander we know a sudden change happened; the terror of him spread abroad like a storm, but it vanished away after it had affected all the people of the East. The Macedonian kingdom also suffered a concussion, when those leaders began to disagree among themselves who had obtained from Alexander authority and rank; and at length the kingdom became fourfold, as we have already stated, and shall mention again. Now if we count the years, the length of those monarchies was not so great as to justify the epithet “perpetual.” I reply, this must be referred to the sensations of the pious, to whom that delay seemed specially tedious, so that they would have pined away in their miseries, had not this prophecy in some way relieved them. We see at the present moment how great is the for your of desire when reference is made to the help of God; and when our minds have been heated with desire, they immediately decline to impatience. It thus happens that the promises of God do not suffice to sustain us, because nothing is more difficult than to bear long delay. For if the Church in our time had been oppressed for a hundred years, what constancy would have been discerned ht us? If a whirlwind arises, we are astonished, and cry out, “What next? what next?” Three or four months will not have elapsed before all men enter upon a strife with God and expostulate with him, because he does not hasten at once to bring assistance to his Church. We are not surprised, then, at the angel here assigning one age, or even an “age of ages,” to tyrants under whom the Church should be oppressed. Although I do not doubt the reference to the fullness of times, as we: know Christ to have been the end of the Law, and as his advent drew nearer, so God admonished the faithful to carry forward their own expectations to the advent of their Redeemer. When, therefore, the angel uses the phrase one age and an age of ages, I have no doubt that he defined the time for the elect, to strengthen them in patiently bearing trouble of all kinds, as this had been divinely decreed; for the four beasts were to reign not only for a few years, but for continual ages; that is, until the time of renovation had arrived for the world, when God completely restored his Church. Let us proceed: — TRAPP, "Daniel 7:18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.Ver. 18. But the saints of the Most High.] Or, The most high saints, highly exalted in Christ, and preferred far above those earth sprung mushroom monarchs, [Daniel 7:17] who are of the earth earthy, and partake not of the inheritance of the saints in light. Now this is a very true definition of a Church, saith Junius here, viz., Coetus sanctorum ad excelsa, a company of saints partaking of a high and heavenly calling. [Hebrews 3:1]Shall take the kingdom.] Take it "by force," [Matthew 11:12] lay hold on the promised inheritance; yet not till it is given them, and the time is come. [Daniel 7:22]

POOLE, "Jesus Christ being their King, they shall reign with him, Revelation 1:6 20:4, and possess the kingdom for ever, Matthew 19:28 1 Corinthians 1:9 6:3 1 Peter 2:9 Revelation 5:10. This shall be for ever, because Christ’s kingdom is the last

23

kingdom, never any shall succeed after that.

19 “Then I wanted to know the meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left.

BARNES, "Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast - I desired to know particularly what was symbolized by that. He appears to have been satisfied with the most general intimations in regard to the first three beasts, for the kingdoms represented by them seemed to have nothing very remarkable. But it was different in regard to the fourth. The beast itself was so remarkable - so fierce and terrific; the number of the horns was so great; the springing up of the little horn was so surprising; the character of that horn was so unusual; the judgment passed on it was so solemn; and the vision of one like the Son of man coming to take possession of the kingdom -all these things were of so fearful and so uncommon a character, that the mind of Daniel was peculiarly affected in view of them, and he sought earnestly for a further explanation. In the description that Daniel here gives of the beast and the horns, he refers in the main to the same cirumstances which he had before described; but he adds a few which he had before omitted, all tending to impress the mind more deeply with the fearful character and the momentous import of the vision; as, for instance, the fact that it had nails of brass, and made war with the saints.

Which was diverse from all the others - Different in its form and character; - so different as to attract particular attention, and to leave the impression that something very peculiar and remarkable was denoted by it. Notes, Dan_7:7.Exceeding dreadful - Notes, Dan_7:7.And his nails of brass - This circumstance is not mentioned in the first statement, Dan_7:7. It accords well with the other part of the description,

24

that his teeth were of iron, and is designed to denote the fearful and terrific character of tho kingdom, symbolized by the beast.Which devoured ... - See the notes at Dan_7:7.

CLARKE, "His nails of brass - This is not mentioned in the seventh verse, where the description of the beast is given. It might be added, for the first time, by the person who is now explaining the fourth beast. Houbigant thinks it has been lost out of the text: but such loss is not intimated by any MS.; nor does any of the ancient Versions acknowledge this addition in the seventh verse.

GILL, "Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast;.... What it represented, what kingdom or monarchy was meant by it; for, by the above answer of the angel, he understood the four beasts signified four kings or kingdoms; the three first he pretty well understood; at least he was not so solicitous about them as about the fourth; and this he was desirous of having a very particular and exact account of; it threatening, by its appearance, a great deal of trouble to the world, and especially to the church of God: which was diverse from all the others; or, "from all them", or "those" (h), the other three beasts: exceeding dreadful; to other kingdoms and nations: whose teeth were of iron; of these parts of its description, see on Dan_7:7, and his nails of brass; this is a new circumstance, not before mentioned, and here added with great propriety: "nails" belonging to a beast of prey, and these said to be of "brass", to denote its strength, cruelty, and voraciousness in tearing its prey, to pieces; and, moreover, to show that this kingdom has somewhat of the nature of the third or Grecian monarchy, said to be of brass in Nebuchadnezzar's dream; some out of that kingdom being taken into the Roman militia, as, Theodoret observes; and soldiers are to a king what nails are to a beast: which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; some kingdoms and provinces were destroyed by it, and the rest were made subject to it; see Dan_7:7.

JAMISON, "Balaam, an Aramean, dwelling on the Euphrates, at the beginning of Israel’s independent history, and Daniel at the close of it, prophetically exhibit to the hostile world powers Israel as triumphant over them at last, though the world powers of the East (Asshur) and the West (Chittim) carry all before them and afflict Eber (Israel) for a time (Num_23:8-10, Num_23:28; Num_24:2, Num_24:7-9, Num_24:22-24). To

25

Balaam’s “Asshur” correspond Daniel’s two eastern kingdoms, Babylon and Medo-Persia; to “Chittim,” the two western kingdoms, Greece and Rome (compare Gen_10:4, Gen_10:11, Gen_10:22). In Babel, Nimrod the hunter (revolter) founds the first kingdom of the world (Gen_10:8-13). The Babylonian world power takes up the thread interrupted at the building of Babel, and the kingdom of Nimrod. As at Babel, so in Babylon the world is united against God; Babylon, the first world power, thus becomes the type of the God-opposed world. The fourth monarchy consummates the evil; it is “diverse” from the others only in its more unlimited universality. The three first were not in the full sense universal monarchies. The fourth is; so in it the God-opposed principle finds its full development. All history moves within the Romanic, Germanic, and Slavonic nations; it shall continue so to Christ’s second advent. The fourth monarchy represents universalism externally; Christianity, internally. Rome is Babylon fully developed. It is the world power corresponding in contrast to Christianity, and therefore contemporary with it (Mat_13:38; Mar_1:15; Luk_2:1; Gal_4:4).CALVIN, "Here the Prophet interrogates the angel concerning the Fourth Beast more attentively and carefully; as we formerly saw him touched with greater admiration on beholding the beast which was formidable beyond the other three, so that neither a name nor representation could be found for it. As, therefore, God displayed something great under the image of the fourth beast, he caused his Prophet to wake up to understand the mystery of it. For this reason he now interrogates the angel; for he says he wished for the truth concerning the fourth beast, and he also repeats what we saw before, namely, its being different from the others And surely the subjugation of so many kings by the Romans was a difference worthy of notice. Let us think upon the origin of that nation; — a few robbers seizing upon a desert spot, growing great by brutal audacity and force, until they reduced all their neighbors under their power. Then they crossed the sea, and added first one province, and then another to their sway. And when the kingdom of Macedon came within their power, this was indeed portentous. At length they became masters throughout the whole circuit of the Mediterranean, and there was no corner which did not receive their yoke; and this could never have been imagined by human apprehension.It is said then, this beast was different from the others, and very terrible. In the same sense its teeth are called iron, and its claws brazen. No mention had hitherto been made of his claw; the Prophet had spoken only of iron teeth, but he now adds brazen claws, as if he had said, This beast shall be endued with such savage madness, as not only to attack all things by its unusual violence, but to tear, lacerate, and devour all things; as he repeats again what he had said, eating and destroying and treading under foot the remainder As. I have already explained all these points, I am unwilling to consume your time in vain and to confuse you with useless repetitions. I asked also, said he, concerning the ten horns, which, were upon its head And this is the reason why I must cut the subject off shortly here, as the angel’s reply will follow directly. The Prophet, therefore, is now, without doubt, placed under a celestial impulse, because God was unwilling to teach him only as a

26

private person; he was. to be a witness and herald of so great a mystery; and we may at this day learn from his writings, which are of the utmost use to us when we become fully acquainted with them.

COFFMAN, "Verse 19"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 its nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet; and concerning the ten horns that were on its 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 judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."Some scholars have mistakenly confused "saints of the Most High" with the Jewish people; but, in this connection it must be remembered that during the times of the fourth beast with the ten horns and the little horn that made war against God's people, the Jews are most definitely not meant. Israel was at that time in total rebellion against God and had already suffered judicial hardening. Therefore, the mention of "saints" here is a reference to Christians, servants of Jesus Christ. Any notion that secular Israel, or racial Jews ever "received the kingdom of Christ" is totally refuted by every word of the New Testament.It is precisely in the instance of these ten horns and the little horn that uprooted three of the ten, persecuted God's people, and became a perpetual factor on earth even until the time of the judgment, - it is precisely here that the fourth beast was "diverse" from the others. See under Daniel 7:25, below, for interpretation of "how long" this little horn continued, namely, for "time and times and half a time.""Until ... the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom ..." The possession of the kingdom here is not a reference to the establishment of the kingdom, nor to the entry of saints into the kingdom, but is a reference to that point in the future at which time, "The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ: and he shall reign forever and ever" (Revelation 11:15).

TRAPP, "Daniel 7:19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth [were of] iron, and his nails [of] brass; [which] devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;Ver. 19. Then I would know the truth.] See Daniel 7:16. And take notice that godly minds are not content with the knowledge of things in gross, but covet a particular

27

and distinct knowledge. [Philippians 3:10]

BENSON, "Verses 19-22Daniel 7:19-22. Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast — Namely, what was intended to be signified by it. And of the ten horns that were in his head — Of what they were emblems; and of the other which came up, &c. — See Daniel 7:8; whose look was more stout than his fellows — Or more great and magnificent; or, who was more arrogant, and claimed a superiority over the rest: for though this horn, or power, was small at first, it at length exceeded all other powers in pomp and pre-eminence, exalting itself not only above all temporal authorities, but above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, 2 Thessalonians 2:4. I beheld — Chaldee, I was seeing, or considering attentively; and the same horn made war with the saints — By the saints here is to be understood the servants of Christ. So antichrist is described as making war with the saints, and overcoming them for a time: see the margin. Until the Ancient of days came — To vindicate their cause, to crush the idolaters, and to extirpate the dominion of antichrist: or until the final judgment, when the saints shall sit as assessors with Christ, shall be seated on thrones, and reign as kings and priests with God and Christ, and possess the kingdom for ever. And judgment was given to the saints, &c. — Power to judge and rule over their enemies. And the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom —See on Daniel 7:14.

PETT, "Verse 19-20Daniel’s Further Question About the Fourth Empire (Daniel 7:19-20).‘Then I desired to know the truth about the fourth wild beast, which was diverse from all of them, exceedingly terrible, whose teeth were of iron and his claws of brass. Who devoured, broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet. And about the ten horns which were on his head, and the other which came up, and before which three fell. Even that horn who had eyes, and a mouth which spoke great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.’Daniel outlines his greatest concern. About the fourth wild beast. As far as the earthly scene goes this has been the emphasis all through. This is the wild beast above all wild beasts, a monster of monsters. His terrible features are again described, but an added feature is given to us. His claws are of brass, adding to his fearsomeness. Daniel also wants to know about the ten horns, and especially about the final one that came up, the one who caused the fall of the three, had eyes, and a mouth which spoke great things, and who looked superior compared with his fellows. The answer will shortly be given, but meanwhile he must wait for his dream goes on.

28

PULPIT, "Daniel 7:19-22Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; and of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very 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 judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. In regard to the version of the LXX. here, we have the advantage of Justin Martyr's transcription, in which, however, the difference from the Chigi texts are not of great importance. The LXX. here is pretty close to the Masseretic text. "Behold" has intruded into the text; it is, however, omitted from Justin Martyr. Another clause, evidently a doublet, is emitted also, and the clause assumes nearly the shape it has in Theodotion. It is difficult to imagine how the reading of the LXX. arose. The differences from the Massoretic text are for the rest not essential. This is the case with Theodotion and the Peshitta. These verses to some extent recapitulate the earlier description of this fourth beast. There are, however, features added—to the "iron teeth" of the seventh verse are added "claws of brass." The main change is in regard to the little horn that came up last. We not only learn here that three other horns were plucked up before it, but the personification is now carried further, and the horn makes war against the saints, and prevails against them. This description does not suit Epiphanes. He certainly made war against the saints, but as certainly he did not prevail against them. When he came up from Egypt, and entered into the sanctuary and plundered it, he could not be said to make war against Israel. Judaea was one of his own provinces. When a tyrannical government takes possession of the wealth and property of individuals or corporations, it may be called cruel and oppressive, but its conduct is not called war. Even tile massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem by tile collector of taxes was not war. There was no war levied by Epiphanes against the saints till Mattathias and his sons rebelled, and thereafter Epiphanes did not prevail against the Jews. The Romans did make war against Israel, and did prevail. If the saints are a nation, then Epiphanes did not prevail in war against them If persecution is to be regarded as warfare, then it is not warfare against a nation, but against a community like a Church. If we look upon the Christian Church as succeeding to the position of Israel, then Rome persecuted the Church, and persecution ceased only when Rome became Christian. But a wider view opens itself to us. All modern states are in a sense a continuance of Rome, and so far as they do not submit themselves to the direction of Christ, they are still at war with the saints. It is only when the Son of man comes in his power that the kingdom will belong to the saints. It is to be observed, the figure of an assize is still kept up, and "judgment is given to" or "for the saints," and in virtue of this decision they possess the kingdom.

29

20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

BARNES, "And of the ten horns ... - See the notes at Dan_7:7-8.Whose look was more stout than his fellows - literally, “whose aspect was greater than that of its companions.” This does not mean that its look or aspect was more fierce or severe than that of the others, but that the

appearance of the horn was greater - rab. In Dan_7:8, this is described as רבa “little horn;” and to understand this, and reconcile the two, we must suppose that the seer watched this as it grew until it became the largest of the number. Three fell before it, and it outgrew in size all the others until it became the most prominent. This would clearly denote that the kingdom or the authority referred to by this eleventh horn would be more distinct and prominent than either of the others - would become so conspicuous and important as in fact to concentrate and embody all the power of the beast.

GILL, "And of the ten horns,.... That is, Daniel desired to know the truth of the ten horns, or the meaning of them what they signified, and who they pointed at, of which in Dan_7:7, here it is added, that were in his head; observing the situation of them; thought the horns of a beast could hardly be thought to be elsewhere: and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; particularly he was very desirous to know the meaning of a single horn, which rose up among the rest, and before which three of the other horns fell, being plucked up by the roots:

30

even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things: See Gill on Dan_7:8, whose look was more stout than his fellows; than the other beasts, or rather than the other horns; either than his fellow bishops, claiming an authority over them, as being universal bishop; or than the kings and princes of the earth, setting up himself above all that is called god, emperors and kings; taking to himself all power in heaven and in earth; a power to depose kings, and absolve their subjects from allegiance to them, and even over the consciences of men; so that his look is more bold and impudent than others, as well as more fierce and terrible, threatening kings and kingdoms with his bulls, anathemas, and interdicts: or, "whose appearance is greater than his fellows" (i); in pomp and splendour, making a greater show and figure than the kings of the earth, and claiming a superiority over them.

JAMISON, "ook ... more stout than ... fellows — namely, than that of the other horns.

K&D, "Dan_7:20In Dan_7:20, from ונפלו (fell down) the relative connection of the passage

is broken, and the direct description is continued. דכן וקרנא (and that horn) is an absolute idea, which is then explained by the Vav epexegetic. חזוה, the appearance which is presented, i.e., its aspect. חברתה מן (above his fellows), for חזו חברתה מן (above the aspect of his fellows), see under Dan_1:10.CALVIN, "He says, therefore, He also inquired about the ten horns which were on the head of the beast, and of the other horn which had arisen, meaning the small one, and concerning the three horns falling from the face of the beast. We have shewn how provinces were denoted by the tell horns, and how the difference between the Roman Empire and other monarchies was pointed out, because there never was one supreme ruler at Rome, except when Syria and Marius exercised their usurped authority — but each for only a short time. Here then the continual state of the Roman Empire is under review, for it was not simply a single animal, as it had ten horns. A finite number is put for an indefinite one. With regard to the little horn, I said it referred to the Caesars, who attracted the whole government of the state to themselves, after depriving the people of their liberty and the senate of their power, while even under their sway some dignity was continued to the senate and some majesty retained by the people. We have explained also how the three horns were broken; that is, how craftily the Caesars infringed upon and diminished the strength of both people and senate. Lastly, we have accounted for this little horn being displayed with human eyes, since the Caesars exercised their dominion with cunning, when they pretended to be only tribunes of the people, and allowed the ensigns of empire to remain in the hands of the consuls; for when they came into the

31

senate, they sat in a lowly situation in curule scats prepared for the tribunes. As, therefore, they tyrannized with such cleverness and cunning, instead of by open violence, they are said to be endowed with the eyes of a man. Then as to the tongue, the sense is the same; for although they always professed the consular power to be supreme in the state, yet they could not restrain themselves, but vomited forth many reproachful speeches. On the one side, we see them remarkable for eyes, and on the other, for the tongue. And its aspect was terrible beyond its companions This seems not to belong peculiarly to the little horn which had arisen among the ten, but rather to the fourth beast. But if any one wishes to understand it of the little horn, I will not contest the point, as it will thus make tolerable sense. But I rather embrace my former opinion, for it is not surprising to find the Prophet after his discourse on the little horn, returning to the beast himself.TRAPP, "Daniel 7:20 And of the ten horns that [were] in his head, and [of] the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even [of] that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look [was] more stout than his fellows.Ver. 20. And of the ten horns.] See Daniel 7:7.And of the other that came up.] See Daniel 7:8.Whose look was more stout than his fellows,] i.e., Than the ten horns. Antichrist exalteth himself above kings, and above all that is august. [2 Thessalonians 2:4] {See Trapp on "2 Thessalonians 2:4"}

21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them,

BARNES, "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints - I continued to look on this until I saw war made by this horn with the people of God. This circumstance, also, is not referred to in the first description, and the order of time in the description would seem to imply that the war

32

with the saints would be at a considerable period after the first appearance of the horn, or would be only when it had grown to its great size and power. This “war” might refer to open hostilities, carried on in the usual manner of war; or to persecution, or to any invasion of the rights and privileges of others. As it is a “war with the saints,” it would be most natural to refer it to persecution.And prevailed against them - That is, he overcame and subdued them, he was stronger than they were, and they were not able to resist him. The same events are evidently referred to and in almost similar language - borrowed probably from Daniel - in Rev_13:5-7 : “And there was given him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them; and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”

CLARKE, "The same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them - Those who make Antiochus the little horn, make the saints the Jewish people. Those who understand the popedom by it, see this as referring to the cruel persecutions of the popes of Rome against the Waldenses and Albigenses, and the Protestant Church in general.

GILL, "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints,.... The same little horn before described; not Antiochus Epiphanes, who made war with the Jews, as many think; or the Roman Caesars, that persecuted the church of Christ, as others; nor Titus Vespasian, who fought against Israel, as Saadiah; but antichrist, or the pope of Rome; and this refers to the wars of the popes with the Waldenses, which began in the year 1160, and continued long, and with the two witnesses at the close of their testimony, Rev_11:7, this Daniel had a view of in vision; not while he was inquiring of the angel, but before, though not mentioned till now; and was a reason he was so very inquisitive about this little horn, because of its war with the saints, and its success, as follows: and prevailed against them: as the popes and their abettors did against the Waldenses and Albigenses, whom they slew in great numbers, and got the victory over; as the beast also, the same with this little horn, will overcome the witnesses, and slay them, Rev_11:7.

JAMISON, "made war with the saints — persecuted the Church (Rev_11:7; Rev_13:7).

prevailed — but not ultimately. The limit is marked by “until” (Dan_7:22). The little horn continues, without intermission, to persecute up to Christ’s second advent (Rev_17:12, Rev_17:14; Rev_19:19, Rev_19:20).33

K&D, "Dan_7:21קדישין (without the article), although used in a definite sense of the saints

already mentioned, appertains to the elevated solemn style of speech, in which also in the Hebr. The article is frequently wanting in definite names; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. §277.CALVIN, "The Prophet now adds what he had omitted. The angel does not yet answer him, but as he had not sufficiently expressed how the little horn waged war with the sons of God, he now supplies the omission. He says, therefore, he saw — this ought to be received by way of correction; I saw, says he, meaning it was shewn me in a vision, how the little horn made war with the saints so as to prevail against them. Clearly enough other tyrants assailed the elect people of God with tier greater injury. Hence many refer this to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was hostile to the Jews beyond all others, and was utterly determined to blot out the name of the God of Israel. And we know how often he raised powerful armaments to extinguish both the people and the worship of God. As, therefore, the cruelty of Antiochus was so severe against the Israelites, many think his image to have been exhibited to the Prophet as the little horn, and what we shall afterwards see about “the time,” and “times’ and “half-a-time,” they explain of the three years and a half during which the Temple was in ruins, and the people thereby prevented from offering sacrifices. As, therefore, their religion was then interrupted, they think that tyranny was denoted, by which the people were prohibited from testifying their piety. But although this opinion is plausible, and at first sight bears upon the face of it the appearance of truth, yet if we weigh all things in order, we may easily judge how unsuitable it is to Antiochus. Why, therefore, does the Prophet say — the little horn waged war with the saint? Antiochus certainly made war against the Church, and so did many others; the Egyptians, we know, often broke in and spoiled the Temple and the Romans too, before the monarchy of the Caesars. I reply, this is spoken comparatively, because no war was ever carried on so continuously and professedly against the Church, as those which occurred after the Caesars arose, and after Christ was made manifest to the world; for the devil was then more enraged, and God also relaxed the reins to prove the patience of his people. Lastly, it was natural for the bitterest conflicts to occur when the redemption of the world was carried out; and the event clearly showed this. We know first of all, by horrid examples, how Judea was laid waste, for never was such cruelty practiced against any other people. Nor was the calamity of short duration; we are well acquainted with their extreme obstinacy, which compelled their enemies to forget clemency altogether. For the Romans desired to spare them as far as possible, but so great was their obstinacy and the madness of their rage, that they provoked their enemies as if devoting themselves to destruction, until that dreadful slaughter happened, of which history has sufficiently informed us. When Titus, under the auspices of his father Vespasian, tools: and destroyed the city, the Jews were stabbed and slaughtered like cattle throughout the whole extent of Asia. Thus far, then, it concerns the Jews.

34

When God had inserted the body of the Gentiles into his Church, the cruelty of the Caesars embraced all Christians; thus the little horn waged war with the saints in a manner different from that of the former beasts, because the occasion was different, and the wrath of Satan was excited against all God’s children on account of the manifestation of Christ. This, then, is the best explanation ofthe little horn, waging war against the saints. Thus he says, It must prevail. For the Caesars and all who governed the provinces of the empire raged with such extreme violence against the Church, that it almost disappeared from the face of the earth. And thus it happened, that the little horn prevailed in appearance and in general opinion, as, for a short time, the safety of the Church was almost despaired of.

TRAPP, "Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;Ver. 21. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints.] With the Waldenses, against whom the Pope turned his croisados, those armies of the Cross which had been first appointed against the Saracens. (a) This war began in the year 1160, and yet continueth, and must till the end of the reign of Antichrist. [Daniel 7:9-10; Daniel 7:26]And prevailed against them.] As they did against the ancient Waldenses or Leonists, and against their posterity lately in Piedmont. Yea, it is the opinion and fear of some great divines that Antichrist, before his abolition, shall once again overflow the whole face of the West, and suppress the whole Protestant Churches.

PETT, "Verse 21-22Daniel Sees A Further Vision, A Vision Of The End Days (Daniel 7:21-22).‘I beheld and the same horn made war with the saints and prevailed against them, until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.’This continuation of the dream moves on to new subjects. This is not recapitulation, it is advancement. This is the first suggestion of an empire persecuting God’s people, and the persecuting is clearly particularly severe. It is depicted again in Revelation 19. ‘He prevailed against them.’ They were being destroyed wholesale, and it seemed that nothing could save them from his activities.But then the ancient of days comes and deals with this latest evil as He has previously dealt with the other empires and the prior part of the fourth beast. Now He gives judgment (a rightful and fair verdict resulting in corrective action) finally on behalf of His people and the time comes for the saints to possess the kingdom.

35

This is advancement on what has gone before, as it was described in Daniel 7:2-14. This is describing the final stages of the fourth empire, and the final action of the heavenly court. Then the heavenly court can close down. It will be required no more.

22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

BARNES, "Until the Ancient of days came - Notes, Dan_7:9. That is, this was to occur after the horn grew to its full size, and after the war was made with the saints, and they had been overcome. It does not affirm that this would occur immediately, but that at some subsequent period the Ancient of days would come, and would set up a kingdom on the earth, or would make over the kingdom to the saints. There would be as real a transfer and as actual a setting up of a peculiar kingdom, as if God himself should appear on the earth, and should publicly make over the dominion to them.

And judgment was given to the saints of the Most High - That is, there was a solemn act of judgement in the case by which the kingdom was given to their hands. It was as real a transfer as if there had been a judgment pronounced on the beast, and he had been condemned and overthrown, and as if the dominion which he once had should be made over to the servants of the Most High.And the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom - That they ruled on the earth; that good men made and administered the laws; that the principles of religion prevailed, influencing the hearts of all men, and causing righteousness and justice to be done. The universal prevalence of true religion, in controlling the hearts and lives of men, and disposing them to do what in all circumstances ought to be done, would be a complete fulfillment of all that is here said. Thus far the description of what Daniel saw, of which he was so desirous to obtain an explanation. The explanation follows, and embraces the remainder of the chapter.

36

CLARKE, "Saints of the Most High - To the supereminent saints; see the note on Dan_7:18 (note).

GILL, "Until the Ancient of days came,.... Not locally, by change of place, he being the omnipresent God; but in a providential way, to check and put a stop to the power and prevalency of the little horn over the saints; for this is the terminus or end of that; which puts a period to it; for when the Ancient of days comes in the exertion of his power and providence, he will come and sit as a Judge upon this little horn or antichrist, and judge, and condemn, and punish it; see Dan_7:9, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; their characters vindicated from all calumny and false aspersions; their adversaries condemned and punished; and power, dominion, and authority, given to them with Christ; see Dan_7:27, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom; See Gill on Dan_7:18; till which time the little horn or antichrist will reign and rage, and prevail over the saints, but no longer.

JAMISON, "Ancient of days came — The title applied to the Father in Dan_7:13 is here applied to the Son; who is called “the everlasting Father” (Isa_9:6). The Father is never said to “come”; it is the Son who comes.

judgment was given to ... saints — Judgment includes rule; “kingdom” in the end of this verse (1Co_6:2; Rev_1:6; Rev_5:10; Rev_20:4). Christ first receives “judgment” and the “kingdom,” then the saints with Him (Dan_7:13, Dan_7:14).

K&D, "Dan_7:22As compared with Dan_7:13 and Dan_7:14, this verse says nothing new

regarding the judgment. For יהיב דינא is not to be rendered, as Hengstenberg thinks (Beitr. i. p. 274), by a reference to 1Co_6:2 : “to the saints of the Most High the judgment is given,” i.e., the function of the judge. This interpretation is opposed to the context, according to which it is God Himself who executes judgment, and by that judgment justice is done to the people of God, i.e., they are delivered from the unrighteous oppression of the beast, and receive the kingdom. דינא is justice procured by the judgment, corresponding to the Hebrew word משפט, Deu_10:18.

CALVIN, "It now follows, Until the Ancient of days came, judgment was given to the saints of the lofty ones No doubt the Prophet says God came in the same sense as before; namely, when he erected his tribunal and openly appeared as the judge of

37

the world in the person of Christ. He does not here set before us the Son of man, as he did before, but yet a fuller explanation of this passage is to be sought in the former one. God then is said to have come, when he put forth his power in supplying the needs of the Church, as by common figure he is said to be at a distance from us, and to sleep or to be reposing, when he does not show himself openly as our deliverer. So, on the other hand, he is said to come to us, when he openly proves his constant care of us. Under this figure Daniel now says he beheld the appearance of God Himself. The Ancient of days then came. If we ask when, we have the reply at hand; it was immediately after the promulgation of the gospel. Then God stretched forth his hand for his Church, and lifted it out of the abyss. For since the Jewish name had been for a long’ time hated, and all people desired to exterminate the Jews from the world, Christ’s advent increased this hatred and cruelty; and the license to injure them was added, as they thought Christ’s disciples were plotting a change of government, and wished to overthrow the existing state of things; as in these days all the pious suffer grievously under this false imputation. God, therefore, is said to have come, where the doctrine of the gospel was more and more promulgated, and some rest granted to the Church. Thus, by this repose, the saints received the kingdom which had been taken from them; that is, the kingdom of God and of the saints obtained some fame and celebrity in the world, through the general diffusion of the doctrine of piety, in every direction. Now, therefore, we understand what Daniel wished to convey by the phrase, The Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the lofty ones The remainder tomorrow.

TRAPP, "Daniel 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.Ver. 22. Until the Ancient of days came.] Not by change of place, but change of providence. [Zechariah 14:3-4]And judgment was given to the saints.] As upprovers of Christ’s righteous judgment.That the saints possessed the kingdom,] sc., In Christ their head. [Daniel 7:10]

23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on 38

earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it.

BARNES 23-27, "Thus he said ... - That is, in explanation of the fourth symbol which appeared - the fourth beast, and of the events connected with his appearing. This explanation embraces the remainder of the chapter; and as the whole subject appeared difficult and momentous to Daniel before the explanation, so it may be said to be in many respects difficult, and in all respects momentous still. It is a question on which expositors of the Scriptures are by no means agreed, to what it refers, and whether it has been already accomplished, or whether it extends still into the future; and it is of importance, therefore, to determine, if possible, what is its true meaning. The two points of inquiry which are properly before us are, first, What do the words of explanation as used by the angel fairly imply - that is, what, according to the fair interpretation of these words, would be the course of events referred to, or what should we naturally expect to find as actually occurring on the earth in the fulfillment of this? and, secondly, To what events the prophecy is actually to be applied - whether to what has already occurred, or what is yet to occur; whether we can find anything in what is now past which would be an accomplishment of this, or whether it is to be applied to events a part of which are yet future? This will lead us into a statement of the points which it is affirmed would occur in regard to this kingdom: and then into an inquiry respecting the application.

What is fairly implied in the explanation of the angel? This would embrace the following points:(1) There was to be a fourth kingdom on the earth: “the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,” Dan_7:23. This was to succeed the other three, symbolized by the lion, the bear, and the leopard. No further reference is made to them, but the characteristics of this are fully stated. Those characteristics, which have been explained in the notes at Dan_7:7, are, as here repeated,(a) that it would be in important respects different from the others;(b) that it would devour, or subdue the whole earth;(c) that it would tread it down and break it in pieces; that is, it would be a universal dynasty, of a fierce and warlike character, that would keep the whole world subdued and subject by power.(2) out of this sovereignty or dominion, ten powers would arise Dan_7:24 : “and the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise.”

39

Compare the notes at Dan_7:7. That is, they would spring out of this one dominion, or it would be broken up into these minor sovereignties, yet all manifestly springing from the one kingdom, and wielding the same power. We should not naturally look for the fulfillment of this in a succession of kings, for that would have been symbolized by the beast itself representing the entire dominion or dynasty, but rather to a number of contemporaneous powers that had somehow sprung out of the one power, or that now possessed and wielded the power of that one dominion. If the kingdom here referred to should be broken up into such a number of powers, or if in any way these powers became possessed of this authority, and wielded it, such a fact would express what we are to expect to find in this kingdom.(3) From the midst of these sovereignties or kingdoms there was to spring up another one of peculiar characteristics, Dan_7:24-25. These characteristics are the following:(a) That it would spring out of the others, or be, as it were, one form of the administration of the same power - as the eleventh horn sprang from the same source as the ten, and we are, therefore, to look for the exercise of this power somehow in connection with the same kingdom or dynasty.(b) This would not spring up contemporaneously with the ten, but would arise “after them” - and we are to look for the power as in some sense succeeding them.(c) It would be small at first - as was the horn Dan_7:8, and we are to look for the fulfillment in some power that would be feeble at first.(d) It would grow to be a mighty power for the little horn became so powerful as to pluck up three of the others Dan_7:8, and it is said in the explanation Dan_7:24, that he would subdue three of the kings.(e) It would subdue “three kings;” that is, three of the ten, and we are to look for the fulfillment in some manifestation of that power by which, either literally three of them were overthrown, or by which about one-third of their power was taken away. The mention of the exact number of “three,” however, would rather seem to imply that we are to expect some such exact fulfillment, or some prostration of three sovereignties by the new power that would arise.(f) It would be proud, and ambitious, and particularly arrogant against God: “and he shall speak great words against the Most High,” Dan_7:25. The

Chaldee here rendered against - letsad לצד - means, literally, at, or against the part of it, and then against. Vulgate contra; Greek πρὸς pros. This would be fulfilled in one who would blaspheme God directly; or who would be rebellious against his government and authority; or who would complain of his administration and laws; or who would give utterance to harsh and reproachful words against his real claims. It would find a fulfillment obviously in an open opposer of the claims and the authority of the true God; or in one the whole spirit and bearing of whose pretensions might be fairly construed as in fact an utterance of great words against him.

(g) This would be a persecuting power: “and shall wear out the saints of the Most High,” Dan_7:25. That is, it would be characterized by a persecution of the real saints - of those who were truly the friends of God, 40

and who served him.(h) It would claim legislative power, the power of changing established customs and laws: “and think to change times and laws,” Dan_7:25. The

word rendered “think” (סבר sebar) means, more properly, to hope; and the idea here is, that he hopes and trusts to be able to change times and laws. Vulgate, Putabit quod possit mutare tempora, etc. The state of mind here referred to would be that of one who would desire to produce changes in regard to the times and laws referred to, and who would hope that he would be able to effect it. If there was a strong wish to do this, and if there was a belief that in any way he could bring it about, it would meet what is implied in the use of the word here. There would be the exercise of some kind of authority in regard to existing times for festivals, or other occasions, and to existing laws, and there would be a purpose so to change them as to accomplish his own ends.

The word “times” - zımnıyn זמנין - would seem to refer properly to some stated or designated times - as times appointed for festivals, etc. Gesenius, “time, specially an appointed time, season:” Ecc_3:1; Neh_2:6; Est_9:27, Est_9:31. Lengerke renders the word Fest-Zeiten - “festival times,” and explains it as meaning the holy times, festival days, Lev_23:2, Lev_23:4, Lev_23:37, Lev_23:44. The allusion is, undoubtedly, to such periods set apart as festivals or fasts - seasons consecrated to the services of religion and the kind of jurisdiction which the power here referred to would hope and desire to set up would be to have control of these periods, and so to change and alter them as to accomplish his own purposes - either by abolishing those in existence, or by substituting others in their place. At all times these seasons have had a direct connection with the state and progress of religion; and he who has power over them, either to abolish existing festivals, or to substitute others in their places, or to appoint new festivals, has an important control over the whole subject of religion, and over a nation.

The word rendered “laws” here - dâth דת - while it might refer to any law, would more properly designate laws pertaining to religion. See Dan_6:5, Dan_6:7, Dan_6:12 (Dan_6:6, Dan_6:9, Dan_6:13); Ezr_7:12, Ezr_7:21. So Lengerke explains it as referring to the laws of religion, or to religion. The kind of jurisdiction, therefore, referred to in this place would be what would pertain to the laws and institutions of religion; it would be a purpose to obtain the control of these; it would be a claim of right to abolish such as existed, and to institute new ones; it would be a determination to exert this power in such a way as to promote its own ends.

(i) It would continue for a definite period: “and they shall be given into his hands until a time and times and the dividing of time,” Dan_7:25. They; that is, either those laws, or the people, the powers referred to. Maurer refers this to the “saints of the Most High,” as meaning that they would be delivered into his hands. Though this is not designated expressly, yet perhaps it is the most natural construction, as meaning that he would have jurisdiction over the saints during this period; and if so, then the meaning is, that he would have absolute control over them, or set up a dominion over 41

them, for the time specified the time, and times, etc. In regard to this expression “a time and times, etc., it is unnecessary to say that there has been great diversity of opinion among expositors, and that many of the controversies in respect to future events turn on the sense attached to this and to the similar expressions which occur in the book of Revelation. The first and main inquiry pertains, of course, to its literal and proper signification. The word used here rendered “time, times, time” - עדן עדנין‛ıdânıyn ‛ıdân - is a word which in itself would no more designate any definite and fixed period than our word time does.

See Dan_2:8-9, Dan_2:21; Dan_3:5, Dan_3:15; Dan_4:16, Dan_4:23, Dan_4:25, Dan_4:32; Dan_7:12. In some of these instances, the period actually referred to was a year Dan_4:16, Dan_4:23, but this is not necessarily implied in the word used, but the limitation is demanded by the circumstances of the case. So far as the word is concerned, it would denote a day, a week, a month, a year, or a larger or smaller division of time, and the period actually intended to be designated must be determined from the connection. The Latin Vulgate is indefinite - ad tempus; so the Greek - ἕως καιροῦ heōs kairou; so the Syriac, and so Luther - eine Zeit; and so Lengerke -eine Zeit. The phrase “for a time” expresses accurately the meaning of the original word. The word rendered “times” is the same word in the plural, though evidently with a dual signification. - Gesenius, Lexicon; Lengerke, in loc. The obvious meaning is two such times as is designated by the former “time.”

The phrase “and the dividing of a time” means clearly half of such a period. Thus, if the period denoted by a “time,” here be a year, the whole period would be three years and a half. Designations of time like this, or of this same period, occur several times in the prophecies (Daniel and Revelation), and on their meaning much depends in regard to the interpretation of the prophecies pertaining to the future. This period of three years and a half equals forty-two months, or twelve hundred and sixty days - the periods mentioned in Rev_11:2; Rev_12:6, and on which so much depends in the interpretation of that book. The only question of importance in regard to the period of time here designated is, whether this is to be taken literally to denote three years and a half, or whether a symbolic method is to be adopted, by making each one of the days represent a year, thus making the time referred to, in fact, twelve hundred and sixty years. On this question expositors are divided, and probably will continue to be, and according as one or the other view is adopted, they refer the events here to Antiochus Epiphanes, or to the Papal power; or perhaps it should be said more accurately, according as they are disposed to refer the events here to Antiochus or to the Papacy, do they embrace one or the other method of interpretation in regard to the meaning of the days. At this point in the examination of the passage, the only object is to look at it exegetically; to examine it as language apart from the application, or unbiassed by any purpose of application; and though absolute certainty cannot perhaps be obtained, yet the following may be regarded as exegetically probable:(1) The word time may be viewed as denoting a year: I mean a year rather than a week, a month, or any other period - because a year is a more marked

42

and important portion of time, and because a day, a week, a month, is so short that it cannot be reasonably supposed that it is intended. As there is no larger natural period than a year - no cycle in nature that is so marked and obvious as to be properly suggested by the word time, it cannot be supposed that any such cycle is intended. And as there is so much particularity in the language used here, “a time, and times, and half a time,” it is to be presumed that some definite and marked period is intended, and that it is not time in general. It may be presumed, therefore, that in some sense of the term the period of a year is referred to.(2) The language does not forbid the application to a literal year, and then the actual time designated would be three years and a half. No laws of exegesis, nothing in the language itself, could be regarded as violated, if such an interpretation were given to the language, and so far as this point is concerned, there would be no room for debate.(3) The same remark may be made as to the symbolic application of the language - taking it for a much longer period than literally three years and a half; that is, regarding each day as standing for a year, and thus considering it as denoting twelve hundred and sixty years. This could not be shown to be a violation of prophetic usage, or to be forbidden by the nature of prophetic language, because nothing is more common than symbols, and because there are actual instances in which such an interpretation must be understood. Thus in Eze_4:6, where the prophet was commanded to lie upon his right side forty days, it is expressly said that it was symbolic or emblematic: “I have appointed thee each day for a year.” No one can doubt that it would be strictly consistent with prophetic usage to suppose that the time here might be symbolic, and that a longer time might be referred to than the literal interpretation would require.(4) It may be added, that there are some circumstances, even considering the passage with reference only to the interpretation of the language, and with no view to the question of its application, which would make this appear probable. Among these circumstances are the following:(a) the fact that, in the prophecies, it is unusual to designate the time literally. Very few instances can be referred to in which this is done. It is commonly by some symbol; some mark; some peculiarity of the time or age referred to, that the designation is made, or by some symbol that may be understood when the event has occurred.(b) This designation of time occurs in the midst of symbols - where all is symbol - the beasts, the horns, the little horn, etc.; and it would seem to be much more probable that such method would be adopted as designating the time referred to than a literal method.(c) It is quite apparent on the mere perusal of the passage here that the events do actually extend far into the future - far beyond what would be denoted by the brief period of three and a half years. This will be considered more fully in another place in the inquiry as to the meaning of these prophecies. (See also Editor’s Preface to volume on Revelation.)(4) A fourth point in the explanation given by the interpreter to Daniel is, that there would be a solemn judgment in regard to this power, and that the dominion conceded to it over the saints for a time would be utterly taken

43

away, and the power itself destroyed: “but the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume, and to destroy it unto the end,” Dan_7:26. That is, it shall be taken away; it shall come entirely to an end. The interpreter does not say by whom this would be done, but he asserts the fact, and that the destruction of the dominion would be final. That is, it would entirely and forever cease. This would be done by an act of Divine judgment, or as if a solemn judgment should be held, and a sentence pronounced. It would be as manifestly an act of God as if he should sit as a judge, and pronounce sentence. See the notes at Dan_7:9-11.(5) And, a fifth point in the explanation of the interpreter is, that the dominion under the whole heaven would be given to the saints of the Most High, and that all nations should serve him; that is, that there would be a universal prevalence of righteousness on the earth, and that God would reign in the hearts and lives of men, Dan_7:27. See the notes at Dan_7:13-14.

GILL, "Thus he said,.... The person that stood by, the angel, of whom Daniel made his inquiries, and who answered him, as follows: the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom on earth; which shows that the angel, by four kings, Dan_7:17, meant four kingdoms, that should successively arise in the earth, and out of it, one after another; and this kingdom is not the kingdom of the Seleucidae, nor the Turkish, but the Roman empire; for this is to continue until the kingdom of Christ takes place; see Dan_7:7, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms; from the kingdoms and monarchies that were before it; particularly as a kingdom, in its form of government, both when Pagan and when Papal; see Dan_7:7, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces: not the whole land of Judea only, as some read and interpret it; but the whole world, which the Romans became masters of; and the phrases used denote the destruction and desolation they made, wherever they carried their arms, and the cruelty and tyranny they exercised, and the vast profusion of blood made by them, both among the Heathens they subdued, and the Christians they persecuted.

K&D, "Dan_7:23-24Daniel receives the following explanation regarding the fourth beast. It signifies a fourth kingdom, which would be different from all the preceding, and would eat up and destroy the whole earth. “The whole earth is the οἰκουμένη,” the expression, without any hyperbole, for the “whole circle of

the historical nations” (Kliefoth). The ten horns which the beast had signify ten kings who shall arise out of that kingdom. מלכותה from it, the ,מנהkingdom, i.e., from this very kingdom. Since the ten horns all exist at the

44

same time together on the head of the beast, the ten kings that arise out of the fourth kingdom are to be regarded as contemporary. In this manner the division or dismemberment of this kingdom into ten principalities or kingdoms is symbolized. For the ten contemporaneous kings imply the existence at the same time of ten kingdoms. Hitzig's objections against this view are of no weight. That מלכו and מל are in this verse used as distinct from each other proves nothing, because in the whole vision king and kingdom are congruent ideas. But that the horn, Dan_7:8, unmistakeablydenotes a person, is only so far right, as things are said of the horn which are in abstracto not suitable to a kingdom, but they can only be applicable to the bearer of royal power. But Dan_8:20 and Dan_8:21, to which Hitzig further refers, furnishes no foundation for his view, but on the contrary confutes it. For although in Dan_8:21 the great horn of the goat is interpreted as the first king of Javan, yet the four horns springing up immediately (Dan_8:22) in the place of this one which was broken, are interpreted as four kingdoms (not kings), in distinct proof not only that in Daniel's vision king and kingdom are not “separate from each other,” but also that the further assertion, that “horn” is less fitted than “head” to represent a kingdom, is untenable.

After those ten kingdoms another shall arise which shall be different from the previous ten, and shall overthrow three of them. יהשפל, in contrast with אקים (cf. Dan_2:21), signifies to overthrow, to deprive of the sovereignty. But the king coming after them can only overthrow three of the ten kingdoms when he himself has established and possesses a kingdom or empire of his own. According to this, the king arising after the ten is not an isolated ruler, but the monarch of a kingdom which has destroyed three of the kingdoms already in existence.CALVIN, "This reply of the angel is subject to the same obscurity as the vision itself, but it ought to be sufficient to calm the minds of the faithful to know that various changes should arise and shake the whole earth; for as many troubles were, prepared for the saints, so also they were braced up to fortitude and endurance. For God was not willing fully to explain what he had shown to his Prophet; he only wished to set before him this conclusion — a kingdom shall arise completely different from all others. Thus the angel says, The Fourth Beast signifies a fourth kingdom, which shall differ from all the kingdoms Previously to that period, no state was so extensive in its sway. For although the Spartans and Athenians performed illustrious and memorable exploits, yet we know them to have been included within narrow boundaries; and the ambition and wordy vanity of the Greeks caused them to celebrate those wars which were scarcely of any consequence, as we learn even from their own histories. Whichever way we take this, Sparta obtained with difficulty the second rank in Greece, as Athens did the first. As far as concerns the Roman Empire, we know it to have been more extensive and powerful than the other monarchies. When all Italy came under their sway, this was sufficient for any noble monarchy; but Spain, Sicily, part, of Greece, arm Illyrieum were added, and afterwards all Greece and Macedon, Asia Minor, Africa.,

45

and all the islands; for by one word they expelled the king of Cyprus, and sold his goods by public auction. When the dregs of the people were collected, Claudius made a law for the banishment of the king of Cyprus, and this he accomplished by his single voice, without the use of force at all. No wonder then that God foretoldhow different this kingdom, should be from all the others; it had no single head; the senate had the chief authority, though all power was centered in the people. There was therefore a kind of mingled confusion, since the government of Rome was never settled. And if we weigh all things prudently, it was neither a republic nor a kingdom, but a confused compound, in which the people exercised great power in a tumultuous way, and the senate oppressed the people as much as it could. There were three ranks — the senatorian, the equestrian, and the plebeian, and that mixture made the kingdom like a monster. The angel, therefore, announces the fourth kingdom as different from, the othersHe afterwards confirms what we said before; it will fall, says he, and break to pieces, and tread down the whole earth This was fulfilled after Gaul and Britain were subdued, Germany partially subjugated, and Illyrieum, Greece, and Macedon, reduced to submission. At length they penetrated to Asia, and Antiochus was banished beyond the Taurus; his kingdom afterwards became their prey, then they obtained possession of Syria. The kings of Egypt were their allies, and yet became dependent upon their nod; the sovereign dared not appoint an heir, without consulting their pleasure. As, therefore, they ruled supremely so long and so widely, they fulfilled this prophecy by devouring the whole earth. For such lust for dominion never existed before; wars were heaped upon wars, they were alike greedy of the blood of others, and by no means sparing of their own. The whirlpool was insatiable, while it absorbed the whole world, and their pride crushed it and trampled it under foot,. Cruelty was added to pride, for all looked up to the Romans, and conciliated the favor of Rome by flattery, for the purpose of raging savagely against; their own people. By these arts almost the whole of Greece perished. For they knew how many innocent persons everywhere perished in every city, a kind of diversion which delighted them; they were fully aware how easy it was to attract all the power of the whole world to themselves, when it was able to put forth neither strength, nor skill, nor power against them. For their nobles were constantly at variance; sometimes one faction and sometimes another was supreme, and thus the splendor of every city easily, and gradually diminished. Thus all Greece was spoiled, and the Romans exercised their dominion there without difficulty, as over brute beasts. We may say the same of Asia also. We are not surprised then at the angel saying, the earth would be trodden down and trampled on by this fourth beast.

COFFMAN, ""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 so for the ten horns, out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the former, and he shall put down three kings. And he shall speak

46

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 a half a time."Several very important deductions are made mandatory by these words. Note that the "saints" existed throughout the period of the little horn, itself a part of the fourth beast, having arisen out of it."Shall be diverse ..." This is twice mentioned - in both Daniel 7: 24 and Daniel 7:25. Not all of that diversity is spelled out here; but the New Testament sheds further light upon it. The diversity is seen in that (1) the little horn is a religious kingdom, as indicated by its two horns (of a lamb) (Revelation 13:11); (2) it shall prevail mightily, continuing, even to the end; (3) it will think to change times and law, especially as regards sacred things (changes were made in such things as baptism and the Lord's Supper, the two central ordinances in the Christian religion); (4) it became a terrible persecuting power of God's true people; it formed alliances with the kings of the earth, etc., etc."Time and times and a half a time ..." The key fact of what this means is plainly taught in the Book of Revelation; but as far as we have been able to determine, the true meaning is today unknown by practically the whole world of Bible scholars.The whole dispensation of the kingdom of Christ until the final judgment, embracing all of the time between the First Advent of Christ and the Second Advent of Christ culminating in the Final Judgment of all men, is repeatedly mentioned in Revelation. Here are the references:1. The Christian martyrs of Revelation 6:10 pleaded with God to tell them, "How long?" it would be before the final judgment at which time they would be avenged upon those who had slain them. From the answer given, it is obvious that that vengeance would come at the final judgment in the end of time, that is, at the end of the whole Christian dispensation. The answer? And it was said unto them that they should rest yet FOR A LITTLE TIME (until all the future martyrs who were yet to die in the faith should join them). Here the whole Christian dispensation is called "a little time."2. Revelation 12:12 explains the hatred of Satan for God's church, a hatred which, of course, exists during every moment of the Christian dispensation. What is the reason? "Satan has great wrath, knowing that he hath but a SHORT TIME. How long is that? It is the total time between the First Advent and the Second Advent of Christ.3. God promised to nourish his church during her wilderness probation (Revelation 12:14). This period is described as "always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20); but it is also referred to in this passage (Revelation 12:14), as A TIME AND TIMES AND HALF A TIME.

47

4. This same period when God will nourish his Church in the wilderness, protecting her from Satan's hatred, is also called in Revelation 12:6 A THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND THREE-SCORE DAYS.5. The authority of the little horn (identified with the fourth beast of Daniel) is stated in Revelation 13:5 to continue for FORTY AND TWO MONTHS. Since both Daniel and Revelation make it clear that this period is actually to last until the end of time, it becomes mandatory to believe that all such time-references in Revelation have exactly the same meaning. Every one of these means "The whole Christian Dispensation."6. "They shall live and reign with Christ a THOUSAND YEARS" (Revelation 20:4-6). As long as saints "suffer with Christ," they also "reign with Him"; and therefore this "THOUSAND YEARS" can be nothing else except the whole dispensation of Christ, lasting all the way from the First Advent through the Second Advent of Christ.The above understanding of these mysterious time-references in Daniel and Revelation is absolutely necessary to any complete understanding of these prophecies.In connection with these studies, the Commentary on Revelation should be consulted. Much additional material is available there. (Also see the Excursus on "The Man of Sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2 in this series.)A careful coordination of the passages in Revelation, with the revelations in this prophecy (Daniel 2 and Daniel 7), with due respect to other New Testament references to this same phenomenon, namely, that of the Great Apostasy from Christianity which was specifically foretold by the New Testament authors, will fully confirm all of the positions which we have advocated in the interpretations presented here.

ELLICOTT, "(23) The fourth kingdom.—The ten are spoken of as existing simultaneously. Of the various attempts to account for them, none have proved satisfactory. (See Excursus E.) We must wait in patient humility for the fulfilment of this part of the prophecy, noting that marks by which the little horn may be identified have been graciously revealed to us by God Himself.

BENSON, "Verse 23-24Daniel 7:23-24. The fourth beast shall be diverse from all kingdoms — As being managed under different forms of government; having a form of commonwealth at the beginning of its greatness, and afterward governed by kings and emperors; and

48

in process of time being divided into ten kingdoms, or principalities; and all of them under the direction of one spiritual head. And the ten horns are ten kings — Or, kingdoms. A horn is an emblem of strength, so it comes to signify power and authority; and from thence it is applied to denote sovereignty, or dominion. The ten horns, or kingdoms, were to arise out of the dissolution of the Roman empire, which came to pass accordingly. There are various enumerations of these ten kingdoms in the division of the Roman empire, none of which are reckoned to commence earlier than the latter end of the fourth, or the beginning of the fifth century. Bishop Newton, in his fourteenth Dissertation, has given several lists, by Machiavel, by Mr. Mede, by Bishop Lloyd, and by Sir Isaac Newton; and at last has added one which he has selected from the others, and which he has placed in the eighth century. His words are, “The principal states and governments then were, 1. The senate of Rome, who revolted from the Greek emperors, and claimed and exerted the privilege of choosing a new western emperor; 2. The Greeks in Ravenna; 3. The Lombards in Lombardy; 4. The Huns in Hungary; 5. The Alemannes in Germany; 6. The Franks in France; 7. The Burgundians in Burgundy; 8. The Goths in Spain; 9. The Britons; 10. The Saxons in Britain. Not that there were constantly ten kingdoms, they were sometimes more and sometimes fewer; but, as Sir Isaac Newton says, ‘whatever was their number afterward, they are still called the ten kingdoms, from their first number.’“And another shall arise after them — Greek, οπισω αυτων, behind them, as the words may be rendered; that is, either unperceived by them, or whose height, or dominion, should not acquire its summit till long after their establishment. This is generally agreed, by all Protestant interpreters, to be the kingdom of the pope, which was certainly of a very different nature from any of the former, being first ecclesiastical, or spiritual, and afterward claiming a temporal or civil jurisdiction. The LXX. add, that it should be distinguished from the former, κακοις, in evils, or malignancies. And the kings, or kingdoms, which it should pluck up by the roots, or humble, as ταπεινωσει, the word used by the LXX., signifies, (which is also the reading of the Vulgate,) are pointed out by the same prelate to be the exarchate of Ravenna, the kingdom of the Lombards, and the state of Rome. These states were reduced in the eighth century; and the epistles and bulls issued by the pope are, after that time, dated from the years of the commencement of the pope’s temporal jurisdiction, or advancement to the papal chair; and the pope, by wearing his triple crown, hath in a manner pointed himself out for the person here intended: see Bishop Newton and Mr. Wintle.And what still more fully characterizes this power, and proves it to be intended of the Papacy, is, that it is said, in Daniel 7:8, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man; which denotes cunning and foresight, exercised in looking out and watching all opportunities of promoting one’s interest. “And the policy of the Roman hierarchy hath almost passed into a proverb. The pope is properly called an overlooker, or overseer: an επισκοπος, or bishop, in the literal sense of the word. In Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:20, it is said, He had a mouth, speaking great things: and who hath been more noisy and blustering than the pope, especially in former ages;

49

boasting of his supremacy, thundering out his bulls and anathemas, excommunicating princes, and absolving subjects from their allegiance? His look was more stout than his fellows, Daniel 7:20. And the pope assumes a superiority, not only over his fellow-bishops, but even over crowned heads: and requires his foot to be kissed, and greater honours to be paid to him than to kings and emperors themselves.”

PETT, "Verses 23-25The Explanation Concerning the Fourth Wild Beast (Daniel 7:23-27).‘Thus he said, “The fourth wild beast will be a fourth empire on earth, and will be diverse from all the empires, and will devour the whole earth, and will tread it down and break it in pieces. And as for the ten horns, out of this empire will ten rulers arise, and another will arise after them. And he will be diverse from the former and will put down three kings. And he will speak words against the Most High, and will wear out the saints of the Most High, and he will think to change the times and the law. And they will be given into his hand until a time, and times and half a time.’The fourth wild beast also represents an empire from the Mediterranean world. Diverse (altered) from all empires signifies its uniqueness in that it will continue in a broken up form as depicted in chapter 2. It is first the mighty Roman empire, but then it expands into a number of empires (‘ten’ indicates ‘a number of’), and finally produces the Anti-God. But the Anti-God only destroys ‘three’ kings. He is lord of a complete section of his world but not of the whole world.Then arises the Anti-God. He is ‘altered’ from all that has gone before. He carves out for himself an area of the Mediterranean world, complete in itself, and openly challenges God and all that is of God, putting himself in the place of God (compare 2 Thessalonians 2:4). To ‘speak words’ has an evil connotation (see Hosea 10:4).‘He will wear out the holy ones of the Most High’, like ill treatment wears out clothes, leaving them, as it were, ragged and in tatters. Some link the Aramaic word to an Arab root which means ‘to treat roughly, to harm’.‘And he will think to change the times and the law.’ That is the times which God has in His own power (Daniel 2:21; Acts 1:7; Acts 3:21; Ephesians 1:10 compare Genesis 17:21; Genesis 18:14), and His law which He has given to men in the Scriptures, or possibly God’s law as proclaimed by the heavenly court. His thoughts will centre on destroying God’s purposes and truth.‘And they will be given into his hand until a time, and times and half a time.’ The thought here is of an incomplete period of time, in contrast, for example with ‘seven times’. ‘Seven times’ depicted time under perfect control, time which God had in His own power, but ‘a time, and times and half a time’ depicts time not under control.

50

Unlike God he is unable to determine the divinely perfect set times in which things will happen, nor is he able to control his own times. It is probably intended to represent less than the perfect ‘seven’. (It has been suggested that it was building up to seven but failed - a time, two times and then an expected four times, making seven, but then the four times collapsed into a half). He wanted to change the seasons but failed. They were not under his control. Compare for the phrase Daniel 12:7; Revelation 12:14, both referring to the persecution of the people of God which is broken off before the persecutors can complete their purpose.Note.All we can say about the attempt to make ‘times’ mean ‘years’ is that there is no definite evidence for it. Nor does ‘times’ necessarily mean ‘two times’. Indeed the noun is plural and not dual. If Daniel wanted to say three and a half years there was perfectly good Aramaic with which to do it. It is true that Revelation 12 parallels the Greek equivalent with twelve hundred and sixty days (Revelation 12:6 with Revelation 12:14), but that does not necessarily equate them. He may be getting over two ideas. It could be argued that that was why he used different expressions. The twelve hundred and sixty days was probably to reflect the three and a half years of Elijah’s time in the wilderness (Luke 4:25; James 5:17), and Daniel never refers to a period of twelve hundred and sixty days. Interestingly he does refer to a period of twelve hundred and ninety days (Daniel 12:11). But we cannot just dismiss the difference. If John wanted to equate with Daniel, why did he alter the phrase? Surely because he did not wish to equate with it. His eyes were on Elijah and not on Daniel.Thus John was pointing out that the persecution and fleeing for safety of the people of God could be compared with that of Elijah, and that it also lasted for an incomplete period, rather than the time that Satan had determined, in a similar way to here in Daniel.I would in fact have no particular objection to a meaning of three and a half years if that were clear from the wording and the context, as long as there was no attempt always to make periods of three and a half years mean the same period, for they clearly do not as the reference to Elijah’s three and a half years demonstrates. But I think that the attempt fails and misses the whole point of the phrase.

PULPIT, "Daniel 7:23, Daniel 7:24Thus he said, The fourth boast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ton kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. The version of the LXX. differs in some minute points from the Massoretic text. The text as given by Justin Martyr is

51

slightly shorter by omitting some words. Theodotion and the Peshitta also agree. What remarks can be made on this have been made already. It is to be observed that it is the whole earth that is devoured by the fourth beast as presented to us now. In the earlier presentation, although very terrible, his devastation is limited. There is nothing said to indicate that the kings are successive, but the inference rather is that they are contemporaries. The attempts are many that have been made to make out ten kings before Epiphanes, but they have all failed. If the fourth kingdom is the Greek Empire, then ten is a number far too small for the various kings of the different dynasties that sprang up There were seven or eight Lagids, as many Seleucids, three or four Attalids, five or six Antigonids, not to speak of such men as Lysimaehus and Perdiecas, who were kings, but who did not found dynasties. If the fourth kingdom is tacitly reduced to the Syrian kingdom, then how is it explained that the author of 'Daniel' was ignorant, in the seventh chapter, that the Lagids were also successors of Alexander as well as the Seleucids? How could a man living in the age of the Maccabees imagine the Seleucids rulers of the world, when Epiphanes had been a hostage in Rome? A great power does not give, but receives, hostages. We know from First Maccabees that the Jews were well aware of this, and also of the check the Romans were on Epiphanes. Even if Daniel wrote at the time chosen by the critics, how came he to be so ignorant as to imagine the Seleueid Empire to be so tremendously great? He shall subdue three kings. Who are the three kings of the ten who preceded him whom Epiphanes subdued? Seleucus Philopator, Heliodorus, and Demetrius Soter are given by Professor Bevan. But Demetrius Sorer did not ascend the throne till after the death of Epiphanes. It is extremely doubtful whether Heliodorus ever assumed the crown. Our whole knowledge of him is from Appian. Josephus knows nothing of Heliodorus. The Second Book of Maccabees, though telling a legendary story of Heliodorus, gives no account of his murder of his master and attempt to take the crown. Our sole authority for this whole story is Appian, who wrote three centuries after the event, and manifests considerable confusion at times, e.g. represents Attalus and Eu-menes as being two sovereigns independent of each other, whereas the one succeeded the other. If Seleucus Philopator is to be reckoned as "subdued" or "humbled" before Epiphanes, as well might all the rest of his predecessors. The Jewish interpretation, that the little horn is the Flavian dynasty, has far more verisimilitude. Certainly Galba Vitellius and Otho had been humbled before the Flavians. If we consider the horn "magistracies," certainly the absorption into the imperial dignity of all the higher magistracies might well be reckoned humbling them.

24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will 52

arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings.

GILL, "And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise,..... Or ten kingdoms which sprung out of the Roman empire, or into which it was broken and divided upon the dissolution of it, about A.D. 476; which, according to Mr. Mede (k), were thus divided, A.D. 456, 1. Britons; 2. Saxons; 3. Franks; 4. Burgundians; 5 Visigoths; 6. Suevians and Alanes; 7. Vandals; 8. Almanes; 9. Ostrogoths; 10. Greeks. The list Bishop Lloyd (l) has given of them is, 1. Hunns, who erected their kingdom in that part of Pannonia and Dacia, which was from them called Hungary, about A.D. 356. 2. Ostrogoths, who settled themselves in the countries that reach from Rhetia to Maesia, even to Thrace, about 377; and afterwards came into Italy under Alaricus, in 410. 3. Visigoths, who settled in the south parts of France, and in Catalonia, about 378. 4. Franks, who seized upon part of Germany and Gaul, A.D. 410. 5. Vandals, who settled in Spain; afterwards set up their kingdom in Africa, A.D. 407; their king Gensericus sacked Rome, 455. 6. Suevians and Alans, who seized the western parts of Spain, A.D. 407; and invaded Italy, 457. 7. Burgundians, who came out of Germany, into that part of Gaul called from them Burgundy, 407. 8. Herules, Rugians, and Thoringians, who settled in Italy under Odoacer, about A.D. 476. 9. Saxons, who made themselves masters of Great Britain about the same time, 476. 10. Longobards, called likewise Gopidae, who settled in Germany, about Magdeburg, A.D. 383; and afterwards succeeded the Heruli and Thuringi in Hungary, about the year 826. Sir Isaac Newton (m) reckons the ten kingdoms in the following order: 1. the kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa; 2. of the Suevians in Spain; 3. of the Visigoths; 4. of the Alans in Gallia; 5. of the Burgundians; 6. of the Franks; 7. of the Britons; 8. of the Hunns; 9. of the Lombards; 10. of Ravenna; who gives an account of the various kings of these kingdoms; and these, as the same learned writer says (n), whatever was their number afterwards, they are still called the ten kings from their first number; and though they have not always been in the same form and order, yet they have been generally about, if not exactly, the same number; as they are now near the same; and may be thus reckoned, as the kingdoms of France, Spain,

53

Portugal, Germany, Great Britain, Sardinia, Denmark, the two Sicilies, Swedeland, Prussia, and Poland; of which see more See Gill on Rev_17:12. And another shall rise after thee: not Titus Vespeasian, as Jarchi and Saadiah; nor the nation of Gog and Magog, as Jacchiades: but the pope of Rome, or antichrist; who came to his power as universal bishop, and as a horn or temporal prince, after the above kingdoms arose; not after they were at an end, but after they were constituted and established, as it was proper they should first be; since they were to give their strength, power, and kingdom, to the antichristian beast, by which it became a horn or temporal prince, Rev_17:13. The Septuagint render it, "behind them"; which Mr. Mede (o) interprets of his springing up unawares, imperceptibly, unnoticed, and unobserved by them, till he overtopped them. And he shall be diverse from the first; from the first ten horns, kings or kingdoms; having, besides a secular power and temporal authority, an ecclesiastical and spiritual one; a power not only over the bodies and estates of men, but over their souls and consciences; and even over the other horns and kingdoms, which they had not over one another; and so was different from them all: and he shall subdue three kings; designed by the three horns plucked up by the roots, and which fell before him; of which See Gill on Dan_7:8.

JAMISON, "ten horns — answering to the ten “toes” (Dan_2:41).out of this kingdom — It is out of the fourth kingdom that ten others arise, whatever exterior territory any of them possess (Rev_13:1; Rev_17:12).rise after them — yet contemporaneous with them; the ten are contemporaries. Antichrist rises after their rise, at first “little” (Dan_7:8); but after destroying three of the ten, he becomes greater than them all (Dan_7:20, Dan_7:21). The three being gone, he is the eighth (compare Rev_17:11); a distinct head, and yet “of the seven.” As the previous world kingdoms had their representative heads (Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar; Persia, Cyrus; Greece, Alexander), so the fourth kingdom and its Antichrists shall have their evil concentrated in the one final Antichrist. As Antiochus Epiphanes, the Antichrist of the third kingdom in Dan_8:23-25, was the personal enemy of God, so the final Antichrist of the fourth kingdom, his antitype. The Church has endured a pagan and a papal persecution; there remains for her an infidel persecution, general, purifying, and cementing [Cecil]. He will not merely, as Popery, substitute himself for Christ in Christ’s name, but “deny the Father and the Son” (1Jo_2:22). The persecution is to continue up to Christ’s second coming (Dan_7:21, Dan_7:22); the horn of blasphemy cannot therefore be past; for now there is almost a general cessation of persecution.

CALVIN, "He afterwards adds, The ten horns are the ten kings which should arise These Ten Kings are clearly comprehended under one empire, and there is no

54

question here of separate persons. In the Persian kingdom, we observed many kings, and yet the image of the second beast was single, while it embraced all those kings until the change occurred. So also no when treating of the Romans, the Prophet does not assert that ten kings should succeed each other in regular order, but rather the multiform nature of the kingdom, under more heads than one. For the royal office belonged to the senators or leading citizens, whose authority prevailed very extensively both with the senate and the people. And with reference to the number, we said the plural number only was denoted, without any limitation to the number ten. The conclusion is as follows, — this kingdom should be like a single terrible animal bearing many horns, since no single king held the chief sway there, as was customary by constant usage in other lands, but there should be a mixture, like many kings in place of one holding the pre-eminence. The fulfillment of this is sufficiently known from the history of Rome; as if it had been said, there should not be any single kingdom, as of Persia and other nations, but many kings at the same time, alluding to the mixture and confusion in which the supreme authority was involved.The Little Horn follows: A king shall arise, says he, different from those, other ones, and shall afflict three kings We showed how unintelligible this becomes, unless we refer it to the Caesars to whom the monarchy passed; for after long and continued and intensive strife, the whole power passed over to the Triumvirate. A conspiracy was entered into by Lepidus, Mark Antony, and Octavius. Octavius was then all but a boy, having scarcely arrived at manhood, but all the veteran soldiers were in his favor, in consequence of the name of Julius Caesar and his adoption by him. Hence he was received by the other two into that alliance, of which Lepidus was the first, and Antony the second. At length discords arose among them, and Lepidus was deprived of his place in the triumvirate, and lived, as if half-dead, while his life was only spared to him because he was raised to the office of chief priestReverence for the priesthood restrained Antony from putting him to death, so long as he was content to live in privacy and retirement. Octavius at, length became supreme, but by what artifice? We said Julius Caesar took no more upon himself than the office of dictator, while consuls were annually elected as usual. He did not strain the power of the dictatorship beyond moderation, but he so restrained himself, that some popular rights might seem still to flourish. Octavius also followed the cunning of his uncle and adopted father. The same conduct will be found in the other Caesars, though there were many differences between them. As the shadow of a republic yet remained, while the senate was held in some degree of reverence, it is not surprising, if the angel predicts that the beast should survive, when another small horn should arise different from the othersHe adds, And shall afflict the three kings I have explained this point by the slight change which the Caesars effected in the provinces, for if any of the provinces were warlike, strong armies and veteran soldiers were usually sent there. The Caesars took these to themselves, while some executive management was left to the senate with regard to the other provinces. Lastly, by this form of speech, the angel portrays

55

the coming dominion of the little horn, and its diminishing the strength of the former ones’ and. yet the beast should remain apparently entire; thus, the effigy of the republic was preserved, as the people were always designated — in the forum, by the high-sounding name, Romans, and in battle, as fellow-soldiers. Meanwhile, although the name of the Roman empire was so celebrated, and its majesty was in every one’s mouth, the supreme authority was in the possession of one little horn which lay concealed, and dared not openly raise its head. This, then, is the pith of the interpretation of what the angel here sets before us. It; follows, —COKE, "Daniel 7:24. The ten horns—are ten kings— Or kingdoms; and so Daniel 7:17. If we fix the aera for these ten kingdoms to the eighth century, the chief governments will be found to be, 1. The senate of Rome, who revolted from the Grecian emperors, and claimed and exerted the privilege of choosing a new western emperor; 2 the Greeks in Ravenna; 3 the Lombards in Lombardy; 4 the Huns in Hungary; 5 the Allemans in Germany; 6 the Franks in France; 7 the Burgundians in Burgundy; 8 the Saracens in Africa and Spain; 9 the Goths in other parts of Spain; 10 the Saxons in Britain. Not that there were constantly ten kingdoms; they were sometimes more and sometimes fewer: but, as Sir Isaac Newton observes, whatever was their number afterwards, they are still called the ten kings from their first number. Bishop Newton, p. 463.Another shall arise after them— This is called a little horn, Daniel 7:8 before whom three of the first horns were plucked up; that is to say, as is here explained, who should subdue three kings or kingdoms. The fourth beast signified the Roman empire; the ten horns represent the ten kingdoms into which that empire was divided: and if, in agreement with the fathers, we look among these ten horns for the little horn, we shall find it to be antichrist, who should root up three of the ten kings, and domineer over the rest; and who, we doubt not, will soon appear to answer in all respects the character here given. Machiavel himself, in his history of Florence, has set forth sufficient grounds to affirm this to be the pope. See particularly book 1: p. 6 of the English translation. The bishop of Rome was respectable as a bishop long before the period that he mentions; but he did not become properly a horn, which is an emblem of power, till he became a temporal prince. He was to rise after the others; that is, behind them, as the Greek version has it; so that the ten kings were not aware of the growing up of the little horn, till it overtopped them; the original word signifying as well behind in place, as after in time. Three of the first horns, that is three of the first kings or kingdoms, were to be plucked up by the roots, Daniel 7:8 and to fall before him, Daniel 7:20 and these three we conceive, with Sir Isaac Newton, to be the exarchate of Ravenna, the kingdom of the Lombards, and the state of Rome; those three states or kingdoms, which constituted the pope's dominions. The ex-archate of Ravenna was given to Pope Stephen II. by Pepin king of France, in the year 755, and henceforward the popes, being now become temporal princes, did no longer date their epistles and bulls by the years of the emperor's reign, but by their own advancement to the papal chair. The kingdom of the Lombards was subdued by Charles the Great, called Charlemagne of France, who resigned his pretensions to it to St. Peter in the year 774. The state of Rome,

56

both in spirituals and temporals, was vested in the pope, and confirmed to him by Lewis the Pious. These, as we conceive, were the three horns, or three of the first horns which fell before the little horn; and the pope has in a manner pointed himself out for the person by wearing the triple crown. In other respects too he answers to the character of the little horn.—He is a little horn;—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.—He shall be diverse from the first; which the Greek and Arabic render, "He shall exceed in wickedness all before him;" and so most of the fathers, who made use only of the Greek translation understood it: but it rather signifies that his kingdom shall be of a different nature and constitution; and the power of the popes differs greatly from that of all other princes, being an ecclesiastical and spiritual, as well as a civil and temporal authority. We are told in Daniel 7:8 that in this horn were eyes, like the eyes of a man; which denotes cunning and foresight, exercised in looking out and watching all opportunities of promoting one's interest: and the policy of the Roman hierarchy has almost passed into a proverb. In Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:20 it is said, He had a mouth speaking great things: and who has been more noisy and blustering than the pope, especially in former ages; boasting of his supremacy, thundering out bulls and anathemas, excommunicating princes, and absolving subjects from their allegiance?—His look was more stout than his fellows, Daniel 7:20. And the pope assumes a superiority not only above his fellow bishops, but even over crowned heads; and requires his foot to be kissed, and greater honours to be paid to him than to kings and emperors themselves. See Bishop Newton, vol. 1: p. 464, &c.APP, "Daniel 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom [are] ten kings [that] shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.Ver. 24. And the ten horns out of this kingdom.] He saith not kingdoms: this maketh against those that make the Seleucidae and Legidae, the fourth monarchy.And he shall be diverse from the first.] For the first were secular kings, but he styleth himself chief bishop and head of the Church, having both Peter’s keys and Paul’s sword, &c.And he shall subdue three kings.] See on Daniel 7:8.TRwhedon, " 24. The fourth kingdom is here represented as a beast whose “ten horns” are ten kings. There has been great diversity of opinion as to the particular kings meant. As the number is a round symbolical number it does not matter if the kings preceding Antiochus Epiphanes (the “little horn”) actually numbered a few less or a few more than ten. Professor Cowles, however, has pointed out that Daniel himself in chap. 11 (which is explanatory of the visions of chaps. 7 and 8) has referred particularly to just ten prominent kings ruling between the death of Alexander and the rise of the little horn — five of these being Ptolemies, namely, Lagus,

57

Philadelphus, Euergetes, Philopator, Philometer (Daniel 11:5-27); five of them being Syrian kings: Seleucus Nicator, Antiochus Theos, Seleucus Callinicus, Antiochus the Great, and Seleucus Philopator (Daniel 11:5-20). Meinhold, on the other hand, believes Demetrius, Heliodorus, and Ptolemy Philometer to represent the three horns overthrown by Antiochus Epiphanes, the other seven horns symbolizing Seleucus I, II, III, IV, and Antiochus I, II, III. The question is unimportant, as there is practical unanimity of opinion among modern scholars that the little horn here (like that of Daniel 8:9-12) is Antiochus Epiphanes. The argument that Antiochus Epiphanes could not be the eleventh horn because he was not the eleventh, but the eighth successive king on the Syrian throne (Godet, Studies, 1882; Kohler, Lehrbuch, pp. 539, 540), is not strong when we consider the symbolism of number (see Introduction to Ezekiel, VIII), and the fact that it is not stated whether these horns were successive or in part contemporaneous.* Certainly the “antichrist” of a later era had Antiochan characteristics, just as Gog and Magog had Scythian characteristics (Ezekiel 38, 39; Revelation 20:8), but this does not exclude the reference to an earlier or later historic character. The older scholars, who thought Daniel’s fourth kingdom was Roman, interpreted these ten kings as ten kingdoms, but differed very materially in their guesses as to which kingdoms were meant. It seems to us conclusive that the fourth empire was not Roman. (See notes Daniel 2:39-40.) All agree that Antiochus was the “vile person” who is spoken of as rising up after the ten successors of Alexander mentioned Daniel 11:3-21. The analogy of prophecy is in favor of the same reference to him here.[*Three of the kings (horns) are not said to have been destroyed before Antiochus took the throne, but to have been afterward “subdued” by him. “Now the facts are that Antiochus usurped the throne upon the assassination of his elder brother, Seleucus Philopator; he superseded the rightful heir, Demetrius — who was at that time a hostage in Rome — and he humbled by sore defeat his nephew, Ptolemy Philometer, who had as good a right to the throne of Asia as himself (compare 1 Maccabees 11:13).… Some reckon Heliodorus among the three who fell before Antiochus, for Appian testifies that he had seized the government by force. This view is open to no valid objection, for we should no more insist on a rigid interpretation of the number three than of the number ten.” — Terry.]

POOLE, " Ten kings; which Junius, Piscator, Polanus make to be the kings of Syria, and reckon ten of them, and that is not all neither; the tenth is Antiochus, but this cannot be, for he died one hundred and sixty years before Christ.Others interpret the otherthat riseth after the ten, and that shall subdue three, to be Mahomet; but Maldonate himself saith it agrees better to antichrist, and the 25th verse too, where he speaks ofchanging times and laws, which

58

God hath set; none of which things he could do, but that God gives him commission for it, till God’s set time be fulfilled, which is three years and a half, i.e. one thousand two hundred and sixty years; or forty-two months, which is all the time of the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, of the church’s being in the wilderness, and of antichrist’s reign, Revelation 11:3 12:6 13:5,6, &c.: mind these places and compare this of Daniel with them, and Daniel 7:26,27, how he shall be judged and executed. The sixth and seventh vials will decide, and illustrate all this.

25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.[b]

CLARKE, "He shall speak great words against the Most High - Sermones quasi Deus loquetur; “He shall speak as if he were God.” So St. Jerome quotes from Symmachus. To none can this apply so well or so fully as to the popes of Rome. They have assumed infallibility, which belongs only to God. They profess to forgive sins, which belongs only to God. They profess to open and shut heaven, which belongs only to God. They profess to be higher than all the kings of the earth, which belongs only to God. And they go beyond God in pretending to loose whole nations from their oath of allegiance to their kings, when such kings do not please them! And they go against God when they give indulgences for sin. This is the worst of all blasphemies!

And shall wear out the saints - By wars, crusades, massacres, inquisitions, and persecutions of all kinds. What in this way have they not done against all those who have protested against their innovations, and refused to submit to their idolatrous worship? Witness the exterminating crusades published against the Waldenses and Albinenses. Witness John Huss, and Jerome of Prague. Witness the Smithfield fires in England! Witness God and man against this bloody, persecuting, ruthless, and impure Church!And think to change times and laws - Appointing fasts and feasts;

59

canonizing persons whom he chooses to call saints; granting pardons and indulgences for sins; instituting new modes of worship utterly unknown to the Christian Church; new articles of faith; new rules of practice; and reversing, with pleasure, the laws both of God and man. - Dodd.Until a time and times and the dividing of time - In prophetic language a time signifies a year; and a prophetic year has a year for each day. Three years and a half (a day standing for a year, as in Joh_9:24) will amount to one thousand two hundred and sixty years, if we reckon thirty days to each month, as the Jews do.If we knew precisely when the papal power began to exert itself in the antichristian way, then we could at once fix the time of its destruction. The end is probably not very distant; it has already been grievously shaken by the French. In 1798 the French republican army under General Berthier took possession of the city of Rome, and entirely superseded the whole papal power. This was a deadly wound, though at present it appears to be healed; but it is but skinned over, and a dreadful cicatrice remains. The Jesuits, not Jesus, are now the Church’s doctors.If the papal power, as a horn or temporal power, be intended here, which is most likely, (and we know that that power was given in 755 to Pope Stephen II. by Pepin, king of France), counting one thousand two hundred and sixty years from that, we are brought to a.d. 2015, about one hundred and ninety years from the present [a.d. 1825]. But I neither lay stress upon nor draw conclusions from these dates. If the Church of Rome will reform itself, it will then be the true Christian Church, and will never be destroyed. Let it throw aside all that is ritually Jewish, all that is heathen; all that which pretends to be of God, and which is only of man, all doctrines that are not in the Bible; and all rites and ceremonies which are not of the appointment of Christ and his apostles; and then, all hail the once Roman, but now, after such a change, the Holy, Catholic Church! Every true Protestant would wish rather the reform than the extinction of this Church.

GILL, "And he shall speak great words against the most High,.... Or, "at the side of the most High" (p); setting himself up as a rival, and upon an equality with him; taking the names and characters of holiness, infallibility, yea, of deity itself, unto him; claiming a power to forgive sin, which is peculiar to God; and preferring his own laws, doctrines, and traditions, to the word of God: and shall wear out the saints of the most High; by his wars with them, and murders and massacres of them; by taking away their lives and their substance; so lessening their numbers, and weakening their strength and power, wear them out, as a garment is wore out, as the word (q) signifies; utterly consume and destroy them, at least in his own apprehensions; which will be the case when the witnesses will be slain, Rev_11:8, and especially will wear out their patience, or however thoroughly exercise it. The word (r), in the Arabic language, signifies "to afflict and handle roughly"; and such usage the saints have met with, more or less, in all ages, from the man

60

of sin. And think to change times and laws: to alter the forms and constitutions of kingdoms, and the customs and usages of them; yea, to set up and pull down kings at pleasure; see Dan_2:21, or to change the use of times and seasons, by setting apart days as holy for canonized saints; and appointing such days in a week, and such a season in the year, for abstinence from meats; and even to change the laws of God and man, by dispensing with both, and making new ones of his own: and they shall be given into his hand; either the saints he makes war with, and wears out, who shall be overcome by him; or the times and laws, which he shall not only have it in his mind and purpose to change, but shall have it in his power to do it, and shall do it: until a time, and times, and the dividing of time; by "a time" is meant a year, the longest part of time; by "times", two years; and "the dividing of time", half a year; in all three years and a half, which is the same with 1260 days, or forty two months, the time of the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, and of the reign of antichrist; so long shall he continue, exercising his power and authority, his wrath and rage, and blasphemy, and no longer; see Rev_11:2.

JAMISON, "Three attributes of Antichrist are specified: (1) The highest worldly wisdom and civilization. (2) The uniting of the whole civilized world under his dominion. (3) Atheism, antitheism, and autotheism in its fullest development (1Jo_2:22). Therefore, not only is power taken from the fourth beast, as in the case of the other three, but God destroys it and the world power in general by a final judgment. The present external Christianity is to give place to an almost universal apostasy.

think — literally, “carry within him as it were the burden of the thought.”change times — the prerogative of God alone (Dan_2:21); blasphemously assumed by Antichrist. The “times and laws” here meant are those of religious ordinance; stated times of feasts [Maurer]. Perhaps there are included the times assigned by God to the duration of kingdoms. He shall set Himself above all that is called God (2Th_2:4), putting his own “will” above God’s times and laws (Dan_11:36, Dan_11:37). But the “times” of His willfulness are limited for the elect’s sake (Mat_24:22).they — the saints.given into his hand — to be persecuted.time ... times and ... dividing of time — one year, two years, and half a year: 1260 days (Rev_12:6, Rev_12:14); forty-two months (Rev_11:2, Rev_11:3). That literally three and a half years are to be the term of Antichrist’s persecution is favored by Dan_4:16, Dan_4:23, where the year-day theory would be impossible. If the Church, moreover, had been informed that 1260 years must elapse before the second advent, the attitude of expectancy which is inculcated (Luk_12:38; 1Co_1:7; 1Th_1:9, 1Th_1:10; 2Pe_3:12) on the ground of the uncertainty of the time, would be out of place. The

61

original word for “time” denotes a stated period or set feast; or the interval from one set feast to its recurrence, that is, a year [Tregelles]; Lev_23:4, “seasons”; Lev_23:44, “feasts.” The passages in favor of the year-day theory are Eze_4:6, where each day of the forty during which Ezekiel lay on his right side is defined by God as meaning a year. Compare Num_14:34, where a year of wandering in the wilderness was appointed for each day of the forty during which the spies searched Canaan; but the days were, in these two cases, merely the type or reason for the years, which were announced as they were to be fulfilled. In the prophetic part of Num_14:34 “years” are literal. If the year-day system was applied to them, they would be 14,400 years! In Eze_4:4-6, if day meant year, Ezekiel would have lain on his right side forty years! The context here in Dan_7:24, Dan_7:25, is not symbolical. Antichrist is no longer called a horn, but a king subduing three out of ten kings (no longer horns, Dan_7:7, Dan_7:8). So in Dan_12:7, where “time, times, and half a time,” again occurs, nothing symbolic occurs in the context. So that there is no reason why the three and a half years should be so. For the first four centuries the “days” were interpreted literally; a mystical meaning of the 1260 days then began. Walter Brute first suggested the year-day theory in the end of the fourteenth century. The seventy yearsof the Babylonian captivity foretold by Jeremiah (Jer_25:12; Jer_29:10) were understood by Daniel (Dan_9:2) as literal years, not symbolical, which would have been 25,200 years! [Tregelles]. It is possible that the year-day and day-day theories are both true. The seven (symbolical) times of the Gentile monarchies (Lev_26:24) during Israel’s casting off will end in the seven years of Antichrist. The 1260 years of papal misrule in the name of Christ may be represented by three and a half years of open Antichristianity and persecution before the millennium. Witnessing churches may be succeeded by witnessing individuals, the former occupying the longer, the latter the shorter period (Rev_11:3). The beginning of the 1260 years is by Elliott set at a.d. 529 or 533, when Justinian’s edict acknowledged Pope John II to be head of the Church; by Luther, at 606, when Phocas confirmed Justinian’s grant. But 752 is the most likely date, when the temporaldominion of the popes began by Pepin’s grant to Stephen II (for Zachary, his predecessor’s recognition of his title to France), confirmed by Charlemagne. For it was then first that the little horn plucked up three horns, and so became the prolongation of the fourth secular kingdom [Newton]. This would bring us down to about a.d. 2000, or the seventh thousand millenary from creation. But Clinton makes about 1862 the seventh millenary, which may favor the dating from a.d. 529.

K&D, "Dan_7:25Dan_7:25 refers to the same king, and says that he shall speak against the

Most High. לצד means, properly, against or at the side of, and is more expressive than על. It denotes that he would use language by which he would set God aside, regard and give himself out as God; cf. 2Th_2:4. Making himself like God, he will destroy the saints of God. בלא, Pa., not

62

“make unfortunate” (Hitzig), but consume, afflict, like the Hebr. 1 ,בלהCh_17:9, and Targ. Jes. Dan_3:15. These passages show that the assertion that בלה, in the sense of to destroy, never takes after it the accusative of the person (Hitz.), is false. Finally, “he thinks to change times and laws.” “To change times” belongs to the all-perfect power of God (cf. Dan_2:21), the creator and ordainer of times (Gen_1:14). There is no ground for supposing that זמנין is to be specially understood of “festival or sacred times,” since the word, like the corresponding Hebr. עדים does not throughout signify ,מmerely “festival times;” cf. Gen_1:14; Gen_17:21; Gen_18:14, etc. The annexed ודת does not point to arrangements of divine worship, but denotes “law” or “ordinance” in general, human as well as divine law; cf. Dan_2:13, Dan_2:15 with Dan_6:6, Dan_6:9. “Times and laws” are the foundations and main conditions, emanating from God, of the life and actions of men in the world. The sin of the king in placing himself with God, therefore, as Kliefoth rightly remarks, “consists in this, that in these ordinances he does not regard the fundamental conditions given by God, but so changes the laws of human life that he puts his own pleasure in the place of the divine arrangements.” Thus shall he do with the ordinances of life, not only of God's people, but of all men. “But it is to be confessed that the people of God are most affected thereby, because they hold their ordinances of life most according to the divine plan; and therefore the otherwise general passage stands between two expressions affecting the conduct of the horn in its relation to the people of God.”

This tyranny God's people will suffer “till, i.e., during, a time, (two) times, and half a time.” By these specifications of time the duration of the last phase of the world-power is more definitely declared, as a period in its whole course measured by God; Dan_7:12 and Dan_7:22. The plural word עדנין (times) standing between time and half a time can only designate the simple plural, i.e., two times used in the dual sense, since in the Chaldee the plural is often used to denote a pair where the dual is used in Hebrew; cf. Winer, Chald. Gr. §55, 3. Three and a half times are the half of seven times (Dan_4:13). The greater number of the older as well as of the more recent interpreters take imte as representing the space of a year, thus three (עדן)and a half times as three and a half years; and they base this view partly on Dan_4:13, where seven times must mean seven years, partly on Dan_12:7, where the corresponding expression is found in Hebrew, partly on Rev_13:5and Rev_11:2-3, where forty-two months and 1260 days are used interchangeably. But none of these passages supplies a proof that will stand the test. The supposition that in Dan_4:13 the seven times represent seven years, neither is nor can be proved. As regards the time and times in Dan_12:7, and the periods named in the passages of the Rev. referred to, it is very questionable whether the weeks and the days represent the ordinary weeks of the year and days of the week, and whether these periods of time are to be taken chronologically. Still less can any explanation as to this designation of time be derived from the 2300 days (evening-mornings) in Dan_8:14, since the periods do not agree, nor do both passages treat of the same event. The choice of the chronologically indefinite expression עדן, time, shows that a

63

chronological determination of the period is not in view, but that the designation of time is to be understood symbolically. We have thus to inquire after the symbolical meaning of the statement. This is not to be sought, with Hofmann (Weiss. i. 289), in the supposition that as three and a half years are the half of a Sabbath-period, it is thus announced that Israel would be oppressed during half a Sabbath-period by Antichrist. For, apart from the unwarrantable identification of time with year, one does not perceive what Sabbath-periods and the oppression of the people of God have in common. This much is beyond doubt, that three and a half times are the half of seven times. The meaning of this half, however, is not to be derived, with Kranichfeld, from Dan_4:13, where “seven times” is an expression used for a long continuance of divinely-ordained suffering. It is not hence to be supposed that the dividing of this period into two designates only a proportionally short time of severest oppression endured by the people of God at the hands of the heathen. For the humbling of the haughty ruler Nebuchadnezzar (Dan_4:13) does not stand in any inner connection with the elevation of the world-power over the people of God, in such a way that we could explain the three and a half times of this passage after the seven times of Dan_4:13. In general, the question may be asked, Whether the meaning of the three and a half times is to be derived merely from the symbolical signification of the number seven, or whether, with Lהmmert, we must not much rather go back, in order to ascertain the import of this measure of time, to the divine judgments under Elias, when the heavens were shut for three years and six months; Luk_4:25 and Jam_5:17. “As Ahab did more to provoke God to anger than all the kings who were before him, so this king, Dan_7:24, in a way altogether different from those who went before him, spake words against the Most High and persecuted His saints, etc.” But should this reference also not be established, and the three and a half times be regarded as only the half of seven times, yet the seven does not here come into view as the time of God's works, so that it could be said the oppression of the people of God by the little horn will last (Kliefoth) only half as long as a work of God; but according to the symbolical interpretation of the seven times, the three and a half, as the period of the duration of the circumstances into which the people of God are brought by the world-power through the divine permission, indicate “a testing period, a period of judgment which will (Mat_24:22; Pro_10:27), for the elect's sake, be interrupted and shortened (septenarius truncus).” Leyrer in Herz.'s Real. Enc. xviii. 369. Besides, it is to be considered how this space of time is described, not as three and a half, but a time, two times, and half a time. Ebrard (Offenb. p. 49) well remarks regarding this, that “it appears as if his tyranny would extend itself always the longer and longer: first a time, then the doubled time, then the fourfold - this would be a seven times; but it does not go that length; suddenly it comes to an end in the midst of the seven times, so that instead of the fourfold time there is only half a time.” “The proper analysis of the three and a half times,” Kliefoth further remarks, “in that the periods first mount up by doubling them, and then suddenly decline, shows that the power of the horn and its oppression of the people of God would first quickly manifest itself, in order then to come to a sudden end by the interposition of the divine judgment (Dan_7:26).” For, a 64

thing which is not here to be overlooked, the three and a half times present not the whole duration of the existence of the little horn, but, as the half of a week, only the latter half of its time, in which dominion over the saints of God is given to it (Dan_7:21), and at the expiry of which it falls before the judgment. See under Dan_12:7.CALVIN, "The angel now explains a little more clearly what the Prophet had formerly touched upon but briefly, namely, this last king should be a manifest and professed enemy to the Church. We yesterday showed how miserably and cruelly the Church had been harassed by many tyrants. And if we compare these tyrants with each other, we shall find the Church to have been much more heavily afflicted after Christ’s advent, and to have been opposed by the Caesars in open warfare. The occasion arose in this way. The doctrine of the Gospel had been dispersed through almost all the provinces of the empire. The Jewish name was hateful; and the novelty of the teaching added greatly to that unpopularity. Men thought the Jews had invented a new deity for themselves — even Christ;, as their language seemed to imply the worship of a new divinity. As, therefore, some material for rage against the pure worship of God was afforded them, the Caesars became more and more stirred up to carry on war against the elect, and to oppress the Church. It was not their fault if they did nor; extinguish the whole light of the celestial doctrine, abolish true religion, and banish: the knowledge of God from the world. This agrees very well with what Daniel relates of this king becoming so headstrong, as to utter words against the most High God. Some translate it, on the part of the most High, but I know no reason for their doing so. לצד, letzed, signifies on the side or the region. The equivalent phrase is this; so great should be the pride of this new king, who did not exercise his power openly but by hidden deceit, that he should sit as it were on the side of God and in opposition to him. This means he should be manifestly God’s enemy. Those who understand this of Antichrist, think their opinion confirmed by the conduct of other tyrants who carried on their warfare against God with arms and violence, but not by words. But the Prophet does not speak so subtlety here. For by words he does not here mean doctrine, but that verbal boasting by which the Caesars dared to promulgate their edicts throughout the whole world, urging all the proconsuls to punish the Christians, and not to permit that impious and cursed sect to flourish; and thus terrors flew about throughout the whole world. What Daniel now relates was then fulfilled, namely, the utterance of words of defiance against God; for those tyrants thought their own edicts, without the armament of soldiers, would be sufficient to extinguish the memory of Christ. Thus, also, true piety was disgracefully traduced, and the very name of Christ lacerated by horrible reproaches, as historians have amply informed us.

65

This explanation, therefore, is most suitable to the little horn speaking or uttering words against the most High. He shall afflict, says he, the saints of the lofty ones We have already briefly explained the meaning of this expression, according to its grammatical construction. By saints he doubtless means sons of God, or his elect people, or the Church. He calls these “saints of lofty ones,” because as elect they depend upon heaven; and although they are pilgrims in the world, yet their life is in heaven, where the eternal inheritance remains for them which was obtained by Christ. As, therefore, their treasure is now heaven, they deservedly boast of being citizens of heaven, and allies and brethren of angels. Thus they are properly called“saints of lofty ones;” they are separated from the world, and know themselves to live here day by day until they arrive at firm and enduring repose. We know this to have been fulfilled, because overwhelming terror fell upon all the pious, and the Church almost perished, while multitudes who were suspected of being Christians were subjected to cruel tortures. The prevalence of this universal license for persecuting all the pious explains how the saints were then afflicted by the small horn.The Prophet or rather the angel next says, He will think, or meditate, to change time and law, and they shall be delivered into his hand. As to the time here spoken of, many refer it to holy days. But we may understand it generally of the small horn overthrowing whatever was formerly customary in the world; and thus also I interpret the word רת, reth, not the Law of God or the Gospel, but any rites, customs, and institutions. While interpreters are contending about this word, some referring it to the Decalogue, and others to the preaching of the Gospel, I think the simple sense of the Prophet to be this: the Caesars perverted all laws, both human and divine. We have seen how they attempted this, and how far they accomplished it. It is not surprising then if the Prophet; assigns this unbridled audacity to this last king, who thought to change whatever had been formerly ordained in the world. And for this reason it had been formerly said this horn should be furnished with human eyes; and next, should speak mightily, thundering horribly, and inspiring all men with fear through its voice alone. We know this to have been represented as in a glass, if we consider how far the Caesars proceeded in their arrogance. First, as to Octavius, while he restrained himself within due bounds politically, he suffered himself to be adored as a god, and altars to be erected to him; he wished the public to be persuaded of his deity, and celebrated a banquet in which he sat among the superior deities. Tiberius neglected religious ceremonies entirely, and yet we see how he despised all men.

66

Although he was of an obtuse disposition, in his daring he was extreme, and was all the while craftily deceiving the senate. Next, as to Caligula, he threatened Jupiter in this way, — “What! thou art an exile here and I a native: I will banish thee into Greece thy native place.” He often inflicted blows upon the statue of Jupiter, and not content with the name of a god, he ordered the chief sacrifices to be offered to himself. This diabolic fury increased in Domitian. And considering the Caesars as men, what was their character? One of them said, “I wish the Roman people had but one need.” He enjoyed the slaughter of the senate as a sport, and wished to make his horse a consul. How disgraceful was such conduct! We see, then, how this prediction was not uttered without a cause; namely, so great should be the arrogance of the small horn that it would dare to change and turn into a new almost all “law,” meaning all order of every kind, and “times,” meaning the very series and nature of all things. The Prophet then says he thought He does not express the result, but simply signifies the arrival of the small horn at such a degree of madness as to suppose it could draw down the sun from heaven, turn light: into darkness, and leave nothing entire, nothing in order, throughout, the world. Those occurrences really happened in accordance with this prophecy. I cannot enter into details here. I should have to detain you many days or even months while citing history; I can only touch shortly upon what: is necessary for explaining the Prophet’s words and the meaning of his prediction.They shall be delivered into his hands means, — however the small horn should leap forward in desperate fury, yet: God should always rule over him, and nothing should happen without his permission,. It was God then who delivered into the hands of that identifying the saints, the political government, and the institutions of piety, allowing him to pour out promiscuously human blood, to violate every national right, and to ruin as far as possible all religion. It brings us then no little comfort to know when God’s permission is given to tyrants to harass the Church and interfere with His lawful worship; for if we were left to the mercy of their lusts, how distressing would be the universal confusion! But he succors us, as the angel says, when tyrants assail us and disturb all order by their horrible licentiousness and cruel rage against the miserable and the innocent: he succors us, I say, so that they are unable to move to finger against us without God’s permission. We are not permitted to know why God relaxes the rein in favor of the enemies of his Church; perhaps it is to prove and try the patience of his people. It is sufficient for us, if, when tyrants scheme and plot in every way, they are unable to do anything without the divine permission.But a greater consolation is added in the last clause, even for a time and times, and the division of a time, or half, as some translate it; it is properly a division. Interpreters differ widely about these words, and I will not bring forward all their opinions, otherwise it would be necessary to refute them. I should have no little trouble in refuting all their views, but I will follow my own custom of shortly expressing the genuine sense of the Prophet, and thus all difficulty will be removed. Those who consider a “time” to mean a “year,” are in my opinion wrong. They cite the forty-two months of the Apocalypse, (Revelation 13:5,) which make three years

67

and a half; but that argument is not conclusive, since in that case a year will not consist of 365 days, but the year itself must be taken figuratively for any indeterminate time. It is better then to keep close to the Prophet’s words. A “time,” then, is not put for a certain number of months or days, nor yet for a single year, but for any period whose termination is in the secret counsel of God. They shall be given, then, for a time, says he, and afterwards addstimes; that is, for a continuance of times; and again, even to a section or division of a time; meaning, these calamities should come to an end whenever God, in mercy to his Church, should restrain those tyrants by his wrath against them. As long, therefore, as the cruelty of the Caesars oppressed God’s Church, it was committed into their hands. We have already seen how many Caesars were enemies of the true Church. First, of all, Nero raged most cruelly, for he burnt some thousands of Christians at Rome, to extinguish the infamy which raged against himself. The people could not endure his barbarity; for, while the fourth part of the city was destroyed by Nero, he was enjoying his pleasure and rejoicing so mournful a spectacle! As he feared the popular tumult against himself, he laid hold of many Christians, and offered them to the people as a kind of expiation. Those who followed him, did not cease to pour forth innocent blood, and those who seemed to be endued with some degree of clemency and humanity were all at length seized with a diabolic fury. Trajan was esteemed a very excellent prince, and yet we know how he commanded the Christians everywhere to be slain, since he thought them obstinate in their error. And others were more savage still. No wonder, therefore, the angel predicts, even for a time, and times, and the division of a time, that license would be given to the tyrants and enemies of the Church to pervert all things, to despise God, and set aside all justice, and to execute a cruel and barbarous slaughter. This ought to be predicted for two reasons: first, lest through length of time the faithful should fall away, because when “the time” — a space of about ten years — had passed, they would come tothe times, consisting of about fifty or a hundred years.This, then, was one reason why God admonished the faithful concerning the time and times. But he wished also to mitigate their sorrow by adding half a time, thus promising some moderation and ending to such great calamities. The language of our Lord to his Apostles concerning the various commotion of the earth, corresponds very well with this view. “There shall arise wars and rumors of wars, and no end as yet,” says he. He announces them as the preludes to greater evils, when the whole of Judea should be devastated with wars and other slaughters. He afterwards adds, “Unless those days had been shortened.” (Matthew 24:6; Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9.) This shortening of the days is here noticed as if the Lord cut short; a continued succession of them. For when the possession of the tyranny appeared fierce, then suddenly and beyond the expectation of all, God at length snatched away his Church, and then the evangelical doctrine emerged, and was celebrated everywhere. God, therefore, then shortened the days on account of his own elect, and this is understood by the last clause, a division of a time. I will defer the rest till to-morrow.

68

COKE, "Daniel 7:25. He shall speak great words — Symmachus reads, 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 in open violation of reason and Scripture; insulting men and blaspheming God. In Gratian's Decretals, the pope has the title of god given to him!And shall wear out the saints— 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 court of Rome. Instead of, wear out, Houbigant reads, lie in wait for, or form schemes of deceit against. He shall 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 of God and man.And they shall be given, &c.— A time, all agree, signifies a year, and a time and times, and the dividing of time, or half a time, are three years and a half: the ancient Jewish year consisting of twelve months, and each month of thirty days; a time, and times, and half a time, are reckoned in Revelation 11:2-3; Revelation 6:14 as equivalent to forty-two months, or a thousand two hundred and threescore days: and a day, in the style of the prophets, is a year. This is expressly asserted, Ezekiel 4:6 and it is confessed, that the seventy weeks, in chap. 9: of this book, are weeks of years, and consequently one thousand two hundred and sixty days are one thousand two hundred and sixty years. So long antichrist, or the little horn, will continue; but from what point of time the commencement of these twelve hundred and sixty years is to be dated, is not so easy to determine. It should seem that they are to be computed from the full establishment of the power of the pope; and no less is implied in the expression given into his hand.

ELLICOTT, " (25) And he shall speak. —The marks of identification of the little horn are—(1) blasphemy of God; (2) persecution and affliction of the saints; (3) attempts, apparently ineffectual (he will “think to change”), against all institutions, whether of Divine or human authority: in short, a general spirit of lawlessness and unbelief. It appears that the little horn, the Antichrist of the last days, or the beast, will be successful for a time in his blasphemies and persecutions, but in the end he will be destroyed. (See 2 Thessalonians 2:8.)Time and times and the dividing of time.—This is frequently explained to mean three years and a half. Those who adopt this explanation assume that by “times” a dual is implied, which in Chaldee is represented by the plural. They next assume that by “a time” is meant one year, resting their assumption partly on Daniel 4:16, and partly on a comparison of Daniel 12:7 with Revelation 13:5; Revelation 11:2-3. This gives a sum of three years and a half, which is interpreted either literally, or

69

explained to mean half a sabbatical period, or half some divinely-appointed period symbolised by the number “seven.” According to the second interpretation, Daniel teaches us that the days of tribulation shall be shortened (Matthew 24:22). But it may be questioned whether “years” are intended in Daniel 4:16. Also the language in Daniel 12:7 is very obscure. A more correct view of the prediction is that the reign of Antichrist will be divided into three periods—the first long, the second longer, the third shortest of all. It also appears that the last is to be the severest time of trial. It may be remarked that in Daniel 9 the seventy weeks are divided into three periods, forming a similar series, 7 + 62 + 1 = 70.

TRAPP, "Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.Ver. 25. And he shall speak great words.] As Pope Julius III did, when he called for his pork flesh, forbidden him by his physician as naught for his gout, al despito di Dio, in despite of God; and missing a cold peacock which he commanded to be set up for his supper, he raged extremely at his steward; and being desired to be more patient, he replied, If God were so angry with our first parents for an apple, may not I, who am his vicar, be so much more for my peacock? (a) See on Revelation 13:5.And shall think to change times and laws,] i.e., He shall usurp a power over religion and men’s consciences, set up holidays, canonise saints, appoint fasts, order times, &c.Until a time and times and half a time,] i.e., Until that time which God alone knoweth, and hath in his power.

BENSON, "Daniel 7:25. He shall speak great words against the Most High —Symmachus reads, He shall speak great words, as the Most High; “setting 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 in open violation of, reason and Scripture; insulting men and blaspheming God. In Gratian’s Decretals, the pope has the title of God given to him. And shall wear out the saints — By wars, and massacres, and inquisitions,

70

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. He shall 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 of God and man.” — Bishop Newton.And they shall be given, &c. — “A time, all agree, signifies a year; and a time, and times, and the dividing of time, or half a time, are three years and a half; and the ancient Jewish year, consisting of twelve months, and each month of thirty days, a time, and times, and half a time, or three years and a half, are reckoned in the Revelation 11:2-3; Revelation 12:6; Revelation 12:14, as equivalent to forty-two months, or twelve hundred and sixty days; and a day, in the style of the prophets, is a year; (see Ezekiel 4:4;) and it is confessed that the seventy weeks, in Daniel 9. are weeks of years, and consequently twelve hundred and sixty days are twelve hundred and sixty years. So long antichrist, or the little horn, will continue: but from what point of time the commencement of these twelve hundred and sixty years is to be dated, is not easy to determine. It should seem that they are to be computed from the full establishment of the power of the pope, and no less is implied in the expression, given into his hand. Now the power of the pope, as a horn, or temporal prince, it hath been shown, was established in the eighth century; and twelve hundred and sixty years from that time, will lead us down to about the year of Christ 2000, or the year of the world 6000: and there is an old tradition, both among Jews and Christians, that at the end of 6000 years the Messiah shall come, and the world shall be renewed; the reign of the wicked one shall cease, and the reign of the saints upon earth shall begin. But, as Irenזus says in a like case, it is surer and safer to wait for the completion of the prophecy than to conjecture and divine about it. When the end shall come, then we shall know better whence to date the beginning.” — Bishop Newton.

whedon, "25. Antiochus Epiphanes is said (xi, 36) to “speak marvelous things against the God of gods,” and Jewish history is full of his brutal impieties and persecutions which wore out the saints (1 Macc. i and ii; 2 Macc. i and v; Josephus, Wars, I, 1:1; Antiquites, XII, 5:3; Apion, 2:1). The “times and law” (Hebrews) which he sought to change were those connected with the religious feasts and other sacred rites which must be offered in “due season”(compare Leviticus 23:4; Numbers 28:2; Numbers 28:4; Numbers 28:8; Numbers 28:11; Numbers 28:16-18; Numbers 28:26), and especially the Holy Sabbath. Antiochus sought to make Greeks of the Jews (Tacitus, Daniel 5:8),

71

decreeing that all his subjects should be one people in religious customs, and specifically prohibiting circumcision and the observance of the Sabbath, on penalty of death, so “that they might forget the law, and change all the ordinances” (1 Maccabees 1:41; 1 Maccabees 1:49; Polyb., 38:18). The whole temple was defiled (see notes Daniel 11:31) and the Jews were forced, under severest penalties, to give up their own worship and to take part in the orgies of the Grecian festivals (2 Maccabees 6:7). The “time, times, and half a time” probably refers to the three and a half years during which Antiochus succeeded in interfering with the sacrificial offerings in the temple, yet it may have also been used as a symbol of persecution and evil, being the fracture of a perfect seven. (Compare Revelation 12:14, and Introduction to Ezekiel, VIII.) This symbolic meaning was probably understood not only by the Jews but by the Babylonians; for in the old Babylonian myth the horned dragon Tiamat, the enemy of the gods, who hurled one third of the stars of heaven into ruin by one whisk of her tail, was also given a period of rule somewhat resembling this (Gunkel, Shopfung und Chaos, pp. 266-278, 360, 390). See also notes Daniel 4:16-23; Daniel 5:25-28; Daniel 9:27; Daniel 12:7.

POOLE, " The numbers of Daniel and John seem to agree. Daniel was certainly prophetical in these things, and his prophecy reacheth to the end of times, even of antichrist’s reign. I will not deny but Antiochus might be a type and forerunner of antichrist, and did many things against the Jewish church, with craft, cruelty, and blasphemy; but he was no part of the fourth, but of the third beast; whereas Daniel here points mainly at the Roman power and persecution, especially bythe little horn, which lasted to his ruin; after which it is clear the Lord Christ will reign in and over his saints much more gloriously; which the Jews will never be beaten from, because there are so many signal places in the prophets speaking of it yet unfulfilled, and in the Apocalypse, to the wise reader, after the beast and whore are destroyed, with all their supporters. But enough of that at present.

72

PULPIT, "Daniel 7:25-27And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaved, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. The versions do not present much of note in, Daniel 7:25, save that the Greek versions imply that dominion over all is given to the oppressors. Throughout the Septuagint has traces of explanatory expansion. He shall speak words against the Most High. The word "against," letzad, is really "to the side of." This clause may refer to blasphemy against God, but more naturally refers to self-exaltation to a place alongside of God. Shall wear out the saints of the Most High. Persecute them, or maintain war against them; the natural meaning of the word is "afflict." And shall think to change times and laws. It ought not to be "laws," in the plural, but "law." It may refer to the marked changes introduced into the calendar by Julius Caesar. Certainly the law or constitution of the Roman state was changed by him. And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Who shall be given into his hands? It is usually assumed that it is the saints; hut the LXX. asserts that it is universal dominion that is given into the hands of the oppressors. We have no right to assume that ‛iddan, "a time," means "a year;" it is really any defined time. Certainly it does approximate to the time during which the temple was polluted with heathen offerings; but it also coincides with equal accuracy to the campaigns of Vespasian and Titus against the Jews. Vespasian landed in Galilee in the beginning of a.d. 67, and Jerusalem fell on September 5, a.d. 70. There was thus, approximately, three years and a half occupied by this war. But "centuries" might also be meant. From the birth of our Lord, on whom the oppression was first exercised, till the accession of Constantine, was three centuries and a portion of a century. The judgment shall sit. Not necessarily the last judgment, but the evil that is being done comes before

73

God for judgment. The taking away of the kingdom and dominion is immediately at the end of the period indicated by "a time and times and a dividing of time." The dominion was not taken away from Epiphanes then, nor from Vespasian; it did, however, pass from the heathenish empire when Constantine ascended the throne. At the same time, any such purely limited explanation is against the whole symbolic character of this vision. It is a period of time measured by "seven" halves. The times may receive their definition, not from the calendar, but from their spiritual import or dynamic content. The three years of our Lord's ministry is of more moment for the history of the race than all the millennia that preceded it.

26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever.

GILL, "But the judgment shall sit,.... As in Dan_7:10, the court shall sit, the Judge shall take the bench, and all things be prepared for the arraignment, trial, condemnation, and punishment, of the little horn or antichrist, when the above time is up; God the Father, the Ancient of days, and Christ, said to be like the Son of man, brought near to him, shall sit as Judges, attended by the holy angels:and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end;

74

either the angels, or rather the saints of the most High; particularly the Christian princes, into whose hearts God will put it to hate the whore, eat her flesh, and burn her with fire; so that there shall be an utter end of antichrist; he shall be stripped of all his power and authority; his destruction will be inevitable and irrecoverable; he shall never come out of it; it shall continue to the end of the world, to the end of time.

JAMISON, "consume ... destroy — a twofold operation. Antichrist is to be gradually “consumed,” as the Papacy has been consuming for four hundred years past, and especially of late years. He is also to be “destroyed” suddenly by Christ at His coming; the fully developed man of sin ( 2Th_2:3) or false prophet making a last desperate effort in confederacy with the “beast” (Rev_16:13, Rev_16:14, Rev_16:16) or secular power of the Roman empire (some conjecture Louis Napoleon): destroyed at Armageddon in Palestine.

K&D, "Dan_7:26-27In Dan_7:26 and Dan_7:27 this judgment is described (cf. Dan_7:10), but only as

to its consequences for the world-power. The dominion of the horn in which the power of the fourth beast culminates is taken away and altogether annihilated. The destruction of the beast is here passed by, inasmuch as it is already mentioned in Dan_7:11; while, on the other hand, that which is said ( Dan_7:12) about the taking away of its power and its dominion is strengthened by the inf. להשמדה (to destroy), בדה ולה (and to consume), being added to יהעדון (they shall take away), to which שלטנה (his dominion) is to be repeated as the object. פא ס to the end, i.e., not absolutely, but, as in Dan_6:27, to the end of the ,עדdays, i.e., for ever.Dan_7:27

After the destruction of the beast, the kingdom and the dominion, which hitherto comprehended the kingdom under the whole heaven, are given to the people of God, i.e., under the reign of the Son of man, as is to be supplied from Dan_7:14. As in Dan_7:26 nothing is further said of the fate of the horn, because all that was necessary regarding it had been already said (Dan_7:11), so also all that was to be said of the Son of man was already mentioned in Dan_7:13 and Dan_7:14; and according to the representation of the Scripture, the kingdom of the people of the saints without the Son of man as king is not a conceivable idea. מלכות די (of the kingdom) is a subjective genitive, which is required by the idea of the intransitive רבותא(the greatness) preceding it. The meaning is thus not “power over all

75

kingdoms,” but “the power which the kingdoms under the whole heaven had.” With regard to Dan_7:27, cf. Dan_7:14 and Dan_7:18.Dan_7:28

In Dan_7:28 the end of the vision is stated, and the impression which it left on Daniel. Hitherto, to this point, was the end of the history; i.e., thus far the history, or, with this the matter is at an end. מלתא, the matter, is not merely the interpretation of the angel, but the whole revelation, the vision together with its interpretation. Daniel was greatly moved by the event (cf. Dan_5:9), and kept it in his heart.

CALVIN, "The, angel now answers Daniel concerning the death of the fourth beast. For we said when the Caesars had transferred the empire to themselves, the strength of the senate and of the people was enervated; but because the name still remained, the fourth beast is not said to have been slain until foreigners disgracefully became masters of Rome. For if the Romans had been conquered a hundred times over by professed enemies, they would not have suffered such disgrace as when obscure and low-born men exercise a cruel and barbarous tyranny; for then neither the senate nor the people enjoy any authority. The angel thus marks the time correctly at which the fourth beast was to fall, when the Spaniards, the Africans, and other barbarians, who were even always unknown in. their own country, were raised to the highest honors beyond the expectation of mankind. For their lust oppressed the whole state; they beheaded the most noble senators, and appointed in their stead the meanest of men, in token of their spirit of ignoniny. Then the fourth beast, was slain; and this is the explanation of this portion of the angel’s reply. He says also, Judegment shall then sit; that is, God shall again restore to order all this confusion, and the world shall feel his Providence ruling over the earth and the human race. For when all things are allowed to proceed without punishment, and neither justice nor honesty are held in any account, God is then supposed to be enjoying his ease in heaven, and to be forgetful of the human race. Hence, in opposition to this, he is said to ascend a tribunal as often as we really and experimentally feel his care over us. Thus the restoration is here called a sitting in judgment, when the Roman Empire was blotted out, and God executed the penalty of such great and such unbridled ferocity as that already recorded. As this phrase is very common and of frequent use in Scripture, I will not continue the explanation.The judgment, then, shall be set; that is, after all things have been long involved in darkness, new light shall burst forth, and men shall readily acknowledge the sway of the Almighty.And power, says he, shall they take away from the beast for dissipating and destroying even to the end Here the angel announces the final overthrow of the fourth beast. Respecting the plural number of the verb, we have already mentioned the opinion of some who refer it to more angels than one, but it is better to understand it more simply, as an absolute and indefinite form of expression. And yet; I do not object, as I before stated, to the view of those who take

76

it of angels, yet I fear this is too refined; I prefer the simpler view as being free from all controversy. The sense, then, is this: When the beast; shall have raged cruelly for a length of time, and especially the little horn, God shall discharge the duty of a judge, and the beast, with this small horn, shall be removed out of the way. The angel adds next, There shall be no hope of any new life similar to that of many kingdoms which often fall at one period and rise again at another; but he here announces the final slaughter, as if he had said, the wound is incurable and deadly. It now follows: —

COFFMAN, ""But the judgment shall be set, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given unto the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting 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.""But the judgment shall be set ..." This is God's final and effective answer to all of the misdeeds of men and of nations. It is necessary in the mercy and providence of God that the continuity of Adam's race upon earth shall be allowed until the full number of the Redeemed have come into service of God through Christ. Concurrently with this it is unavoidable that many terrible developments shall plague Adam's rebellious, sinful race. These terrible examples of wicked human governments, symbolized by the four beasts, are among the most prominent and the most evil of those wicked things that shall arise among earth's populations. But, in His own good time, THE JUDGMENT. "But the Judgment!" Yes there shall indeed be a final Judgment Day. This is one of the foundational doctrines of Christianity (Hebrews 6:2).The Judgment Day is extensively mentioned in the New Testament. That is the occasion when God will cast evil out of his universe, when Satan, and the Beast (all of the beasts), and the False Prophet (all false and immoral religion) shall be cast alive into the lake of fire that burneth with brimstone. (See Revelation 18-20.) The Final Judgment may not be dismissed as merely a sensational feature of apocalyptic literature. Christ spoke plainly of it in Matthew 25; and those who accept Christ as the world's only Lord and Saviour are surely obligated to believe what he said of that Eternal Day.COKE, "Daniel 7:26. But the judgment shall fit— Then the judgment, &c. The reference seems, ultimately at least, to the future and final judgment; "The destruction of the impious shall be eternal." But before this, shall all the earthly kingdoms be destroyed, Ezekiel's prophesy in chap. 38: and 39: against Gog in the land of Magog be fulfilled, the kingdom of Christ be restored, and the church's ascendancy over all the earth be established; and, as it follows in the next verse, the saints of the Most High shall receive a very extensive dominion, which shall

77

commence here on earth, and be continued for ever and ever. See Daniel 7:18 and Revelation 5:10. BENSON, "Verse 26-27Daniel 7:26-27. But the judgment shall sit, &c. — God, in the course of his providence, will sit (speaking after the manner of men) in judgment on this usurping, tyrannical, and persecuting power, which shall be judged, condemned, degraded, consumed, and destroyed, and his authority never more revived, to the end of the world: see note on Daniel 7:10-11. And the kingdom and dominion, &c., shall be given to the saints of the Most High — True religion shall universally prevail under the countenance and protection of Christian princes; and the kingdom of Christ shall be erected in power and glory in all parts of the earth. In other words, The stone cut out of the mountain without hands shall become itself a mountain, and fill the whole earth: see note on Daniel 2:44-45, and on Daniel 7:14 of this chapter. If the reader will be at the pains to compare this vision of Daniel, concerning the four great wild beasts, and the exposition of it by the angel, with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the great image, as explained by Daniel, he will be struck with their perfect agreement with each other, and find the one illustrative of the other.

WHEDON, "26. See notes Daniel 7:10. This does not refer to the General Judgment, but to the punishment of Antiochus by divinely directed agents after the close of the period represented by the “time, times, and half a time.” “The ministering agents of the Most High are continually interposing in history, removing kings and setting up kings (Daniel 2;21), and this they will continue to do unto the end, that is, until the divine purpose is consummated. Just when this end will be and how it will be reached are matters on which no specific revelations are here given.” — Terry.PETT, " ‘But the judgment will sit, and they will take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it to the end.’As through history ‘the judgment will sit’. That is, God will sit in judgment on this evil ruler as He had on the empires. And the court will take away his dominion, to get rid of it and destroy it. God is a consuming fire (see Daniel 7:9). ‘To the end.’ That is, for ever. It is in contrast with God’s kingdom which continues ‘to the end’ (Daniel 6:26) . Thus will Satan’s final attempt to prevail be defeated.

78

27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

CLARKE, "The kingdom and dominion - The people of the saints of the Most High, or the people who are the supereminent saints, shall have the kingdom. Whatever name they may be distinguished by among men, these are the people, and theirs is the Church, that no lapse of time shall injure, and no power be able to destroy; but shall last as long as time shall endure.

GILL, "And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High,.... Not only the dominion that shall be taken away from the little horn or antichrist, and from all the antichristian states, but the dominion of all others throughout all the earth, and under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of God, and the true professors of faith in Christ. The kingdoms of this world will become Christ's, and Christian princes will be kings of them everywhere; and not only the royal power and authority will be vested with them, but all the grandeur and state belonging to them will be theirs; as well as all the saints in general shall reign in a spiritual manner with Christ, enjoying all ordinances, and all religious liberties, as well as civil, and be free from all persecutions. Whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him; the people of the saints of the most High, all shall be subject to them, all dominions, and the governors of them; or Christ the head of them, under and with whom they reign. So Saadiah (s) paraphrases it, "the kingdom of the King Messiah is an everlasting kingdom, and his government is to generation and generation, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.'' This spiritual reign of Christ, which will take place in a more glorious manner at the destruction of antichrist, will continue until the Millennium, or the personal reign of Christ, begins; and after that will be the ultimate glory, in which Christ and his people will reign to all eternity.

79

JAMISON, "greatness of the kingdom under ... whole heaven — The power, which those several kingdoms had possessed, shall all be conferred on Messiah’s kingdom. “Under ... heaven” shows it is a kingdom on earth,not in heaven.

people of ... saints of ... Most High — “the people of the saints,” or “holy ones” (Dan_8:24, Margin): the Jews, the people to whom the saints stand in a peculiar relation. The saints are gathered out of Jews and Gentiles, but the stock of the Church is Jewish (Rom_9:24; Rom_11:24); God’s faithfulness to this election Church is thus virtually faithfulness to Israel, and a pledge of their future national blessing. Christ confirms this fact, while withholding the date (Act_1:6, Act_1:7).everlasting kingdom — If everlasting, how can the kingdom here refer to the millennial one? Answer: Daniel saw the whole time of future blessedness as one period. The clearer light of the New Testament distinguishes, in the whole period, the millennium and the time of the new heaven and new earth (compare Rev_20:4 with Rev_21:1 and Rev_22:5). Christ’s kingdom is “everlasting.” Not even the last judgment shall end it, but only give it a more glorious appearance, the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven, with the throne of God and the Lamb in it (compare Rev_5:9, Rev_5:10; Rev_11:15).

CALVIN, "This verse assures us how these predictions concerning the destruction of the beast regard the Church’s safety. Thus the faithful might know themselves noticed by God, and how the changes which successively happened tended to the same end, the acknowledgment on the part of the pious of their continuance under the care and guardianship of God. For any discussion of the four monarchies would have been cold and useless: unless there had been added God’s peculiar care of his own Church., and his conducting the affairs of the world for the safety of his people. As we have said in other places, God’s elect people are of more consequence than all the kingdoms which are conspicuous in the world. (Isaiah 43:3.) This, then, is the sense of the words. If we separate this verse from its context, the prophecy will still have its use. We may elicit from it how all things which seem stable in the world are yet perishable, and nothing is so firm as not to be subject every moment to constant variation. But the chief intention of this prediction is, as I have said, to show the relation of all events to the safety of the pious. When, therefore, all things seem carried away by the blind impulse of chance, we ought always to contemplate God as watching for his Church, and tempering all storms and all commotion to the service and safety of the pious, who rest upon his Providence. These two things, then, are mutually in accordance, namely, the slaying of the fourth beast, and the giving of the kingdom and authority to the people of the saints This does not seem to have been accomplished yet; and hence many, nay, almost all, except the Jews, have treated this prophecy as relating to the final day of Christ’s advent. All Christian interpreters agree in this; but, as I have shewn before, they pervert the Prophet’s intention. As to the Jews, theirs is no explanation at all, for they are not only foolish

80

and stupid, but even crazy (35) And since their object is the adulteration of sound doctrine, God also blinds them till they become utterly in the dark, and both trifling and childish; and if I were to stop to refute their crudities, I should never come to an end.This prophecy does not seem to be accomplished at the destruction of the beast; but this is easily explained. We know how magnificently the prophets speak of Christ’s kingdom, and adore his dignity and glory with splendid eulogies; and although these are not exaggerated, yet if judged of by human perceptions, you would surely think them exceedingly extravagant, and find neither solidity nor firmness in their words. And no wonder: for Christ’s kingdom and his dignity cannot be perceived by carnal eyes, nor even comprehended by the human intellect. Let those who appear the most sagacious of men combine together all their clear-sightedness, yet they can never ascend to the height of Christ’s kingdom, which surpasses the very heavens. Nothing is more contrary to our natural judgment than to seek life in death, riches in poverty and want, glory in shame and disgrace — to be wanderers in this world, and at the same time its heirs! Our minds cannot naturally comprehend these things. No wonder, then, if mortals judge erroneously of Christ’s kingdom, and are blind in the midst of light. Still there is no defect in the Prophet’s expressions, for they depict for us the visible image of Christ’s kingdom, and accommodate themselves to our dullness. They enable us to perceive the analogy between things earthly and visible, and that spiritual blessedness which Christ has afforded to us, and which we now possess through hope in him. For while we only hope, our happiness is concealed from us; it is not perceptible by our eyes or by any of our senses.Let us now return to the passage. Daniel first of all says, A kingdom, and power, and extensive dominion, shall be given to the people of the holy ones. This was partially fulfilled when the Gospel emerged from persecution: then the name of Christ was everywhere celebrated and held in honor and esteem, while previously it had been the subject of the greatest envy and hatred. For nothing had been more hated and detested for many years than the name of Christ. God, therefore, then gave the kingdom to his people, when he was acknowledged as the Redeemer of the world throughout its many changes, after having been formerly despised and utterly rejected. I may here remark again, and impress upon the memory what I have frequently touched upon, namely, the custom of the Prophets, in treating of Christ’s kingdom, to extend their meaning further than its first beginnings; and they do this while they dwell upon its commencement. Thus Daniel or the angel does not predict here occurrences connected with the advent of Christ as Judge of the world, but with the first preaching and promulgation of the Gospel, and the celebration of the name of Christ. But this does not prevent him from drawing a magnificent picture of Christ’s reign, and embracing its final completion. It is sufficient for us to perceive how God begins to give the kingdom to his elect people, when, by the power of his Spirit, the doctrine of the holy Gospel was everywhere received in the world. The sudden change which it occasioned was incredible, but this is a customary result; for, when anything is predicted, we think it a fable and a dream, and when

81

God performs what we never would have thought of, the evil, appears to us trifling, and we treat it as of no moment. For example, when the preaching of the Gospel commenced, no one would have thought its success could have been so great and so prosperous; nay, two hundred years before Christ was manifest, when religion was almost blotted out, and the Jews were execrated by the whole world, who would have thought the Law would spring from Zion? Yet God erected his scepter there. The dignity of the kingdom had vanished: the offspring of David was extinct. For the family of Jesse was but a trunk, after the simile used by the prophet Isaiah. (Isaiah 11:1.) If any one had asked all the Jews one after another, no one would have believed the possibility of those events which accompanied the preaching of the Gospel; but, at length the, dignity and virtue of the kingdom of David shone forth in Christ. Yet it vanishes before our eyes, and we seek new miracles, as if God had not sufficiently proved himself to have spoken by his prophets! Thus we observe how the Prophet keeps within bounds when he says, A kingdom, and a power, and a magnitude of empire was given to the people of the saints.He adds, one empire under the whole heavens Here the Rabbi Abarbinel, who thinks himself superior to all others, rejects our idea of the spiritual reign of Christ as a foolish imagination. For the kingdom of God, he says, is established under the whole heavens, and is given to the people of the saints. If it is established under heaven, says he, it is earthly, and if earthly, therefore not spiritual. This seems in truth a very subtle argument, as if God could not reign in the world except as extraordinary mortal. As often as Scripture says “God reigns,” according to this argument God must be transfigured into human nature, otherwise there will be no kingdom of God except it is earthly, and if earthly it is temporal, and therefore perishable. Hence we must infer that God changes his nature. His kingdom, then, will consist in opulence, and military power and parade, and the common luxuries of life, so that God will become unlike himself. We perceive the puerile trifling of those Rabbis who pretend to glory in their ingenuity, to the total destruction of the whole teaching of piety. They intend nothing else than to adulterate the purity of Scripture by their foul and senseless comments. But we know the reign of God and of Christ, although existing in the world, not to be of it, (John 18:36;) the meaning of the two expressions is exactly the opposite. God, therefore, still exercises his heavenly reign in the world, because he dwells in the hearts of his people by his Spirit. While God held his seat at Jerusalem, was his kingdom merely an earthly and corruptible one? By no means, for by the possession of an earthly habitation he did not cease to be in heaven also. Thus the angel instructed the Prophet concerning the saints who are pilgrims in the world, and yet shall enjoy the kingdom and possess the greatest power under heaven. Hence also we correctly conclude, that this vision ought not to be explained of the final advent of Christ, but of the intermediate state of the Church. The saints began to reign under heaven, when Christ ushered in his kingdom by the promulgation of his Gospel.Another point must be noticed, — what belongs to the head is transferred to the body. There is nothing new in this, as the supreme power is constantly promised by the Prophets to the Church, especially by Isaiah, who often predicts its complete

82

supremacy. The Papists seize upon such testimonies to clothe themselves in the spoils of God, as if God had resigned his right to them! But they are immersed in the same error with the Jews, who swell with pride whenever such dignity is promised to the elect people, as if they could remain separate from God and yet obtain the right of treading the whole world under foot. The Papists also do exactly the same. We, however, must be guided by a very different rule, namely, in consequence of the intimate union between Christ and his Church, the peculiar a. tribute of Christ himself is often transferred to his body. Not that the Church reigns by itself; but Christ, as its only supreme head, obtains dominion therein, and not for his own private advantage — for what need has he of this dominion? but for the common safety of all its members. Wherefore Christ is our King, and he designs to erect his throne in the midst; of us; he uses nothing for his own advantage, but communicates all things to us, and renders them useful to us; hence, we are deservedly called kings, because he reigns, and as I have already said, language which is exclusively appropriate to him, is transferred to us in consequence of the intimate communion existing between the head and the members.This is also the sense of the phrase here added by the Prophet, All powers shall serve and obey it I have no doubt the angel here confirmed Isaiah’s prophecy, as the Holy Spirit, the better to confirm and strengthen the faith of the pious, often reconciles one Prophet with another, and thus their mutual agreement becomes the seal of their truth. It is said in Isaiah, The kingdom and the land which will not serve thee, shall. be destroyed: kings shall come and adore thee, the people shall offer thee gifts. (Isaiah 60:12.) In the Psalms, it is said,“Kings shall assemble together, to serve God.”(Psalms 102:22.)And Isaiah treats very fully on the empire of the Church. The angel now repeats the same thing, to add, as I have said, greater confidence and authority to the prophecy of Isaiah. Meanwhile, we observe how completely all the Prophets agree, and at the same time we interpret these words of the kingdom of Christ, from the period at which the teaching of the gospel was rendered remarkably conspicuous; for then God’s royal scepter went forth from Jerusalem, and shone far and wide, while the Lord was extending his hand and his authority over all the regions of the world. As all these important events tended to the common salvation of the Church, it is said, The kingdom shall belong to the holy people. As to the phrase, The saints of the high ones, I have already explained why the Prophet applies this phrase to the faithful, and why the angel also does the same; namely, because God separated them from the world, and they were always looking upwards and drawing all their hopes from above. Then, as to the Rabbi whom I cited, he twists this. passage, and tries to show that the Prophet did not speak of Christ, when he says he saw the figure of the Son of man. But this is complete trifling, for he asserts the Son of man to mean “the people of the saints,” and thus the phrase would have no reference to Christ, but to the whole offspring of Abraham. We must not be surprised at the shameful ignorance of these Rabbis, and at their blundering at the very rudiments, since they

83

do not acknowledge the necessity for a Mediator, through whom alone the Church can obtain any favor before God. They boast in what we also allow — in the sons of Abraham being the elect, and in this title as availing to render them a holy people, and heirs of God, and a kingdom of priests. This is true, but on what was their covenant of adoption founded but on Christ? Hence their separating the Church from the Mediator, is like leaving a mutilated body apart from its disjoined head. Besides, from what the Prophet stated before about the Son of man, his subject is evidently changed in this verse. He stated there, power was given to the Son of man after he had arrived at the Ancient of days, and the Son of man, or at least his likeness, appeared in the clouds. First of all, we must notice this likeness, as it were the Son of man, as we have already explained the vision. Surely Abraham’s posterity were really men, but the vision offered to the Prophet was but a similitude; as Christ had not yet put on our flesh, this was only a prelude to his future manifestation in the flesh. Here he speaks openly and without a figure of the people of the saints, and this prophecy depends upon the former one. For unless Christ were seated at His Father’s right hand, and had obtained supreme dominion, causing every knee to bend before him, the Church could never exercise its power. Thus we observe how all things mutually agree among each other.As, however, it is certain that many have perseveringly rebelled against; God and the teaching of his gospel, it may seem absurd for the angel to pronounce all the powers of the world obedient and submissive. But it is worth while to study the customary methods of scriptural expression. For instance, by the phrase “all people,” the Spirit does not mean every single person, but simply some out of every nation who should submit to Christ’s yoke, acknowledge him to be king, and obediently obey his Church. How often do these sentiments occur in the prophets? All nations shall come — all kings; shall serve. At that time no king existed who was not professedly an enemy of true piety, and who did not desire the abolition of the very name of his law. The prophets enlarge thus magnificently on the future restoration of this kingdom, as we have stated before, in consequence of the event being so utterly incredible. So, also, in this place all powers, says he, shall serve and obey him; that is:, no power shall so boast in its loftiness, as not willingly to become subject to the Church, although at present all so fully despise it: nay, while they rage with all their might, against the most wretched Church, and while they tread it most ignominiously under foot, even then they shall be subject to it. This we know to have been amply fulfilled. Some persons foolishly press beyond their meaning words of universal import, as when Paul says, God wishes all to be saved. Hence, they say, no one is predetermined for destruction, but all are elect, that is, God is not God. (1 Timothy 2:4.) But we are not surprised at such madness as this, corrupting the impious and profane, who desire by their cavils to promote disbelief in all the oracles of the Spirit. Let us clearly comprehend the frequency of this figure of speech; when the Holy Spirit names “all,” he means some out of all nations, and not every one universally.

WHEDON, "27. The saints receive “the kingdom” because their leader has received 84

it. The description here of the kingdom of the Most High is word for word a description of the kingdom of the “one like a son of man.” (See note Daniel 7:14.) Behrmann is probably right in saying that the Jews themselves did not discriminate between the ruler and the nation as we do, yet, as he shows, it would be as inconsistent to say because of this verse that the Son of man is identical with the Jewish nation as to compare Daniel 2:44, with Daniel 2:34, and say that the stone designated the Jewish people. Daniel 7:14 speaks of a God-sent King, and this verse shows what the people gained through him. Of course the full meaning of this prophecy could not have been understood when it was written. It is a mistake to think that the best fulfillment of prophecy always lay in the mind of the prophet. He might speak of trouble near at hand, and a national deliverance soon to come; but in God’s providence the complete realization of what he saw and hoped could only come through the spiritual and Messianic kingdom and its spiritual prince. As in so many other Bible passages (compare Ezekiel 34:27-31; Ezekiel 37:26; Ezekiel 39:25-29), the immediate hope broadens into the vision of a world-wide victory for God and his people.

PETT, "Verse 27‘And the kingdom, and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people (who consist) of the holy ones of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions will serve and obey him.’Compare Daniel 7:18. After the persecution the blessing. Those who have been trodden down will be lifted up. They will receive the kingdom, and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, in other words supreme authority over all things. This is indeed God’s promise to His people elsewhere (Ephesians 2:6 with Daniel 1:19-21; Revelation 3:21).‘The people (who consist) of the holy ones of the Most High.’ Thus not earthly Israel, but God’s true people, His holy ones, whoever they may be.We note that this almost parallels what is given to the son of man in Daniel 7:14 (He also receives the glory). The son of man (or ‘The Man’) there is in contrast with the wild beasts. The wild beasts are both the kings and their kingdoms, one merges into the other. They both behave like wild beasts, but the true people of God behave like true human beings made in the image of God, and through their representative, the true Man, they receive the dominion. Thus the son of man is both the people’s representative and the people themselves. But whereas He receives the dominion at His resurrection, they finally receive the dominion at His return in glory.

85

28 “This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself.”

BARNES, "Hitherto is the end of the matter - That is, the end of what I saw and heard. This is the sum of what was disclosed to the prophet, but he still says that he meditated on it with profound interest, and that he had much solicitude in regard to these great events. The words rendered hitherto, mean, so far, or thus far. The phrase “end of the matter,” means “the close of the saying a thing;” that is, this was all the revelation which was made to him, and he was left to his own meditations respecting it.

As for me Daniel - So far as I was concerned; or so far as this had any effect on me. It was not unnatural, at the close of this remarkable vision, to state the effect that it had on himself.My cogitations much troubled me - My thoughts in regard to it. It was a subject which he could not avoid reflecting on, and which could not but produce deep solicitude in regard to the events which were to occur. Who could look into the future without anxious and agitating thought? These events were such as to engage the profoundest attention; such as to fix the mind in solemn thought. Compare the notes at Rev_5:4.And my countenance changed in me - The effect of these revelations depicted themselves on my countenance. The prophet does not say in what way - whether by making him pale, or careworn, or anxious, but merely that

it produced a change in his appearance. The Chaldee is “brightness” - זיוzıyv - and the meaning would seem to be, that his bright and cheerful countenance was changed; that is, that his bright looks were changed; either by becoming pale (Gesenius, Lengerke), or by becoming serious and thoughtful.

But I kept the matter in my heart - I communicated to no one the cause of my deep and anxious thoughts. He hid the whole subject in his own mind, until he thought proper to make this record of what he had seen and heard. Perhaps there was no one to whom he could communicate the matter who would credit it; perhaps there was no one at court who would sympathize with him; perhaps he thought that it might savor of vanity if it were known; perhaps he felt that as no one could throw any new light on the subject, there would be no use in making it a subject of conversation; perhaps he felt 86

so overpowered that he could not readily converse on it.We are prepared now, having gone through with an exposition of this chapter, as to the meaning of the symbols, the words, and the phrases, to endeavor to ascertain what events are referred to in this remarkable prophecy, and to ask what events it was designed should be pourtrayed. And in reference to this there are but two opinions, or two classes of interpretations, that require notice: what refers it primarily and exclusively to Antiochus Epiphanes, and what refers it to the rise and character of the Papal power; what regards the fourth beast as referring to the empire of Alexander, and the little horn to Antiochus, and what regards the fourth beast as referring to the Roman empire, and the little horn to the Papal dominion. In inquiring which of these is the true interpretation, it will be proper, first, to consider whether it is applicable to Antiochus Epiphanes; secondly, whether it in fact finds a fulfillment in the Roman empire and the Papacy; and, thirdly, if such is the proper application, what are we to look for in the future in what remains unfulfilled in regard to the prophecy.I. The question whether it is applicable to the case of Antiochus Epiphanes. A large class of interpreters, of the most respectable character, among whom are Lengerke, Maurer, Prof. Stuart (Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 86, following; also Com. on Daniel, pp. 205-211), Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Bleek, and many others, suppose that the allusion to Antiochus is clear, and that the primary, if not the exclusive, reference to the prophecy is to him. Professor Stuart (Hints, p. 86) says, “The passage in Dan_7:25 is so clear as to leave no reasonable room for doubt.” “In Dan_7:8, Dan_7:20, Dan_7:24, the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes is described; for the fourth beast is, beyond all reasonable doubt, the divided Grecian dominion which succeeded the reign of Alexander the Great. From this dynasty springs Antiochus, Dan_7:8, Dan_7:20, who is most graphically described in Dan_7:25 ‘as one who shall speak great words against the most High,’ etc.”The facts in regard to Antiochus, so far as they are necessary to be known in the inquiry, are briefly these: Antiochus Epiphanes (the Illustrios, a name taken on himself, Prideaux, iii. 213), was the son of Antiochus the Great, but succeeded his brother, Seleucus Philopator, who died 176 b.c. Antiochus reigned over Syria, the capital of which was Antioch, on the Oronres, from 176 b.c. to 164 b.c. His character, as that of a cruel tyrant, and a most bloodthirsty and bitter enemy of the Jews, is fully detailed in the first and second book of Maccabees. Compare also Prideaux, Con. vol. iii. 213-234. The facts in the case of Antiochus, so far as they are supposed to bear on the application of the prophecy before us, are thus stated by Prof. Stuart (Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, pp. 89, 90): “In the year 168 before Christ, in the month of May, Antiochus Epiphanes was on his way to attack Egypt, and he detached Apollonius, one of his military confidants, with 22,000 soldiers, in order to subdue and plunder Jerusalem. The mission was executed with entire success. A horrible slaughter was made of the men at Jerusalem, and a large portion of the women and children, being made captives, were sold and treated as slaves. The services of the temple were interrupted, and its joyful feasts were turned into mourning, 1 Macc. 1:37-39. Soon after this the Jews in general were compelled to eat swine’s

87

flesh, and to sacrifice to idols. In December of that same year, the temple was profaned by introducing the statue of Jupiter Olympius; and on the 25th of that month sacrifices were offered to that idol on the altar of Jehovah. Just three years after this last event, namely, December 25, 165 b.c., the temple was expurgated by Judas Maccabeus, and the worship of Jehovah restored.Thus, three years and a half, or almost exactly this period, passed away, while Antiochus had complete possession and control of everything in and around Jerusalem and the temple. It may be noted, also, that just three years passed, from the time when the profanation of the temple was carried to its greatest height - namely, by sacrificing to the statue of Jupiter Olympius on the altar of Jehovah, down to the time when Judas renewed the regular worship. I mention this last circumstance in order to account for the three years of Antiochus’ profanations, which are named as the period of them in Joseptus, Ant. xii. 7, Section 6. This period tallies exactly with the time during which the profanation as consummated was carried on, if we reckon down to the period when the temple worship was restored by Judas Maceabeus. But in Prooem. ad Bell. Jud. Section 7, and Bell. Jud. 1. 1, Section 1, Josephus reckons three years and a half as the period during which Antiochus ravaged Jerusalem and Judea.”In regard to this statement, while the general facts are correct, there are some additional statements which should be made, to determine as to its real bearing on the case. The act of detaching Apollonius to attack Jerusalem was not, as is stated in this extract, when Antiochus was on his way to Egypt, but was on his return from Egypt, and was just two years after Jerusalem had been taken by Antiochus. - Prideaux, iii. 239. The occasion of his detaching Apollonius, was that Antiochus was enraged because he had been defeated in Egypt by the Romans, and resolved to vent all his wrath upon the Jews, who at that time had given him no particular offence. When, two years before, Antiochus had himself taken Jerusalem, he killed forty thousand persons; he took as many captives, and sold them for slaves; he forced himself into the temple, and entered the most holy place; he caused a great sow to be offered on the altar of burnt-offering, to show his contempt for the temple and the Jewish religion; he sprinkled the broth over every part of the temple for the purpose of polluting it; he plundered the temple of the altar of incense, the showbread table, and the golden candlestick, and then returned to Antioch, having appointed Philip, a Phrygian, a man of a cruel and barbarous temper, to be governor of the Jews. - Prideaux, iii. 231.When Apollonius again attacked the city, two years afterward, he waited quietly until the Sabbath, and then made his assault. He filled the city with blood, set it on fire, demolished the houses, pulled down the walls, built a strong fortress over against the temple, from which the garrison could fall on all who should attempt to go to worship. From this time, “the temple became deserted, and the daily sacrifices were omitted,” until the service was restored by Judas Maccabeus, three years and a half after. The time during which this continued was, in fact, just three years and a half, until Judas MaccaUcus succeeded in expelling the pagan from the temple and from Jerusalem, when the temple was purified, and was solemnly reconsecrated to the worship of God. See Prideaux, Con. iii. 240, 241, and

88

the authorities there cited.Now, in reference to this interpretation, supposing that the prophecy relates to Antiochus, it must be admitted that there are coincidences which are remarkable, and it is on the ground of these coincidences that the prophecy has been applied to him. These circumstances are such as the following:(a) The general character of the authority that would exist as denoted by the “little horn,” as that of severity and cruelty. None could be better fitted to represent that than the character of Antiochus Epiptianes. Compare Prideaux, Con. iii. 213, 214.(b) His arrogance and blasphemy - “speaking great words against the Most High.” Nothing is easier than to find what would be a fulfillment of this in the character of Antiochus - in his sacrilegious entrance into the most holy places; in his setting up the statue of Jupiter; in his offering a sow as a sacrifice on the great altar; in His sprinkling the broth of swine on the temple in contempt of the Hebrews and their worship, and in his causing the daily sacrifice at the temple to cease.(c) His making war with the “saints,” and “wearing out the saints of the Most High” - all this could be found accomplished in the wars which Antiochus waged against the Jews in the slaughter of so many thousands, and in sending so many into hopeless slavery.(d) His attempt to “change times and laws” - this could be found to have been fulfilled in the case of Antiochus - in his arbitrary character, and in his interference with the laws of the Hebrews.(e) The time, as above stated, is the most remarkable coincidence. If this is not to be regarded as referring exclusively to Antiochus, it must be explained on one of two suppositions - either that it is one of those coincidences which will be found to happen in history, as coincidences happen in dreams; or as having a double reference, intended to refer primarily to Antiochus, but in a secondary and more important sense referring also to other events having a strong resemblance to this; or, in other words, that the language was designedly so couched as to relate to two similar classes of events. It is not to be regarded as very remarkable, however, that it is possible to find a fulfillment of these predictions in Antiochus, though it be supposed that the design was to describe the Papacy, for some of the expressions are of so general a character that they could be applied to many events which have occurred, and, from the nature of the case, there were strong points of resemblance between Antiochus and the Papal power. It is not absolutely necessary, therefore, to suppose that this had reference to Antiochus Epiphanes; and there are so many objections to this view as to make it, it seems to me, morally impossible that it should have had such a reference. Among these objections are the following:(1) This interpretation makes it necessary to divide the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, and to consider them two kingdoms, as Eichhorn, Jahn, Dereser, DeWette, and Bleek do. In order to this interpretation, the following are the kingdoms denoted by the four beasts - by the first, the Chaldee; by the second, the Medish; by the third, the Persian; and by the

89

fourth, the Macedonian, or the Macedonian-Asiatic kingdom under Alexander the Great. But to say nothing now of any other difficulties, it is an insuperable objection to this, that so far as the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians are mentioned in Scripture, and so far as they play any part in the fulfillment of prophecy, they are always mentioned as one. They appear as one; they act as one; they are regarded as one. The kingdom of the Medes does not appear until it is united with that of the Persians, and this remark is of special importance when they are spoken of as succeeding the kingdom of Babylon. The kingdom of the Medes was contemporaneous with that of Babylon; it was the Mede-Persian kingdom that was in any proper sense the successor of that of Babylon, as described in these symbols. The kingdom of the Medes, as Hengstenberg well remarks, could in no sense be said to have succeeded that of Babylon any longer than during the reign of Cyaxares II, after the taking of Babylon: and even during that short period of two years, the government was in fact in the hands of Cyrus. - Die Authentic des Daniel, p. 200. Schlosser (p. 243) says, “the kingdom of the Medes and Persians is to be regarded as in fact one and the same kingdom, only that in the change of the dynasty another branch obtained the authority.” See particularly, Rosenmuller, Alterthumskunde, i. 290, 291. These two kingdoms are in fact always blended - their laws, their customs, their religion, and they are mentioned as one. Compare Est_1:3, Est_1:18-19; Est_10:2; Dan_5:28; Dan_6:8, Dan_6:12, Dan_6:15.(2) In order to this interpretation, it is necessary to divide the empire founded by Alexander, and instead of regarding it as one, to consider what existed when he reigned as one; and that of Antiochus, one of the successors of Alexander, as another. This opinion is maintained by Bertholdt, who supposes that the first beast represented the Babylonian kingdom; the second, the kingdom of the Medes and Persians; the third, that of Alexander; and the fourth the kingdoms that sprang out of that. In order to this, it is necessary to suppose that the four heads and wings, and the ten horns, equally represent that kingdom, or sprang from it - the four heads, the kingdom when divided at the death of Alexander, and the ten horns, powers that ultimately sprang up from the same dominion. But this is contrary to the whole representation in regard to the Asiatic-Macedonian empire. In Dan_8:8-9, where there is an undoubted reference to that empire, it is said “the he-goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, etc.” Here is an undoubted allusion to Alexander, and to his followers, and particularly to Antiochus, but no mention of any such division as is necessary to be supposed if the fourth beast represents the power that succeeded Alexander in the East. In no place is the kingdom of the successors of Alexander divided from his in the same sense in which the kingdom of the Medes and Persians is from that of Babylon, or the kingdom of Alexander from that of the Persians. Compare Hengstenberg, as above, pp. 203-205.(3) The supposition that the fourth beast represents either the kingdom of Alexander, or, according to Bertholdt and others, the successors of Alexander, by no means agrees with the character of that beast as compared

90

with the others. That beast was far more formidable, and more to be dreaded than either of the others. It had iron teeth and brazen claws; it stamped down all before it, and broke all to pieces, and manifestly represented a far more fearful dominion than either of the others. The same is true in regard to the parallel representation in Dan_2:33, Dan_2:40, of the fourth kingdom represented by the legs and feet of iron, as more terrific than either of those denoted by the gold, the silver, or the brass. But this representation by no means agrees with the character of the kingdom of either Alexander or his successors, and in fact would not be true of them. It would agree well, as we shall see, with the Roman power, even as contrasted with that of Babylon, Persia, or Macedon; but it is not the representation which would, with propriety, be given of the empire of Alexander, or his successors, as contrasted with those which preceded them. Compare Hengstenberg, as above, pp. 205-207. Moreover, this does not agree with what is expressly said of this power that should succeed that of Alexander, in a passage undoubtedly referring to it, in Dan_8:22, where it is said, “Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.”(4) On this supposition it is impossible to determine who are meant by the “ten horns” of the fourth beast Dan_7:7, and the “ten kings” Dan_7:24 that are represented by these. All the statements in Daniel that refer to the Macedonian kingdom Dan_7:6; Dan_8:8, Dan_8:22 imply that the Macedonian empire in the East, when the founder died, would be divided into four great powers or monarchies - in accordance with what is well known to have been the fact. But who are the ten kings or sovereignties that were to exist under this general Macedonian power, on the supposition that the fourth beast represents this? Bertholdt supposes that the ten horns are “ten Syrian kings,” and that the eleventh little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes. The names of these kings, according to Bertholdt (pp. 432, 433), are Seleucus Nicator, Antiochus Sorer, Antiochus Theos, Seleucus Callinicus, Seleucus Ceraunus, Antiochus the Great, Seleucus Philopator, Heliodorus, Ptolemy Philometor, and Demetrius. So also Prof. Stuart, Com. on Dan. p. 208. But it is impossible to make out this exact number of Syrian kings from history, to say nothing now of the improbability of supposing that their power was represented by the fourth beast. These kings were not of the same dynasty, of Syria, of Macedonia, or of Egypt, but the list is made up of different kingdoms. Grotius (in loc.) forms the catalogue of ten kings out of the lists of the kings of Syria and Egypt - five out of one, and five out of the other; but this is manifestly contrary to the intention of the prophecy, which is to represent them as springing out of one and the same power. It is a further objection to this view, that these are lists of successive kings - rising up one after the other; whereas the representation of the ten horns would lead us to suppose that they existed simultaneously; or that somehow there were ten powers that sprang out of the one great power represented by the fourth beast.(5) Equally difficult is it, on this supposition, to know who are intended by the “three horns” that were plucked up by the little horn that sprang up among the ten, Dan_7:8. Grotius, who regards the “little horn” as representing Antiochus Epiphanes, supposes that the three horns were his

91

elder brothers, Seleucus, Demetrius, the son of Seleucus, and Ptolemy Philopator, king of Egypt. But it is an insuperable objection to this that the three kings mentioned by Grotius are not all in his list of ten kings, neither Ptolemy Philometor (if Philometor he meant), nor Demetrius being of the number. - Newton on the Proph. p. 211. Neither were they plucked up by the roots by Antiochus, or by his order. Seieueus was poisoned by his treasurer, Helioderus, whose aim it was to usurp the crown for himself, before Antiochus came from Rome, where he had been detained as a hostage for several years. Demetrius lived to dethrone and murder the son of Antiochus, and succeeded him in the kingdom of Syria. Ptolemy Philopater died king of Egypt almost thirty years before Antiochus came to the throne of Syria; or if Ptolemy Philometer, as is most probable, was meant by Grotius, though he suffered much in the wars with Antiochus, yet he survived him about eighteen years, and died in possession of the crown of Egypt. - Newton, ut supra. Bertlholdt supposes that the three kings were Heliodorus, who poisoned Seleucus Philopater, and sought, by the help of a party, to obtain the throne; Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt, who, as sister’s son to the king, laid claim to the throne; and Demetrius, who, as son of the former king, was legitimate heir to the throne. But there are two objections to this view;(a) that the representation by the prophet is of actual kings - which these were not; and(b) that Antiochus ascended the throne peaceably; Demetrius, who would have been regarded as the king of Syria, not being able to make his title good, was detained as a hostage at Rome. Hengstenberg, pp. 207, 208. Prof Stuart, Com. on Dan., pp. 208, 209, supposes that the three kings referred to were Heliodorus, Ptolemy Philometer, and Demetrius I; but in regard to these it should be observed, that they were mere pretenders to the throne, whereas the text in Daniel supposes that they would be actual kings. Compare Hengstenberg, p. 208.(6) The time mentioned here, on the supposition that literally three years and a half Dan_7:25 are intended, does not agree with the actual dominion of Antiochus. In an undoubted reference to him in Dan_8:13-14, it is said that “the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation,” would be “unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed;” that is, one thousand and forty days, or some two years and ten months more than the time mentioned here. I am aware of the difficulty of explaining this (see Prof. Stuart, Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 98, following), and the exact menning of the passage in Dan_8:13-14, will come up for consideration hereafter; but it is an objection of some force to the application of the “time, and times, and dividing of a time” Dan_7:25 to Antiochus, that it is not the same time which is applied to him elsewhere.(7) And, one more objection to this application is, that, in the prophecy, it is said that he who was represented by the “little horn” would continue until “the Ancient of days should sit,” and evidently until the kingdom should be taken by the one in the likeness of the Son of man, Dan_7:9-10, Dan_7:13-14, Dan_7:21-22, Dan_7:26. But if this refers to Antiochus, then these events must refer to the coming of the Messiah, and to the setting up of his

92

kingdom in the world. Yet, as a matter of fact; Antiochus died about 164 years before the Saviour came, and there is no way of showing that he continued until the Messiah came in the flesh.These objections to the opinion that this refers to Antiochus Epiphanes seem to me to be insuperable.II. The question whether it refers to the Roman empire and the Papal power. The fair inquiry is, whether the things referred to in the vision actually find such a correspondence in the Roman empire and the Papacy, that they would fairly represent them if the symbols had been made use of after the events occurred. Are they such as we might properly use now as describing the portions of those events that are past, on the supposition that the reference was to those events? To determine this, it will be proper to refer to the things in the symbol, and to inquire whether events corresponding to them have actually occurred in the Roman empire and the Papacy. Recalling the exposition which has been above given of the explanation furnished by the angel to Daniel, the things there referred to will find an ample and a striking fulfillment in the Roman empire and the Papal power.(1) The fourth kingdom, symbolized by the fourth beast, is accurately represented by the Roman power. This is true in regard to the place which that power would occupy in the history of the world, on the supposition that the first three referred to the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Macedonian. On this supposition there is no need of regarding the Medo-Persian empire as divided into two, represented by two symbols; or the kingdom founded by Alexander - the Asiatic-Macedonian - as distinct from that of his successors. As the Medo-Persian was in fact one dominion, so was the Macedonian under Alexander, and in the form of the four dynasties into which it was divided on his death, and down to the time when the whole was subverted by the Roman conquests. On this supposition, also, everything in the symbol is fulfilled. The fourth beast - so mighty, so terrific, so powerful, so unlike all the others, armed with iron teeth, and with claws of brass, trampling down and stamping on all the earth - well represents the Roman dominion.The symbol is such a one as we should now use appropriately to represent that power, and in every respect that empire was well represented by the symbol. It may be added, also, that this supposition corresponds with the obvious interpretation of the parallel place in Dan_2:33, Dan_2:40, where the same empire is referred to in the image by the legs and feet of iron. See the note at that passage. It should be added, that this fourth kingdom is to be considered as prolonged through the entire continuance of the Roman power, in the various forms in which that power has been kept up on the earth - alike under the empire, and when broken up into separate sovereignties, and when again concentrated and embodied under the Papacy. That fourth power or dominion was to be continued, according to the prediction here, until the establishment of the kingdom of the saints. Either, then, that kingdom of the saints has come, or has been set up, or the fourth kingdom, in some form, still remains.The truth is, that in prophecy the entire Roman dominion seems to be

93

contemplated as one - one mighty and formidable power trampling down the liberties of the world; oppressing and persecuting the people of God -the true church; and maintaining an absolute and arbitrary dominion over the souls of men - as a mighty domination standing in the way of the progress of truth, and keeping back the reign of the saints on the earth. In these respects the Papal dominion is, and has been, but a prolongation, in another form, of the influence of pagan Rome, and the entire domination may be represented as one, and might be symbolized by the fourth beast in the vision of Daniel. When that power shall cease, we may, according to the prophecy, look for the time when the “kingdom shall be given to the saints,” or when the true kingdom of God shall be set up all over the world.(2) Out of this one sovereignty, represented by the fourth beast, ten powers or sovereignties, represented by the ten horns, were to arise. It was shown in the exposition, that these would all spring out of that one dominion, and would wield the power that was wielded by that; that is, that the one great power would be broken up and distributed into the number represented by ten. As the horns all appeared at the same time on the beast, and did not spring up after one another, so these powers would be simultaneous, and would not be a mere succession; and as the horns all sprang from the beast, so these powers would all have the same origin, and be a portion of the same one power now divided into many. The question then is, whether the Roman power was in fact distributed into so many sovereignties at any period such as would be represented by the springing up of the little horn - if that refers to the Papacy. Now, one has only to look into any historical work, to see how in fact the Roman power became distributed and broken up in this way into a large number of kingdoms, or comparatively petty sovereignties, occupying the portions of the world once governed by Rome. In the decline of the empire, and as the new power represented by the “little horn” arose, there was a complete breaking up of the one power that was formerly wielded, and a large number of states and kingdoms sprang out of it.To see that there is no difficulty in making out the number ten, or that some such distribution and breaking up of the one power is naturally suggested, I cast my eye on the historical chart of Lyman, and found the following kingdoms or sovereignties specified as occupying the same territory which was possessed by the Roman empire, and springing from that - namely, the Vandals, Alans, Suevi, Heruli, Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Lombards, Britons. The Roman empire as such had ceased, and the power was distributed into a large number of comparatively petty sovereignties - well represented at this period by the ten horns on the head of the beast. Even the Romanists themselves admit that the Roman empire was, by means of the incursions of the northern nations, dismembered into ten kingdoms (Calmet on Rev_13:1; and he refers likewise to Berengaud, Bossuet, and Dupin. See Newton, p. 209); and Machiaveli (Hist. of Flor. 1. i.), with no design of furnishing an illustration of this prophecy, and probably with no recollection of it, has mentioned these names:1, the Ostrogoths in Moesia;

94

2, the Visigoths in Pannonia;3, the Sueves and Alans in Gascoign 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.The arrangement proposed by Sir Isaac Newton is the following:1, The kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa;2, the kingdom of the Suevians in Spain;3, the kingdom of the Visigoths;4, the kingdom of the Alans in Gallia;5, the kingdom of the Burgundians;6, the kingdom of the Franks;7, the kingdom of the Britons;8. the kingdom of the Huns;9, the kingdom of the Lombards;10, the kingdom of Ravenna.Compare also Duffield on the Prophecies, pp. 279, 280. For other arrangements constituting the number ten, as embracing the ancient power of the Roman empire, see Newton on the Prophecies, pp. 209, 210. There is some slight variation in the arrangements proposed by Mr. Mede, Bishop Lloyd, and Sir Isaac Newton; but still it is remarkable that it is easy to make out that number with so good a degree of certainty, and particularly so, that it should have been suggested by a Romanist himself. Even if it is not practicable to make out the number with strict exactness, or if all writers do not agree in regard to the dynasties constituting the number ten, we should bear in remembrance the fact that these powers arose in the midst of great confusion; that one kingdom arose and another fell in rapid succession; and that there was not that entire certainty of location and boundary which there is in old and established states. One thing is certain, that there never has been a case in which an empire of vast power has been broken up into small sovereignties, to which this description would so well apply as to the rise of the numerous dynasties in the breaking up of the vast Roman power; and another thing is equally certain, that if we were now to seek an appropriate symbol of the mighty Roman power - of its conquests, and of the extent of its dominion, and of the condition of that empire, about the time that the Papacy arose, we could not find a more striking or appropriate symbol than that of the terrible fourth beast with iron teeth and brazen claws - stamping the earth beneath his feet, and with ten horns springing

95

out of his head.(3) in the midst of these there sprang up a little horn that had remarkable characteristics. The inquiry now is, if this does not represent Antiochus, whether it finds a proper fulfillment in the Papacy. Now, in regard to this inquiry, the slightest acquaintance with the history and claims of the Papal power will show that there was a striking appropriateness in the symbol -such an appropriateness, that if we desired now to find a symbol that would represent this, we could find no one better adapted to it than that employed by Daniel.(a) The little horn would spring up among the others, and stand among them - as dividing the power with them, or sharing or wielding that power. That is, on the supposition that it refers to the Papacy, the Papal power would spring out of the Roman empire; would be one of the sovereignties among which that vast power would be divided, and share with the other ten in wielding authority. It would be an eleventh power added to the ten. And who can be ignorant that the Papal power at the beginning, when it first asserted civil authority, sustained just such a relation to the crumbled and divided Roman empire as this? It was just one of the powers into which that vast sovereignty passed.(b) It would not spring up contemporaneously with them, but would arise in their midst, when they already existed. They are seen in vision as actually existing together, and this new power starts up among them. What could be more strikingly descriptive of the Papacy - as a power arising when the great Roman authority was broken to fragments, and distributed into a large number of sovereignties?. Then this new power was seen to rise - small at first, but gradually gaining strength, until it surpassed any one of them in strength, and assumed a position in the world which no one of them had. The representation is exact. It is not a foreign power that invaded them; it starts up in the midst of them - springing out of the head of the same beast, and constituting a part of the same mighty domination that ruled the world.(c) It would be small at first, but would soon become so powerful as to pluck up and displace three of the others. And could any symbol have been better chosen to describe the Papal power than this? Could we find any now that would better describe it? Any one needs to have but the slightest acquaintance with the history of the Papal power to know that it was small at its beginnings, and that its ascendency over the world was the consequence of slow but steady growth. Indeed, so feeble was it at its commencement, so undefined were its first appearance and form, that one of the most difficult things in history is to know exactly when it did begin, or to determine the exact date of its origin as a distinct power. Different schemes in the interpretation of prophecy turn wholly on this. We see, indeed, that power subsequently strongly marked in its character, and exerting a mighty influence in the world - having subjugated nations to its control; we see causes for a long time at work tending to this, and can trace their gradual operation in producing it, but the exact period when its dominion began, what was the first characteristic act of the Papacy as such, what constituted its precise beginning as a peculiar power blending and combining a peculiar civil and ecclesiastical authority, no one is able with absolute certainty to determine. Who can fix the exact date? Who can tell

96

precisely when it was? It is true that there were several distinct acts, or the exercise of civil authority, in the early history of the Papacy, but what was the precise beginning of that power no one has been able to determine with so much certainty as to leave no room for doubt. Any one can see with what propriety the commencement of such a power would be designated by a little horn springing up among others.(d) It would grow to be mighty, for the “little horn” thus grew to be so powerful as to pluck up three of the horns of the beast. Of the growth of the power of the Papacy no one can be ignorant who has any acquaintance with history. It held nations in subjection, and claimed and exercised the right of displacing and distributing crowns as it pleased.(e) It would subdue “three kings;” that is, three of the ten represented by the ten horns. The prophet saw this at some point in its progress when three fell before it, or were overthrown by it. There might have been also other points in its history when it might have been seen as having overthrown more of them - perhaps the whole ten, but the attention was arrested by the fact that, soon after its rise, three of the ten were seen to fall before it. Now, in regard to the application of this, it may be remarked,(1) That it does not apply, as already shown, to Antiochus Epiphanes -there being no sense in which he overthrew three of the princes that occupied the throne in the succession from Alexander, to say nothing of the fact that these were contemporaneous kings or kingdoms.(2) there is no other period in history, and there are no other events to which it could be applied except either to Antiochus or the Papacy.(3) in the confusion that existed on the breaking up of the Roman empire, and the imperfect accounts of the transactions which occurred in the rise of the Papal power, it would not be wonderful if it should be difficult to find events distinctly recorded that would be in all respects an accurate and absolute fulfillment of the vision.(4) yet it is possible to make out the fulfillment of this with a good degree of certainty in the history of the Papacy. If applicable to the Papal power, what seems to be demanded is, that three of these ten kingdoms, or sovereignties should be rooted up by that power; that they should cease to exist as separate sovereignties; that they should be added to the sovereignty that should spring up; and that, as distinct kingdoms, they should cease to play a part in the history of the world. The three sovereignties thus transplanted, or rooted up, are supposed by Mr. Mede to have been the Greeks, the Longobards, and the Franks. Sir Isaac Newton supposes they were the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Lombards, and the senate and dukedom of Rome. The objections which may be made to these suppositions may be seen in Newton on the Prophecies, pp. 216, 217. The kingdoms which he supposes are to be referred to were the following:First. The Exarchate of Ravenna. This of right belonged to the Greek emperors. This was the capital of their dominions in Italy. It revolted at the instigation of the Pope, and was seized by Astolphus, king of the Lombards, who thought to make himself master of Italy. The Pope in his exigency applied for aid to Pepin, king of France, who marched into Italy, besieged the Lombards in Pavia, and forced them to surrender the Exarchate and

97

other territories in Italy. These were not restored to the Greek emperor, as they in justice should have been, but, at the solicitation of the Pope, were given to Peter and his successors for perpetual possession. “And so,” says Platina, “the name of the Exarchate, which had continued from the time of Narses to the taking of Ravenna, one hundred and seventy years, was extinguished.” - Lives of the Popes. This, according to Sigonius, was effected in the year 755. See Gibbon, Dec. and Fall, vol. ii. 224; iii. 332, 334, 338. From this period, says Bp. Newton, the Popes being now become temporal princes, no longer date their epistles and bulls by the years of the emperor’s reign, but by the years of their own advancement to the Papal chair.Secondly. The kingdom of the Lombards. This kingdom was troublesome to the Popes. The dominions of the Pope were invaded by Desiderius, in the time of Pope Adrian I. Application was again made to the king of France, and Charles the Great, the son and successor of Pepin, invaded the Lombards; and desirous of enlarging his own dominions, conquered the Lombards, put an end to their kingdom, and gave a great part of their territory to the Pope. This was the end of the kingdom of the Lombards, in the 206th year after their obtaining possessions in Italy, and in the year of our Lord 774. See Gibbon, Dec. and Fall, vol. iii. 335.Thirdly. The Roman States subjected to the Popes in a civil sense. Though subjected to the Pope spiritually, yet for a long time the Roman people were governed by a senate, and retained many of their old privileges, and elected both the Western Emperors and the Popes. This power, however, as is well known, passed into the hands of the Popes, and has been retained by them to the present time, the Pope having continued to be the civil as well as the ecclesiastical head. See Bp. Newton, pp. 319, 320. All semblance of the freedom of ancient Rome passed away, and this Roman dominion, as such, ceased to be, being completely absorbed in the Papacy. The Saxons, the Franks, etc., continued their independence as civil powers; these states passed entirely into the dominion of the Pope, and as independent kingdoms or sovereignties ceased to be. This is the solution in regard to the “three horns” that were to be plucked up, as given by Bp. Newton. Absolute certainly in a case of this kind is not to be expected in the confusion and indefiniteness of that portion of history, nor can it be reasonably demanded.If there were three of these powers planted in regions that became subject to the Papal power, and that disappeared or were absorbed in that one dominion constituting the peculiarity of the Papal dominion, or which entered into the Roman Papal state, considered as a sovereignty by itself among the nations of the earth, this is all that is required. Mr. Faber supposes the three to have been these; the Herulo-Turingic, the Ostrogothic, and the Lombardie, and says of them, that they “were necessarily eradicated in the immediate presence of the Papacy, before which they were geographically standing - and that the temporal principality which bears the name of Peter’s patrimony, was carved out of the mass of their subjugated dominions.” - Sacred Calendar, vol. ii. p. 102. Prof. Gaussen (Discourse on Popery: Geneva, 1844) supposes that the three kings or kingdoms here referred to were the Heruli, the Ostrogoths, and the Lombards. According to Bower (Lives of the Popes, vol. ii. 108, Dr. Cox’s

98

edition, note), the temporal dominions granted by Pepin to the Pope, or of which the Pope became possessed in consequence of the intervention of the kings of France, were the following:(1) The Exarchate of Ravenna, which comprised, according to Sigonius, the following cities: Ravenna, Bologna, Imola, Fienza, Forlimpoli, Forli, Cesena, Bobbio, Ferrara, Commachio. Adria, Servia, and Secchia(2) The Pentapolis, comprehending Rimini, Pesaro, Coneha, Fano, Sinigalia, Ancono, Osimo, Umono, Jesi, Fossombrone, Monteferetro, Urbino, Cagli, Lucoli, and Eugubio.(3) the city and dukedom of Rome, containing several cities of note, which had withdrawn themselves from all subjection to the emperor, had submitted to Peter ever since the time of Pope Gregory II. See also Bower, ii. 134, where he says, “The Pope had, by Charlemagne, been put in possession of the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, and the dukedom of Spoleti” (embracing the city and dukedom of Rome). And again, on the same page (note): “The Pope possessed the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, and the dukedom of Spoleti, with the city and dukedom of Rome.” It should be remembered that these statements are made by historians with no reference to any supposed fulfillment of this prophecy, and no allusion to it, but as matters of simple historical fact, occurring in the regular course of history. The material fact to be made out in order to show that this description of the “little horn” is applicable to the Papacy is, that at the - commencement of what was properly the Papacy - that is, as I suppose, the union of the spiritual and temporal power, or the assumption, of temporal authority by him who was Bishop of Rome, and who had been before regarded as a mere spiritual or ecclesiastical ruler, there was a triple jurisdiction assumed or conceded, a threefold domination; or a union under himself of what had been three sovereignties, that now disappeared as independent administrations, and whose distinct governments were now merged in the one single sovereignty of the Pope. Now, that there was, just at this time, or at the beginning of the Papacy, or when it had so increased that it could be recognized as having a place among the temporal sovereignties of the earth, such a united domination, or such a union of three separate powers under one, will be apparent from an extract from Mr. Gibbon. He is speaking of the rewards conferred on the Pope by the Carlovingian race of kings, on account of the favor shown to them in his conferring the crown of France on Pepin, the mayor of the palace - directing in his favor over Childeric, the descendant of Clovis. Of this transaction, Mr. Gibbon observes, in general (iii. 336), that “the mutual obligations of the Popes and the Carlovingian family form the important link of ancient and modern, of civil and ecclesiastical history.” He then proceeds(1) to specify the gifts or favors which the Popes conferred on the Carlovingian race; and(2) those which, in return, Pepin and Charlemagne bestowed on the Popes. In reference to the latter, he makes the following statement (iii. 338): “The gratitude of the Carlovingians was adequate to these obligations, and their names are consecrated as the saviours and benefactors of the Roman church. Her ancient patrimony of farms and houses was

99

transformed by their bounty into the temporal dominion of cities and provinces, and the donation of the Exarchate was the first-fruits of the conquests of Pepin. Astolphus (king of the Lombards) with a sigh relinquished his prey; the keys and the hostages of the principal cities were delivered to the French ambassador; and in his master’s name he presented them before the tomb of Peter. The ample measure of the Exarchate might comprise all the provinces of Italy which had obeyed the emperor or his vicegerent; but its strict and proper limits were included in the territories of Ravenna, Bologna, and Ferrara; its inseparable dependency was the Pentapolis, which stretched along the Adriatic from Rimini to Ancona, and advanced into the midland country as far as the ridge of the Apennines. In this transaction, the ambition and avarice of the Popes have been severely condemned.Perhaps the humility of a Christian priest should have rejected an earthly kingdom, which it was not easy for him to govern without renouncing the virtues of his profession. Perhaps a faithful subject, or even a generous enemy, would have been less impatient to divide the spoils of the barbarian; and if the emperor had entrusted Stephen to solicit in his name the restitution of the Exarchate, I will not absolve the Pope from the reproach of treachery and falsehood. But, in the rigid interpretation of the laws, every one may accept, without inquiry, whatever his benefactor may bestow without injustice. The Greek emperor had abdicated or forfeited his right to the Exarctiate; and the sword of Astolphus was broken by the stronger sword of the Carlovingian. It was not in the cause of the Iconoclast that Pepin had exposed his person and army in a double expedition beyond the Alps; he possessed, and he might lawfully alienate his conquests: and to the importunities of the Greeks he piously replied, that no human consideration should tempt him to resume the gift which he had conferred on the Roman pontiff for the remission of his sins and the salvation of his soul.The splendid donation was granted in supreme and absolute dominion, and the world beheld for the first time a Cristian bishop invested with the prerogatives of a temporal prince, the choice of magistrates, the exercise of justice, the imposition of taxes, and the wealth of the palace of Ravenna. In the dissolution of the Lombard kingdom, the inhabitants of the duchy of Spoleti sought a refuge from the storm, shaved their heads after the Ravenna fashion, declared themselves the servants and subjects of Peter, and completed, by this voluntary surrender, the present circle of the Ecclesiastical State.” The following things are apparent from this extract:(a) That here, according to Mr. Gibbon, was the beginning of the temporal power of the Pope.(b) That this was properly, in the view above taken, the commencement of the Papacy as a distinct and peculiar dominion.(c) That in this there was a threefold government, or three temporal sovereignties united under him, and constituting at that time, in the language of Mr. Gibbon, “the present circle of the ecclesiastical state.” There was, first, the Exarchate of Ravenna; secondly, the Pentapolis, “which,” he says, was its inseparable dependency; and, thirdly, the “duchy

100

of Spoleti,” which, he says, “completed the present circle of the ecclesiastical state.” This was afterward, Mr. Gibbon goes on to say, greatly “enlarged;” but this was the form in which the Papal power first made its appearance among the temporal sovereignties of Europe. I do not find, indeed, that the kingdom of the Lombards was, as is commonly stated, among the number of the temporal sovereignties that became subject to the authority of the Popes, but I do find that there were three distinct temporal sovereignties that lost their independent existence, and that were united under that one temporal authority - constituting by the union of the spiritual and temporal power that one peculiar kingdom. In Lombardy the power remained in the possession of the kings of the Lombards themselves, until that kingdom was subdued by the arms of Pepin and Charlemagne, and then it became subject to the crown of France, though for a time under the nominal reign of its own kings. See Gibbon, iii. 334, 335, 338. If it should be said, that in the interpretation of this passage respecting the “three horns” that were plucked up, or the three kingdoms that were thus destroyed, it would be proper to look for them among the ten, into which the one great kingdom was divided, and that the three above referred to - the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Pentapolis, and the dukedom of Spoleti and Rome - were not properly of that number, according to the list above given, it is necessary, in reply to this, to advert only to the two main facts in the case:(1) that the great Roman power was actually divided into a large number of sovereignties that sprang up on its ruins - usually, but not in fact exactly, represented by ten; and(2) that the Papacy began its career with a conceded dominion over the three territories above referred to - a part, in fact, of the one great dominion constituting the Roman power, and in the same territory. It is a remarkable fact that the popes to this day wear a triple crown - a fact that exists in regard to no other monarchs - as if they had absorbed under themselves three separate and distinct sovereignties; or as if they represented three separate forms of dominion. The sum of what is said in the exposition of these verses may be thus expressed:(1) That there was originally one great sovereignty represented here by the “fourth beast” - the Roman empire.(2) that, in fact, as is abundantly confirmed by history, this one great and united power was broken up into a large number of separate and independent sovereignties - most naturally and obviously described by ten, or such as would appear in a prophetic vision to be ten, and such as is actually so represented by historians having no interest in the fulfillment of the prophecy, and no designed reference to what may be symbolized by the “ten horns.”(3) that there was another peculiar and distinct power that sprang out of them, and that grew to be mighty - a power unlike the others, and unlike anything that had before appeared in the world - combining qualities to be found in no other sovereignty - having a peculiar relation at the same time to the one original sovereignty, and to the ten into which that was divided -the prolongation, in an important sense, of the power of the one, and springing up in a peculiar manner among the others - that peculiar

101

ecclesiastical and civil power - the Papacy - well represented by the “little horn.”(4) that, in fact, this one power absorbed into itself three of these sovereignties - annihilating them as independent powers, and combining them into one most peculiar dominion - properly represented by “plucking them up.”(5) that as a proper symbol, or emblem of some such domination, a crown or diadem is still worn, most naturally and obviously suggesting such a threefold absorption of dominion.(6) that all this is actually prefigured by the symbols employed by the prophet, or that the symbols are such as would be naturally employed on the supposition that these events were designed to be referred to.(7) and that there have been no other historical events to which these remarkable symbols could be naturally and obviously applied. And if these things are so, how are they to be explained except on the supposition that Daniel was inspired? Has man any natural sagacity by which such symbols representing the future could be suggested?(d) It would be arrogant and proud, “speaking great words against the Most High.” No Protestant will doubt that this is true of the Papacy; no one acquainted with history will presume to call it in question. The arrogant pretensions of the Papacy have been manifested in all the history of that power, and no one can doubt that its assumptions have been, in fact, by fair construction, “a speaking of great words against God.” The Pope has claimed, or allowed to be conferred on him, names and prerogatives which can belong only to God. See this fully shown in the notes at 2Th_2:4. The facts there referred to are all that is necessary to illustrate this passage, on the supposition that it refers to the Papacy. Compare also the Literalist, vol. i. pp. 24-27.(e) This would be a persecuting power - “making war with the saints,” and “wearing out the saints of the Most High.” Can anyone doubt that this is true of the Papacy? The Inquisition; the “persecutions of the Waldenses;” the ravages of the Duke of Alva; the fires of Smithfield; the tortures at Goa -indeed, the whole history of the Papacy may be appealed to in proof that this is applicable to that power. If anything could have “worn out the saints of the Most High” - could have cut them off from the earth so that evangelical religion would have become extinct, it would have been the persecutions of the Papal power. In the year 1208, a crusade was proclaimed by Pope Innocent III against the Waldenses and Albigenses, in which a million of men perished. From the beginning of the order of the Jesuits, in the year 1540 to 1580, nine hundred thousand were destroyed. One hundred and fifty thousand perished by the Inquisition in thirty years. In the Low Countries fifty thousand persons were hanged, beheaded, burned, or buried alive, for the crime of heresy, within the space of thirty-eight years from the edict of Charles V, against the Protestants, to the peace of Chateau Cambresis in 1559. Eighteen thousand suffered by the hands of the executioner, in the space of five years and a half, during the administration of the Duke of Alva. Indeed, the slightest acquaintance with the history of the Papacy, will convince anyone that what is here said of

102

“making war with the saints” Dan_7:21, and “wearing out the saints of the Most High” Dan_7:25, is strictly applicable to that power, and will accurately describe its history. There have been, indeed, other persecuting powers, but none to which this language would be so applicable, and none which it would so naturally suggest. In proof of this, it is only necessary to refer to the history of the Papacy, and to what it has done to extirpate those who have professed a different faith. Let anyone recall:(1) the persecution of the Waldenses;(2) the acts of the Duke of Alva in the Low Countries;(3) the persecution in England under Mary;(4) the Inquisition;(5) the attempts, too successful, to extinguish all the efforts at reformation in Italy and Spain in the time of Luther and Calvin (see McCrie), and(6) the attempts to put down the Reformation in Germany and Switzerland - all which were either directly originated or sanctioned by the Papacy, and all for the same end, and he will see no reason to doubt that the language here is strictly applicable to that power, and that there has been no government on earth which would be so naturally suggested by it. -Cunninghame, in the Literalist, i. 27, 28. Indeed, who can number up all that have perished in the Inquisition alone?(h) It would claim legislative power - “thinking to change times and laws.” The original Chaldee here may be rendered, as is done by Gesenius and DeWette, set times, stated times, or festival seasons. The word here, says Gesenius (Lexicon), is “spoken of sacred seasons, festivals,” and there can be no doubt that in this place it refers to religious institutions. The meaning is, that he would claim control over such institutions or festivals, and that he would appoint or change them at his pleasure. He would abolish or modify existing institutions of that kind, or he would institute new ones, as should seem good to him. This would be applicable, then, to some power that should claim authority to prescribe religious institutions, and to change the laws of God. No one, also, can fail to see a fulfillment of this in the claims of the Papacy, in setting up a jurisdiction over seasons of festival and fast; and in demanding that the laws of kingdoms should be so modelled as to sustain its claims, and modifying the laws of God as revealed in the Bible. The right of deposing and setting up kings; of fixing the boundaries of nations; of giving away crowns and scepters; and of exercising dominion over the sacred seasons, the customs, the amusements of nations - all these, as illustrated under the Papacy, will leave no doubt that all this would find an ample fulfillment in the history of that power. The Pope has claimed to be the head of the church, and has asserted and exercised the right of appointing sacred seasons; of abolishing ancient institutions; of introducing numberless new festival occasions, practically abrogating the laws of God on a great variety of subjects. We need only refer, in illustration of this,(a) to the claim of infallibility, by which an absolute jurisdiction is asserted that covers the whole ground;(b) to all the laws pertaining to image-worship, so directly in the face of

103

the laws of God;(c) to the celibacy of the clergy, rendering void one of the laws of heaven in relation to marriage;(d) to the whole doctrine respecting purgatory;(e) to the doctrine of transubstantiation;(f) to the practical abolition of the Christian Sabbath by appointing numerous saints’ days to be observed as equally sacred;(g) to the law withholding the cup from the laity - contrary to the commandment of the Saviour; and(h) in general to the absolute control claimed by the Papacy over the whole subject of religion.Indeed, nothing would better characterize this power than to say that it asserted the right to “change times and laws.” And to all this should be added another characteristic Dan_7:8, that “it would have the eyes of a man;” that is, would be distinguished for a far-seeing sagacity. Could this be so appropriately applied to anything else as to the deep, the artful, and the far-reaching diplomacy of the court of Rome; to the sagacity of the Jesuit; to the skillful policy which subdued the world to itself?These illustrations will leave no doubt, it seems to me, that all that is here said will find an ample fulfillment in the Papacy, and that it is to be regarded as having a reference to that power. If so, it only remains,III. To inquire what, according to his interpretation, we are to expect will yet occur, or what light this passage throws on events that are yet future. The origin, the growth, the general character and influence of this power up to a distant period are illustrated by this interpretation. What remains is the inquiry, from the passage before us, how long this is to continue, and what we are to anticipate in regard to its fall. The following points, then, would seem to be clear, on the supposition that this refers to the Papal power:It is to continue a definite period from its establishment, Dan_7:25. This duration is mentioned as “a time, and times, and the dividing of a time” -three years and a half - twelve hundred and sixty days - twelve hundred and sixty years. See the note at that verse. The only difficulty in regard to this, if that interpretation is correct, is to determine the time when the Papacy actually began - the terminus a quo - and this has given rise to all the diversity of explanation among Protestants. Assuming any one time as the period when the Papal power arose, as a date from which to calculate, it is easy to compute from that date, and to fix some period - terminus ad quem -to which this refers, and which may be looked to as the time of the overthrow of that power. But there is nothing more difficult in history than the determination of the exact time when the Papacy properly began: that is, when the peculiar domination which is fairly understood by that system commenced in the world; or what were its first distinguishing acts. History has not so marked that period that there is no room for doubt. It has not affixed definite dates to it; and to this day it is not easy to make out the time when that power commenced, or to designate any one event at a certain period that will surely mark it. It seems to have been a gradual growth, and

104

its commencement has not been so definitely characterized as to enable us to demonstrate with absolute certainty the time to which the twelve hundred and sixty years will extend.Different writers have assigned different periods for the rise of the Papacy, and different acts as the first act of that power; and all the prophecies as to its termination depend on the period which is fixed on as the time of its rise. It is this which has led to so much that is conjectural, and which has been the occasion of so much disappointment, and which throws so much obscurity now over all calculations as to the termination of that power. In nothing is the Scripture more clear than that that power shall be destroyed; and if we could ascertain with exactness the date of its origin, there would be little danger of erring in regard to its close. The different periods which have been fixed on as the date of its rise have been principally the following:(1) An edict published by Justinian (533 a.d.), and a letter addressed by him at the same time to the Pope, in which he acknowledged him to be the head of the churches, thus conferring on him a title belonging only to the Saviour, and putting himself and empire under the dominion of the bishop of Rome. - Duffield on the Prophecies, p. 281.(2) The decree of the emperor Phocas (606 a.d.), confirming what had been done by Justinian, and giving his sanction to the code of laws promulgated by him; a code of laws based on the acknowledged supremacy of the Pope, and which became the basis of European legislation for centuries; and conferring on him the title of “Universal Bishop.”(3) The act of Pope Stephen, by which, when appealed to by the claimant to the crown of France, he confirmed Pepin in the kingdom, and set aside Childeric III, and, in return, received from Pepin the Exarchate of Ravenna and the Pentapolis. See Ranke’s Hist. of the Papacy, vol. i. 23. This occurred about 752 a.d.(4) The opinion of Mr. Gibbon (4:363), that Gregory VII was the true founder of the Papal power. “Gregory VII.,” says he, “who may be adored or detested as the founder of the Papal monarchy, was driven from Rome, and died in exile at Salerno.” Gregory became Pope 1073 a.d. These different dates, if assumed as the foundation of the Papal power, would, by the addition to each of the period of 1260 years, lead respectively to the years 1793, 1866, 2012, and 2333, as the period of the termination of the Papal dominion. As this is a point of great importance in the explanation of the prophecies, it may be proper to examine these opinions a little more in detail. But in order to this, it is necessary to have a clear conception of what the Papacy as a distinct domination is, or what constitutes its peculiarity, as seen by the sacred writers, and as it has in fact existed, and does exist in the world; and in regard to this there can be little difference of opinion.It is not a mere ecclesiastical power - not a mere spiritual domination -not the control of a bishop as such over a church or a diocese - nor is it a mere temporal dominion, but it is manifestly the union of the two: that peculiar domination which the bishop of Rome has claimed, as growing out of his primacy as the head of the church, and of a temporal power also, asserted at first over a limited jurisdiction, but ultimately, and as a natural

105

consequence, over all other sovereignties, and claiming universal dominion. We shall not find the Papacy, or the Papal dominion as such, clearly, in the mere spiritual rule of the first bishop of Rome, nor in that mere spiritual dominion, however enlarged, but in that junction of the two, when, in virtue of a pretended Divine right, a temporal dominion grew up that ultimately extended itself over Europe, claiming the authority to dispose of crowns; to lay kingdoms under interdict, and to absolve subjects from their allegiance. If we can find the beginning of this claim - the germ of this peculiar kind of domination - we shall doubtless have found the commencement of the Papacy - the terminus a quo - as it was seen by the prophets - the point from which we are to reckon in determining the question of its duration.With this view, then, of the nature of the Papacy, it is proper to inquire when it commenced, or which of the periods referred to, if either, can be properly regarded as the commencement.I. The edict of Justinian, and the letter to the bishop of Rome, in which he acknowledged him to be the head of the church, 533 a.d. This occurred under John II, reckoned as the fifty-fifth bishop of Rome. The nature of this application of Justinian to the Pope, and the honor conferred on him, was this: On all occasion of a controversy in the church, on the question whether “one person of the Trinity suffered in the flesh,” the monks of Constantinople, fearful of being condemned under an edict of Justinian for heresy in denying this, applied to the Pope to decide the point. Justinian, who took great delight in inquiries of that nature, and who maintained the opposite opinion on that subject, also made his appeal to the Pope. Having, therefore, drawn up a long creed, containing the disputed article among the rest, he despatched two bishops with it to Rome, and laid the whole matter before the Pope. At the same time he wrote a letter to the Pope, congratulating him on his election, assuring him that the faith contained in the confession which he sent him was the faith of the whole Eastern church, and entreating him to declare in his answer that he received to his communion all who professed that faith, and none who did not. To add weight to the letter he accompanied it with a present to Peter, consisting of several chalices and other vessels of gold, enriched with precious stones. From this deference to the Pope, on the part of the emperor, and this submitting to him, as the head of the whole church, of an important question to be determined, it has been argued that this was properly the beginning of the Papacy, and that the twelve hundred and sixty years are to be reckoned from that. But against this opinion the objections are insuperable, for(a) there was here nothing of what properly constitutes the Papacy - the peculiar union of the temporal and spiritual power; or the peculiar domination which that power has exerted over the world. All that occurred was the mere deference which an emperor showed to one who claimed to be the spiritual head of the church, and who had long before claimed that. There was no change - no beginning, properly so called - no commencement of a new form of domination over mankind, such as the Papacy has been.(b) But, as a matter of fact, there was, after all, little real deference to the Pope in this case. “Little or no account,” says Bower, “ought to be made of that extraordinary deference (the deference shown by carrying this

106

question before the Pope). Justinian paid great deference to the Pope, as well as to all other bishops, when they agreed with him; but none at all when they did not - thinking himself at least as well qualified as the best of them -and so he certainly was - to decide controversies concerning the faith; and we shall soon see him entering the lists with his holiness himself” - Lives of the Popes, i. 336.II. The second date which has been assigned to the origin of the Papacy is the decree made by the emperor Phocas (606 a.d.), by which, it is said, he continued the grant made by Justinian. This act was the following: Boniface III, when he had been made bishop of Rome, relying on the favor and partiality which Phocas had shown him, prevailed on him to revoke the decree settling the title of “Universal Bishop” on the bishop of Constantinople, and obtained another settling that title on himself and his successors. The decree of Phocas, conferring this title, has not indeed come down to us; but it has been the common testimony of historians that such title was conferred. See Mosheim, i. 513; Bower, i. 426. The fact asserted here has been doubted, and Mosheim supposes that it rests on the authority of Baronius. “Still,” says he, “it is certain that something of this kind occurred.” But there are serious objections to our regarding this as properly the commencement of the Papacy as such. For(a) this was not the beginning of that peculiar domination, or form of power, which the Pope has asserted and maintained. If this title were conferred, it imparted no new power; it did not change the nature of this domination; it did not, in fact, make the Roman bishop different from what he was before. He was still, in all respects, subject to the civil power of the emperors, and had no control beyond what he exercised in the church.(b) And even this little was withdrawn by the same authority which granted it - the authority of the emperor of Constantinople - though it has always since been claimed and asserted by the Pope himself. See Bower, i. 427. It is true that, as a consequence of the fact that this title was conferred on the Popes, they began to grasp at power, and aspire to temporal dominion; but still there was no formal grasp of such power growing out of the assumption of this title, nor was any such temporal dominion set up as the immediate result of such a title. The act, therefore, was not sufficiently marked, distinct, and decisive, to constitute an epoch, or the beginning of an era, in the history of the world, and the rise of the Papacy cannot with any propriety be dated from that. This was undoubtedly one of the steps by which that peculiar power rose to its greatness, or which contributed to lay the foundation of its subsequent claims, its arrogance, and its pride; but it is doubtful whether it was so important an event characterizing the Papacy as to be regarded as the origin, or the terminus a quo in ascertaining the time of its continuance. It was, however, in view of this, and with this considered as properly the origin of the Papacy, that the Rev. Robert Fleming, in his work on the Rise and Fall of the Papacy, first published in 1701, uttered the following remarkable language, as based on his calculations respecting the continuance of that power: “If we may suppose that Antichrist began his reign in the year 606, the additional one thousand two hundred and sixty years of his duration, were they Julian or ordinary years, would lead down

107

to the year 1866, as the last period of the seven-headed monster. But seeing they are prophetic years only (of 360 days), we must cast away eighteen years in order to bring them to the exact measure of time that the Spirit of God designs in this book. And thus the final period of the Papal usurpati (supposing that he did indeed rise in the year 606) must conclude with the year 1848 - (Cobbin’s Edition, p. 32.) Whether this be considered as merely a happy conjecture - the one successful one among thousands that have failed, or as the result of a proper calculation respecting the future, no one in comparing it with the events of the year 1848, when the Pope was driven from Rome, and when a popular government was established in the very seat of the Papal power, can fail to see that it is remarkable considered as having been uttered a century and a half ago. Whether it is the correct calculation, and that temporary downfall of the Papal government is to be regarded as the first in a series of events that will ultimately end in its destruction, time must determine. The reasons mentioned above, however, and those which will be suggested in favor of a different beginning of that power, make it, at present, more probable that a different period is to be assigned as its close.III. The third date which has been assigned as the beginning of the Papacy is the grant of Pepin above referred to, 752 a.d. This grant conferred by Pepin was confirmed also by Charlemagne and his successors, and it was undoubtedly at this period that the Papacy began to assume its place among the sovereignties of Europe. In favor of this opinion - that this was properly the rise of the Papacy - the terminus a quo of prophecy, the following considerations may be urged:(a) We have here a definite act - an act which is palpable and apparent, as characterizing the progress of this domination over men.(b) We have here properly the beginning of the temporal dominion, or the first acknowledged exercise of that power in acts of temporal sovereignty -in giving laws, asserting dominion, swaying a temporal scepter, and wearing a temporal crown. All the acts before had been of a spiritual character, and all the deference to the Bishop of Rome had been of a spiritual nature. Henceforward, however, he was acknowledged as a temporal prince, and took his place as such among the crowned heads of Europe.(c) This is properly the beginning of that mighty domination which the Pope wielded over Europe - a beginning, which, however small at first, ultimately became so powerful and so arrogant as to claim jurisdiction over all the kingdoms of the earth, and the right to absolve subjects from their allegiance, to lay kingdoms under interdict, to dispose of crowns, to order the succession of princes, to tax all people, and to dispose of all newly-discovered countries.(d) This accords better with the prophecies than any other one event which has occurred in the world - especially with the prophecy of Daniel, of the springing up of the little horn, and the fact that that little horn plucked up three others of the ten into which the fourth kingdom was divided.(e) And it should be added that this agrees with the idea all along held up in the prophecies, that this would be properly the fourth empire prolonged. The fifth empire or kingdom is to be the reign of the saints, or the reign of

108

righteousness on the earth; the fourth extends down in its influences and power to that. As a matter of fact, this Roman power was thus concentrated in the Papacy. The form was changed, but it was the Roman power that was in the eye of the prophets, and this was contemplated under its various phases, as pagan and nominally Christian, until the reign of the saints should commence, or the kingdom of God should be set up. But it was only in the time of Stephen, and by the act of Pepin and Charlemagne, that this change occurred, or that this dominion of a temporal character was settled in the Papacy - and that the Pope was acknowledged as having this temporal power. This was consummated indeed in Hildebrand, or Gregory VII (Gibbon, iii. 353, iv. 363), but this mighty power properly had its origin in the time of Pepin.IV. The fourth date assigned for the origin of the Papacy is the time of Hildebrand, or Gregory VII. This is the period assigned by Mr. Gibbon. Respecting this, he remarks (vol. iv. p. 363), “Gregory the Seventh, who may be adored or detested as the founder of the Papal monarchy, was driven from Rome, and died in exile at Salerno.” And again (vol. iii. p. 353), he says of Gregory, “After a long series of scandal, the apostolic see was reformed and exalted, by the austerity and zeal of Gregory VII. That ambitious monk devoted his life to the execution of two projects:I. To fix in the college of Cardinals the freedom and independence of election, and forever to abolish the right or usurpation of the emperors and the Roman people.II. To bestow and resume the Western Empire as a fief or benefice of the church, and to extend his temporal dominion over the kings and kingdoms of the earth.After a contest of fifty years, the first of these designs was accomplished by the firm support of the ecclesiastical order, whose liberty was connected with that of the chief. But the second attempt, though it was crowned with some apparent and partial success, has been vigorously resisted by the secular power, and finally extinguished by the improvement of human reason.”If the views above suggested, however, are correct; or if we look at the Papacy as it was in the time of Hildebrand, it must be apparent that this was not the rise or origin of that peculiar domination, but was only the carrying out and completing of the plan laid long before to set up a temporal dominion over mankind.It should be added, whatever of the three first periods referred to be regarded as the time of the rise of the Papacy, if we add to them the prophetic period of 1260 years, we are now in the midst of scenes on which the prophetic eye rested, and we cannot, as fair interpreters of prophecy, but regard this mighty domination as hastening to its fall. It would seem probable, then, that according to the most obvious explanation of the subject, we are at present not far from the termination and fall of that great power, and that events may be expected to occur at about this period of the world, which will be connected with its fall.Its power is to be taken away as by a solemn judgment - if the throne was set, and God was to come forth to pronounce judgment on this power to

109

overthrow it, Dan_7:10-11, Dan_7:26. This destruction of the power referred to is to be absolute and entire - as if the “beast were slain, and the body given to the burning flame” - “and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it unto the end.” This would denote the absolute destruction of this peculiar power - its entire cessation in the world; that is, the absolute destruction of what had constituted its peculiarity - the prolonged power of the beast of the fourth kingdom - concentrated and embodied in that represented by the little horn. If applied to the Roman power, or the fourth kingdom, it means that that power which would have been prolonged under the dominion of that represented by the little horn, would wholly cease - as if the body of the beast had been burned.If applied to the power represented by the “little horn” - the Papacy - it means that that power which sprang up amidst the others, and which became so mighty - embodying so much of the power of the beast, would wholly pass away as an ecclesiastico-civil power. It would cease its dominion, and as one of the ruling powers of the earth would disappear. This would be accomplished by some remarkable Divine manifestation - as if God should come in majesty and power to judgment and should pronounce a sentence; that is, the overthrow would be decisive, and as manifestly the result of the Divine interposition as if God should do it by a formal act of judgment. In the overthrow of that power, whenever it occurs, it would be natural, from this prophecy, to anticipate that there would be some scenes of commotion and revolution bearing directly on it, as if God were pronouncing sentence on it; some important changes in the nations that had acknowledged its authority, as if the great Judge of nations were coming forth to assert his own power and his own right to rule, and to dispose of the kingdoms of the earth as he pleased.(C) It is to be anticipated that the power referred to will be destroyed on account of its pride and arrogance. See the notes at Dan_7:11. That is, whatever power there is upon the earth at the time referred to that shall be properly that of the fourth beast or kingdom, will be taken away on account of the claims set up and maintained by the “little horn:” “I beheld because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld until the beast was slain, etc.,” Dan_7:11. On the supposition that this refers to the Papacy, what is to be expected would be, that the pride and arrogance of that power as such - that is, as an ecclesiastical power claiming dominion over civil things, and wielding civil authority, would be such that the Roman power -the lingering power of the fourth kingdom - would be taken away, and its dominion over the world would cease. That vast Roman domination that once trod down the earth, and that crushed and oppressed the nations, would still linger, like the prolonged life of the beast, until, on account of the arrogance and pride of the Papacy, it would be wholly taken away. If one were to judge of the meaning of this prophecy without attempting to apply it to particular passing events, he would say that it would be fulfilled by some such events as these: if the people over whom the prolonged Roman civil power would be extended, and over whom the ecclesiastical or papal scepter would be swayed, should, on account of the pride and arrogance of the Papacy, rise in their might, and demand liberty - that would be in fact an end of the prolonged power of the fourth beast; and it would be on account

110

of the “great words which the horn spake,” and would be in all respects a fulfillment of the language of this prophecy. Whether such an end of this power is to occur, time is to determine.(D) Simultaneously with this event, as the result of this, we are to anticipate such a spread of truth and righteousness, and such a reign of the saints on the earth, as would be properly symbolized by the coming of the Son of man to the ancient of days to receive the kingdom, Dan_7:13-14. As shown in the interpretation of those verses, this does not necessarily imply that there would be any visible appearing of the Son of man, or any personal reign (see the note at these verses), but there would be such a making over of the kingdom to the Son of man and to the saints as would be properly symbolized by such a representation. That is, there would be great changes; there would be a rapid progress of the truth; there would be a spread of the gospel; there would be a change in the governments of the world, so that the power would pass into the hands of the righteous, and they would in fact rule. From that time the “saints” would receive the kingdom, and the affairs of the world would be put on a new footing. From that period it might be said that the reign of the saints would commence; that is, there would be such changes in this respect that that would constitute an epoch in the history of the world - the proper beginning of the reign of the saints on the earth - the setting up of the new and final dominion in the world. If there should be such changes - such marked progress - such facilities for the spread of truth - such new methods of propagating it - and such certain success attending it, all opposition giving way, and persecution ceasing, as would properly constitute an epoch or era in the world’s history, which would be connected with the conversion of the world to God, this would fairly meet the interpretation of this prophecy; this occurring, all would have taken place which could be fairly shown to be implied in the vision.(E) We are to expect a reign of righteousness on the earth. On the character of what we are fairly to expect from the words of the prophecy, see the notes at Dan_7:14. The prophecy authorizes us to anticipate a time when there shall be a general prevalence of true religion; when the power in the world shall be in the hands of good men - of men fearing God; when the Divine laws shall be obeyed - being acknowledged as the laws that are to control men; when the civil institutions of the world shall be pervaded by religion, and moulded by it; when there shall be no hinderance to the free exercise of religion, and when in fact the reigning power on the earth shall be the kingdom which the Messiah shall set up. There is nothing more certain in the future than such a period, and to that all things are tending. Such a period would fulfill all that is fairly implied in this wonderful prophecy, and to that faith and hope should calmly and confidently look forward. For that they who love their God and their race should labor and pray; and by the certain assurance that such a period will come, we should be cheered amidst all the moral darkness that exists in the world, and in all that now discourages us in our endeavors to do good.

CLARKE, "The end of the matter - So said the expounding angel; and he 111

said so because the purpose of God had determined it. In considering these things, and looking at the evils that shall come upon the world before those auspicious times can take place, I may say with Daniel, My cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I keep the matter of my conjectures and consequent feelings in my own heart.

GILL, "Hitherto is the end of the matter,.... Of the angel's words, and of the interpretation of those things Daniel was desirous of being informed about, and of the whole dream and vision Daniel had; and indeed this is the end and issue of all events in Providence, the kingdom and glory of Christ with his people: as for me Daniel: with respect to his frame of mind, and the state of his body, when he awaked from this dream, and reflected upon it, and especially upon that part of it which affected the people of God: my cogitations much troubled me; when he thought of these powerful monarchies, their strength and cruelty, and what the people of God would suffer under them, and especially under the fourth beast or monarchy, and ignore particularly under the little horn or antichrist: and my countenance changed in me: turned pale: he looked sorrowful and dejected, because of the afflictions of God's people; though the issue of them, one would have thought, would have inspired him with joy and pleasure: but I kept the matter in my heart; laid it up in his memory; pondered it in his mind; meditated upon it; and well weighed the several things observed to him; that he might be thoroughly master of them, and make them known to others, and leave them in writing for the benefit of the church of God in future ages.

JAMISON, "Hitherto is the end of the matter,.... Of the angel's words, and of the interpretation of those things Daniel was desirous of being informed about, and of the whole dream and vision Daniel had; and indeed this is the end and issue of all events in Providence, the kingdom and glory of Christ with his people: as for me Daniel: with respect to his frame of mind, and the state of his body, when he awaked from this dream, and reflected upon it, and especially upon that part of it which affected the people of God: my cogitations much troubled me; when he thought of these powerful monarchies, their strength and cruelty, and what the people of God would suffer under them, and especially under the fourth beast or monarchy, and ignore particularly under the little horn or antichrist:

112

and my countenance changed in me: turned pale: he looked sorrowful and dejected, because of the afflictions of God's people; though the issue of them, one would have thought, would have inspired him with joy and pleasure: but I kept the matter in my heart; laid it up in his memory; pondered it in his mind; meditated upon it; and well weighed the several things observed to him; that he might be thoroughly master of them, and make them known to others, and leave them in writing for the benefit of the church of God in future ages.CALVIN, "In this verse Daniel first says the vision was concluded, and thus the faithful might rest satisfied in looking for nothing beyond it. For we know how restless are the fancies of mankind, and how insane a disease is a vain curiosity. God is aware of what is useful for our information, and so he adopts his method of teaching to our capacity and profit,. Yet we are volatile and insatiable, saying, Why is not this added? Why does God stop here? why does he not proceed further? As, therefore, human ingenuity is so inflamed and intemperate, Daniel here deservedly says, an end was put to the vision, to cause all the elect to acquiesce in it and be contented with this partial knowledge. He afterwards adds,he was disturbed in his thoughts, and his countenance was changed; for he was afraid lest the pious should think this vision a mere vanished specter. It was of the greatest importance to distinguish this vision from any frivolous imagination. Daniel, therefore, to show how the scene proposed to his notice was a divine revelation, expresses clearly how he was terrified in his thoughts This occurred, because God wished to stamp upon his heart the certainty of the prophecy. To the same purpose is, the change of countenance He adds, he laid up the discourse in his heart, to assure us of his being a faithful interpreter; for if we suspected him of negligence, we should not receive, with reverence the message he delivered in these words, as really proceeding from God. But when Daniel affirms that he discharged the duty of a faithful servant, who kept the whole discourse in his heart, additional authority is added to his teaching. In conclusion, we must remember two points; first, the celestial revelation made known to the Prophet to prove him a servant and messenger of God to us; and secondly, the faithful discharge of his duties, as he laid up in his heart what he had received, and thus delivered it through his own hands to the Church at large. Another vision follows: — COKE, "Daniel 7:28. My cogitations much troubled me, &c.— My thoughts, &c. Daniel was much troubled, and his countenance changed in him, at the foresight of the calamities to be brought upon the church by the little horn. But he kept the matter in his heart. Much more may good men now be grieved at these calamities, and lament the prevalence of popery, infidelity, and wickedness in the world. But let them keep it in their heart, that a time of just retribution will certainly come. The proof may be drawn from the moral attributes of God, as well as from his promises in Daniel 7:26-27. The judgment shall sit, &c. See Bishop Newton, vol. 1: p. 497.

113

A general or compendious view of these things might be all which either in prudence or propriety was then expedient to be given to the nations, for their own benefit, or that of the dispersed Israelites who resided among them; but a more exact and particular prospect might be held out for those highly-favoured people, who were to constitute the restored visible church of Christ, and from whom was to descend the promised Messiah, who was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, and to spread salvation unto the ends of the earth.REFLECTIONS.—1st, The date of this vision is in the first year of Belshazzar. It was revealed to Daniel on his bed in a dream, and when he awoke he wrote it down, and communicated it to his brethren whom it so nearly concerned. They were about to be delivered from their long captivity; but must not expect uninterrupted tranquillity, as they perhaps flattered themselves, in the land to which they were about to return.In the vision he observed,1. The four winds strove upon the great sea, and the effect of such a furious storm must needs be the most violent agitation. This sea is either Asia or the whole world with its inhabitants, the winds the monarchs of the earth contending for mastery, and filling it with violence and confusion.2. From this foaming ocean came up four great beasts, in figure different from each other, representing the four great monarchies, and the different genius of the people by whom they were erected.[1.] The first was like a lion, which was the Babylonish monarchy, strong and despotic; and had eagles' wings, intimating the rapidity of Nebuchadnezzar's conquests; but the wings were soon plucked, with which it was lifted up from the earth; for under his successors the empire began to be dismembered and weakened; they lost their courage and intrepidity, and the lion's heart was changed into a man's.[2.] The second beast was like to a bear, representing the Medo-Persian monarchy, fierce and savage; and it raised up itself on one side, on the side of Persia, whence Cyrus the conqueror came; and it had three ribs in the mouth of it, between the teeth of it, so many kingdoms or provinces; and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh; either the generals of the Persian army encouraged their troops to slay their enemies, or there are the orders of the divine Providence to Cyrus, sending him to devour the spoils of the conquered Chaldeans.[3.] The third beast, that next arose, was like a leopard, prefiguring the Grecian monarchy under Alexander, agile, crafty, spotted, a compound of vices and virtues; or this may refer to the motley people of this vast empire. It had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; so swift were his marches, so rapid his conquests. The beast

114

had also four heads; the empire, on Alexander's decease, being divided into four parts. See the annotations. And dominion was given to it; God's hand being strongly evident in the successes of the Grecian conqueror.[4.] The fourth beast differed from all the rest, being dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, which is to be interpreted of the Roman empire; and it had great iron teeth, devouring, breaking in pieces, and stamping down all who stood in its way; as the Roman generals and armies did, till they had erected universal monarchy. And it had ten horns; the empire, on its decline, being divided into so many kingdoms. The little horn, is by the best interpreters supposed to be the antichristian power, which rose from small beginnings, and from an ecclesiastic the bishop of Rome became a temporal prince, and seized on considerable territories, dispossessing three of the other horns. And in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, intimating the vigilance and craft of the Romish court and emissaries; and a mouth speaking great things, boasting of infallibility, power to remit sin, and other such like proud blasphemies.2nd, Very glorious things are here recorded, for the comfort of the people of God under all the persecutions that they may be called to suffer in this wicked world.1. An awful judge makes his appearance. I beheld till the thrones were cast down; all these monarchies successively overturned: or it may be read till the thrones were set up; the thrones of judgment, the thrones of God and the Lamb: and this may point either at his providential judgments on all the enemies of his church in this world, or his final and eternal judgment at the great day of his appearing and glory. And the Ancient of days did sit; God the Father, the judge of all: his garment was white as snow, denoting his perfect righteousness, and that his bosom is the seat of justice; and the hair of his head like the pure wool, venerable and majestic: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire; so piercing his scrutiny; so swift the execution of his sentence, and so terrible his wrath: a fiery stream issued and came forth from before him, to consume his adversaries; thousand thousands ministered unto him, angels and archangels; and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him, waiting from his lips their eternal doom. The judgment was set, the court ready to hear and determine; and the books were opened, the book of revelation, the book of omniscience, the book of conscience, in allusion to proceedings in courts of human judicature.2. The prisoner at the bar is condemned and executed. I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake, his pride and blasphemies being proved, and condign punishment decreed; I beheld, even till the beast was slain, the Romish power; and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame; Rome, the seat of antichristian tyranny, being not improbably doomed to be devoured with fire; but, according to the express declaration of Scripture, both the beast and the false prophet will together at last be cast into the burning lake. See Revelation 17; Revelation 18; Revelation 19. As concerning the rest of the beasts, the other three monarchies, they had their dominion taken away, successively giving place to each

115

other; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time; though the sovereign power departed from them, they each continued in being as a people; whereas, when judgment passes on the fourth, he will perish at once and utterly.3. The kingdom of the Messiah is to be set up on the ruin of his enemies. I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the son of man, like the sons of men in his incarnation, but more than man in the glory of his divine Person, came with the clouds of heaven, with great majesty, to take possession of his kingdom, and came to the Ancient of days, his eternal Father, either at his ascension, or rather it refers to the future day of his glory, when he shall take to himself his great power and reign; and they brought him near before him; and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, his mediatorial kingdom, which, as the man Christ Jesus, he receives from his Father; and this kingdom, we doubt not, will be more eminent and extensive upon earth hereafter than it has ever yet been; so that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him, made obedient to the faith, and become his loyal subjects: and, as his kingdom will be universal in its extent, it will be eternal in duration; for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Blessed and happy are they who have their lot and portion among the happy subjects of this divine Redeemer!3rdly, The visions so affected the prophet, that his mind was much troubled; and, earnestly desirous to be informed of the meaning of what he saw, he inquires of one of the celestial attendants concerning them; who readily relieved him from his suspense, and explained the particulars of his prophetic dream. Note; (1.) When we are ignorant, we should never be ashamed to inquire of those who can teach us. (2.) The truths of God should engage our diligent attention; and what we read or hear, we should, by prayer and meditation, endeavour fully to understand.The interpretation given is,1. That the four beasts are four kings, or kingdoms, which should arise out of the earth, and, springing from the dust, should return thither again: but a fifth should succeed them, of heavenly original, and endure for ever and ever; as he more fully afterwards explains.2. As Daniel was most solicitous to have a fuller explication of the meaning of the fourth beast, which seemed the fiercest of them all, and of the ten horns, and the little horn that sprung up afterwards, which had eyes, and a mouth that spake great things, and his look was more stout than his fellows; which made war against the saints of the most High, and prevailed, till the Ancient of days came, vindicated their cause, and slew their adversary; the angel informs him, that this terrible beast is the fourth kingdom, meaning, I doubt not, the Roman monarchy, to which the characters given seem most exactly to agree. It was diverse from all the other kingdoms in its form of government; it trod down and devoured the whole earth, by long and bloody wars subduing the nations which refused to submit. The ten horns are ten kings, or kingdoms, which arose on the decline of the empire, when the

116

Huns, Goths, Alans, and other northern nations, successively dismembered the empire, and erected these ten separate kingdoms: and though learned interpreters reckon differently, they agree in the grand points, that these ten kingdoms were erected by them, and here represented by the ten horns. The little horn is the papal power, arising to its height after this division of the empire, speaking great things, pretending to be Christ's vicar upon earth, and assuming the incommunicable prerogatives of the most High; and in look more stout than his fellows, the head of that power assuming authority, not only over all his fellow-bishops, but over all kings and princes. He is diverse from the other monarchs, having the ecclesiastical as well as civil dominion, and ruling over the consciences as well as persons of his subjects. He shall subdue three kings. See the annotations. And he shall speak great words against the most High, the words of blasphemy, affecting such authority and spiritual powers as if he was God upon earth. By wars and persecutions, and inquisitorial dungeons, he shall wear out the saints of the most High, endeavouring to weary out their patience and bring them under his yoke; and he shall think to change times and laws, affecting to depose and set up kings at his pleasure, to alter the constitution of kingdoms, consecrating particular times and seasons, dispensing with the laws of God and man, and binding his own upon the consciences of men: and they shall be given into his hand; he shall for a while succeed in his usurpations; until a time and times, and the dividing of time; three years and a half; the same with the 1260 days, and the forty-two months, Revelation 11:2-3; Revelation 12:14; Revelation 13:5 during which the tyranny of Antichrist shall more or less prevail. But God will at last judge this persecuting power, and utterly destroy it, setting up on its ruins the kingdom of his Christ, whose people shall then reign with him, enjoying freely all privileges and ordinances without disturbance, and seeing all their enemies made their footstool. And this some refer to a temporal reign of the saints upon earth, under Christ their head; others to the reign of grace in the souls of the faithful redeemed, and the universal spread of the Gospel in the world at the latter day; others to the kingdom of the Redeemer in heaven, when, after the last judgment, his saints shall reign with him in glory everlasting. In whichever sense it be taken, the prospect is truly glorious, and suited to support the faith, the patience, and constancy of his people, even in the darkest times.3. Daniel appears much impressed and affected with what had been told him: his very look was altered by it; but he kept the matter in his heart, pondering thereupon, and seeking thoroughly to understand the meaning, that he might transmit the vision, with the interpretation, to succeeding generations. Note; It is good thus to store up in our hearts the blessed words of truth that we hear, ready to produce them, on every proper occasion, for the edification and comfort of our brethren. ELLICOTT, " (28) The matter—i.e., the vision and the revelation.In my heart.—Daniel suffers as in Daniel 7:15 and Daniel 10:8. However, he comforts himself by keeping in his heart the words of the angel spoken in Daniel 7:17. (Comp. Luke 2:19.)

117

TRAPP, "Daniel 7:28 Hitherto [is] the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.Ver. 28. Hitherto is the end of the matter.] This seemeth added, to stop all curious inquiries after things not revealed.My cogitations much troubled me.] For the ensuing troubles of God’s people under those godless tyrants.And my countenance changed.] Chald., My brightnesses. I looked wan and pale; much study will cause it; [Ecclesiastes 12:12] as it did in Mr Fox, the martyrologue, so that his friends knew him not.

BENSON, "Daniel 7:28. Hitherto is the end of the matter — Here the angel that spoke to me concerning these matters finished his discourse. As for me, my cogitations much troubled me — The extraordinary circumstances of the vision made a great impression upon my mind; and it was matter of great trouble to me, to foresee the profanation of God’s laws and worship, and the persecutions and calamities which should come upon his church and people. And my countenance changed in me — The impression which this vision made upon me, weakened my spirits, and altered my complexion, as if I had had a fit of sickness. But I kept the matter in my heart — I laid the matter up in my memory and heart, and meditated frequently upon it, and by that means was enabled to give an exact account of the vision, and its interpretation, in writing, for the use and benefit of others as well as myself; and that after ages might have this great proof of the Almighty’s governing all the affairs of the world, and of his foreknowledge of future events.

WHEDON, " 28. Hitherto [or, so far, Bevan]is the end of the matter — The vision ended at this point, though this does not indicate at all that this was the original end of Daniel’s prophecy. (Compare Konig, Einleitung, N. 384.) Daniel was much “troubled” to understand the vision, and secreting it in his heart (compare Luke 2:19), pondered over its meaning until his countenance lost its brightness (Aramaic).

POOLE, " The end of the matter, i.e. of the vision, and the angel’s interpretation.My countenance changed in me:1. Because it became him so to be, as a holy wise man ought to be in that case.

118

2. By this impression made upon him, God would have it laid up in his heart to be drawn out occasionally, and delivered to his people, and that all these wonderful discoveries from God might engage him more earnestly in prayer for the church of God, as he doth, Da 9.

PETT, "Verse 28‘Unto this point is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me, and my brightness was changed in me. But I kept the matter in my heart.’.Commencing from the time of Nebuchadnezzar we have now reached the end of the matter, the everlasting kingdom. But Daniel was not at ease. He was deeply troubled, and he had lost his brightness. He was horrified at what lay ahead for the people of God. But nevertheless he told no one, nor asked others to share the burden. It was not easy to be the source of God’s revelation on such matters.

PULPIT, "Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart. The first clause here is in the LXX. joined to the preceding verse, and rendered, "And all power shall be given to him, and they shall obey him to the end of the matter"—a connection that in many ways is suitable. The difficulty is thrown further back. To whom is this power to be given, and whom are all to obey? The Septuagint clearly takes the reference to be to the little horn, as "end" is rendered by καταστροφή. The more common view is that of Kliefoth, Keil, and others, and is that the reference here is to the Son of man as the Head or the embodiment of the Messianic kingdom. The remaining portion of the verse is rendered, "I Daniel was exceedingly overcome with astonishment, and my habit (ἕξις) was changed to me, and the word I confirmed in my heart"—a translation that does not seriously differ from the Massoretic. Theodotion and the Peshitta render from a text practically identical with the Massoretic. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me. The prophet himself did not understand the revelation that had been made to him, even after he had received the explanation. Further, there was the thought of the distress that would befall his own people. And my countenance changed in me. "My splendour," "brightness." Daniel was now an old man; but yet there might be a certain brightness, the remains of his former personal beauty. He becomes pale and emaciated as he meditates on what he has seen. But I kept the matter in my heart. Thus Mary retained in her heart all the wonders she had seen regarding her Son. This statement is introduced as a guarantee that the vision is correctly recorded. Daniel retained the vision in his mind, and so was ready to recognize the fulfilment of a portion.Excursus on the Four Monarchies of Daniel.

119

Among the visions in Daniel, two are conspicuous as being all but universally acknowledged to be parallel to each other—to be twofold symbols of the same great truth. They have this peculiarity, that they are parts of the Aramaic portion of Daniel, which is otherwise mainly historical. The first of these visions is given to Nebuchadnezzar, and is intensified to him by the fact that after he had forgotten it, or had bound himself not to tell it, it is recalled to him by the grace of God, who had given it in a new vision to Daniel. The king dreams of a colossal image, with head of gold, arms and chest of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet partly of iron and partly of clay. Then suddenly a stone, cut out of the mountains without hands, smites the image on the feet, and it falls and becomes as the small dust of the threshing-floor, and is carried away of the wind, while the stone becomes a great mountain and fills the earth. This is interpreted of four successive monarchies, the first of these being the Babylonian. This vision is narrated in the second chapter, which forms the beginning of the Aramaio portion of Daniel.The second vision is given to Daniel himself, and is related in the seventh chapter, which forms the conclusion of the Aramaic portion of Daniel. This is a vision of four beasts that successively rise out of the great sea, presumably the Mediterranean. The first beast was like a lion, and had wings like an eagle; its wings were plucked, and a man's heart was given to it. The second beast was like a bear, that raised itself up on one side, and had in its jaws three ribs. The third beast was like a leopard which had four wings. The fourth beast was great and terrible, unlike any of the former beasts, breaking in pieces and trampling under foot. It had ten horns. In the midst of its horns another, an eleventh horn, sprang up, and there were rooted out before it three of the former horns. At this point the end of the solemn drama is placed—God, the Ancient of Days, appears to judgment. Then comes a Son of man in the heavens, and the dominion is given to him. Thus the judgment here described is not the final judgment. The fourth beast is burnt up with fire; the other beasts have their dominion taken away. The interpretation follows, which makes the four beasts four kings, or four monarchies. The fourth is to be diverse from all its predecessors, and to make war against the people of God.Such, then, are the visions, the interpretation of which we would now essay. It has generally been assumed that these two visions are really two aspects of one and the same great scheme of history. Two different interpreters, proceeding on totally distinct lines, deny the identity of the meaning of these two visions. The first is Hitzig, who, while he makes the two series terminate at the same point, makers a difference between them in regard to the earlier members. According to his scheme, in Nebuchadnezzar's dream the first two portions—the golden head, and the silvern shoulders—are the two monarchs Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, whereas the latter two are empires; the third, the Medo-Persian; and the fourth, the Greek. He, however, takes the second series of symbols, that of the beasts in the seventh chapter, as all monarchies. Hitzig assigns no very clear reason for his change in view—for taking the four beasts as four distinct monarchies, and splitting the Medo-Persian into the Median and Persian. The other interpreter, who divides the two visions, is Dr. Bonnar, of East Kilbride, in his book 'The Great Interregnum.'

120

He maintains that the vision of the seventh chapter represents history posterior to that symbolized by the vision of Nebuchadnezzar. His main argument for this is that the same truth would not be present in two different sets of symbols. That difficulty would not be urged by any one who had studied the non-canonical apocalypses; there repeatedly are there double sets of symbols,£ The number of the kingdoms, being four, points to an identity, as also the fact that both assert that the Messianic kingdom—the terminus ad quem of all apocalypse—will be revealed after the setting up of the fourth kingdom without any intercalated power. We shall, then, assume these two visions to present the same scheme of universal history under different aspects.When we look at this double vision, the first thing that strikes us is the unique breadth of view exhibited. If we may for the nonce accept the traditional interprs-teflon, we see the whole course of history, from the days of Nimrod down to the present time, portrayed; nay, beyond the present, on to the millennium and the last judgment. It seems difficult to imagine that a nameless Jew, living in the days of Epiphanes, could devise such a scheme of universal history. It may be answered that, according to the critical hypothesis, he brought down his scheme only to the days of Epiphanes, and that he expected the advent of the Messiah during the persecution of those days. This does not lessen the marvel, but really increases it, that a man, intending to portray in symbol history up only to his own day, has given a pictorial representation which has been interpreted by the great majority of those following him—some as near as the very century following that in which he lived—as referring to events that were not in the faintest degree showing above the horizon in his day. On the hypothesis that he was an inspired prophet, and spoke words full of a significance which he did not grasp himself, this is easily explicable. Only, if this explanation be granted, there is no need for placing Daniel so late as the clays of the Maccabees. If the scheme of history he unfolds applies to centuries beyond the days of the Maccabees, these events so portrayed beforehand would be as invisible to the critical pseudo-Daniel living b.c. 160 as to the real Daniel living b.c. 560.We ought not scientifically to assume, without proof, that prophecy that foretells is impossible. Yet this is the assumption of the critical school. If the critics do venture to take up that position, they have to explain the universal belief in something akin to this foretelling prophecy. Herbert Spencer explains instinctive beliefs of this kind as the inherited result of experience. If we apply this to the belief in prophecy, then we must maintain that some earlier generations have had experience of foretelling prophecy. If, then, prophecy did exist at one time, we may not assume its non-existence at any given time. We find from Deuteronomy 18:22 that the Jews believed in foretelling prophecy. "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously." The early Christians believed in prophecy that foretold; their whole argument against the Jews was the recital of what the prophets had spoken. To deny that prophecy foretells is to assert that Christianity is founded on a gigantic blunder. Closely connected with this is the belief that the prophets did not necessarily comprehend the meaning of their own

121

words, as in 1 Peter 1:11 we are told that they had to "search what, and what manner of time the Spirit which was in them did signify." This is involved in the primitive idea of prophecy and inspiration, as may be seen by the oracles. The priestess that gave the enigmatic answer at Delphi was not supposed to know what was the meaning of her own words. The whole critical assumption that the words of a prophet were absolutely conditioned by his environment, is utterly unscientific, as all unproved assumptions are. On the ground of that gratuitous assumption, critics have no right to assert that no more can be in a prophecy than the prophet who uttered it could have fully understood.We would make another preliminary observation. Apocalypse was a mode of composition of which we have many examples—one other besides Daniel being canonical. To understand Daniel, then, we ought to apply the canons of interpretation which may be deduced from other apocalypses, especially from the Book of Revelation. One of these that is of special importance is the way numbers are used as marks by which identities are indicated. Thus in Revelation the dragon, the beast that came out of the waters, and the scarlet beast on which the woman sat, are recognized to be all symbols of one and the same antichristian power—Rome, by the fact that always we have the seven heads and ten horns prominent. Towards God it is diabolism, towards the saints it is a devouring beast, and to the world at large the "harlot." On the other hand, the beast that came out of the earth, that had two horns, is different.If we apply this principle to Daniel, we can maintain the identity of the two visions—before us: first, because each had four members; next, we can identify the fourth kingdom in each series by the facts that there are ten toes to the feet of the image, and ten horns upon the fourth beast—the prominence of the number ten proves the identity of the two. The second empire in the image has duality as its ruling mark—there are the two shoulders; and the bear raises itself up on one side, implying the other. This twofoldness is intensified in the vision of the "ram" and "he-goat;" the ram has two horns. The third monarchy has no number prominent in the image-vision, but has four wings as the third beast. When we pass to the next vision, we find that, when the "he-goat" loses his notable horn, .four others spring up. And in the eleventh chapter the empire of Alexander was divided to the four winds of heaven.While this is an affirmative principle, it is also a negative one. On the ground of the identity of prominent numbers, we may assume the identity of the thing symbolized, though symbolized by diverse symbols; on the other hand, where prominent numbers are diverse, notwithstanding a general resemblance, we can assume a diversity in the thing symbolized. Thus the little horn of the eighth chapter is very like, superficially, to the eleventh horn of the seventh chapter: but the difference of numerical relations compells us to regard, them as symbols of different things. It was the identity here assumed that led Delitzsch to abandon the traditional view of the fourth monarchy, and give in his adhesion to the critical view. When, however, we look at the numerical relations of the two, we find they are wholly different. In

122

the seventh chapter the eleventh horn does not belong to any of the previous horns, and dispossesses three of them; on the other hand, the little horn of the eighth chapter springs out from one of the four horns—it is not an independent horn, but a sprout from one of the extant horns. Further, there are no horns dispossessed or uprooted before it These prominent differences override the resemblance of the one having a mouth speaking great things and making war with the saints, and the other being a king that understood dark sentences, and made war against Messiah the Prince. Notwithstanding this superficial resemblance, we are compelled to maintain the real difference. Surely more than one tyrant made war against the saints and persecuted them. At all events, this must be said—that the numerical difference renders it illegitimate to draw any argument from the purely superficial resemblance above referred to.Having considered these preliminaries, let us look now at the various interpretations that have been put forward of these visions. First, there is the common, as it may be called, the traditional view, which, as we all know, makes the first empire the Babylonian, the second the Medo-Persian, the third the Greek, and the fourth the Roman. This view is repudiated with one consent by all critics; to admit that the Roman was intended would be to admit that prophecy foretold, and that, Scripture notwithstanding, is tacitly assumed to be impossible. Mere negation is not enough; it is necessary to replace the ancient view by some other that will enable the interpreter to say that not the Roman, but the Greek, is the fourth empire.The problem before critical interpreters, then, is to show how there can be tour mornarchies beginning with Nebuchadnezzar and ending with the Greek, or at all events the Seleucid Empire. We may neglect a scheme referred to Ewald by Pusey, but which in his Commentary on Daniel Ewald does not adopt, namely, that the Ninevite monarchy is the first, and the Babylonian the second. This interpretation contradicts the words of Daniel when he interprets the dream to Nebuchadnezzar. He says to Nebuchadnezzar, "Thou art this head of gold." This hypothesis belongs to the theory that Daniel was taken captive from the northern kingdom, and dwelt in Nineveh, not in Babylon. It is utterly without evidence. Neglecting this fanciful view, there are other three schemes. It is obvious that, if three of the four monarchies of the traditional view are to be made out to be four, this can only be done by splitting one of these monarchies into two. We shall classify these views in accordance with this, and take them up in the order of the monarchies they divide.The first is Hitzig's theory with regard to the interpretation of the image-dream. He splits up the Babylonian kingdom, and makes "the head of gold" apply only to Nebuchadnezzar personally, and says that the shoulders of silver are the symbol of the reign of Belshazzar. The Medo-Persian is the third monarchy, and the fourth monarchy is the Greek. As we hays already said. Hitzig does not apply this to the later vision of the four beasts coming out of the sea: this itself would go far to condemn his view. But when we examine the vision, we find many things in it that do not suit with this interpretation. There is, in the first place, a decided want of symmetry in it. The "head of gold" is Nebuchadnezzar personally; the arms and

123

breast of silver symbolize Belshazzar as a person; but the belly and thighs of brass are the symbol of the Medo-Persian Empire, and the legs of iron the Greek Empire. Here are two individuals and two monarchies made co-ordinate. Usually historians become more diffuse and particular the nearer they come to their own date; but if the author of Daniel lived in the days of the Maccabees, then on this hypothesis he was more diffuse and particular in an age removed from him by three centuries. Further, the twofoldness implied in the two arms which form the symbol of the second kingdom has no meaning in regard to Belshazzar, unless Hitzig were prepared to admit the reference to the fact that Belshazzar reigned along with Nabunahid his father—a view which contradicts his assumption that Belshazzar is the literal son of Nebuchadnezzar. We may dismiss Hitzig's view of the interpretation of the image-vision as unsatisfactory. Further, we may assume that the first monarchy is the Babylonian.The great mass of critical commentators divide the second empire of the traditional interpretation into two, and maintain that the author of the Book of Daniel believed that there was a Median Empire between the Babylonian and the Persian. Of this Mr. Bevan declares, with the modesty peculiar to the critical school, that "there can be no doubt it is correct." This is the view maintained by Porphyry and Ephrem Syrus. It is deduced from the fact that Ephrem Syrus holds it, that it must have been known to the Jews of the fourth century. With these exceptions, all ancient authorities support what we have called the traditional view. We will not plead against this critical view the fact that no such empire did actually come between Cyrus's conquest and the fall of the Babylonian Empire. All that we will endeavour to do is to see whether the Book of Daniel assumes such an interpolated empire or not—whether it does not persistently assume a dual empire of Medes and Persians.The first thing we would note is that invariably the symbol of this second empire implies duality. The two arms of the image show it clearly. Dr. Davidson, in his short article on Bevan's 'Daniel' in the Critical Review, remarks that the second beast which lifted itself up on one side implied that same duality. When we turn to the eighth chapter, we find a ram with two horns, the one of which that came up last outgrew the one that sprang up earlier. There we find the same duality in unity as symbolized in the other symbols. That one of the two elements should be the more powerful is implied in the bear that raised itself up on one side. Mr. Bevan thinks the two horns indicate two successive empires. To apply Mr. Bevan's own words to himself, "No one who had not a hopeless cause to defend" would use such an argument. In the he-goat there are horns too. Mr. Bevan does not think that there are two different kinds of empire symbolized by the one horn and the four. If it had been said, in regard to the ram, that the earlier horn bad been rooted up before that which came up later, Mr. Bevan might have had some greater show of argument for his position, though even then the fourth beast has three horns rooted out, and he does not maintain that a new race enters into a position of prominence. Like other critics, Mr. Bevan is apt to forget a canon when it does not suit him to apply it. Let Mr. Bevan endeavour to frame a symbolic animal figure which shall represent one empire in which there are two ruling races, kindred yet distinct, one of which had

124

from a position of inferiority gained the superiority. He would be compelled to devise something that would be very like the two-horned ram, and liable to the same misinterpretations as those he has made in regard to it. No one can deny that the Persian Empire presented a dual aspect to those outside. In Herodotus and Thucydides Μηδίζειν is to side with the Persians. While Herodotus calls the great Persian war τά Περσικά, Thucydides always speaks of it as τά Μηδικά; he calls the battle of Marathon, ἡ ἐν Μαραθῶνι μάχη Μήδων πρὸς Ἀθηναίους. At the same time, Herodotus knows the distinction of the races. AEschylus, who encountered the Persians at Salamis, in 'The Persae' begins the Persian Empire with a Mede, Astyages or Cyaxares—Μῆδος γάρ ἦν ὁ πρῶτος ἡγεμῶν στρατοῦAs late as the days of Horace, this freedom of use of the words "Mede" and "Persian" was common. Such being the case, the natural thing for a Jew living in the days of the Maccabees, whose sources of information in regard to ancient foreign history were mainly, if not exclusively, Greek, would be to identify the Median and Persian monarchies. Certainly the existence of an independent empire of Medes succeeding that of Babylon, and overthrown by Cyrus, is not hinted at in other Scriptures. The critical hypothesis is that the author of the Book of Daniel was well acquainted with Jeremiah and Kings, and made up the book before us in accord with them. What led him to make this division, if he made it? We should need very conclusive evidence that the author, whoever he was, did make the distinction. To bring forward as evidence the statement that "Darius the Mede received the kingdom," "was made king," appears to prove the writer incapable of apprehending the nature of evidence. When a man receives a kingdom, or is made king, this implies a higher power, as in Luke 19:12. As to the fact that קבל in the pael means "receive," not "take," we may appeal to Ewald, who translates it by erupting; to Levy, in whose Aramaic dictionary all the references to the Targumic use of the word show that it means "receive," not "take," as Numbers 35:3, תקבלון Mr. Bevan does not dispute this, but attempts to get round it by .ממון אינש קטולו לאasserting that the phrases in question mean that he, Darius, was made king by God. That, however, is without justification: in such case the real agent would be mentioned in the immediate context, as in the example Mr. Bevan takes from Daniel 5:28, "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and the Persians;" in Daniel 5:26 it is said, "God hath numbered thy kingdom." Professor Bevan says there is an instance in a Syriac historian, whom he does not name, where the same words are used of the accession of Julian the Apostate. That a Christian writer should use קבלof Julian the Apostate's accession is nothing to the point. Christianity has emphasized the supremacy of Providence. Further, Julian, expecting to have to conquer the throne, by the unexpected death of Constantius received it as an inheritance.But the proofs of the unity of the empire of the Medes and the Persians are numerous in Daniel. When Daniel interpreted the inscription on the wall, be had before him Upharsin, "and fragments;" he sees in this that the Babylonian kingdom

125

would be broken by the Persians—an interpretation that involves a play on the words פרס, "to divide," and פרס, "a Persian;" there is nothing about Medes in the inscription. Yet Daniel says the kingdom is given to the Medes and the Persians. Further, the prophecy which declared that the Babylonian Empire would be overthrown by the Persians is regarded as fulfilled when Darius the Mede receives the kingdom. Again, when Darius publishes the decree that condemns Daniel to the lions' den, he is moved to establish the decree "according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not." When Darius would rescind the decree, he is met by this immutability of the laws of the Medes and the Persians. If the empire was Median, why was the name Persian appended thus? If it be objected that Medes is placed before Persians, Dr. Pusey rightly remarks that this is in all likelihood due to the court politeness of those about a Median satrap, or king. Boys in Scotland often play at a game which they invariably call "Scotch and English," never "English and Scotch," yet the disparity in population, extent, and influence is greater between England and Scotland than that between Persia and Media. If one had no end to serve by denying it, it would seem impossible to deny that the Persian Empire was regarded as a dual empire by the author of the Book of Daniel; and that, in his view, in this empire the Merle had almost an equal place with the Persian; that, in short, in the Persian Empire the Medes occupied much the same position as the Scotch do in the English.A subsidiary argument for making the second empire the Median as distinct from the Persian, is the fact that the second empire is declared to be inferior to the first. It is gratuitously assumed that tiffs means inferiority in extent of dominion, and thus it is alleged that this independent Median Empire which succeeded the Babylonian was inferior in extent to it. One can assert anything of an empire that never existed. Mr. Bevan seems to lay stress on the fact that the word ארעא, "inferior," is only used of the silver kingdom, and holds that the idea of inferiority is not carried forward. Had Mr. Bevan not determined beforehand to make the division in question between Modes and Persians, and seen that, to maintain this, he had to assume the inferiority as only applicable to the first, he would have recognized that the word in question is merely explanatory of the relative inferiority of the metal used to symbolize the second kingdom, and its louver position in the figure. That being so. he would not have failed to see that if silver is inferior to gold, then brass is inferior to silver, and iron to brass, and clay to iron. In fact, there is a progressive degradation in the metals, which harmonizes with the lower and lower position in the figure assigned to each. No one could regard the Persian Empire as inferior in extent to the Babylonian. Still less could any one regard the Greek as inferior in extent to the Persian. As the inferiority of the successive empires is not in extent of territory, this affords no shadow of proof that there was a Median Empire between the Babylonian and the Persian. We may, then, assume this theory as disproved.A third set of critics divide the Greek monarchy. They assume that the third monarchy is that of Alexander the Great, and that the fourth is that of the Diadochi. It is perfectly true that the four wings on the back of the leopard signify rapidity of movement, and this was the pre-eminent characteristic of Alexander's conquest.

126

Certainly, also, there was great division among the successors of Alexander which might be symbolized by the ten horns, though the separate kingdoms never approached that number. But no one could say of the empire of the Diadochi that it was utterly diverse from what had preceded. The various dynasties that succeeded Alexander really continued his influence. No one could say that as iron breaketh in pieces, and subdueth all things, so the feeble kingdom of the Diadochi subdued all kingdoms. If it is restricted to the Seleucids in Syria, it is still less true. Parthia broke away from them, and Baetria formed a separate kingdom. If, latterly, they secured Coele-Syria from the Lagids, it was only towards the end of the reign of Antiochus the Great. Before that they had been beaten back again and again. Further, this scheme lacks symmetry; the first and second as also the fourth beasts, symbolize empires; the third, only the reign of one individual monarch. We must, then, declare this third hypothesis as untenable.We may neglect the interpretation quoted by Mr. Bevan, which made the fourth monarchy Islam, and reduced the monarchies to four, either by combining the Babylonian and Persian monarchies, or the Greek and the Roman. Islam did not dispossess the empire of Rome. Roman imperialism exists yet. The Emperors of Austria and Germany claim to be successors of the Emperors of the West, and the Czar of Russia asserts himself the successor of the Emperors of the East. We may also neglect Dr. Bonnar's hypothesis, that makes the four beasts symbolize—tile first, the Holy Roman Fmpire; the second, Napoleon the Great; the third, the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon race in Britain and America; the fourth, the anarchists.Let us look at the despised traditional view. It starts, like all the others, with the Babylonian. We are told that Daniel informed Nebuchadnezzar that he was the head of gold. The winged lion with human heart was a meet symbol of that Assyrian power which, alike in Nineveh and Babylon, rejoiced in winged, human-headed animal figures. The second empire has duality for its numerical note—two arms two sides, and, in the case of the ram, two horns. This is a natural symbol for the Medo-Persian power. The animal that symbolizes it—the bear, with its relatively slow movements—represents well the comparatively slow progress of Persian conquests, compared with those either of Nebuchadnezzar or of Alexander. What seems to us to demonstrate the correctness of this view is the fact that the ram, which symbolizes the Medo-Persian Empire in the eighth chapter, has, as we have said, the numerical note two.The third empire is the Greek. It has four as its numerical note. The leopard has four wings. The goat that symbolizes Greece in the eighth chapter has four horns. These wings are the symbol of rapidity of movement. As a matter of history, the conquests of Alexander were made with extreme rapidity. He ascended the throne of Macedonia, a youth of twenty, in b.c. 336. In two years he had subdued the whole Balkan peninsula. In b.c. 334 he crossed the Hellespont, and in ten years he had conquered Asia to the Oxus and the Indus, and Egypt to the cataracts of the Nile. Cyrus, after a reign of more than twice the length, had not made nearly as extensive

127

conquests. On the ground of the suitability of the symbol to the facts of the Greek conquest, we would say that the third empire is that of Alexander and his successors. The symbol in the image-vision is not so clear, but the metal, bronze, was one that was much used by the Greeks for armour, and, moreover, was eminently suitable for artistic purposes; hence it was a suitable symbol for the Greek power.On this traditional theory the fourth empire is the Roman. Mr. Bevan tells us, as we have said, that Ephrem Syrus, in the fourth century, held that the Greek Empire was the fourth. He "doubtless," says Mr. Bevan, "derived it"—this view—"from Jewish tradition." We have evidence that the common Jewish belief, much earlier than the fourth century, the time of Ephrem Syrus, was that the fourth empire was the Roman. The Fourth Book of Esdras, which is dated by most critics a.d. 90, though by some put more than a century earlier, describes the Roman power as an eagle, and tells of the various emperors, and expressly identifies this with the fourth beast of Daniel.We have spoken of the New Testament .Apocalypse. There are three beasts introduced with ten horns; two of these are certainly Rome, and the fourth beast in Daniel has ten horns. Evidently, then, the Apostle John had no doubt as to the reference of Daniel's beast with ten horns The Apocalypse of Baruch was probably written in b.c. 60. and there the Roman power is expressly designated as the fourth kingdom. Here is direct evidence, coming down to little more than a century after the critical date of Daniel, that in Jewish opinion the fourth empire in Daniel was the Roman.We admit there are difficulties in interpreting the features of this fourth monarchy. In approaching this part of our subject, we would lay it down as a principle that, in interpreting apocalyptic writings, we are to be guided by notes of interpretation to be found in them. One of these notes of interpretation we find in Revelation 17:9, "The seven heads are seven mountains, and. they are seven kings." Here we find the numerical note which points out the city of Rome. The number seven has two meanings: "mountains," the seven hills of Rome; and "seven kings," presumably the seven rulers of Rome, Nero being the seventh and Pompey the first. There may be a reference to the seven kings of Rome. Whatever the interpretation here, at all events this much is clear—the symbols carry double. This is directly in the teeth or the assumption of the critical school, that if a symbol means one thing, it cannot at the same time mean another. With this principle, let us approach this symbol of the ten horns. The magistracies of Rome were, roughly speaking, ten—two consuls, originally two praetors, two censors, and four tribunes. The imperial power was utterly unknown to the Roman constitution; but it, coming up after the others, absorbed the power of three of these magistracies—the tribunitian, the praetorian, and censorial. Certainly the imperial dignity had a month speaking great things. Not only was the emperor regularly deified on his decease, but even during 'his life he was saluted as a present deity. Temples were erected to Augustus during his lifetime, and Caius Caligula could hardly be restrained from compelling the Jews to worship his statue. But these horns may not only be co-ordinate and contemporary,

128

but also successive. From the standpoint of Judaism, what was the greatest injury inflicted on the holy people by Rome? Was it not indubitably the capture of Jerusalem by Titus under the auspices of his father Vespasian? Now, if we include in the rank of rulers Pompey, who certainly had burned in his personality upon the Jews by his profanation of the temple, and certainly bulked more largely in the eye of every one, Romans or foreigners, than any preceding Roman, as we may see by reading Cicero, ' Pro Lege Manilia,' then Vespasian was the eleventh ruler, and before him three emperors, Galba, Vitellius, Otho, had been removed.The interpretation is not yet exhausted. It has been recognized that the two legs represent the twofold division of the empire into eastern and western Although this was only made actual by Diocletian, the division existed in reality from the first between the subjects speaking Latin and those speaking Greek. Taking this as our starting-point, there could easily be enumerated ten powers, Eastern and Western, that may form the ten toes of the image. The number ten is not to be taken with arithmetical exactness. The imperial power of Russia may be symbolized as that which, arising beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire and of the kingdoms formed from it, seems likely to overstep her present limits, and, it may well be, shall swallow up three other powers. This latter interpretation we merely throw out as suggestive.The critical school have some difficulty in making out their ten rulers, who are symbolized by the ten horns. Porphyry drew on the Egyptian Ptolemies to fill out the deficiencies of the Seleucids. That is evidently an illicit process. The more general scheme now is to start with Alexander the Great, then take the successive Seleucids; as they are not enough, Helio-dorus, who never was king, is inserted. If, however, the fourth beast is the Greek power, and Alexander is to be taken as the first monarch, then all his successors, Lagids, Antegonids, and Attalids, as well as Seleucids, have to be reckoned—a number to be counted by scores rather than tens. Were it not for the necessity they are under to make the fourth monarchy the Greek, this attempt would have been acknowledged to be a failure.Before we leave this, we must consider this point—the growing degradation of the powers that succeed the Babylonian. In what sense could Babylon be the head of gold, while Persia was silver, Greece bronze, and Rome iron? It is evident that this inferiority is not one of extent of territory; for the successive monarchies were each more extensive geographically than its predecessor. In what, then, consists the inferiority? The only suggestion that seems to me at all to meet the case, is one made by Dr. Bonnar of East Kilbride, in his ingenious book, 'The Great Interregnum.' In looking at this question, we must begin by divesting ourselves of all our preconceived notions of representative government and freedom of the people, in fact, all our Western ideas, and look at monarchy with the eyes of an Oriental. To an Oriental that monarchy is highest that is likest Divine sovereignty. Only the most absolute monarch can at all, in idea, represent Divine sovereignty. The Babylonian government had this absoluteness—the king's will was law, without cheek or limits-ion. This, as the likest to the Divine government, was the head of gold. The Persian

129

monarch had the seven nobles—so to say, peers of the crown—that limited his authority. The hereditary satraps formed a further limitation. This was silver, not gold. This monarchy had still much of the Divine absoluteness in it, but not so much as the Babylonian, The Greek Empire still retained many of the features of Oriental absoluteness, as many of the features of Oriental magnificence, but they limited their own authority by the introduction of autonomous cities all over their dominions. Along with the Greek city life there was a certain independence and freedom assigned to the individual, that limited the action of the monarch. He was no longer removed from all men by an immense distance; with all his absoluteness, he was a Greek among Greeks. Still, the idea of the monarchy was kept up. There is thus a further degradation—the age of bronze is reached; the age of gold is past, and even that of silver. With Rome, the empire that was diverse from all others, the monarchical idea disappeared. The emperor was simply Imperator of a republic. He might be deified in his lifetime, might wield absolute power in actuality, but in idea he was but the servant of the Roman Republic. The bronze had given place to iron. If we carry cur eyes down the ages to the kingdoms that have succeeded the Roman Empire, monarchy has ceased to have much power at all. The iron now is mingled with the miry clay. The progress of constitutional history all over the world has been the lessening of government authority, and setting the individual free. The stone cut out of the mountain, so far as material goes, is at a still lower level in regard to value than the iron mingled with the miry clay. Individualism becomes absolute in Christianity when the believer, in exercise of his absolute personal right over himself, surrenders himself absolutely into the hands of Christ.The Messianic kingdom, foreseen by the prophet, and foretold in the stone in the vision of the image, and in the Son of man in that of the four beasts, looks forward to a time beyond the present, when all civil governments will have ceased, when the Church shall be manifest as the true state, when Christ, the Anointed of the Lord, alone shall reign. This prophecy is not fulfilled in Christ's coming in weakness as the Babe at Bethlehem, nor in his life of sorrow and death, of shame and suffering. No; it is in his coming the second time unto salvation. It is failure to realize this that leads Bishop Westcott to maintain the fourth monarchy to be the Greek. He somehow thinks that the fourth kingdom must have passed away before the Messiah comes. But in the image-vision the stone was cut out of the mountain before the image had disappeared. When a person approaches this subject with a set of presuppositions, he is all the less likely to reach a true conclusion. Looked at in the way it presents itself to us, this sublime scheme of universal history terminates only when the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our God and of his Christ; when the promise made to the Son by the Father, that he should have the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, shall be fulfilled. Only some such time of universal peace can adequately conclude history and fulfil prophecy.

130