{THE JOHN WALVOORD PROPHECY COMMENTARIES}

Daniel

John F. Walvoord

Revised and Edited by

Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley

MOODY PUBLISHERS

CHICAGO

© 2012 by

JOHN F. WALVOORD

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2000; 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked RSV are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1952 [2nd edition, 1971] by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are taken from the King James Version.

Original edition published in 1966, under the title of The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Edited by Christopher Reese

Interior design: Ragont Design

Cover design: Tan Nguyen

Cover image: iStock photo

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Walvoord, John F.

Daniel / John F. Walvoord; edited by Charles H. Dyer & Philip E. Rawley.

p. cm. — (The John Walvoord prophecy commentaries)

Includes bibliographical references (p.     ) and indexes.

ISBN 978-0-8024-1744-2

1. Bible. O.T. Daniel, Commentaries. I. Dyer, Charles H. II. Rawley, Philip E. III. Title.

BS1555.53.W35 2012

224′.507—dc23

2011039649

Moody Publishers is committed to caring wisely for God’s creation and uses recycled paper whenever possible. The paper in this book consists of 30 percent post-consumer waste.

We hope you enjoy this book from Moody Publishers. Our goal is to provide high-quality, thought-provoking books and products that connect truth to your real needs and challenges. For more information on other books and products written and produced from a biblical perspective, go to www.moodypublishers.com or write to:

Moody Publishers

820 N. LaSalle Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60610

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Printed in the United States of America

This book is dedicated to Don Campbell,

Chuck Swindoll, and Mark Bailey—three men who, in succession,

took up Dr. Walvoord’s mantle as president of Dallas Seminary.

God used each of you, in your own unique way,

to expand and enhance the legacy of the school.

Along with Dr. Chafer and Dr. Walvoord,

you form an unbroken line of leaders who never wavered in

your commitment to train others to know and proclaim God’s Word.

Thank you for leading well.

It’s a privilege to call each of you friend!

—Charles H. Dyer

Dr. Charlie Dyer received his ThM and PhD degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary. After serving on the faculty and administration at Dallas Seminary for twenty years, Charlie joined the administration of Moody Bible Institute where he served for ten years as Provost and Dean of Education. In 2010 Charlie left academic administration to become Professor-at-Large of Bible and host of The Land and the Book radio program. In addition to his extensive teaching and speaking schedule, Charlie also leads tours to the Middle East and is the author of numerous books, including The Rise of Babylon, The New Christian Traveler’s Guide, A Voice in the Wilderness, and What’s Next?. He also authored “Jeremiah,” “Lamentations,” and “Ezekiel” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, co-authored Nelson’s Old Testament Survey, and has contributed articles to Bibliotheca Sacra and chapters for several other books.

Philip E. Rawley is a former Moody Publishers textbook editor, one of the founding editors and writers for Today in the Word, and a freelance writer living in Rockwall, Texas. He is a graduate of the University of South Florida (BA) and Dallas Theological Seminary (ThM). Phil and his wife, Sarah, have two children and a grandson.

Contents

Foreword

Preface

Introduction

1. Early Life of Daniel in Babylon

2. Nebuchadnezzar’s Vision of the Great Image

3. The Golden Image of Nebuchadnezzar

4. Nebuchadnezzar’s Pride and Punishment

5. Belshazzar’s Feast and the Fall of Babylon

6. Daniel in the Lions’ Den

7. Daniel’s Vision of Future World History

8. The Vision of the Ram and the Goat

9. The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks

10. Daniel’s Vision of the Glory of God

11. World History from Darius to the Time of the End

12. The Time of the End

Bibliography

Subject Index

Scripture Index and Ancient Sources

Foreword

In the last few weeks before my father died we had time to celebrate his life, tell stories about past family events, and dream a little about the future. His mind and memory were sharp and he was as upbeat and confident as ever. He was ninety-two years of age, had lived a full life, and had served well the Lord he loved.

The doctors had given him six weeks to live, and in that time we relived many a family story. He was visited by a parade of his close friends, many influential leaders he had taught and mentored. From his hospital room were days filled with warm memories and laughter, and an occasional hymn echoed down the hall.

My father had a list of things he entrusted to me as his oldest son. But in the last week of his life, the conversation turned to the seventy years he had dedicated to the study of the Bible. And in all that time, he explained, four key books of the Bible had been the subject of his most intense study; Revelation, Daniel, Matthew, and 1st and 2nd Thessalonians. He shared stories about how they were first written, taught, and eventually published.

I remember many of those times. Every summer our family piled into our car and drove across the U.S. and sometimes into Canada. We went from one Bible conference to another, but a lot of that time was spent on the road. And always somewhere in the car was a cardboard box filled with books.

Many nights Dad put us to bed and quietly went into a motel bathroom to read and take notes. Then when he was ready he would dictate an entire chapter, footnotes and all. So whether on the road or at home, this scholarly work was of ten done late at night and early in the morning. And it continued all his life.

His dream in those final conversations was that his work and biblical insights would live on after him. He remembered how the commentaries and works of some of the great teachers of the Bible lived on for generation after generation. Would his commentaries survive to teach others after his death?

My father explained he had chosen Moody Publishers (then known as Moody Press) to publish his first commentary on Revelation for one very important reason. He knew he could trust them to keep the commentary in print as long as it was needed.

So in those last weeks of my father’s life, our discussions produced one more assignment. Could I find a way to fulfill his dream to keep these works alive for the generations of students he would not be able to teach in the classroom?

From the seed of that dream has grown the new Walvoord Commentary series. The team that took up that dream is made up of men my father knew and trusted. And as he would have guessed, it was championed by Greg Thornton, senior vice president of Moody Publishers.

Philip Rawley agreed to take the lead as the editor of the series. And he took on the assignment with much more than the word “editor” implies. Phil was both a student of my father’s and a friend. As far back as twenty-five years ago he collaborated with me to help my father with a project that became Every Prophecy of the Bible. Since then we have worked together on many writing projects.

But I believe this may have been one of Phil Rawley’s most important tasks. He was much more than an editor. In many instances he took up the mantle of the writer who could best capture the way my father would have explained his biblical insights to a new generation of students.

Dr. Mark Hitchcock also agreed to join the team. Because of Mark’s interest in prophecy, he and my father of ten had lunch to discuss key issues in biblical prophecy. Mark is a great admirer of my father’s work and a prolific author in his own right who had written more than fifteen books on prophecy and end-time events before we met. Mark was a natural choice to work with me to research and write Armageddon, Oil, and Terror shortly after my father’s death. In that process we became close friends in the quest to turn my father’s ideas and notes into an entirely new work. It was an amazing journey.

Dr. Hitchcock has collaborated on Revelation and has taken on the lion’s share of expanding my father’s work and class notes, previously published as The Thessalonian Epistles, into a full commentary for this series. He is a thorough scholar who fully understands my father’s teaching from the Epistles.

Dr. Charles Dyer also became an important part of the team. He is an author and teacher who has been greatly influenced by my father as one of his students and later a colleague in the administration of Dallas Theological Seminary. As an Old Testament scholar, Dr. Dyer has taken up the task of revising my father’s commentary on Daniel, and has also agreed to work on Matthew’s Gospel for two reasons. First, most of Jesus’ teaching on prophecy is best understood in its Old Testament context. Second, Dr. Dyer is as familiar with the Holy Land and the setting of Matthew as anyone I know. He will, I am sure, make both Daniel and the events of Matthew’s Gospel come alive for every reader of the Walvoord Commentary series.

So now, almost a decade after my father’s death, his legacy will live on in this new series of biblical commentaries. I am sure he would have been proud of the men who have taken up his torch and are passing it to a new generation of Bible students. As a great man of “The Book,” my father is greater still because those who follow in his footsteps remain true to his vision and faithful to the exposition of God’s Word.

John Edward Walvoord

January 2011

Preface

Dr. John F. Walvoord was a giant of a man—physically, spiritually, and theologically. I had him as a professor during my very first year at Dallas Seminary, and I remember him as an imposing, almost intimidating, instructor in that large lecture class. He seemed almost austere, but that’s because I hadn’t yet had an opportunity to get to know him.

Later, during my twenty years of faculty and administrative service at Dallas, I got to know Dr. Walvoord in a more personal way. And the view up close was just as awe-inspiring as it had been from the classroom. Even after I became executive vice president at Dallas Theological Seminary, he was still “Dr. Walvoord” to me. But don’t get me wrong. This was not a title he demanded. It was given to him out of great respect and admiration. He had earned it!

During my last few years at Dallas a small group of us had the privilege of taking Dr. Walvoord to lunch on a regular basis. Those visits to the Dixie House restaurant were truly special, though the journey was sometimes a little too exciting because he insisted on driving! (We rushed to his car to claim the backseat. The last one there had to sit in front!)

During those informal times together we talked about theology—and about life. And that’s when I truly came to know and appreciate Dr. Walvoord as a person—a man without guile who loved his God and his family, and who was unswerving in his commitment to God’s Word and the ministry God had set before him. He put his hand to the plow to serve the Lord, and he never looked back.

When I was asked if I would be willing to revise Dr. Walvoord’s commentary on the book of Daniel, I immediately said yes. I love the Old Testament prophets and have taught them for over thirty years. But more significantly, I was motivated by my appreciation for the great contribution Dr. Walvoord gave to the church over forty years ago when he first penned this commentary. I saw this as an opportunity to share his masterful insights into the book of Daniel with a new generation of Bible expositors. And because of my appreciation for him, this project has been a labor of love.

As the project draws to a close, I need to express my appreciation to several key individuals. At the top of the list is Dr. John E. Walvoord, Dr. Walvoord’s son. John, thank you for having the foresight to preserve your father’s legacy by authorizing a new edition of his classic work. I hope you are encouraged by the results.

Next in line is Phil Rawley. Phil is someone whom everyone has read, but whom few know. Phil, your skill as a wordsmith is amazing, and you are deeply appreciated by those of us who have had the opportunity to work with you!

I also want to mention Bethany Rawley, Phil’s daughter and writing assistant (and his and my fellow DTS grad!). Bethany, thank you for the many hours you labored replacing every verse, partial verse, and one- or two-word quote from the King James Version of the original commentary with the English Standard Version text. Thank you also for carefully reviewing, renumbering, deleting, and/or replacing as needed all of the nearly 650 footnotes in the original.

And finally, I want to extend a special word of thanks to Greg Thornton, senior vice president of Moody Publishers. Greg, you are a true servant of Christ, and it has been a privilege to serve as your colleague at Moody Bible Institute!

It’s fitting to end this preface with a quote from Dr. Walvoord’s preface to the original work.

Among the great prophetic books of Scripture, none provides a more comprehensive and chronological prophetic view of the broad movement of history than the book of Daniel. Of the three prophetic programs revealed in Scripture, outlining the course of the nations, Israel, and the church, Daniel alone reveals the details of God’s plan for both the nations and Israel. Although other prophets like Jeremiah had much to say to the nations and Israel, Daniel brings together and interrelates these great themes of prophecy as does no other portion of Scripture. For this reason, the book of Daniel is essential to the structure of prophecy and is the key to the entire Old Testament prophetic revelation. A study of this book is, therefore, not only important from the standpoint of determining the revelation of one of the great books of the Old Testament but is an indispensable preliminary investigation to any complete eschatological system….

In attempting an interpretation of the book of Daniel, the principle has been followed of interpreting prophecy in its normal sense while, at the same time, recognizing the apocalyptic character of its revelation. Full attention is given to the critical theories which regard Daniel as a forgery. The denial of the authenticity of the book of Daniel is refuted by internal evidence and archaeological discoveries which support the genuineness of the prophecies of Daniel….

In preparation of this commentary, the author has been guided by the objective to prepare a companion volume to his earlier commentary on the book of Revelation. In this new commentary on the book of Daniel, an attempt has been made to provide the careful student of the Word of God with the necessary tools and information to ascertain accurately the revelation of this important book and to relate it to systematic theology and specifically to eschatology as a whole. In the light of contemporary world events, which fit so well into the foreview of history provided in the book of Daniel, a study of this kind is most relevant to the issues of our day and, supported by other Scriptures, offers the hope that the consummation is not too distant. If the reader, through the study of this volume, has greater understanding of the divine prophetic program, more insight into contemporary events, and a brighter hope concerning things to come, the intention of the author will have been realized.

Charles H. Dyer

Phoenix, Arizona

May 31, 2011

Introduction

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP

The book of Daniel, according to its own testimony, is the record of the life and prophetic revelations given to Daniel, a captive Jew carried off to Babylon after the first conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 605 B.C. The record of events extends to the third year of Cyrus, 536 B.C., and, accordingly, covers a span of about seventy years. Daniel himself may well have lived on to about 530 B.C., and the book of Daniel was probably completed in the last decade of his life.

Although Daniel did not speak of himself in the first person until chapter 7, there is little question that the book presents Daniel as its author. This is assumed in the latter portion of the book and mentioned especially in 12:4. The use of the first person with the name Daniel is found repeatedly in the last half of the book (7:2, 15, 28; 8:1, 15, 27; 9:2, 22; 10:2, 7, 11, 12; 12:5). Most expositors, whether liberal or conservative, consider the book a unit, so Daniel’s claim to authorship is recognized even by those who reject it.[1]

Except for the attack of the pagan Porphyry (third century A.D.), no question was raised concerning the traditional sixth-century B.C. date, the authorship of Daniel the prophet, or the genuineness of the book, until the rise of higher criticism in the seventeenth century, more than two thousand years after the book was written. Important confirmation of the historicity of Daniel himself is found in three passages in Ezekiel (14:14, 20; 28:3), written after Daniel had assumed an important post in the king’s court at Babylon.[2] Convincing also to conservative scholars is the reference to “the prophet Daniel” by Christ in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:15).

Higher critics normally question the traditional authorship and dates of books in both the Old and New Testaments, and therefore disallow the testimony of the book of Daniel itself, dispute the mention of Daniel by Ezekiel, and discount the support by Christ in the New Testament. But conservative scholars have given almost universal recognition to the book of Daniel as an authentic sixth-century B.C. composition of Daniel, the captive of Nebuchadnezzar. The higher critics’ arguments will be addressed in the later discussion of the genuineness of Daniel.

PLACE IN THE SCRIPTURES

The book of Daniel, written last of all the major prophets, appears in this order among the major prophets in the English Bible. In the Hebrew Old Testament—divided into three divisions consisting of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, which is also called Kethubim (Hebrew) or Hagiographa (Greek)—Daniel is included in the third section, the Writings. In the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Luther, however, it is placed with the major prophets. Josephus also includes it in the second division of the Jewish canon, the Prophets, rather than in the Hagiographa. There is, therefore, general recognition of the prophetic character of the book.

Although Daniel’s ministry was prophetic, it was of different character than the other major prophets; and apparently for this reason, the Jews included Daniel in the Writings. As Wilson has pointed out, the reason for this was not that the Jews regarded Daniel as inferior nor because the prophetic section of the canon had already been closed, but as Wilson states, “It is more probable, that the book was placed in this part of the Hebrew Canon, because Daniel is not called a nābhī’ (‘prophet’), but was rather a hōzeh (‘seer’) and a hākhām (‘wise man’). None but the works of the nebhī’im [prophets] were put in the second part of the Jewish Canon, the third being reserved for the heterogeneous works of seers, wisemen, and priests, or for those that do not mention the name or work of a prophet, or that are poetical in form.”[3]

J. B. Payne observes, “For though Christ spoke of Daniel’s function as prophetic (Matt. 24:15), his position was that of governmental official and inspired writer, rather than ministering prophet (cf. Acts 2:29–30).”[4] In any case, the Jews did not regard the third division as less inspired, but only different in character. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that they included in it such venerable writings as Job, Psalms and Proverbs, the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, along with others not considered either the Law or the Prophets. There is no hint anywhere in ancient literature that the Jews regarded Daniel as a pious forgery.

PURPOSE

In the dark hour of Israel’s captivity, with the tragic destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, there was need for a new testimony to the mighty and providential power of God. Such is afforded by the book of Daniel. It is obviously not the purpose of the book to give a detailed account of Daniel’s life, as important details such as his lineage, age, and death are not mentioned, and only scattered incidents in his long life are recounted. Little is said about the history of Israel or the lot of the Jewish captives in Babylon. The book of Daniel, like Esther, reveals God continuing to work in His people Israel even in the time of their chastening.

Daniel’s purpose in writing blended the themes of prophecy and piety. He wrote first to show God’s future program for Israel in light of the nation’s fall and after subsequent domination by Gentile nations. Second, he wrote to show what the believing remnant’s response should be during this intervening period as these faithful servants waited for the promised establishment of God’s messianic kingdom.

In this framework the tremendous revelation concerning the times of the Gentiles and God’s program for Israel was unfolded. While it is doubtful that these prophecies were sufficiently known in Daniel’s lifetime to be much of an encouragement to the captives themselves, the book undoubtedly gave hope to the Jews who returned to restore the temple and the city, and it was particularly helpful during the Maccabean persecutions. It was clearly the purpose of God to give to Daniel a comprehensive revelation of His program culminating in the second advent. As such, Daniel’s prophetic revelation is the key to understanding the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25) as well as the book of Revelation, which is to the New Testament what Daniel is to the Old.

APOCALYPTICAL CHARACTER

The book of Daniel is rightly classified as an apocalyptic writing because of its series of supernatural visions that exemplify the meaning of the Greek word apokalypsis, which indicates an unveiling of truth that would otherwise be concealed. Although apocalyptic works abound outside the Bible, relatively few are found in Scripture. In the New Testament only the book of Revelation can be classified as apocalyptic; but in the Old Testament, Ezekiel and Zechariah are sometimes classified as apocalyptic in addition to Daniel.

Alexander has provided an accurate and comprehensive definition of apocalyptic literature in his study of this literary genre: “Apocalyptic literature is symbolic visionary prophetic literature, composed during oppressive conditions, consisting of visions whose events are recorded exactly as they were seen by the author and explained through a divine interpreter, and whose theological content is primarily eschatological.”[5] Alexander goes on to define the limits of apocalyptic literature: “On the basis of this definition, a corpus of apocalyptic literature was determined. The biblical and extrabiblical apocalyptic passages are shown to include the Apocalypse of the New Testament; Ezekiel 37:1–14, Ezekiel 40–48; Daniel’s visions in chapters 2, 7, 8, and 10–12; Zechariah 1:7–6:8; I Enoch 90; II Esdras; II Baruch; and A Description of New Jerusalem.”[6]

Apocalyptic books outside the Bible are included among the pseudepigrapha, many of which appeared about 250 B.C. and continued to be produced in the apostolic period and later. Many of these attempted to imitate the style of biblical apocalyptic books. Usually they developed the theme of deploring the contemporary situation while prophesying a glorious future of blessing for the saints and judgment on the evil. The real author’s name is normally not given in apocalyptic works outside the Bible. Apocalyptic works rightly included in the Old Testament may be sharply contrasted to the pseudepigrapha because of the more restrained character of their revelation, identification of the author, and their contribution to biblical truth as a whole.

Apocalyptic works classified as pseudepigrapha include such titles as Ascension of Isaiah; Assumption of Moses; Book of Enoch; Book of Jubilees; Greek Apocalypse of Baruch; Letters of Aristeas; III and IV Maccabees; Psalms of Solomon; Secrets of Enoch; Sibylline Oracles; Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs; Apocalypse of Adam, Elijah, and Zephaniah; and Testament of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Because higher criticism is of ten opposed to supernatural revelation in symbolic form, it tends to deprecate apocalyptic books in the Bible and equate them with the sometimes incoherent and extreme symbolism of the pseudepigrapha.[7] But there is really no justification for this. Even a casual reader can detect the difference in quality between scriptural and non-scriptural apocalyptic works. Frequently, the apocalypses of scriptural writings are attended by divine interpretation that provides the key to understanding the revelation intended. The fact that a book is apocalyptic does not necessarily mean that its revelation is obscure or uncertain, and conservative scholarship has recognized the legitimacy of apocalyptic revelation as a genuine means of divine communication. If close attention is given to the contextual interpretive framework, apocalyptic books can yield solid results to the patient exegete.

LANGUAGES

An unusual feature of the book of Daniel is the fact that the central portion (2:4–7:28) is written in biblical Aramaic rather than Hebrew. A similar use of Aramaic is found in Ezra 4:8–6:18; 7:12–26; Jeremiah 10:11; and the two words of the compound name Jegar-sahadutha in Genesis 31:47.[8] The use of Aramaic, which was the lingua franca of Daniel’s period, was related to the fact that the material concerned the Gentile world rather than Israel directly. The fact that there are similar portions elsewhere in the Bible should make clear that there is nothing unusual or questionable about the Aramaic section in Daniel. As pointed out by Brownlee,[9] the shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic and back again in Daniel are found in the scrolls of Daniel at Qumran, supporting the legitimacy of this feature of the Masoretic text commonly used in English translations.

The argument that the Aramaic of Daniel was western and not used in Babylon, as popularized by S. R. Driver,[10] has now been clearly shown to be erroneous by later archeological evidence. As Martin observes, relative to Driver’s contention, “When he [Driver] wrote, the only material available was too late to be relevant. Subsequently, R. D. Wilson, making use of earlier materials that had come to light, was able to show that the distinction between Eastern and Western Aramaic did not exist in pre-Christian times.”[11]

Archer says concerning the Aramaic problem, “The Jews apparently took no exception to the Aramaic sections in the book of Ezra, most of which consists in copies of correspondence carried on in Aramaic between the local governments of Palestine and the Persian imperial court from approximately 520 to 460 B.C. If Ezra can be accepted as an authentic document from the middle of the fifth century, when so many of its chapters were largely composed in Aramaic, it is hard to see why the six Aramaic chapters of Daniel must be dated two centuries later than that. It should be carefully observed that in the Babylon of the late sixth century, in which Daniel purportedly lived, the predominant language spoken by the heterogeneous population of this metropolis was Aramaic. It is therefore not surprising that an inhabitant of that city should have resorted to Aramaic in composing a portion of his memoirs.”[12]

MAJOR DIVISIONS AND UNITY

The traditional division of the book of Daniel into two halves (1–6; 7–12) has usually been justified on the basis that the first six chapters are historical and the last six chapters are apocalyptic or predictive. There is much to commend this division, which of ten also regards chapter 1 as introductory.

As indicated in the exposition of chapter 7, an alternative approach, recognizing the Aramaic section as being significant, divides the book into three major divisions: (1) Introduction, Daniel 1; (2) The times of the Gentiles, presented in Aramaic, Daniel 2–7; (3) Israel in relation to the Gentiles, in Hebrew, Daniel 8–12. This view is advanced by Culver following Auberlen.[13] Although this has not attracted the majority of conservative scholars, it has the advantage of distinguishing God’s programs for the Gentiles and for Israel, with the break coming at the end of chapter 7.

This division also allows the chiastic structure within chapters 2–7 to develop the meaning of the section. chapters 2 and 7 focus on the succession of four Gentile empires God will allow to rise up until He finally establishes His messianic kingdom. chapters 3 and 6 warn the faithful of the persecution they might experience and encourage them to remain true. chapters 4 and 5 reminded the remnant of a time when the Gentile rulers will acknowledge that the God of Israel is indeed sovereign over the nations.

Although Daniel’s divisions may be debated, it is significant that the great majority of interpreters have agreed on the unity of the book. Some, beginning with Spinoza in the seventeenth century, had other views. Montgomery, for instance, offers a minority view, even among critics, that chapters 1–6 were written by an unknown writer in the third century B.C. and that chapters 7–12 were written in the Maccabean period, 168–165 B.C. It is significant that all who deny the unity of the book also deny its genuineness as a sixth-century B.C. writing. Although the two halves of Daniel differ in character, there is obvious historical continuity that supports the unity of the book.[14] The same Daniel who is introduced in chapter 1 is mentioned three times in chapter 12. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the unity of the book.

APOCRYPHAL ADDITIONS

In the Greek version of Daniel, several additions are made to the book that are not found in the Hebrew or Aramaic text. Included are The Prayer of Azarias, The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.

The Prayer of Azarias and The Song of the Three Holy Children contain the prayer and praise of Daniel’s three companions while in the fiery furnace in Daniel 3, with phrases from Psalm 148. Susanna is the story of a woman protected by Daniel, who obtains the conviction of two judges guilty of attempting her seduction. These judges were executed according to Mosaic Law. Bel and the Dragon includes three stories in which Daniel destroys the image of Bel, kills the Dragon, and is fed by Habakkuk the prophet while living in the lions’ den for six days—an amplified account of Daniel 6. These stories have been rejected from the Scriptures as not properly belonging in the book of Daniel.[15] Miller notes that the fragment of Daniel discovered at Qumran omitted these additions from Daniel 3 that are found in the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions of the book.[16]

GENUINENESS

The genuineness of Daniel as a sixth-century B.C. writing by the prophet Daniel does not seem to have been questioned until the third century A.D. when Porphyry, a pagan neo-Platonist, attacked the book. He asserted that it was a second-century B.C. forgery. Porphyry’s fifteen books, Against the Christians, are known to us only through Jerome. Porphyry’s attack immediately aroused a defense of Daniel on the part of the early fathers. Jerome (A.D. 347–420) in his introduction to his Commentary on Daniel summarized the situation at that time in these words:

Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel, (A) denying that it was composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judea at the time of Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes. He furthermore alleged that “Daniel” did not foretell the future so much as he related the past, and lastly, that whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, made a most able reply to these allegations in three volumes, that is, the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth. Appollinarius did likewise in a single large book, namely his twenty-sixth. (B) Prior to these authors, Methodius made a partial reply.

… I wish to stress in my preface this fact, that none of the prophets has so clearly spoken concerning Christ as has this prophet Daniel. For not only did he assert that he would come, a prediction common to the other prophets as well, but also he set forth the very time at which he would come. Moreover he went through the various kings in order, stated the actual number of years involved, and announced beforehand the clearest signs of events to come. And because Porphyry saw that all these things had been fulfilled and could not deny that they had taken place, he overcame this evidence of historical accuracy by taking refuge in this evasion, contending that whatever is foretold concerning Antichrist at the end of the world was actually fulfilled in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, because of certain similarities to things which took place at his time. But this very attack testifies to Daniel’s accuracy. For so striking was the reliability of what the prophet foretold, that he could not appear to unbelievers as a predictor of the future, but rather a narrator of things already past. And so wherever occasion arises in the course of explaining this volume, I shall attempt briefly to answer his malicious charge, and to controvert by simple explanation the philosophical skill, or rather the worldly malice, by which he strives to subvert the truth and by specious legerdemain to remove that which is so apparent to our eyes.[17]

This statement may be taken as the attitude of the church consistently held until the rise of higher criticism in the seventeenth century. At that time, the suggestion of Porphyry began to be taken seriously and arguments were amassed in support of a second century date for Daniel. It should be noted at the outset that (1) the theory had an anti-Christian origination; (2) no new facts were raised that challenged the previous judgment of the church; and (3) the support of Porphyry by higher critics was a part of their overall approach to the Scriptures, which tended almost without exception to deny the traditional authorship of most books of the Bible. They claimed that books frequently had several authors and went through many redactions, and—most importantly—included the almost universal denial by the higher critics of the traditional doctrine of biblical inerrancy and verbal, plenary inspiration. The attack on Daniel was part of an attack upon the entire Scriptures, using the historical-critical method.

The great volume of these objections, based for the most part on higher critical premises which in themselves are subject to question, involves so many details that an entire volume is necessary to answer them completely. At best, a summary of the problem and its solution can be considered here. Generally speaking, critical objections to particular texts have been treated in the exposition of Daniel where they occur in the text. However, a review of major features of the critical attack on the genuineness of Daniel is presented here. Kepler summarized critical objections under ten headings:

(1) About 200 B.C. the Prophets were added to the Law to compose the Jewish “Bible.” Yet Daniel is not among the Prophets, being added to the Sacred Writings about A.D. 90, when the Jewish “Bible” was completed. (2) The book of Daniel is not mentioned in any Jewish literature until 140 B.C., when the Sibylline Oracles (3:397–400) refer to it. In Baruch 1:15–3:3 (written about 150 B.C.) there is a prayer similar to that in Daniel 9:4 ff. The book of Daniel is also alluded to in I Maccabees 2:59 ff. (written about 125 B.C.). Daniel is referred to 164 times in I Maccabees, the Sibylline Oracles, and Enoch (written about 95 B.C.). (3) Jesus Ben Sirach, about 190 B.C., lists the great men of Jewish history (Ecclesiasticus 44:1–50:24); but among these names that of Daniel is missing. (4) Words borrowed from the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek languages appear in Daniel. (5) Jeremiah is mentioned as a prophet (9:2) and his writings are referred to. (6) In Jeremiah’s time (also the period of Nebuchadrezzar) the Chaldeans are spoken of as a nation or people, referring to the Babylonians; but in the book of Daniel they are known as astrologers, magicians, diviners of truth. (7) The book of Daniel is written partly in Aramaic, a language popular among the Jews in the second century B.C., but not at the time of Nebuchadrezzar. (8) The author has an excellent view of history after the time of Alexander the Great, especially during the Maccabean struggles; but his history shows many inaccuracies during the Babylonian and Persian periods. (9) The theology regarding the resurrection of the dead and ideas about angels show that the author lived at a later time than that of Nebuchadrezzar. The same may be said in regard to his concern for diet, fasting, and ritualistic prayers. (10) The pattern and purpose of the book of Daniel as an apocalypse, which reinterprets history from the time of Nebuchadrezzar until the time of Judas Maccabeus and Antiochus IV, and written in 165 B.C., fits better into the scheme and purpose of Daniel than if the book were written in the period of Nebuchadrezzar, predicting history for the next 450 years.[18]

These critical objections to Daniel may be grouped into six categories: (1) rejection of its canonicity; (2) rejection of detailed prophecy; (3) rejection of miracles; (4) textual problems; (5) problems of language; (6) alleged historical inaccuracies.

Rejection of Its Canonicity

As previously explained, Daniel is included in the Writings, the third section of the Old Testament, not in the prophetic section. Unger has defined the erroneous critical view of this as follows: “Daniel’s prophecy was placed among writings in the third section of the Hebrew canon and not among the prophets in the second division because it was not in existence when the canon of the prophets was closed, allegedly between 300-200 B.C.”[19] However, as noted earlier, Daniel was not included because his work was of a different character than that of the other prophets. Daniel was primarily a government official, and he was not commissioned to preach to the people and deliver an oral message from God as was, for instance, Isaiah or Jeremiah. It is questionable whether his writings were distributed in his lifetime. Further, the Writings were not so classified because they were late in date, since they included such works as Job and 1 and 2 Chronicles, but the division was based on the classification of the material in the volumes. Most importantly, the Writings were considered just as inspired and just as much the Word of God as the Law and the Prophets. This is brought out by the fact that Daniel is included in the Septuagint along with other inspired works, which would indicate that it was regarded as genuinely inspired.

The denial that the book was in existence in the sixth century B.C. disregards the three citations referring to Daniel in Ezekiel (14:14, 20; 28:3), as well as all the evidence in the book itself. Yet, liberal critics tend to disregard the references to Daniel in Ezekiel. Montgomery states, “There is then no reference to our Daniel as an historic person in the Heb. O.T….”[20] Montgomery holds that Ezekiel’s reference is to another character, whom he describes as “the name of an evidently traditional saint.”[21]

The “traditional saint” mentioned by Montgomery refers to a “Daniel” who apparently lived about 1400 B.C. In 1930, several years after Montgomery wrote his commentary, archeologists digging at ancient Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra) found some clay tablets detailing a legend of a Canaanite by the name of Aqhat who was the father of a man called Daniel. In the tablet, Daniel is portrayed as being a friend of widows and orphans, and as a man who was unusually wise and righteous in his judgments. This is the one who Montgomery asserts is referred to in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 as a worthy ancient character on the same plane as Noah and Job. Daniel, the son of Aqhat, however, was a Baal worshiper who prayed to Baal and partook of food in the house of Baal. He is pictured as worshiping his ancestral gods and offering sacrifices to idols. He was also guilty of cursing his enemies and living without a real hope in God.[22] It is hard to imagine that Ezekiel, writing by inspiration, would hold up such a character as an example of a godly man. Such a judgment is hardly in keeping with the facts.[23]

If the Ezekiel references are insufficient, certainly Christ’s clear attestation to the genuineness of Daniel (Matt. 24:15) should be admitted as valid. Boutflower writes,

Now, what is the witness of Christ respecting this Book of Daniel, for it is evident from His position as a teacher, His tastes, and the time at which He lived, that He must know the truth of the matter; whilst from His lofty morality we are sure that He will tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? How does Christ treat this Book, of which the critics form so low an estimate, regarding it as a religious romance with a pseudonymous title, and its prophetic portion as a Jewish apocalypse, a vaticinium post eventum [a “prediction” written with the knowledge that the event has already occurred]? The answer is that this is the Book which Christ specially delights to honour. To Him its title is no pseudonym, but the name of a real person, “Daniel the prophet”—“the prophet” in the sense of one inspired of God to foretell the future, “what shall come to pass hereafter.” Our Saviour in His own great Advent prophecy—Matt. 24—uttered on the eve of His death, quotes this Book of Daniel no less than three times [Matt. 24:15, 21; cp. Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:30; cp. Dan. 7:13].[24]

The discoveries at Qumran have given impetus to the trend to reconsider late dating of such books as the Psalms and 1 and 2 Chronicles. On this basis of recent discoveries, Brownlee indicates that the Maccabean authorship of the Psalms can no longer be held. He states, “If this is true, it would seem that we should abandon the idea of any of the canonical Psalms being of Maccabean date.”[25] Myers gives ample evidence that the Maccabean dating of 1 and 2 Chronicles (after 333 B.C.) is no longer tenable since the publication of the Elephantine materials. He concludes that 1 and 2 Chronicles now must be considered written in the Persian period (538–333 B.C.).[26]

This trend toward recognition of earlier authorship of these portions of the Old Testament points to the inconsistency of maintaining a late date for Daniel. If, on the basis of the Qumran scrolls, Psalms and Chronicles can no longer be held to be Maccabean, then Daniel, on the same kind of evidence, also demands recognition as a production of the Persian period and earlier. Harrison has come to this conclusion: “While, at the time of writing, the Daniel manuscripts from Qumran have yet to be published and evaluated, it appears presumptuous, even in the light of present knowledge, for scholars to abandon the Maccabean dating of certain allegedly late Psalms and yet maintain it with undiminished fervor in the case of Daniel when the grounds for such modification are the same.”[27]

Harrison points out that the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel are all copies; and if the Qumran sect was actually Maccabean in origin itself, it would necessarily imply that the original copy of Daniel must have been at least a half century earlier, which would place it before the time of the book’s alleged Maccabean authorship. The principles adopted by critics in evaluating other manuscripts and assigning them to a much earlier period than had been formerly accepted, if applied to Daniel, would make impossible the liberal critical position that Daniel is a second-century B.C. work. Strangely, liberal critics have been slow to publish and comment upon the Qumran fragments of Daniel that seem to indicate a pre-Maccabean authorship. The facts now before the investigator tend to destroy the arguments of the liberals for a late date for Daniel. The supposed evidence against the canonicity of Daniel is without support. Besides, it is highly questionable whether the Jews living in the Maccabean period would have accepted Daniel if it had not had a previous history of canonicity.

Rejection of Detailed Prophecy

Porphyry had claimed that prophecy is impossible. This claim is based on a rejection of theism in general, a denial of the doctrine of supernatural revelation implicit in the Scriptures, and a disregard of God’s omniscience that includes foreknowledge of all future events. Thus, to claim that prophecy is impossible is to make a dogmatic assertion based on a non-theistic world-view that the Christian need not accept.

A more particular attack, however, is made on the book of Daniel on the ground that it is apocalyptic and therefore unworthy of serious study as prophecy. That there are many spurious apocalyptic works both in the Old Testament period and in the Christian era can be readily granted. The existence of the spurious is not a valid argument against the possibility of genuine apocalyptic revelation, any more than a counterfeit dollar bill is proof that there is no genuine bill, or that the existence of false prophets could invalidate the existence of true prophets. If Daniel were the only apocalyptic work in the entire Scriptures, the argument could be taken more seriously; but the crowning prophetic work of the New Testament, the book of Revelation, provides adequate evidence that the apocalyptic method could be used by God to reveal prophetic truth.

Further, it should be observed in the book of Daniel that apocalyptic visions are not left to human interpretation. Instead, the revelation is given divine interpretation, which delivers it from the vague, obscure, and subjective interpretations of ten necessary in spurious works. Indeed, the problem in Daniel is not that the apocalyptic sections are obscure. Rather, critics object to the clear prophetic truth the book presents.

The argument sometimes advanced, that apocalyptic writings had not yet begun in the sixth century B.C., can be answered by apocalyptic elements found in the contemporary work of Ezekiel and Zechariah and the essential weakness of such an argument from silence. Rather, apocalyptic writings extended over a long period. Conservative scholarship, while admitting the apocalyptic character of the book of Daniel, rejects this as a valid ground for questioning the sixth-century authorship and therefore the genuineness of the book.

Rejection of Miracles

If Daniel is to be considered spurious on the ground that it presents miracles, it would follow that most of the Scriptures would also be eliminated as valid inspired writings. The objection to miracles reveals the essentially naturalistic point of view of some of the critics. Daniel’s miracles are no more unusual than some of those attributed to Christ in the Gospels, to Elijah in the book of 1 Kings, or to Moses and Aaron in the Pentateuch. Indeed, the deliverance of Daniel’s three companions in Daniel 3 and of Daniel himself in Daniel 6 is no more unusual than Christ passing through the mob that was threatening to throw Him over a cliff (Luke 4:29–30) or Peter’s deliverance from prison (Acts 12:5–11). In the biblical context, the rejection of a book because of miraculous incidents must be judged invalid.

Textual Problems

Critics have raised textual problems almost without number in relation to the book of Daniel. But they have also contradicted each other, testifying to the subjective character of these criticisms. Critics have especially concentrated on the Aramaic portions, alleging many redactions and various degrees of tampering with the text; but there is wide divergence in their findings. Wilson, probably the outstanding authority on ancient languages of the Middle East in his day, summarized his findings in these words,

We claim, however, that the composite Aramaic of Daniel agrees in almost every particular of orthography, etymology and syntax with the Aramaic of the North Sem inscriptions of the 9th, 8th and 7th cents. B.C. and of the Egypt papyri of the 5th cent. B.C., and that the vocabulary of Daniel has an admixture of Hebrew, Babylonian and Persian words similar to that of the papyri of the 5th century B.C.; whereas, it differs in composition from the Aramaic of the Nabateans, which is devoid of Persian, Hebrew, and Babylonian words, and is full of Arabisms, and also from that of the Palmyrenes, which is full of Greek words, while having but one or two Persian words, and no Hebrew or Babylonian.[28]

Wilson finds the textual problems are no different from those of other books whose genuineness has not been assailed. While problems of text continue in the book of Daniel as in many other books in the Old Testament, these problems in themselves are not sufficiently supported by factual evidence to justify disbelief in the present text of Daniel. As with many other arguments against Daniel, the presuppositions of the higher critics that lead to these arguments are in themselves suspect; and the widespread disagreement among the critics as to the nature and extent of the textual problems tends to support the conclusion that they are invalid.

Problems of Language

Critics have objected to the presence of various Greek and Persian words in the book of Daniel as if this proved a late date. As brought out in the exposition of Daniel 3 where a number of these Persian and Greek words are found, in the light of archeological discoveries this objection is no longer valid. It has now been proved that one hundred years before Daniel, Greek mercenaries served in the Assyrian armies under the command of Esarhaddon (683 B.C.) as well as in the Babylonian army of Nebuchadnezzar.[29] Wilson has said if Daniel had been written in the second century, there would have been far more Greek words than the few that occur.[30] Yamauchi has also shown that critical objections to Greek words in Daniel are without foundation.[31]

The use of Persian words is certainly not strange in view of the fact that Daniel lived in the early years of the Persian Empire and served as one of its principal officials. He naturally would use contemporary Persian description of various officials in chapter 3 in an effort to update the understanding of these offices for those living after the Persian conquest of Babylon in 539 B.C. It must be concluded that objections to Daniel as a sixth-century writing on the basis of Greek and Persian words is without reasonable scholarly support, and becomes an untenable position in the light of archeological evidence.

Alleged Historical Inaccuracies

Daniel’s supposed inaccuracies will be treated in the exposition, which will demonstrate that there is no factual manuscript discovery that reasonably can be construed as questioning the historical accuracy of Daniel’s statements. On the other hand, it would be most unusual for a writer in the second century B.C. to have had the intimate knowledge of Babylonian history presented in the book of Daniel in view of the probability that the texts and other materials now in our possession may not have been available at that time.

The difficulty of identifying Belshazzar (chap. 5), the source of much critical objection to the accuracy of Daniel on the ground that his name did not occur in ancient literature, has been remedied by precise information provided in the Nabonidus Chronicle. The “historical inaccuracies” have been refuted by the finds of archeology. For example, the coregency of Belshazzar with Nabonidus actually supports an early date for Daniel. The record of Belshazzar’s coregency was lost by the time of Herodotus (ca. 450 B.C.) and was not rediscovered until recently. Josephus illustrates the problem when he mistakenly assumes Nabonidus and Belshazzar (whom he called Naboandelus and Baltasar) were the same person.[32] He does this because all available historical records in his day seemed to identify Nabonidus as the final ruler of Babylon, while Daniel 5 identifies this final ruler as Belshazzar. Josephus assumed they were two different names for the same individual. In reality, Belshazzar was Nabonidus’s son and coregent. That is why in Daniel 5 he could only offer Daniel authority as “third ruler in the kingdom” (v. 16). Cuneiform inscriptions have been discovered that confirm Daniel’s description of the relationship between Nabonidus and Belshazzar.

Questions continue to be raised concerning the identity of Darius the Mede (also considered in the exposition), but the critics’ argument is entirely from silence. Nothing has been found to contradict the conclusion that Darius is either another term for Cyrus himself, or an appointee of Cyrus who was of the Median race and therefore called “the Mede.” As there are several plausible solutions to the identity of Darius the Mede, there is no legitimate ground for objecting to Daniel’s statements because of lack of support in ancient literature. There are hundreds of historical facts in the Bible that cannot be independently verified through external sources, and the Bible itself must be taken as a legitimate ancient manuscript whose testimony should stand until well-established facts raise questions.

Those who claim that Daniel was written in the second century B.C. allege that the “prophecies” relative to the Medo-Persian and Grecian Empires are of ten inaccurate. In particular, the claim is made that Daniel teaches a separate Median kingdom as preceding the Persian kingdom, which is historically inaccurate. But in the first place, the critics seemingly willfully twist Daniel’s words to teach what he does not teach, namely, a separate Median empire. Second, the alleged discrepancy between the prophecy and its fulfillment is in the minds of the critics. Conservative scholars have no difficulty in finding accurate historical fulfillment of genuine prophecies made by Daniel in the sixth century B.C. Here the critics are guilty of circular argument, based on a false premise, which leads to questionable conclusions. The larger issue of the interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy does not in itself invalidate the genuineness of the book, unless it can be demonstrated that the prophecy itself is inaccurate. Up to the present, the critics have not been able to prove this.

Taken as a whole, the critics’ objections to the book of Daniel are of the same kind as those hurled against Scripture and against the doctrine of supernatural revelation. Often the objections are products of the critics’ own theory in which they criticize Daniel for not corresponding to their idea of sixth-century authorship. Prominent in the situation is the argument from silence in which they assume that Daniel is guilty of error until proved otherwise.

The broad historical questions raised in the study of Daniel have been answered by Wilson, who has demonstrated that the critics have not made an adequate case for their theories or conclusions.[33] He shows that the problem is not with facts, as no facts have been discovered that contradict Daniel, but with theories too often supported by circular arguments. The critical arguments have not been confirmed by fact and must be accepted by faith. For the conservative expositor, it is far more preferable to accept the book of Daniel in view of its confirmation by Christ Himself (Matt. 24:15).

INTERPRETATION

Problems of interpretation in Daniel are considered in the exposition of the text. If the premise be granted that the book is genuine Scripture and that detailed prediction of the future as in Daniel may be admitted as genuine, the problems of interpretation are then reduced to determining what the text actually says.

The interpretation of apocalyptic literature such as the visions of Daniel requires special skills and close attention to hermeneutics as it applies to such revelation. Alexander offers twenty-three rules to be used in the interpretation of Old Testament apocalyptic literature.[34] In general, however, the meaning of the text can be ascertained, especially with the help of fulfilled prophecies in history that are now available to the expositor.

Historical records have been kind to Daniel in providing such adequate proofs of the fulfillment of his prophecies that critics want to place his predictions after the events. As pointed out in the exposition, the book of Daniel supports the interpretation that Daniel is presenting truth relative to the four great world empires beginning with Babylon, with the fourth empire definitely prophetic, even from a second-century point of view. The interpretation of chapter 2 is confirmed by chapter 7, which has special revelation concerning the fourth empire in its yet-future stage, and by the considerable detail added in chapter 8 on the Medo-Persian and Grecian Empires. Most, if not all, of chapter 8 was fulfilled in history in the five hundred years from the death of Daniel to the formal beginning of the Roman Empire in 27 B.C.

The compressed prophecy of Daniel 11:36–12:13 is properly regarded as a detailed discussion of “the time of the end,” the period immediately preceding Christ’s second advent. Chapter 9:24–27, giving the broad view of Israel’s history, may be considered fulfilled today with the exception of verse 27, another prophecy of the role of Israel in the years immediately preceding the second advent.

Taken as a whole, the interpretation of Daniel provides a broad outline of God’s program for the Gentiles from Daniel to the second advent, and the program for Israel for the same period with Daniel 9:24 beginning in Nehemiah’s time. The support of these interpretations as opposed to contrary views will be presented in the exposition.

THEOLOGY

In its broad revelation, the book of Daniel provides the same view of God that appears elsewhere in the Old Testament, namely, a God who is sovereign, loving, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and merciful. He is the God of Israel, but He is also the God of the Gentiles. Both of these theses are amply sustained in Daniel.

Although Daniel does not concern himself primarily with messianic prophecy, the first coming of Christ is anticipated in Daniel 9:26, including His death on the cross and the later destruction of Jerusalem. Details of Christ’s second advent are illuminated in chapters 7 and 12.

The doctrine of angels is prominent in the book of Daniel, with Gabriel and Michael named and active in the events of the book. In this, Daniel adds to other Old Testament accounts, but the liberal criticism that Daniel borrowed angelic lore from Babylonian and Persian sources is unjustified and not supported by the text.[35]

In his doctrine of mankind, Daniel fully bears witness to human depravity, to God’s righteous judgment on sinful human beings, and the possibility of mercy and grace, as illustrated in chapter 4 in the conversion of Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel’s clear testimony to resurrection in chapter 12 has been attacked by critics as being out of keeping with his times, as being borrowed from pagan or apocryphal sources, and as being unnoticed by the Minor Prophets who followed him. All of these allegations are without adequate foundation. The doctrine of resurrection is brought out clearly in Job 19:25–26 as normally interpreted. The resurrection of Israel is mentioned in Isaiah 26:19. Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones (chap. 37), while referring to the restoration of Israel nationally, requires the individual resurrection of Israel to accomplish its purpose. Also embedded in the Old Testament are references to the Book of Life or the Book of Remembrance, which is related to resurrection as early as Exodus 32:32–33.

In addition, the Old Testament doctrine of Messiah carries with it a doctrine of resurrection; and this theme begins, of course, in Genesis 3:15. On the other hand, apocryphal books rarely mention the resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous; Archer finds mention only in the Book of the Twelve Patriarchs. Further, as Archer points out, the doctrine of the last judgment (which implies resurrection) is a frequent theme of prophecy as found in Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as well as in many of the Psalms. Accordingly, the objections of critics that Daniel’s doctrine of resurrection was unsuited for the sixth century B.C. was borrowed from pagan sources, or was unnoticed by the Minor Prophets who wrote after Daniel lack evidential support and are contradicted by the facts of Scripture.[36] There is no good reason God could not reveal these truths to Daniel in the sixth century B.C. Of interest is Daniel’s faith that he would be resurrected “at the end of the days,” that is, at the second advent of Christ (Dan. 12:13).

Daniel’s contribution to eschatology is evident with his main theme being the course of history and Israel’s relation to it, culminating in the second advent of Christ. Daniel makes a tremendous contribution to theology in keeping with the broad testimony of Scripture, but constituting a distinct advance in Old Testament revelation.

CONCLUSION

In many respects, the book of Daniel is the most comprehensive prophetic revelation of the Old Testament, giving the only total view of world history from Babylon to the second advent of Christ and interrelating Gentile history and prophecy concerning Israel. Daniel provides the key to the overall interpretation of prophecy, is a major element in premillennialism, and is essential to the interpretation of the book of Revelation. Its revelation of the sovereignty and power of God has brought assurance to Jew and Gentile alike that God will fulfill His sovereign purposes in time and eternity.

NOTES

[1] Cf. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 8.

[2] Ibid., 5–7. For details on the dating of Ezekiel’s prophecies, see Charles H. Dyer, “Ezekiel,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1,224–25. Ezekiel’s first mention of Daniel, in chapter 14, took place between September 17, 592 B.C. (8:1) and August 14, 591 B.C. (20:1). Daniel had already been serving in the court of Nebuchadnezzar for about a decade when Ezekiel used him as an example in this chapter.

[3] Robert Dick Wilson, “Book of Daniel,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 2, James Orr, ed. (Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1930), 783.

[4] J. Barton Payne, “Book of Daniel,” Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Merrill C. Tenney, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 198.

[5] Ralph Alexander, “Hermeneutics of Old Testament Apocalyptic Literature” (abstract, doctoral diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968), 1.

[6] Ibid. However, Miller argues for limiting those works identified as apocalyptic even further. “An examination of the Old and New Testament canons reveals that only two books contain material that conforms to the above criteria: the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel (particularly chaps. 7–12). Therefore it seems best to limit the canonical apocalyptic material to these two compositions.” Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 46.

[7] Cf. H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of the Apocalyptic, 2nd ed. (London: Lutterworth, 1952), 29–55; and Stanley B. Frost, Old Testament Apocalyptic (London: Epworth, 1952), 178–209.

[8] Cf. W. J. Martin, “Language of the Old Testament,” The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 712–13.

[9] William H. Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible (New York: oxford, 1964), 36.

[10] S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), lix–lx.

[11] Martin, “Language,” 712; cf. Wilson, “Book of Daniel,” 2:784.

[12] Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 377–78.

[13] Cf. Robert D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody, n.d.), 95–104; and Carl August Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations of St. John (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1857), 27–31.

[14] Cf. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 784.

[15] Cf. Ibid., 787.

[16] Miller, Daniel, 50.

[17] Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, Gleason L. Archer Jr., trans. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 15–16.

[18] Thomas S. Kepler, Dreams of the Future, Bible Guides, William Barclay and F. F. Bruce, eds., no. 22 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1963), 32–33.

[19] Merrill F. Unger, New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, R. K. Harrison, ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 276.

[20] James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 3.

[21] Ibid., 2.

[22] James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 149–55.

[23] Cf. W. A. Criswell, Expository Sermons on the Book of Daniel, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968), 54. Dyer notes the problems ignored by such critics. “The Prophet Daniel, well known in Babylon, would have been familiar to Ezekiel and his audience. There is no indication in the Old Testament that the mythical character Dan’el was known to the Jews or accepted as a model of righteousness. It was Ezekiel’s purpose (Ezek. 14:1–11) to lambast idolatry. Would he use an idolatrous myth as a model of righteousness? By contrast, the biblical Daniel is the perfect example of a man who refused to compromise his beliefs.” Dyer, “Ezekiel,” 1,254.

[24] Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 287–88.

[25] Brownlee, Qumran Scrolls, 30. Wood explains the problem for liberal scholars in this way: “Manuscript fragments of the book have been found in Cave I and Cave IV of Wadi Qumran, and these date to at least the first century, and probably the second, B.C., which makes the date of 165 B.C. for the writing of the book, as held by liberals, most unlikely.” Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 20.

[26] Jacob M. Myers, I Chronicles, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), LXXXVII If.

[27] R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 1,118.

[28] Wilson, “Book of Daniel,” 785.

[29] Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, 143.

[30] Robert Dick Wilson, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” in Biblical and Theological Studies (Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1912), 296.

[31] Edwin M. Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 17–24. See also his article “Archaeological Backgrounds of the Exilic and Postexilic Era, Part I: The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137, no. 3 (January–March 1980), 13.

[32] Josephus, Antiquities 1.11.2.

[33] Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, 2 vols. (vol. 1: New York: Putnam, 1917; vol. 2: New York: Revell, 1938; 2 in 1 vol., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).

[34] Alexander, “Hermeneutics of Old Testament Apocalyptic Literature,” 2.

[35] Cf. Rowley, The Relevance of the Apocalyptic, 56–57.

[36] R. D. Wilson shows that the Egyptians believed in resurrection more than 3,000 years before Daniel and that Babylonians also commonly believed in a doctrine of resurrection (Wilson, Studies, 124–27). Cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 84 ff.; and Archer, Survey, 380–81. Montgomery states, “Daniel’s specialty in visions and dreams does not belong to the highest category of revelation, that of prophecy; the Prophets had long since passed away, 1 Mac. 4:46, and the highest business of the Jewish sage was the interpretation of their oracles” (Daniel, 132). Montgomery rejects, of course, a sixth-century B.C. date for Daniel, well before the last of the prophets. For refutation, see Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 49–50.

1

Early Life of Daniel in Babylon

The first chapter of Daniel is a beautifully written, moving story of the early days of Daniel and his Jewish companions in Babylon. In condensed form, it records the historical setting for the entire book. Moreover, it sets the tone as essentially the history of Daniel—who may have been a member of Judah’s royal family (Dan. 1:3; cf. Isa. 39:6–7)—and his experiences in contrast to the prophetic approach of the other major prophets, who were divine spokesmen to Israel.

In spite of being properly classified as a prophet, Daniel was a governmental servant and a faithful historian of God’s dealings with him. Although shorter than prophetic books such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, the book of Daniel is the most comprehensive and sweeping revelation recorded by any prophet of the Old Testament. The introductory chapter explains how Daniel was called, prepared, matured, and blessed by God. With the possible exceptions of Moses and Solomon, Daniel was the most learned man in the Old Testament and very thoroughly trained for his important role in history and literature.

THE CAPTIVITY OF JUDAH (1:1–2)

1:1–2 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God. And he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god.

The book of Daniel is set in the Jewish diaspora (dispersion after exile) and “the times of the Gentiles.” The opening verses succinctly give the historical setting, including the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the first of three deportations. According to Daniel, the deportation of him and his companions occurred “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah,” which was 605 B.C. Parallel accounts are found in 2 Kings 24:1 and 2 Chronicles 36:5–7. Daniel doesn’t record the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon in 586 B.C. From his perspective the time of Gentile domination began at this first deportation. These events were the fulfillment of many warnings from the prophets of Israel’s coming disaster because of the nation’s sins against God. Israel had forsaken the law and ignored God’s covenant (Isa. 24:1–6) and had neglected the Sabbath day and the sabbatical year (Jer. 34:12–22). The seventy years of the captivity were, in effect, God claiming the Sabbath, which Israel had violated, in order to give the land rest.

The people of Israel had also given themselves to idolatry (1 Kings 11:5; 12:28; 16:31; 18:19; 2 Kings 21:3–5; 2 Chron. 28:2–3), and had been solemnly warned of God’s coming judgment in relation to this sin (Jer. 7:24–8:3; 44:20–23). But the people failed to heed God and repent, so they were carried off captive to Babylon, a center of idolatry and one of the most evil cities in the ancient world. It is significant that after the Babylonian captivity, idolatry such as that which caused the nation’s judgment and exile was never again a major temptation to Israel.

In keeping with their violation of the Law and their departure from the true worship of God, Israel had lapsed into terrible moral apostasy. Of this, all the prophets spoke again and again. Isaiah’s opening message is typical of this theme song of the prophets: Israel was a “sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged” (Isa. 1:4). The capture of Jerusalem and the exile of these first captives were the beginning of the end for the holy city, which had been made magnificent by David and Solomon. When the Word of God is ignored and violated, divine judgment is inevitable. The spiritual lessons embodied in the cold fact of the captivity may well be pondered by the church today, which too often has a form of godliness but without its power. Worldly saints do not capture the world but become instead the world’s captives.

Daniel’s dating of his exile as 605 B.C. has long been attacked as inaccurate by critics. They point out an apparent conflict between this and the statement of Jeremiah that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 25:1). This supposed chronological error is used as the first in a series of alleged proofs that Daniel is a spurious book written by one unfamiliar with the events of the captivity. There are, however, several good explanations.

One explanation is that Daniel is using Babylonian reckoning (cf. the discussion in the introduction on Nabonidus and Belshazzar). It was customary for the Babylonians to consider the first year of a king’s reign as the year of accession and to call the next year the first year. Finegan has demonstrated that the phrase “the first year of Nebuchadnezzar” in Jeremiah actually means “the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar”[1] In the Babylonian reckoning. Tadmor was among the first to support this solution, and the point may now be considered as well established.[2]

Daniel is a most unusual case because he of all the prophets was the only one thoroughly instructed in Babylonian culture and point of view. Having spent most of his life in Babylon, it is only natural that Daniel should use a Babylonian form of chronology, and date Jehoiakim’s reign from his second year. By contrast, Jeremiah would use Israel’s form of reckoning that included a part of the year as the first year of Jehoiakim’s reign. This simple explanation is both satisfying and adequate to explain the supposed discrepancy.

A second, though less likely, interpretation is suggested by Leupold,[3] who points to the reference in 2 Kings 24:1 where Jehoiakim is said to submit to Nebuchadnezzar for three years. This view is built on the assumption that there was an earlier raid on Jerusalem, not recorded elsewhere in the Bible, which is indicated in Daniel 1:1. Key to the chronology of events in this crucial period in Israel’s history was the battle at Carchemish in May–June 605 B.C., a date well established by D. J. Wiseman.[4] There Nebuchadnezzar met Pharaoh Necho and destroyed the Egyptian army; this occurred “in the fourth year of Jehoiakim” (Jer. 46:2).

Leupold believes the invasion of Daniel 1: 1 took place prior to this battle, instead of immediately afterward. He points out that the usual assumption that Nebuchadnezzar could not have bypassed Carchemish to conquer Jerusalem first, on the theory that Carchemish was a stronghold which he could not ignore, is not actually supported by the facts. To support this, Leupold says there is no evidence that the Egyptian armies were in any strength at Carchemish until just before the battle that resulted in the showdown. In this case, the capture of Daniel would be a year earlier or about 606 B.C.

But Leupold’s suggested solution to the apparent chronological discrepancy seems rather strained, especially since the first explanation reconciles the two dates in a way that acknowledges the unique dating systems being used at that time. Both Finegan[5] and Thiele,[6] who were recognized authorities on biblical chronology, believe the dates can be harmonized through a proper understanding of the specific dating systems being used by Daniel and Jeremiah. Thiele assumes Daniel employed a calendar in which the new year began in the fall in the month Tishri (September–October) while Jeremiah based his dates on a calendar in which the new year began in the spring in the month Nisan (March–April). According to the Babylonian Chronicle, “Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of Ha[ma]th,”[7] an area that includes all of Syria and the territory south to the borders of Egypt, in the late spring or early summer of 605. This would be Jehoiakim’s fourth year according to the Nisan reckoning and the third year according to the Tishri calendar.

The probability is that either Wiseman or Thiele is right, and that Daniel was carried away captive shortly after the capture of Jerusalem in the summer of 605 B.C. In any case, the evidence makes quite untenable the charge that the chronological information of Daniel is inaccurate. Rather, it is entirely in keeping with information available outside the Bible and supports the view that Daniel is a genuine book.

According to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, described as “king of Babylon,” besieged Jerusalem successfully. If this occurred before the battle of Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar was not as yet king. The king was his father, Nabopolasser, who died while Nebuchadnezzar was away in battle. Nebuchadnezzar heard of his father’s death and hurried back to Babylon to be crowned as king. Daniel, writing after the fact, used the title “king” in reference to Nebuchadnezzar in anticipation of his ascension to the throne. The proleptic use of such a title is so common (e.g., in the statement “King David as a boy was a shepherd”) that this does not cause a serious problem.

Daniel records that Jehoiakim was subdued, and that Nebuchadnezzar brought “some of the vessels of the house of God … to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god.” “Shinar” is a term used for Babylon with the nuance of a place hostile to faith. It is associated with Nimrod (Gen. 10:10), became the locale of the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:2), and is the place to which Zechariah prophesies evil will someday return (Zech. 5:11).

The expression “he brought” (v. 2) is best taken as referring only to the vessels and not to the deportation of captives. Critics, again, have found fault with this as an inaccuracy because nowhere else is it expressly said that Daniel and his companions were carried away at this time. The obvious answer is that mention of taking captives is unnecessary in the light of the context of the following verses, where their deportation to Babylon is discussed in detail. There was no need to mention it twice.

Bringing the vessels to the house of Nebuchadnezzar’s god Marduk[8] was a natural religious gesture, which would attribute the victory of the Babylonians over Israel to Babylonian deities. Later, other vessels were added to the collection (2 Chron. 36:18), and they all appeared on the fateful night of Belshazzar’s feast in Daniel 5. This fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy, spoken a century before, that the wealth of Jerusalem would be carried off to Babylon (Isa. 39:6).

JEWISH YOUTHS SELECTED FOR TRAINING (1:3–7)

1:3–7 Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.

In explanation of how he and his companions arrived in Babylon, Daniel records that the king commanded his servant Ashpenaz to bring some of the Israelites to Babylon for training to serve in the court. The name Ashpenaz, according to Horn, “appears in the Aramaic incantation texts from Nippur as ‘SPNZ, and is probably attested in the Cuneiform records as Ashpazdnda.”[9] The significance of the name Ashpenaz has been much debated, but it seems best to agree with Young that “its etymology is uncertain.”[10]

It is probable that the term “eunuchs” refers to important servants of the king, such as Potiphar (Gen. 37:36), who was married. It is not stated that the Jewish youths were made actual eunuchs, as Josephus assumes.[11] Isaiah had predicted this years before (Isa. 39:7), and Young supports the broader meaning of eunuch by the Targum rendering of the Isaiah passage that uses the word nobles for eunuchs.[12] However, because the word saris means both “court officer” and “castrate,” scholars are divided on the question of whether both meanings are intended.

Montgomery states, “It is not necessary to draw the conclusion that the youths were made eunuchs, as [Josephus] hints: ‘he made some of them eunuchs.’”[13] Charles writes in commenting on the description in Daniel 1:4, “without blemish”: “The perfection here asserted is physical, as in Lev. 21:17. Such perfection could not belong to eunuchs.”[14] Ultimately the choice is left to the interpreter, although, as indicated above, many favor the thought of “court officer.”

Those selected for royal service are described as being from “the royal family” and “the nobility” of Israel. These young men came from the southern kingdom of Judah, not the northern kingdom of Israel, which had already been carried off into captivity. The reference to them being from Israel means that they were indeed Israelites—that is, descendants of Jacob.

The Hebrew for nobility is derived from a Persian word, partemim, which is cited as another proof for a late date of Daniel. However, given that Daniel served under the Persian government as a high official in the latter years of his life, there is nothing strange about an occasional Persian word. Moreover, it is not even clear that the word is strictly Persian, as its origin is uncertain.[15]

In selecting these youths for education in his court in Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar was accomplishing several objectives. Those carried away captive could well serve as hostages to help keep the royal family still in Judah in line. Their presence in the king’s court would also be a pleasant reminder to the Babylonian king of his conquest and success in battle. Further, their careful training and preparation to be his servants might serve Nebuchadnezzar well in the later administration of Jewish affairs.

The specifications for those selected are carefully itemized in verse 4. They were to have no physical blemish and were to be “of good appearance.” They were to be superior intellectually, and their previous education as children of the nobility certainly was a factor. Their capacity to have understanding in “learning” should not be taken in the modern sense, but rather as referring to their skill in all areas of learning of their day. So the total physical, personal, and intellectual capacities of Daniel and his companions, as well as their cultural background, were factors in the choice. Their training, however, was to separate them from their previous Jewish culture and environment and teach them “the literature and language of the Chaldeans.”

The reference to Chaldeans may be to the Chaldean people as a whole or to a special class of learned men, as in Daniel 2:2—i.e., those designated as kasdim. The use of the same word for the nation as a whole and for a special class is confusing, but not necessarily unusual. The meaning here may include both: the general learning of the Chaldeans and specifically the learning of wise men, such as astrologers. It is most significant that this learning was of no help to Daniel and his friends when it came to the supreme test of interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Their age at the time of their training is not specified, but they were probably in their early teens.

Although an education such as this did not in itself violate the religious scruples of Jewish youths, their environment and circumstances soon presented some real challenges. Among these was the daily provision of food and wine from the king’s table. Ancient literature contains many references to this practice. Oppenheim lists deliveries of oil for the sustenance of dependents of the royal household in ancient literature and includes specific mention of food for the sons of the king of Judah in a tablet dating from the tenth to the thirty-fifth year of Nebuchadnezzar II.[16] Such food was “appointed,” or “assigned, in the sense of numerical distribution.”[17]

The expression “a daily portion” is literally “a portion of the day in its day.” The word for “food” (Heb. pathbagh), according to Leupold, “is a Persian loan word from the Sanscrit pratibagha.”[18] Although it is debatable whether the word specifically means “delicacies,” as Young considers that it means “assignment,”[19] the implication is certainly there that the royal food was lavish and properly called “rich food” (as in the RSV).[20]

Nebuchadnezzar’s bountiful provision was intended to give Daniel and his companions ample food supplies for their three-year education. The expression “to be educated for three years” refers to training that would be given a child. The goal was to bring them to intellectual maturity to “stand before the king,” equivalent to becoming his servants and thereby taking a place of responsibility.

In verse 6, Daniel and his three companions—Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah—are mentioned as being children of Judah included among the captives. No other names are given; the corrupting influences of Babylon were probably too much for the other captives, and they were useless in God’s hands.

The name “Daniel” is used of at least three other characters besides the prophet Daniel (1 Chron. 3:1, a son of David; Ezra 8:2, a son of Ithamar; and in Neh. 10:6, a priest). Conservative scholars, however, find a reference to the prophet Daniel in Ezekiel 14:14, 20, and Ezekiel 28:3. As pointed out in the introduction, critics usually dispute this identification as this would argue against their contention that the book of Daniel is a second-century B.C. forgery.

As noted previously, however, it would be significant and natural for Ezekiel, a captive, to mention one of his own people who, though also a captive, had risen to a place of power second only to the king. Jewish captives would not only regard Daniel as their hero, but as a godly example, and someone who could hopefully use his influence to keep Nebuchadnezzar from destroying Jerusalem.[21] The contention of critics that Ezekiel is referring to a mythological character mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts (dated 1500–1200 B.C.) is, as Young states, “extremely questionable.”[22]

The change in the name of Daniel and his three companions focuses attention upon the meaning of both their Hebrew and Babylonian names (see accompanying chart). Significantly, their Hebrew names indicate their relationship to the God of Israel, and suggest devout parents. This perhaps explains why these, in contrast to the other young men, are found true to God: they had godly homes in their earlier years. Even in the days of Israel’s apostasy, there were those like Elijah’s seven thousand in Israel who did not bow the knee to Baal (cf. 1 Kings 19:18).

Part of the assimilation process was to give the young men Babylonian names to help in their cultural transformation, as was customary when an individual entered a new situation (cf. Gen. 17:5; 41:45; 2 Sam. 12:24–25; 2 Kings 23:34; 24:17; Esth. 2:7).[23] Renaming also shows that they were now under the authority of the Babylonians. Much like Adam giving names to the animals in Genesis 2, “Name-giving in the ancient Orient was primarily an exercise of sovereignty, of command.”[24] The goal of the program was to make these future leaders thoroughly Babylonian in their thoughts and actions.

Daniel, in his later writing, generally prefers his own Hebrew name, but frequently uses the Babylonian names of his companions. The fact that the Hebrew youths were given pagan names, however, does not indicate that they departed from the Hebrew faith any more than in the case of Joseph (Gen. 41:45).

DANIEL’S PURPOSE NOT TO DEFILE HIMSELF (1:8–10)

1:8–10 But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself. And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs, and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king.”

Daniel and his companions were confronted with the problem of compromise in the matter of eating food provided by Nebuchadnezzar which, no doubt, indicated the king’s favor. Daniel, however, “resolved” or literally “laid upon his heart” not to defile himself (cf. Isa. 42:25; 47:7; 57:1, 11; Mal. 2:2).

There are several possible reasons for Daniel’s decision.[25] It’s possible the food provided did not meet the requirements of the Mosaic law in that it was not prepared according to regulations and may have included meat from forbidden animals. And while there was no complete prohibition against drinking wine in the law, here the problem was that the wine, as well as the meat, had been dedicated to idols as was customary in Babylon. To eat and drink of this food would be to recognize the idols as deities.

A close parallel to Daniel’s purpose not to defile himself is found in the book of Tobit (1:10–11 RSV) which refers to the exiles of the northern tribes: “When I was carried away captive to Nineveh, all my brethren and my relatives ate the food of the Gentiles: but I kept myself from eating it, because I remembered God with all my heart.” A similar reference is found in 1 Maccabees (1:62–63 RSV): “But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die.”[26]

The problem of whether Daniel and his companions should eat the food provided by the king was a supreme test of their fidelity to the law and probably served the practical purpose of separating Daniel and his three companions from the other captives who apparently could compromise in this matter. His decision also demonstrates Daniel’s understanding that God had brought Israel into captivity because of their failure to observe the law. Daniel’s handling of this problem sets the spiritual tone for the entire book.

Daniel’s approach also reflects his good judgment and common sense. Instead of inviting punishment by rebellion, he courteously requests of the chief prince of the eunuchs that he might be excused from eating food that would defile his conscience (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31). He offered a creative compromise to achieve the goal of the king without violating his religious principles. Although critics attempt to equate this abstinence with fanaticism and thereby link it to the Maccabean period,[27] there is no excuse for such a charge since Daniel handles the situation with sagacity. Leupold points out that Daniel did not object to the Babylonian names given to them nor to their education that involved the learning of the Chaldeans, including their religious views.[28] These were not a direct conflict with the Jewish law. But here Daniel is exercising a proper conscience in matters that were of real importance.

When Daniel made his request to the chief of the eunuchs, God gave Daniel favor and compassion with this official. The word “favor” (Heb. hesed) means kindness or good will. “Compassion” translates a plural term intended to denote deep sympathy. It is clear that God intervened on Daniel’s behalf in preparing the way for his request.

Ashpenaz, however, was not speaking idly when he replied to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king,” for if he did not fulfill his role well he well might lose his “head,” an apt picture of the potential life-and-death consequences for disobeying the king. Ashpenaz did not want to be caught changing the king’s orders for the captives’ diets, knowing that if they showed any ill effects, he would be held responsible. The expression “worse condition” does not imply any dangerous illness, but only difference of appearance, such as paleness or perhaps excessive thinness.

DANIEL’S REQUEST FOR A TEN-DAY TEST (1:11–14)

1:11–14 Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had assigned over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, “Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king’s food be observed by you, and deal with your servants according to what you see.” So he listened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days.

Ashpenaz could have simply denied Daniel’s request without discussion. But his attempt to explain the problem opened the door for Daniel’s counterproposal (vv. 12–13), a ten-day test period. Montgomery observes, “Dan. then appeals privately to a lower official, the ‘warden,’ as the Heb. word means, who was charged with the care of the youths and their diet…. Tradition has rightly distinguished between this official and the Chief Eunuch.”[29]

The King James Version indicates this request is made to Melzar, but the probability is that this is not a proper name and simply means “the steward” or the chief attendant.[30] The Septuagint changes the text here to indicate that Daniel had actually spoken to “Abiezdri who had been appointed chief eunuch over Daniel.” Critics have used this as a basis for questioning the text of Daniel with the idea that Daniel would not speak to the steward but would rather continue his conversation with the chief of eunuchs. Young, after Calvin, refutes this idea, however, and believes that Daniel’s action is perfectly natural and in keeping with the situation.[31] Having been refused permission for a permanent change in diet, Daniel naturally took the next step of attempting a brief trial. As Montgomery points out, “An underling might grant the boon without fear of discovery.”[32] The chief steward, not being in as close or responsible a position as Ashpenaz in relation to the king, could afford to take a chance.

The trial was a reasonable length of time to test a diet and yet one that would not entail too much risk of incurring the wrath of the king. The request to eat vegetables included a broad category of food. Young agrees with Driver that this did not limit the diet to peas and beans but to food that grows out of the ground, i.e., “the sown things.”[33] Miller suggests the word would include “not only vegetables but fruits, grains, and bread that is made from grains.”[34] Calvin may be right that Daniel had a special revelation from God in seeking this permission and for this reason the youth made the proposal that at the end of the ten days their appearance should be examined and judgment rendered accordingly.[35] The steward granted their request, and the test was begun.

DANIEL’S REQUEST GRANTED (1:15–16)

1:15–16 At the end of ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youths who ate the king’s food. So the steward took away their food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables.

After the ten days, Daniel and his companions were clearly in better health than those who had eaten the king’s food. Although God’s blessing was on these young men, it is not necessary to imagine any supernatural act of God here. The food they were eating was actually better for them. On the basis of the test their request was granted, and their vegetable diet continued.

GOD’S BLESSING ON DANIEL AND HIS COMPANIONS (1:17–21)

1: 17–21 As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all literature and wisdom, and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. At the end of the time, when the king had commanded that they should be brought in, the chief of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king spoke with them, and among all of them none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Therefore they stood before the king. And in every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his kingdom. And Daniel was there until the first year of King Cyrus.

These verses are an amazing summary of the three years of hard study and the result of God’s blessing upon the four faithful young men. By the time they completed their education, Daniel and his three friends were probably nearly twenty years of age. In addition to their natural intellectual ability and their evident careful attention to their studies, God added His grace. The definite article precedes the name of God (v. 17), indicating that the true God of Israel was the one who was responsible for their success.

The words used to describe the men’s knowledge and skills indicate that they not only had a thorough understanding of the learning of the Chaldeans, but that they had insight into its true meaning (cf. James 1:5). Calvin is probably wrong that they were kept from study of the religious superstitions and magic that characterized the Chaldeans.[36] In order to be fully competent to meet the issues of their future life, they would need a thorough understanding of the religious practices of their day. Here the grace of God operated, however, in giving them understanding so they could distinguish between the true and the false. They not only had knowledge, but also discernment.

As Keil puts it, Daniel “needed to be deeply versed in the Chaldean wisdom, as formerly Moses was in the wisdom of Egypt (Acts vii. 22), so as to be able to put to shame the wisdom of this world by the hidden wisdom of God.”[37]

Although all four youths were skilled in Chaldean learning and were able to separate the true from the false, only Daniel had understanding “in all visions and dreams.” This was not an incidental remark but a fact necessary to understand Daniel’s role as a prophet in later chapters. In this, Daniel differed from his companions as a true prophet. His ability to interpret visions and dreams primarily related to the dreams and visions of others. However, this did not include the ability to know Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2, which Daniel received only after earnest prayer, and it did not necessarily as yet give Daniel the capacity to have visions and dreams himself as he did in chapter 7 and beyond.

Daniel’s capacity included distinguishing a significant dream from one that had no revelatory meaning and also the power to interpret it correctly. God’s hand was already on Daniel even as a young man, much as it was on Samuel centuries before. Although critics deprecate the significance and the importance of the prophetic gift in Daniel on the assumption of a second-century date for the book, it becomes quite clear as the book progresses that though Daniel differed somewhat from the major prophets, his contribution is just as important, and in fact more extensive than that of any other book of the Old Testament.[38] To no other was the broad expanse of both Gentile and Hebrew futures revealed with the same precision.

The four young captives’ three-year period of preparation ends with a personal interview before Nebuchadnezzar. At this time, apparently all of the young men in training were tested by the king.

Under Nebuchadnezzar’s searching questions, Daniel and his three companions, named with their Hebrew names, proved to be far superior to the king’s own “magicians and enchanters.” The statement that they were “ten times better,” literally, “ten hands,” at first glance sounds extravagant, but signifies that they were outstandingly different. Even this praise, however, is mentioned in a matter-of-fact way and was so evidently due to the grace of God that Daniel is delivered from the charge of boasting. Their upright character and honesty, as well as the deep insight of these young men into the real meaning of their studies, must have stood in sharp contrast to the wise men of the king’s court, who often were more sly and cunning than wise. Nebuchadnezzar, himself an extraordinarily intelligent man, was quick to respond to these bright young minds.

Chapter 1 concludes with the simple statement that Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus. Critics have seized upon this as another inaccuracy because, according to Daniel 10:1, the revelation was given to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus. The large discussion that this has provoked is much ado about nothing. Obviously, to Daniel, the important point was that his ministry spanned the entire Babylonian empire, and he was still alive when Cyrus came on the scene. The passage does not say nor imply that Daniel did not continue after the first year of Cyrus—which, as a matter of fact, he did. A similar expression is used to describe Jeremiah’s ministry extending “until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah” (Jer. 1:3), even though Jeremiah 40–43 show his ministry extending beyond that time. In both instances the phrase indicates that the prophet’s ministry extended through the period in question, without implying that the ministry ended with that period.

The attempts to dislodge both verses 20 and 21 as illustrated in the comments of Charles, who wants to put them at the end of the second chapter, have been satisfactorily answered by Young.[39] Charles argues, “If the king had found the Jewish youths ten times wiser than all the sages of Babylon he would naturally have consulted them before the wise men of Babylon, and not have waited till, in ii.16, they volunteered their help.”[40] This is, however, an arbitrary change in the text. Though the events of chapter 2 likely follow chronologically after the end of chapter 1, the test at the end of the three-year period only demonstrated proficiency in study, not ability to interpret dreams as in chapter 2.

In a society that equated age with wisdom, four newly appointed sages, even if they did graduate at the top of their class, would still be considered inferior to the king’s senior advisors. There is no indication in chapter 1 that they were immediately given the rank of chief wise men. Therefore, they were not called to interpret the dream of chapter 2. A similar situation is found in chapter 5, where Daniel, even with his record of interpreting dreams and visions, is not called in until others have failed. As will be pointed out in the discussion of Daniel 2:1, it is also possible that the vision of Daniel 2 and the interpretation of the dream occurred during the third year of Daniel’s training, before the formal presentation of the four youths to the king. If so, this would answer objections to the statement of Daniel 1:20, as it would place Daniel’s graduation after the events of Daniel 2. That the book of Daniel is not written in strict chronological order is evident from the placing of chapters 5 and 6 before chapters 7 and 8, out of chronological order. In any case, there is no justification for arbitrary criticism of Daniel’s record.

The narrative as it stands is beautifully complete—an eloquent testimony to the power and grace of God in a dark hour of Israel’s history when the faithfulness of Daniel and his companions shines all the brighter because it occurs in the context of Israel’s captivity and apostasy. Certainly Daniel would not have been recognized as a prophet of God and a channel of divine revelation if he had not been a man of prayer and uncompromising moral character, whom God could honor fittingly. Daniel and his companions represent the godly remnant of Israel that preserved the testimony of God even in dark hours of apostasy and divine judgment. The noble example of these young men will serve to encourage Israel in their great trials in the time of the end.

In every age, God is looking for those whom He can use. Here were four young men whose testimony has been a source of strength to believers everywhere facing trials and temptation.

NOTES

[1] Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 202.

[2] Hayim Tadmor, “Chronicle of the Last Kings of Judah,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 15 (October 1956), 227.

[3] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 47–54.

[4] D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1961), 20–26.

[5] Finegan, Handbook, 194–201.

[6] Edwin R. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 166.

[7] A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1970; repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 99.

[8] Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 38.

[9] Siegfried H. Horn, Seventh Day Adventist Dictionary of the Bible (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald, 1960), 83.

[10] Young, Daniel, 39.

[11] Flavius Josephus, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, trans. (repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1980), 222.

[12] Young, Daniel, 39.

[13] James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 3.

[14] Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 7.

[15] In his discussion, Leupold observes correctly, “Critics should use uncertain terms with proper caution” (Leupold, Daniel, 59).

[16] L. Oppenheim, “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed., James Pritchard, ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 308.

[17] Montgomery, Daniel, 127.

[18] Leupold, Daniel, 62. See Montgomery, Daniel, 127–28 for a complete discussion; cf. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon to the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 834.

[19] Young, Daniel, 42.

[20] The privilege of sitting at the king’s table is discussed by Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, John McHugh, trans. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1961), 120–23.

[21] For more reasons why Ezekiel 14:14, 20 refer to Daniel the prophet see the comments on Ezekiel 14:12–20 in Charles H. Dyer, “Ezekiel,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1,253–54.

[22] Young, Daniel, 274.

[23] Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 79; Young, Daniel, 43.

[24] Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 83.

[25] Goldingay gives seven possible reasons why Daniel and his friends would have considered the food to be defiling. John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 18.

[26] Cf. Judith 12:1–4; Book of Jubilees 22:16; and the interesting account in Josephus, Life 3 (14), where we hear of certain Jewish priests in Rome who avoided defilement with Gentile food by living solely on figs and nuts (cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 130).

[27] Young, Daniel, 45.

[28] Leupold credits Kliefoth with expressing this concept. Leupold, Daniel, 66.

[29] Montgomery, Daniel, 131.

[30] Cf. Leupold, Daniel, 70; Keil, Daniel, 81.

[31] Young, Daniel, 45–46.

[32] Montgomery, Daniel, 131. See also René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on Daniel, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 20, who write, “Having failed to get Ashpenaz to agree to his proposal, Daniel goes to a lesser official.”

[33] Young, Daniel, 46; cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 132.

[34] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 69.

[35] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, vol. 1, Thomas Myers, trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852), 105.

[36] Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 1:112.

[37] Keil, Daniel, 83.

[38] Montgomery states, “Dan.’s specialty in visions and dreams does not belong to the highest category of revelation, that of prophecy; the Prophets had long since passed away, 1 Mac. 4:46, and the highest business of the Jewish sage was the interpretation of their oracles” (Montgomery, Daniel, 132). Montgomery rejects, of course, a sixth-century B.C. date for Daniel, well before the last of the prophets. For refutation, see Young, Daniel, 49–50.

[39] Young, Daniel, 52–53.

[40] Charles, Daniel, 12.

2

Nebuchadnezzar’s Vision of the Great Image

Beginning with the second chapter of Daniel, the grand outline of God’s program for world history during the period of Gentile supremacy and the chastisement of Israel is presented for the first time.

What is true of the book in general is especially true of chapter 2. Nowhere else in Scripture, except in Daniel 7, is a more comprehensive picture given of world history as it stretched from the time of Daniel, six hundred years before Christ, to the consummation at the second advent of Christ. It is most remarkable that Daniel was not only given this broad revelation of the course of what Christ called “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24), but also the chronological prophecy of Israel’s history stretching from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the Lord’s second advent. These two major foci of the book justify the general description of Daniel as world history in outline with special reference to Israel.

Interpretations of the book of Daniel, and especially chapter 2, divide into two broad categories. Those critics who label Daniel a second-century forgery challenge the prophetic meaning of chapter 2 at every turn, asserting that Daniel is merely recording history. If they are right, an exposition of this chapter becomes a meaningless interpretation of a curious but unimportant document.

On the other hand, reverent scholars have consistently defended the authenticity of this book as a genuine portion of the Word of God written by Daniel in the sixth century B.C. A sensible explanation of the broad prophecies that chapter 2 details can be made only if this second view is adopted.

Among those who regard this chapter as genuine Scripture, there is a further subdivision into two classes: (1) those who interpret the vision from the amillennial or postmillennial point of view; (2) those who interpret the vision from a premillennial perspective, which is the position of this book. The difference here resolves itself largely in differing views of how the image is destroyed, and how the revelation relates to the present age and the two advents of Christ. Few chapters of the Bible are more determinative in establishing both the principles and content of prophecy than Daniel 2; its study, accordingly, is crucial to any system of prophetic interpretation.

chapters 2–7 form a chiastic pattern that offers encouragement and hope to the Jews in the times of the Gentiles. Beginning in 2:4 Daniel switched from Hebrew (the language of Israel) to Aramaic (the “international” language of the day). This change in language highlights Daniel’s focus on the “times of the Gentiles” that would exist from his day until God established His messianic kingdom. chapters 2 and 7 explain the succession of four Gentile empires that would exert control over Jerusalem and the Jews until God finally establishes His kingdom. chapters 3 and 6 warn the Jews of the persecution they would face during this period and exhort them to remain faithful to God in spite of this persecution. chapters 4 and 5 encourage the Jewish remnant by reminding them that a time would come when even the Gentile rulers would acknowledge that the God of Israel was ruling over the nations.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR HAS TROUBLING DREAMS (2:1)

2:1 In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his spirit was troubled, and his sleep left him.

The important events of this chapter are introduced by the statement that the dreams occurred “in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.” This immediately raises the question of how this relates to the period of training prescribed for Daniel and his companions as described in chapter 1.

Daniel’s course of study prior to entering the king’s service was to last three years (1:5). The apparent discrepancy disappears when one understands the Babylonian method for dating the reigns of kings (see chart below). They used an accession-year dating system that did not count Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year (September 7, 605 B.C.–April 1, 604 B.C.) as the first year of his reign. His “first year” would have been April 2, 604 B.C. to March 21, 603 B.C.; and his “second year” would have been March 22, 603 B.C. to April 9, 602 B.C. The events of chapter 2 occurred at the end of the three-year course of study mentioned in 1:5, shortly after Daniel entered the king’s service. But it was officially the “second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.”

The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that the dreams occurred “two years after the destruction of Egypt” (Antiquities 10.10.3). While this could be an instance where Josephus misquoted the Bible or misunderstood history, it’s also possible he was referring to the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C. that immediately preceded the events of Daniel 1.

The Babylonian Chronicle describes this battle as a total annihilation of the Egyptian army: “[Nebuchadnezzar] crossed the river [to encounter the army of Egypt] which was encamped at Carchemish…. They did battle together. The army of Egypt retreated before him. He inflicted a [defeat] upon them (and) finished them off completely. In the district of Hamath the army of Akkad overtook the remainder of the army of [Egypt which] managed to escape [from] the defeat and which was not overcome. They … inflicted a defeat upon them (so that) a single (Egyptian) man [did not return] home.”[1] In either case, the events of Daniel 2 probably took place three years after the events of Daniel 1:1–16.

According to Wiseman, “The effect on Judah was that King Jehoiakim, a vassal of Necho, submitted voluntarily to Nebuchadrezzar, and some Jews, including the prophet Daniel, were taken as captives for hostages to Babylon.”[2] This was June–August 605 B.C. Daniel and his companions, therefore, entered their training at Babylon soon thereafter, probably after Nebuchadnezzar had been made king on September 7, 605 B.C., at the death of his father, Nabopolassar.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S “SECOND YEAR” (DANIEL 2:1)

May—June 605 B.C.:

Babylonian victory over the Egyptians at Carchemish.

June—August 605 B.C.:

Surrender of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, and Daniel and companions taken captive.

September 7, 605 B.C.:

Nebuchadnezzar, the general of the army, made king over Babylon after the death of his father, Nabopolassar.

September 7, 605 B.C. to April 1, 604 B.C.:

Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year as king, and first year of Daniel’s training.

April 2, 604 B.C. to March 21, 603 B.C.:

First year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, second year of training of Daniel.

March 22, 603 B.C. to April 9, 602 B.C.:

Second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, third year of training of Daniel, and the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams.

The important event of this chapter is simply expressed in the statement that “Nebuchadnezzar had dreams.” The plural implies either that the king had several dreams, or that he was in a state of dreaming.[3] In either case, he was troubled and unable to sleep. The Hebrew for “troubled” indicates a deep disturbance inducing apprehension. Nebuchadnezzar seems to have sensed that this was more than an ordinary dream and was a response to his questioning concerning the future, mentioned later by Daniel in 2:29.

In this Nebuchadnezzar was correct, for his circumstances and the dream were providentially induced by God Himself. On other occasions in Scripture, God used dreams to give revelation to a Gentile ruler as in the cases of Abimelech (Gen. 20:3) and Pharaoh (Gen. 41:1–8), which is an interesting parallel to Nebuchadnezzar’s experience. Sleeplessness also has its purpose in divine providence as in the case of Ahasuerus in Esther 6, which started the chain of events leading to Haman’s execution and Israel’s deliverance. Nebuchadnezzar’s experience was obviously orchestrated by God.

ALL THE WISE MEN SUMMONED (2:2–3)

2:2–3 Then the king commanded that the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans be summoned to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. And the king said to them, “I had a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream.”

Because of the king’s agitation, he immediately summoned all four classifications of wise men here described as “the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans.” Numerous similar listings occur throughout Daniel (1:20; 2:10, 27; 4:7; 5:7, 11, 15). “Wise men,” apparently a general description of all of them, are referred to frequently (2:12, 13, 14, 18, 24, 48; 4:6, 18; 5:7, 8), and the “Chaldeans” are mentioned elsewhere also (1:4; 2:4; 3:8; 5:11). Goldingay notes that the words seemed to be used interchangeably.[4]

“Magicians” is the translation of a Hebrew word with the root meaning of “stylus” or a “pen,” and hence could refer to a scholar rather than a magician in the ordinary sense.[5] “Enchanters” refers to the power of necromancy or communication with the dead,[6] but can also be understood as “astrologers.”[7] This translation suggests the study of the stars to predict the future. “Sorcerers” are those who practice sorcery or incantations.

The most significant term, however, is “Chaldeans.” This is usually interpreted as a reference to a group of astrologers. But the name designates a people who lived in Southern Babylonia (cf. Gen. 11:28) who eventually conquered the Assyrians when Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar, was their king. It would be only natural for the conquerors to assert themselves at the level of wise men, and there is no justification for seizing on this reference to Chaldeans as an inaccuracy.[8] The obvious purpose of the summoning of all four classes of wise men is that the king hoped, through their various contributions, to be able to interpret his dream. Daniel and his friends were not among the advisors the king summoned, though they had graduated “at the top of their class.” They were excluded because they would have been among the lower echelon of royal advisors due to their young age.

REVELATION OF THE DREAM AND ITS INTERPRETATION DEMANDED BY THE KING (2:4–6)

2:4–6 Then the Chaldeans said to the king in Aramaic, “O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.” The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, “The word from me is firm: if you do not make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you shall be torn limb from limb, and your houses shall be laid in ruins. But if you show the dream and its interpretation, you shall receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. Therefore show me the dream and its interpretation.”

Nebuchadnezzar gave his advisors a seemingly impossible task: to tell him both the dream and its interpretation. The KJV of verse 5, “the thing is gone from me,” has led some interpreters to feel that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his dream. But this is probably not correct. What had “gone from” Nebuchadnezzar was not the dream, but his command that the advisors tell him both the dream and its interpretation. With the wise men before him, the king announced that he has dreamed a dream, using the singular of “dream,” indicating either that he had only one dream or that only one of his many dreams was significant prophetically.

The Chaldeans, acting as spokesmen for the group, then addressed the king. The phrase “in Aramaic” introduces the extended section written in Aramaic instead of Hebrew, beginning with verse 4 and continuing through chapter 7. Aramaic is similar to Hebrew, but also differs from it. Although some have questioned whether the officials would have spoken Aramaic rather than Akkadian in the court at Babylon,[9] Aramaic was the diplomatic language of the time. It seems reasonable to assume the court included individuals, like Daniel, from outside Babylon, which would make the use of Aramaic very appropriate. The Aramaic section of Daniel deals with prophecy of primary interest to the Gentiles; thus this change in language highlights Daniel’s focus on “the times of the Gentiles” that would exist from his day until God established His messianic kingdom.

Critics have charged that Aramaic was not used in Daniel’s day. But Kitchen states, concerning the “entire word-stock of Biblical Aramaic” which is largely Daniel, that “nine-tenths of the vocabulary is attested in texts of the fifth century B.C. or earlier.”[10] Most of the findings have been fifth century, as there is a scarcity of sixth-century B.C. texts; but, if Daniel’s Aramaic was used in the fifth century, in all probability it was also used in the sixth century B.C. Daniel’s critics appear to argue from a priori assumptions, as the available materials make a sixth-century date quite plausible.

The Chaldeans, eager to please Nebuchadnezzar, addressed him with typical elaborate oriental courtesy, “O king, live forever” (cf. 1 Kings 1:31; Neh. 2:3; Dan. 3:9; 5:10; 6:21). They declared with confidence that, if the king would tell them the dream, they would give the interpretation.

In reply, the king states, “The word from me is firm.” As noted above, it is most likely that Nebuchadnezzar had not forgotten his dream, as traditionally thought. In the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, this word with slight alterations is considered to be a verb form meaning “is gone from me”—that is, the dream had been forgotten. The verb could, however, also mean “gone forth” in the sense of “I have decreed,” the meaning favored by many modern translations such as the ESV quoted in this work. The Niv translates, “This is what I have firmly decided.”

Still, the question of whether the king had actually forgotten his dream cannot be determined with certainty. In favor of the idea that the king had forgotten the dream would be the argument that he, anxious to know its interpretation, would certainly have divulged it to the wise men to see what they had to offer by way of interpretation.

There are, however, a number of reasons the king might have been motivated to make this extreme demand of his counselors—for example, in order to test their ability to have real contact with the gods and divulge secrets. Also, Nebuchadnezzar was a young man (remember that this was only the second full year of his reign) and it is entirely possible that the wise men were much older than the king, having served Nebuchadnezzar’s father. It would be understandable that Nebuchadnezzar might have previously been frustrated by these older counselors and may have had a real desire to be rid of them in favor of younger men whom he had chosen himself (cf. a similar situation with King Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, in 1 Kings 12:1–15). Nebuchadnezzar might well have doubted their honesty, sincerity, and capability, and may even have wondered whether they were loyal to him. He may also have questioned some of their superstitious practices.

In his combined frustration with his counselors and his irritation stemming from the uncertainty of the meaning of the dream, it is entirely possible that Nebuchadnezzar would have suddenly hardened in his attitude toward his wise men and demanded that they should not only interpret the dream but also state the dream itself. It may have been a snap decision arising from the emotion of the moment, or it may have been the result of frustration with these men over a long period. It is significant that the younger wise men, such as Daniel and his companions, were not present.

To reinforce his demand for both the dream and its interpretation, Nebuchadnezzar told his wise men they would be “torn limb from limb.” This was not an idle threat, but was in keeping with the cruelty that could be expected from a despot such as Nebuchadnezzar. It was all too common for victims to be executed by being dismembered. “The violence and peremptoriness of the threatened punishment is in accordance with what might be expected at the hands of an Eastern despot; the Assyrians and Persians, especially, were notorious for the barbarity of their punishments.”[11]

If, however, the wise men were able to respond to the king’s request, they were promised expensive gifts and great honor, a custom to which the Bible bears consistent testimony, as in the case of Joseph, Mordecai, and Daniel himself. “Rewards” is the translation of a Persian word, a singular rather than plural, and has the idea of a “present.”[12] To receive these, they had only to tell the king the dream and its meaning. Obviously, the wise men were confronted with a supreme test of their superhuman claims. If they had genuine supernatural ability to interpret a dream, they should also have the power to reveal its content.

THE DEMAND OF THE KING REPEATED (2:7–9)

2:7–9 They answered a second time and said, “Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show its interpretation.” The king answered and said, “I know with certainty that you are trying to gain time, because you see that the word from me is firm—if you do not make the dream known to me, there is but one sentence for you. You have agreed to speak lying and corrupt words before me till the times change. Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that you can show me its interpretation.”

Confronted with the king’s ultimatum, the wise men repeated their request to be told the dream and again affirmed their ability to interpret it. It would seem that if the king had actually forgotten the dream, the wise men would have attempted some sort of an answer. The fact that they did not tends to support the idea that the king was willfully withholding information about the dream. Even if the king was hazy about the details of the dream and could not recall it enough to provide a basis of interpretation, he probably would have been able to recognize a complete fabrication on the part of the wise men. In any case, they did not attempt such a ploy.

The king grew more angry with each exchange, accusing the wise men of trying to stall for time “because you see that the word from me is firm,” a repeat of his statement in verse 5. Nebuchadnezzar believed they were attempting to gain time in hopes that his ugly mood would change. But he wanted them to know that he had made up his mind. The king’s accusation implied that he remembered the main facts of the dream well enough to detect any invented interpretation that the wise men might offer. It seems clear that Nebuchadnezzar was not willing to accept any easy interpretation of his dream, but wanted proof that his wise men had divine sources of information beyond the ordinary.

FINAL PLEA OF THE WISE MEN DENIED (2:10–13)

2:10–13 The Chaldeans answered the king and said, “There is not a man on earth who can meet the king’s demand, for no great and powerful king has asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or Chaldean. The thing that the king asks is difficult, and no one can show it to the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” Because of this the king was angry and very furious, and commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be destroyed. So the decree went out, and the wise men were about to be killed; and they sought Daniel and his companions, to kill them.

Although the Chaldeans had confidently claimed to be able to interpret the dream, they were baffled by the demand to tell the dream itself. With a subtle attempt at flattery, they tried to tell Nebuchadnezzar that his demand was unreasonable and that “no great and powerful king” would expect such a revelation from his wise men. The king’s demand was so “difficult” that only “the gods” could reveal it. This statement, reflecting the bankruptcy of human wisdom, sets the stage for Daniel’s divine revelation.

But the wise men’s humility and protests were of no avail. Their reaction apparently confirmed the king’s suspicion that they were incompetent and incapable of really helping him. It only made him more angry, the word “furious” coming from a root similar to that of the Hebrew word for the wrath of Pharaoh (Gen. 40:2; 41:10).[13] The decree to kill all the wise men of Babylon included not only the four classes that were standing before Nebuchadnezzar at the moment, but all others including Daniel and his companions. Although “Babylon” could refer to the entire empire, it is probable that the decree was limited to the city of Babylon (2:49; 3:1).

It is not entirely clear from verse 13 whether the executioners planned to kill the wise men right where they were found, or went out to collect them for a public execution. The latter is probably the case as subsequent Scripture reveals that Daniel had the time to ask questions. The fact that Daniel and his companions were included among the condemned counselors has given rise to the false accusation that he had become a part of the pagan religious system of Babylon. There is no support whatever for this in Scripture. Daniel’s training did not make him a priest, but merely a counselor of the king. As such, however, he was included in the broad category of wise men.

DANIEL’S REQUEST FOR TIME TO SEEK INTERPRETATION OF THE DREAM (2:14–16)

2:14–16 Then Daniel replied with prudence and discretion to Arioch, the captain of the king’s guard, who had gone out to kill the wise men of Babylon. He declared to Arioch, the king’s captain, “Why is the decree of the king so urgent?” Then Arioch made the matter known to Daniel. And Daniel went in and requested the king to appoint him a time, that he might show the interpretation to the king.

The nature of Daniel’s response is worth noting. Although the wise men previously could hardly be accused of discourtesy, there seems to be an additional dignity and calmness in Daniel’s approach to the problem. “Through Daniel’s judicious interview with Arioch, the further execution of the royal edict was interrupted.”[14]

Among his other duties, Arioch served as the king’s chief executioner, although he personally may not have had the responsibility of killing the wise men.[15] A decree to execute people who had not had an opportunity to speak to the king was indeed harsh and severe. But accustomed as he was to the cruelty of his day, Arioch apparently did not question the king’s order. When Daniel asked why the king’s decree was so urgent, Arioch explained the situation. That an official of the king would take time to explain this to one already condemned to death speaks well both of Daniel’s approach and of Arioch’s regard for him.

In verse 16, only the briefest summary is offered of what actually transpired. Undoubtedly, Daniel expressed to Arioch the possibility that he could interpret the dream and secured Arioch’s cooperation in going before the king. It would hardly have been suitable, especially with the king in the mood he was in, for Daniel to go in to the king unannounced without proper procedure. Possibly, the king by this time had cooled down a bit. In any event, Daniel was given his audience in which he asked for time and promised to show the king the interpretation. In contrast to the other wise men who had already been denied additional time to formulate an answer, Daniel was granted his request. It is possible that Daniel’s calm assurance that his God would help him impressed the king in contrast to his fawning, older counselors.

DANIEL AND HIS COMPANIONS PRAY FOR WISDOM (2:17–18)

2:17–18 Then Daniel went to his house and made the matter known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions, and told them to seek mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that Daniel and his companions might not be destroyed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

Daniel lost no time informing his three godly companions so they could join him in prayer that God would reveal the secret. As they shared in the danger, so they could also share in the intercession. They were to seek “mercy” or compassion from God, a word sometimes used of human mercy or compassion (Dan. 1:9; Zech. 7:9), but more commonly of the mercies of God (Neh. 9:28; Isa. 63:7, 15; Dan. 9:9, etc.).[16] God’s mercy stands in stark contrast to the decree of Nebuchadnezzar calling for the merciless slaughter of all the royal counselors.

The reference to “the God of heaven,” literally “of the heavens,” is an obvious contrast to the religious superstitions of the Babylonians who worshiped the starry heaven. Abraham first used this term in Genesis 24:7, and it is found frequently later in the Bible (Ezra 1:2; 6:10; 7:12, 21; Neh. 1:5; 2:4; Ps. 136:26). Although these four godly young men faced certain death, one can almost visualize them on their knees, fully believing that their God was able to meet their need. Instead of being in a panic, they prayed. For this supreme hour of crisis they were well prepared, as their faith had been tested previously (see chap. 1).

The result could be expected: “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working” (James 5:16). Daniel and his friends obviously were motivated by the desire to save their lives. That they would be willing to die if necessary to be faithful to God is revealed in chapter 3. Verse 18 does not necessarily imply that the other wise men had already perished, although this is a possibility. But the probability is that Daniel’s ultimate deliverance also extended to the other wise men.

DANIEL’S PRAYER ANSWERED (2:19–23)

2:19–23 Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. Daniel answered and said: “Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might. He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding; he reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him. To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom and might, and have now made known to me what we asked of you, for you have made known to us the king’s matter.”

The vision Daniel received apparently was not just a dream but a supernatural revelation given to him in his waking hours. Possibly both he and his companions prayed on into the night, and the vision came when Daniel was awake. The nature of the revelation required both a vision and its interpretation as the image was a visual representation. Hence a vision was more proper than a dream, although frequently God revealed secrets to prophets in dreams as well as visions.

Daniel’s immediate response was to offer a hymn of praise in which he blessed God for answering his prayers. The hymn reveals both Daniel’s deep gratitude and the depth and comprehension of his faith. The first phrase of his psalm, “Blessed be the name of God forever and ever,” reflects, as does the entire psalm, Daniel’s acquaintance with hymns of praise found in the Psalms and other Old Testament passages. In praising “the name of God” Daniel was speaking of God in His revealed character. W. H. Griffith Thomas writes, “The name stands in Holy Scripture for the nature or revealed character of God, and not a mere label or title. It is found very frequently in the

Old Testament as synonymous with God Himself in relation to man…. In the New Testament the same usage is perfectly clear.” He cites as illustrations Proverbs 18:10; Psalms 74:10; 118:10; Matthew 28:19; John 1:12; 2:23; 3:18; 5:43; 10:25; 17:6, 26; Philippians 2:10.[17]

Parallels to Daniel’s hymn can be found in Psalm 113:1–2 and 103:1–2. Daniel attributes to God wisdom and might, as in Job 12:12–13, 16–22, and God’s might is mentioned frequently as in 1 Chronicles 29:11–12. Daniel’s God also “changes times and seasons,” an evidence of sovereign power (cf. Dan. 7:25). David declared, “My times are in your hand” (Ps. 31:15). Daniel was contrasting his God with the deities of Babylon who supposedly set the times and seasons by the movements of the sun, moon, and stars. Daniel’s God could change this.

Daniel’s faith also contemplated a God greater than any king, and who could, therefore, remove or set up any monarch. Such a God is also able to give wisdom to those who are wise and knowledge to those able to receive it. The wise men of Babylon were not so wise, for they were not the recipients of divine wisdom. To those wise enough to trust in the God of Daniel, however, and who had sufficient insight to see through the superstitions of Babylonian religions, there was the possibility of divine understanding. God’s power over kings is hailed in Job 12:18 and Psalm 75:6–7, and His divine wisdom is a frequent theme of Scripture. From the same God, Solomon had sought an understanding heart (1 Kings 3:9–10), and the Scriptures record that “God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding beyond measure, and breadth of mind like the sand on the seashore” (1 Kings 4:29).

Daniel’s hymn also emphasized that God not only has knowledge and wisdom, but power to do what He wills. Daniel’s God is in control of history and can thus reveal the future as in the king’s dream. This description of God can be contrasted with Daniel 7:25 where the little horn, the future world ruler, will “think to change the times and the law”—that is, take the place of God who “changes times and seasons” (Dan. 2:21). Daniel later commented on man’s complete dependence upon God for wisdom (2:30).

God’s capacity to reveal secrets is mentioned specifically in verse 22. This again is attested by other Scriptures such as Job 12:22 (cf. 1 Cor. 2:10). The darkness does not hide anything from God, as David wrote in Psalm 139:12. Although knowing what is in darkness, God characteristically dwells in light. In Psalm 36:9 it is declared, “in your light do we see light,” that is, God’s light is presented as the light by which we see. In the gospel of John, Christ is identified as the light of the world (1:9; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46).

Having attributed to God these superlative qualities of wisdom, power, sovereignty, and knowledge, Daniel directly expresses his thanks to God for His revelation of the secret. Although no mention is made of Daniel’s deliverance from death, obviously this is included. While Daniel does not have the infinite wisdom and power of God, he has that which is derived from God—wisdom and ability to interpret the vision.

The expression “God of my fathers” is a common one in the Old Testament, here Elohim being used for God, rather than Yahweh (Gen. 31:42 also uses Elohim, the common name for God, rather than Yahweh, the covenant name of the God of Israel). As Leupold notes, the reference to “my Fathers” indicates that Daniel “is having an experience of God’s mercy which is analogous to that to which the fathers of Old give testimony on the pages of the sacred story.”[18] Notice should be made of the pronouns, namely, that while the revelation was given to Daniel as an individual, it was what “we asked for,” and through Daniel the king’s secret was “made known to us,” that is, Daniel and his companions. Daniel does not attribute to his own prayers any special efficacy.

DANIEL REPORTS THE REVELATION OF THE SECRET (2:24–28)

2:24–28 Therefore Daniel went in to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon. He went and said thus to him, “Do not destroy the wise men of Babylon; bring me in before the king, and I will show the king the interpretation.” Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste and said thus to him: “I have found among the exiles from Judah a man who will make known to the king the interpretation.” The king said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, “Are you able to make known to me the dream that I have seen and its interpretation?” Daniel answered the king and said, “No wise men, enchanters, magicians, or astrologers can show to the king the mystery that the king has asked, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days. Your dream and the visions of your head as you lay in bed are these:”

Daniel, now fully in command of the situation, told Arioch not to destroy the wise men of Babylon. This is another confirmation of the fact that the decree had not been executed and the potential victims were only in the process of being rounded up. In support of his request Daniel declared, “I will show the king the interpretation.” Daniel’s poise reveals that he fully understood that God’s hand was upon him.

Arioch saw at once the importance of what had happened and, using his office to introduce Daniel to the king, attempted to get as much credit as he could under the circumstances for discovering a man who could reveal the secret. His statement “I have found” was obviously designed to help him participate in the reward. It is understandable that Arioch would not give God the credit for the interpretation.

The introduction of Daniel also served to disassociate him from the wise men who had previously incurred the king’s wrath. Although there is no mention of Daniel’s previous audience with the king that probably at the time had only the king’s briefest attention, now the eager king immediately asked Daniel, “Are you able to make known to me the dream that I have seen and its interpretation?” The form of the sentence makes the knowledge of the dream the prominent part of the question. Daniel’s Babylonian name, Belteshazzar, was understandably inserted here as a means of proper identification.

Daniel’s answer is a masterpiece of setting the matter in its proper light and giving God the glory. Although the temptation to imagine that he had supernatural powers was possibly present, Daniel immediately declared that what had been revealed to him was a secret that no wise men of Babylonia could have discovered (cf. Gen. 41:16). The repetition of all classes of the wise men is an indication that no branch of Babylonian religious superstition could possibly have met the king’s need.

In describing the wise men, Daniel used a word to describe the “astrologers” with reference to the idea that astrologers believe various parts of the heavens have particular significance or power. By using this specific word, Daniel was preparing the way to introduce his God as the God of the whole heavens.[19] By stating that the wise men could not be expected to reveal the secret, Daniel was, in effect, defending them somewhat from the king’s wrath while at the same time affirming their impotence.

Having disposed of any possible solution to the problem on the part of the wise men, Daniel now seized the opportunity to glorify his own God and, at the same time, disavow that the interpretation of the dream stemmed from any innate powers that he might have. By giving all the credit and glory to God, Daniel was showing that the God of Israel is far superior to the gods of the Babylonians and that He is the God who is able to know and reveal secrets.

Of particular interest to all expositors is the expression “in the latter days.” Some limit this expression to the perspective of the alleged spurious Daniel of the second century.[20] Driver states, “[This is] an expression which occurs fourteen times in the O. T., and which always denotes the closing period of the future so far as it falls within the range of view of the writer using it. The sense expressed by it is thus relative, not absolute, varying with the context.”[21]

This view would, in effect, regard “the latter days” as stopping short of the coming of the Messiah in the New Testament. Driver, however, continues: “Elsewhere it is used of the ideal, or messianic age, conceived as following at the close of the existing order of things: Hos. 3:5; Is. 2:2 (Mic. 4:1); Jer. 48:47, 49:39; comp. 23:20 (30:24). Here, as the sequel shows, it is similarly the period of the establishment of the Divine Kingdom which is principally denoted by it (vv. 34, 35, 44, 45); but the closing years of the fourth kingdom (vv. 40–43) may also well be included in it.”[22]

Leupold objects to any implied limitation on the messianic content and writes, “But to stop short at this point and to deny messianic import to the passage as such is misleading. Though the content must determine how much of the future is involved, a careful evaluation of all the passages involved shows that from the first instance of the use of the phrase (Gen. 49:1) onward the messianic future is regularly involved. In this passage the messianic element will be seen to be prominent.”[23] Conservative scholars usually regard this expression as including the messianic age in general, with some considering it especially the end of the period. Miller notes, “In this context the expression must involve the eschatological future, for it concerns the final phase of the fourth empire and the coming kingdom of God.”[24]

The phrase “in the latter days” is Aramaic, almost a transliteration of a Hebrew expression that is common in the Old Testament. Daniel was unquestionably using the Aramaic in the same sense as its Hebrew counterpart; and, accordingly, its definition should be based on Hebrew usage. The expression is found as early as Genesis 49:1 where Jacob predicted the future of his sons. The term is employed by Balaam in Numbers 24:14 and Moses in Deuteronomy 4:30 and 31:29 in connection with the future of Israel. An examination of these prophecies indicates that the latter days include much that is now history. But with reference to the consummation in messianic times, Jeremiah used the expression a number of times to refer to the climax of the age relating to the second coming of Jesus Christ (Jer. 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39). Ezekiel identified the times of the invasion of Gog and Magog as “in the latter days” (38:16). The expression is also found in Hosea 3:5 and Micah 4:1 in reference to the messianic age.

On the basis of scriptural usage, it is clear that “the latter days” is an extended period of time regarded as the consummation of the prophetic purview involved in each instance. Accordingly, Culver’s definition is accurate that the expression “refers to the future of God’s dealings with mankind as to be consummated and concluded historically in the times of the Messiah.”[25] He goes on to point out that the expression always has in view the ultimate establishment of the messianic kingdom on earth, even though “the latter days” include events now history, such as the division of Israel in the Promised Land. On the basis of usage in the Old Testament, it can be concluded that the expression is larger than that of messianic times specifically, but that it always includes this element in its consummation.

In the New Testament there is allusion to the Old Testament concept in Acts 2:17–21 (cf. Joel 2:28–32), but elsewhere reference to “the last days” (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 7:37; 11:24; 12:48; Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; James 5:3; 2 Pet. 3:3) and “last time” (1 Pet. 1:5, 20; 1 John 2:18; Jude 18) must be interpreted contextually and is not always the same concept as “the latter days” (cf. John 7:37). The latter days for Israel are not precisely the same as the last days for the church, as the Old Testament characteristically spans the present age without including the church in its consideration.

Taking both the Old and New Testament uses together, it is clear that the latter days for Israel began as early as the division of the land to the twelve tribes (Gen. 49:1) and include the first and the second advents of Christ. The last days for the church culminate at the rapture and resurrection of the church, and are not related to the time of the end for Israel. Daniel does not deal with the age between the two advents except for the time of the end, and the New Testament does not clearly use the term “latter days” of the present church age.

In the context of Daniel 2, “the latter days” include all the visions that Nebuchadnezzar received and stretches from 600 B.C. to the second coming of Christ to the earth. It is used in a similar way in Daniel 10:14, including the extensive revelation concerning the remainder of the Medo-Persian kingdom; many details of Alexander’s empire as in chapter 11; and the consummation called “the time of the end” in Daniel 11:36–45. These prophecies served to give added detail not included in the revelation to Nebuchadnezzar. Having stated the general purpose, Daniel now was able to unfold what will occur “in the latter days,” namely, the majestic procession of the four great world empires, and their destruction and replacement by the fifth empire, the kingdom from heaven. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream can now be unfolded.

THE PURPOSE OF THE DREAM (2:29–30)

2:29–30 “To you, O king, as you lay in bed came thoughts of what would be after this, and he who reveals mysteries made known to you what is to be. But as for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because of any wisdom that I have more than all the living, but in order that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that you may know the thoughts of your mind.”

Nebuchadnezzar had had a meteoric rise to power as one of the great conquerors and monarchs of the ancient world. He had begun his brilliant career even while his father was still alive, but after his father’s death, he had quickly consolidated his gains and established himself as absolute ruler over the Babylonian empire. All of southwest Asia was in his power, and there was no rival worthy of consideration at the time. Under these circumstances, it was only natural that Nebuchadnezzar should wonder what was going to come next. His meditation on this subject should not be confused with the dream that followed, but rather it was the preparation for it in the providence of God.

In this context Nebuchadnezzar had his dream; and God, referred to here by Daniel as “he who reveals mysteries” (in effect a new title for God), had used the dream as a vehicle to reveal the answer to Nebuchadnezzar’s question. While Daniel still had the king’s eager attention, he pressed home the fact that the dream was a means of divine revelation in which God had signally honored the Babylonian monarch.

Before proceeding to the dream, however, Daniel once more emphasized the fact that the secret had not come to him from any natural or accrued wisdom, but because God in His providence had selected Nebuchadnezzar as the recipient of the dream and Daniel as its interpreter so that Nebuchadnezzar and others could receive this revelation. Daniel was now ready to proceed to the dream itself.

THE DREAM REVEALED (2:31–35)

2:31–35 “You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening. The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.”

Daniel’s mention of “a great image” must have been immediately fascinating to the king as it was evident to him, if he remembered the dream at all, that Daniel was on the right track. This image was not an idol, but a statue corresponding to human form. It was great in the sense of being immense, and by its very size the statue must have been overwhelming in its implication of power. Even Nebuchadnezzar, the absolute ruler, recognized this as something greater than himself.

In addition to its great size, the statue was remarkable for its appearance. It apparently reflected light, indicated by its “exceeding brightness.” The image apparently was seen as standing very close to Nebuchadnezzar, which could help explain why its effect was “frightening.”

Illustration of what Nebuchadnezzar’s statue might have looked like in his dream

Daniel then proceeded to describe the metallic character of the image—its head of gold, breast and arms of silver, abdomen and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet part of iron and part of clay or pottery. There is an apparent symbolism in the major metals and the form of the image.

The preciousness of the metals deteriorates from the head of gold to the clay of the feet, and there is a corresponding lower weight; that is, the gold is much heavier than the silver, the silver than the bronze, the bronze than the iron, and the clay in the feet is the lightest material. While the materials decrease in weight, they increase in hardness, with the notable exception of the clay in the feet. The image was obviously top-heavy and weak in its feet.[26]

Nebuchadnezzar also saw a stone described as “cut out by no human hand” smite the image at its feet, the weakest place, with the result that the feet were broken. Then in rapid succession the disintegration of the entire image followed, as it broke into small pieces that the wind blew away until the pieces of the image disappeared. The stone that destroyed the image grew into a great mountain and filled the whole earth. This stone is stated in Daniel 2:45 to be cut out of a mountain. It struck the image with terrific force and smashed it.

Daniel’s description was a masterpiece of concise and yet complete narration. Nebuchadnezzar was so fascinated by the obvious accuracy of Daniel’s revelation that he did not interpose a word. This permitted Daniel to proceed immediately to the interpretation.

THE INTERPRETATION: BABYLON THE HEAD OF GOLD (2:36–38)

2:36–38 “This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation. You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold.”

As Daniel transitioned from the dream to its interpretation, he used the plural “we” to describe his answer. Did he mean God and himself, or his three companions who had joined with him in prayer, or was he simply using the plural to avoid the more arrogant-sounding “I”? Given Daniel’s evident modesty, the latter seems the best explanation.

Nebuchadnezzar was addressed as “king of kings,” a position that Daniel made clear was a gift from God. Critics of Daniel have seized upon this as an unsuitable reference to the king of Babylon. But it was quite accurate, for Nebuchadnezzar was actually a supreme monarch who was above all the kings of his generation. Interestingly, Ezekiel 26:7 contains exactly the same title for Nebuchadnezzar.

More significant here was Daniel’s fearless declaration that Nebuchadnezzar owed all of his power to the God of heaven who had revealed this secret to Daniel. How different this was from the subservient respect given by the other wise men. Here was a voice of truth that even the “king of kings” had to receive with submission.

Daniel’s description of Nebuchadnezzar as “rul[ing] over them all” has been regarded by some as hyperbole, since Nebuchadnezzar actually did not control the entire earth’s surface and everything on it. What was meant, however, is that Nebuchadnezzar was in supreme authority insofar as any human ruler could be. The king was the head of gold as the personification and symbol of the Babylonian Empire.[27]

Heaton considers the reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s authority over both men and nature to be a reflection of the Babylonian New Year Festival, “when the reigning king was annually enthroned as the earthly representative of the god and the Epic of Creation was recited…. Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion over the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven recalls the God-given status of man as it is depicted in Gen. 1:26, which is itself closely related to the Babylonian Epic of Creation.”[28] At one point in the ceremonies, they recited the Epic of Creation in honor of the creator god, Marduk, whose representative the king was supposed to be. This and other references in the book of Daniel suggest that Daniel is the author, for the writer had a good knowledge of Babylonian and related mythologies stemming from his three years of study and other intimate contact with Babylonian life.

THE INTERPRETATION: THE SECOND AND THIRD KINGDOMS TO FOLLOW (2:39)

2:39 “Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth.”

Daniel mentioned only briefly the second and third kingdoms represented by the upper and lower parts of the image’s body. Brief as the reference is, critics have lost no time in taking exception to the normal interpretation that Daniel had in view Medo-Persia and Greece, empires that he later identified by name (5:28; 8:20–21; 11:2). The statement that the second kingdom was “inferior” means inferior in quality, but not necessarily in every respect.

Persia actually had more territory than ancient Babylon, and the Greek Empire was greater than the Persian. The Roman Empire was greatest of all in extent. To infer, however, from the larger geographic area of succeeding kingdoms that they were not “inferior” is to misread both the meaning of the dream and Daniel’s comment upon it. Daniel did not say that the head was larger in size than the body, but the nature of the metal, gold, was more precious than that of silver or bronze, which were obviously inferior metals. History certainly confirms that the Medo-Persian Empire, and the empire of Alexander that followed, lacked the central authority and fine organization of the Babylonian Empire. The image and Daniel’s comments on it are most accurate. Daniel himself seems to imply that the inferiority of the succeeding empires does not prevent them from wide geographic control, for he specifically stated that the third kingdom will “rule over all the earth.”

The descending scale of value of the four metals suggests the degeneration of the human race through the ages, as implied in Genesis 4. Classical writers such as Hesiod (Works and Days, 109–201) and Ovid (Metamorphoses I, 89–150) conceive of history in this way. This concept contradicts the evolutionist’s interpretation of human history. Instead of mankind beginning in the dust and consummating in fine gold, God reveals mankind in the times of the Gentiles to begin with fine gold and end in dust.

The descending value of the metals, however, permits their ascending strength, which suggests increased military might during the times of the Gentiles, leading to the final world conflict of Revelation 16 and 19 to which Daniel refers (11:36–45).

Critics who say that Daniel could not have been written in the sixth century have also questioned the accuracy of the list of kingdoms. They try to identify the second and third kingdoms as Persia and Media, as if they were separate empires. That would make Greece the fourth empire and thus reduce the prophetic element of this chapter to a minimum by eliminating the Roman Empire, which they say even a second-century Daniel could not have predicted.

But these critics do not take into consideration that Rome already had taken the western Mediterranean and subdued Greece and parts of western Asia. While they might be expected to claim that a writer in the second century B.C. might have guessed that Rome was the fourth empire, they are unwilling to admit that even a spurious Daniel writing in the second century could refer to the Roman Empire, for it is obvious that apart from prophetic insight he could not have predicted the extent of the empire and its fall in the way Daniel prophesies.

In substantiating the identification of the four empires normally accepted by conservative scholars, R. D. Wilson points out that the supposed confusion in the mind of Daniel regarding his facts is actually in the mind of the critics.[29] In brief, Wilson points out that the critics do not have sufficient evidence to support their objections to the data supplied by Daniel. Most of their criticisms assume Daniel must be wrong. A similar objection to the account of the fall of Babylon as recorded by Daniel has the same answer. The objections rely on unproved assumptions on the part of critics. Remaining problems arise from insufficient records, not from express contradictions.

Again, the basic difficulty is that the critics cannot admit that the fourth kingdom is Rome without attributing genuine prophecy even to a second-century Daniel. But many problems disappear when Daniel is recognized as prophecy rather than pseudo-prophecy. The revelation of chapter 2 does not give sufficient detail to identify the kingdoms completely; but when this revelation is coupled with that of chapters 7–8, the identification becomes clear and unmistakable.

Daniel did not make any comment on the symbolic meaning of the chest, which contained the heart, or of the lower part of the body containing the abdomen. It is probably reading too much into the Scriptures to infer from this that Cyrus the Persian was a noble man with some compassion for Israel and to conclude, according to oriental custom, that this is supported by the fact that the abdomen is considered the seat of affection. More important and significant is the fact that the third empire ends with the upper part of the legs, or the thighs, indicating that the third empire would territorially embrace both East and West. This will be quite significant in analysis of the next world empire, unnamed in Daniel, but obviously Rome.

THE INTERPRETATION: THE FOURTH EMPIRE, ROME (2:40–45)

2:40–45 “And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things. And like iron that crushes, it shall break and crush all these. And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”

The fourth kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream represented by the legs and feet of the image is obviously the most important. Daniel gives more attention to this fourth kingdom than to the preceding kingdoms put together. Because various schools of prophetic interpretation have differed more on the fourth kingdom than on the other three, it is necessary to give particular attention to what Daniel actually says.

The first aspect of interpretation stresses the strength of the iron legs and their power to break in pieces and subdue all opposition. This, of course, was precisely what characterized ancient Rome. “The Roman legions were noted for their ability to crush all resistance with an iron heel.”[30] This description is so apt that most conservative commentaries agree that it represents the Roman Empire. Critics who accept the late date for Daniel and who proceed on the principle that prophecy of the future in detail is impossible offer a discordant note, as previously indicated, and identify the four kingdoms as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. But those who acknowledge Daniel as a sixth-century writing by the prophet Daniel have no difficulty in accepting the fourth kingdom as that of Rome. Even with this agreement, however, there is serious disagreement on the identification of the feet of the image and the destruction of the whole by the stone cut out without hands.

Because of the differences of interpretation on the meaning of the image’s feet, it is all the more significant that Daniel gave special attention to this, and in fact, said as much about the feet of the image as he did about the whole image above the feet. He noted that the feet and toes were part potter’s clay and part iron, making this a “divided kingdom.” There has been much discussion on the meaning of the word “divided.” Young feels that this is simply a reference to composite material, showing that the composite nature of the entire kingdom extends “even to its toes.”[31] Here it seems that too much is being made of too little. What Daniel implied is simply that the material that forms the feet portion of the image is not all one kind but is composed of iron and pottery, which do not adhere well to one another. This is what Daniel himself brought out.

The presence of the iron in the feet, however, is an element of strength, as Daniel stated. The clay here was hardened as in pottery, not soft, but even in its hardened state still represented brittleness or weakness. This is brought out in verse 42 where the toes are expressly said to be part of iron and part of clay, which Daniel interpreted as indicating that the kingdom was partly strong, because of the presence of iron, and partly fragile, because of the brittleness of the pottery. The fact that Daniel spent more time on this part of the image has been interpreted by some as needless repetition. But such a view is hardly fair to Daniel, since any repetition in this passage is obviously for greater understanding and emphasis.

A clear interpretation of the meaning of iron and clay, apart from the inherent weakness, is not given except as indicated in verse 43. Here the statement is made that the two materials will not hold together even though “they will mix with one another in marriage.” This reference to marriage has given rise to several interpretations, from actual intermarriage among peoples in the fourth kingdom to the mixing of diverse peoples in the empire. Some also feel this is a reference to the attempted political “marriage” between imperialism and democracy.[32]

Since the text does not actually tell us, probably the safest procedure is to glean the interpretation from the meaning of the metals in the three preceding kingdoms. Keil writes, “As, in the three preceding kingdoms, gold, silver, and bronze represent the material of these kingdoms, i.e. their peoples and their culture, so also in the fourth kingdom iron and clay represent the material of the kingdoms arising out of the division of this kingdom, i.e. the national elements out of which they are constituted, and which will and must mingle together in them.”[33] While intermarriage may form an element of it, it is not necessarily the main idea. The important point is that the final form of the Roman Empire will include diverse elements, whether this refers to race, political orientation, or regional interests; and this will prevent the final form of the kingdom from having a real unity. This is, of course, borne out by the fact that the world empire at the end of the age breaks up into a gigantic civil war in which forces from the South, East, and North contend with the ruler of the Mediterranean for supremacy (cf. Dan. 11:36–45).

An important aspect of the fourth kingdom is the fact that it is portrayed as having two legs. This is often overlooked by expositors, partly because of difficulty fitting it into history precisely and partly because some do not feel that this aspect has a particular meaning. The problem some have with the interpretation of this passage is that while in their view the first three kingdoms are verifiable historically, they have difficulty finding any proof of the fourth kingdom in history.

Culver sees an increasing division in the image beginning with the head of gold or a single ruler, then the dualism of the Medo-Persian Empire, then the fourfold division of Alexander’s empire, and finally the leg stage of the image ending in further division into ten toes.[34] While Culver’s analysis has much to commend it, the image does not reflect the fourfold division of Alexander’s kingdom. Instead, the image’s two legs represent the eventual emergence of Syria and Egypt as the two main components of the Alexandrian period (although Macedonia at times was also powerful). Actually there is no indication of diversity of sovereignty apart from the two arms, two legs, and feet.

Probably the best solution to the problem is the familiar teaching that Daniel’s prophecy actually passes over the present age, the period between the first and second comings of Christ or, more specifically, the period between Pentecost and the rapture of the church. There is nothing unusual about such a solution, as Old Testament prophecies often lump together predictions concerning the first and second comings of Christ without regard for the millennia that lay between (Luke 4:17–19; cf. Isa. 61:1–2).

This interpretation depends first of all upon evidence leading to the conclusion that the ten-toe stage of the image has not been fulfilled in history and is still prophetic. The familiar attempts in many commentaries to find a ten-toe stage of the image in the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. do not correspond to the actual facts of history and do not fulfill this stage. According to Daniel’s prophecy, the kingdoms represented by the ten toes existed side by side and were destroyed by one sudden catastrophic blow. Nothing like this has yet occurred in history.

The leg stage of the image has been fulfilled historically in the Roman Empire that took control of the Syrian and Egyptian remnants of Alexander’s Greek empire. However, it is not necessary to assume the legs continue to point forward as this image does not correspond to the period of more than a thousand years stretching from the time of Christ to when the Roman Empire finally gasped its last. There is a simpler and yet more effective means of understanding this final portion of the image. As noted above, the upper part of the legs represented the twofold stage of the last period of the Alexandrian Empire, which especially concerned the Jews—namely, Syria and Egypt. This was two-legged because it embraced two continents, or two major geographic areas, the East and the West. The Roman Empire continued this twofold division and extended its sway over the entire Mediterranean area as well as western Asia.

In ordinary history Egypt was usually grouped with Syria as belonging to the East because of the long relationship politically and commercially that tied Egypt to western Asia. By contrast Macedonia in Europe was considered the West. From the divine viewpoint, however, and especially the prophetic outlook that is symbolized in the image of Daniel, both Egypt on the continent of Africa as well as the European nations, including Macedonia, could well be considered the Western division, which eventually expanded to include the whole Mediterranean area west of Asia.

The image portrays the divine viewpoint, which anticipated the rise of the Roman Empire and its geographic inclusion of the East and the West. This was recognized ultimately in the political division of the East and West by Emperor Valentinian I in A.D. 364. Although Daniel does not deal with the interadvent age as such, it still is true that at the time of Christ’s first advent, Rome already was geographically spread over the East and the West. Prophetically it indicates that at the time of the end Rome again will involve both the East and the West.

The meaning of the two legs, therefore, is geographic rather than a matter of nationalities. A comparison of the extension of the various empires will reveal that the Babylonian Empire and the Medo-Persian Empire extended principally over western Asia, although Egypt was also conquered. In the Alexandrian Empire, the Western division began to take real form and power was divided between Syria and Egypt. The Roman Empire embraced a much wider territory in which the Western division became fully as strong as the Eastern, and this seems to be portrayed by the two legs.

This political and geographic situation continued to the time of Christ; and if Daniel’s vision ended here only to pick up the situation again at the end of the age, it would be understandable that the two legs would be seen as equal. The feet portion of the image representing the final stage will also include on an equal basis the Eastern and Western areas once possessed by ancient Rome. In view of the fact that there is nothing whatever in the image of Daniel to portray events from the time of Christ to the present, if the feet stage be considered future, this interpretation makes sense out of a symbol that must at least in its major elements correspond to the facts of history.

The interpretive crux of Daniel’s symbolic vision is his prediction of a kingdom that God will set up. Its description in verse 44 has led to general agreement among all classes of expositors that this is indeed the kingdom of God. Beyond this, expositors are widely divided concerning the nature of the kingdom, the nature of the destruction of the preceding empires, and the time element that is provided. In general, expositors may be divided into premillennial and amillennial positions.

According to amillenarians and some premillenarians, the kingdom of God in Daniel 2 was introduced by Christ at His first coming. However, this view presupposes the destruction of the image by the church in succeeding centuries. Despite this problem, its adherents confidently suppose it is supported by history. Leupold, for instance, while conceding that there were many factors in the destruction of Rome, states, “All students of history are ready to grant that the Christian Church was able to salvage out of the wreckage of the Roman Empire all elements that were worth conserving. But it is just as true that the Christian Church broke the power of pagan Rome. The disintegrating and corrupt empire crumbled through decay from within as well as through the impact of the sound morals and the healthy life of Christianity that condemned lascivious Rome…. Christianity was in a sense God’s judgment upon sinful Rome.”[35]

The principal difficulty is that as a matter of fact Christianity was not the decisive force that broke the Roman Empire. The main reason was its internal decay and the political conditions that surrounded it. Further, Rome’s decay extended for more than a thousand years after the first advent of Christ. In other words, the time factor was greater than the period from Nebuchadnezzar to Christ. To have such a long period of time described in the symbolism of a stone striking the feet of the image and the chaff being swept away by wind simply does not correspond to the facts of history. In view of the very accurate portrayal of preceding history by the image, it is a reasonable and natural conclusion that the feet stage of the image, including destruction by the stone, is still future and unfulfilled. There is certainly no evidence, two millennia after Christ, that the kingdom of God has conquered the entire world.

In addition, there is no scriptural evidence whatever that Christ’s first coming caused the downfall of Gentile world power, which is still very much with us today. Indeed, express prophecies relating to Christ’s second advent picture just such a devastating defeat of Gentile power. Revelation 19:11–21, which all agree is a picture of the second coming, is expressly the time when Christ assumes command as King of kings and Lord of lords. It is declared that at that time Christ will “strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron” (Rev. 19:15). If it were not necessary to make Daniel’s image conform somehow to the amillennial concept of the gradual conquering of the world by the gospel, no one would ever have dreamed that the smiting by the stone in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream described a long process now more than two thousand years underway and still far from completion. The fact is that the amillennial interpretation does not give any reasonable explanation of the catastrophic character of the stone smiting the image.

The only basis on which prophetic interpretation can be judged is whether it corresponds to the proposed fulfillment. So we can state again that nothing is more evident today than that the stone, if it reflects the church or the spiritual kingdom that Christ formed at His first coming, is not in any sense of the term occupying center stage in a world in which Gentile power has been destroyed. As a matter of fact, for the past century or more the church has been an ebbing tide in the affairs of the world, and there has been no progress whatever in the church’s gaining control of the world politically. If the image represents Gentile political power, it is very much still standing.

Accordingly, the interpretation is much preferred that the expression “in the days of those kings” refers to the kings who rule during the last generation of Gentile power. While this is not specifically related to the toes of the image, other passages speak specifically of ten kings in the end times (Dan. 7:24; Rev. 17:12). So it is not unreasonable to hold that this is a reference to the final state of the kingdom and the final rulers.

The description of the stone as being cut out “from a mountain by no human hand” has sometimes been interpreted as Mount Zion specifically, but it is better to consider this as a symbolic picture of political sovereignty. The stone is part and parcel of the sovereignty of God of which it is an effective expression. The symbolism clearly indicates an origination with God rather than with human beings. The effect is that the fifth kingdom, the kingdom of God, replaces completely all vestiges of the preceding kingdoms, a prophecy that can only be fulfilled in any literal sense by a reign of Christ over the earth. The amillennial interpretation, attempting to find fulfillment of the image’s destruction in history, does not provide a reasonable explanation of this passage. Only the premillennial position, which correlates this event with the second advent of Christ, allows literal fulfillment of the symbolism involved in the destruction of the image.

In concluding his interpretation, Daniel reaffirmed the certainty of the dream’s fulfillment, stating again that its interpretation came from God. The dream assures the ultimate rule of God over the earth, not only in the millennial kingdom, but also in the continued display of God’s sovereignty in the new heaven and new earth.

Before we complete the exposition of this chapter, it is instructive to note the interpretation of this vision by the first-century A.D. Jewish historian Josephus, which helps us understand how Jews in Christ’s day would have understood Daniel’s prophecy. Josephus’s interpretation is thus:

- The head of gold (2:36–38). “The head of gold denotes thee [Nebuchadnezzar], and the kings of Babylon that have been before thee.” (Antiquities 10.10.4)

Daniel clearly identified Nebuchadnezzar as the head of gold. Josephus included the idea that the head denoted more than just one king; it indicated a succession of kings that formed the Babylonian Empire.

- The chest and arms of silver (2:39a). “But the two hands and arms signify this, that your government shall be dissolved by two kings.” (Antiquities 10.10.4)

Josephus didn’t identify the two kings here, but later he stated that the kingdom of Babylon was divided “among the Medes and Persians.”

- The legs of bronze (2:39b). “But another king that shall come from the west, armed with bronze, shall destroy that government.” (Antiquities 10.10.4)

Josephus added the fact that the ruler of this third kingdom will “come from the west” to destroy the Medes and Persians. Later he identified the “Greeks” as the nation that would defeat the Persians.

- The feet of iron and clay (2:40–43). “And another government, that shall be like unto iron, shall put an end to the power of the former, and shall have dominion over all the earth, on account of the nature of iron, which is stronger than that of gold, of silver, and of bronze.” (Antiquities 10.10.4)

Though Josephus doesn’t provide a specific identification here, he clearly had the Roman Empire in view. First, he wrote that he was describing things “past or present,” and the Roman Empire was in power when he wrote. Second, he later stated, “In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them” (Antiquities 10.11.7). Rome is the fourth of the world empires identified by Daniel.

- The fifth kingdom (2:44–45). “Daniel did also declare the meaning of the stone to the king; but I do not think proper to relate it, since I have only undertaken to describe things past or present, but not things that are future.”

Josephus understood this portion of the prophecy as still future from his perspective. Whiston notes that Josephus failed to explain the meaning of what he “intimated to be a prophecy of futurity and probably not safe for him to explain, as belonging to the destruction of the Roman empire by Jesus Christ, the true Messiah of the Jews.”[36]

NEBUCHADNEZZAR WORSHIPS AND PROMOTES DANIEL (2:46–49)

2:46–49 Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and paid homage to Daniel, and commanded that an offering and incense be offered up to him. The king answered and said to Daniel, “Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery.” Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. Daniel made a request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego over the affairs of the province of Babylon. But Daniel remained at the king’s court.

Overwhelmed by the tremendous significance of the image and the demonstration that Daniel’s God was greater than any god whom he worshiped, Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and paid great honor to Daniel. The word for “homage” can denote the worship of a deity.[37] It is quite clear, however, from the king’s conversation with Daniel that Nebuchadnezzar merely regarded Daniel as a worthy priest or representative of his God and was honoring him in this category. In other words, even the king understood that Daniel was the ambassador and representative of God but not deity himself. It is probably for this reason that Daniel permitted the king to do what he did.

An interesting parallel is found in Josephus, recording the instance where Alexander the Great bowed before the high priest of the Jews. When Parmenion, one of his generals, asked him why, when ordinarily all men would prostrate themselves before Alexander the Great, he had prostrated himself before the high priest of the Jews, Alexander replied, “It was not before him that I prostrated myself, but the God of whom he has the honor to be high priest.”[38] In view of the previous statements of Daniel repeated several times and Nebuchadnezzar’s own statement of verse 47, the record leaves no doubt that Daniel was not claiming deity or any of the powers of deity.

Nebuchadnezzar paid a great tribute to the God of Daniel. It is most significant that the king did not even mention his own gods that had failed to produce a suitable revelation, except in the statement that Daniel’s God is “God of gods”—that is, Daniel’s God is supreme over any other gods commonly worshiped in a polytheistic system. Although Nebuchadnezzar was short of true faith in Daniel’s God at this point in his life, this was the first step on Nebuchadnezzar’s journey of faith. The evidence that Daniel’s God could reveal a secret and may indeed have been the author of his dream impressed Nebuchadnezzar with the fact that no other god could be greater.

In keeping with the king’s desire to honor Daniel and also according to his promise, Daniel was immediately promoted. Many valuable gifts were given to him, and he was installed in the exalted position of ruler over the whole province of Babylon as well as chief prefect over the wise men. Although this position may have been objectionable for a Jew, no doubt Daniel found a way to avoid involvement in the usual practices of divination, pagan rites, and other things that might normally fall to this office.

Having been thus honored by the king, Daniel, in fairness to his three companions who had joined him in prayer that the secret might be revealed, requested that they too might have a position of power and influence in the province of Babylon. Apparently, although Daniel had great authority, it did not include appointing such officials without the king’s permission.

Granting Daniel’s request, Nebuchadnezzar appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to positions of trust in the province of Babylon. Daniel himself apparently had a position of honor in the king’s court itself. Thus Daniel, the obscure Jewish captive who could have been lost to history like many others if he had compromised in chapter 1, was now exalted to a place of great honor and power. Like Joseph in Egypt, he was destined to play an important part in the subsequent history of his generation.

NOTES

[1] A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1970; repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 99.

[2] D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1961), 26.

[3] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, New American Commentary, E. Ray Clendenen, ed. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 46.

[4] John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 46.

[5] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 75.

[6] Ibid., 76.

[7] Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 57. See also 51.

[8] See Leupold’s discussion in Daniel, 83–86; and Young, Daniel, 271–73.

[9] Miller, Daniel, 80.

[10] K. A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, D. J. Wiseman et al., eds. (London: Tyndale, 1965), 32.

[11] S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 20.

[12] Leupold, Daniel, 90.

[13] Young, Daniel, 63.

[14] Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 96.

[15] Miller, Daniel, 84.

[16] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon to the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 933.

[17] W. H. Griffith Thomas, “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 125 (July–September 1968), 262.

[18] Leupold, Daniel, 101.

[19] Ibid., 105.

[20] Montgomery, Daniel, 162; cf. discussion by Leupold, Daniel, 105–6; and Goldingay, Daniel, 48.

[21] Driver, Book of Daniel, 26.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Leupold, Daniel, 105.

[24] Miller, Daniel, 84.

[25] Robert D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody, n.d.), 107.

[26] Charles, with insufficient warrant, thinks that the order of mention, “iron, clay, bronze” in verse 35 is wrong and should be “clay, iron, bronze” as in verse 33, in reverse order. As Charles admits, the KJV rendering is supported by the LXX and the Vulgate, and in any case no rigid order is observed in the passage as a whole, as illustrated in another order in verse 45, where “clay” comes after “bronze.” Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 24–25.

[27] Young, Daniel, 73–74.

[28] Eric William Heaton, The Book of Daniel, Torch Bible Commentaries, John Marsh, Alan Richardson, and R. Gregor Smith, eds. (London: SCM, 1956), 169–72.

[29] Wilson comments, “When one asserts that the author of Daniel has ‘confused’ events or persons, it is not enough for him to affirm that the author was thus confused. This confusion is a matter of evidence. With all due deference to the opinion of other scholars, I am firmly convinced that no man to-day has sufficient evidence to prove that the author of Daniel was confused. There are no records to substantiate the assertions of confusion” (Robert Dick Wilson, “Book of Daniel,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, ed., vol. 2 [Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1930], 128). Wilson then deals with the major criticisms of the critics. The most important of these concerns Darius the Mede (Dan. 5:31). For further discussion of this problem see the introduction to chapter 6.

[30] Leupold, Daniel, 119.

[31] Young, Daniel, 77.

[32] Henry A. Ironside, Lectures on Daniel the Prophet (New York: Loizeaux, 1920), 36–37.

[33] Keil, Daniel, 109.

[34] Culver, Daniel, 115–20.

[35] Leupold, Daniel, 121.

[36] William Whiston, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus (repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980), 224.

[37] Miller, Daniel, 84.

[38] Josephus, “Jewish Antiquities,” in Josephus, 6:476–77.

3

The Golden Image of Nebuchadnezzar

The account of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image records his reaction to the revelation of chapter 2 in which he was symbolized by the head of gold. The astounding courage and deliverance of Daniel’s companions, who refused to worship the image, has inspired the people of God in similar times of trial. This chapter, however, is often regarded as merely providing historical insight into the characteristics of this period. Works devoted to the prophecies of Daniel often omit consideration of chapter 3 entirely, as do S. P. Tregelles[1] and Robert D. Culver.[2] Others, like Goldingay, suggest that the chapter combines factual allusions with traditional motifs or legends.[3] Undoubtedly, chapter 3 is intended to convey spiritual truth, but also characteristics of the times of the Gentiles. Its study not only provides spiritual insights, but contributes to the overall presentation of prophecy in Daniel.

The likely background for the events of chapter 3 is a coup attempt against Nebuchadnezzar that occurred December 595-January 594 B.C., during the tenth year of his reign. This event was significant enough to have been recorded in the Babylonian Chronicle as the major event of the year.[4] After the coup attempt failed, it is likely that Nebuchadnezzar summoned all his provincial rulers and vassal kings back to Babylon for a loyalty oath.[5] Those who had proved themselves loyal at the royal court in Babylon would have been exempt from the ceremony. This would explain why Daniel did not have to appear at the gathering. He had been with Nebuchadnezzar “at the king’s court,” but Daniel’s three friends were summoned with the other officials because they had been serving as administrators in the “province of Babylon” (Dan. 2:49).

The dream of chapter 2 and the statue of chapter 3 could have been separated by as many as eight years (the difference between Nebuchadnezzar’s second year (2:1) and the coup attempt in his tenth year). Yet it’s still possible to make a connection between the two events. The statue represented a progression of world powers with Nebuchadnezzar as the first of those powers. By summoning “the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans” to announce he had a dream (Dan. 2:2)—and then by elevating Daniel to be “ruler over the whole province of Babylon” (2:48) as a result of interpreting the dream—we can surmise that the content and interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream must have received wide distribution. Having put down a serious coup attempt that challenged his authority, it seems reasonable to assume Nebuchadnezzar built a statue of gold to remind others of his divine identification as the “head of gold” among world powers. He was asking these rulers to submit to his authority.

THE IMAGE OF GOLD (3:1–7)

3:1–7 King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth six cubits. He set it up on the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. Then King Nebuchadnezzar sent to gather the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces to come to the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Then the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces gathered for the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. And they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. And the herald proclaimed aloud, “You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. And whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace.” Therefore, as soon as all the peoples heard the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, all the peoples, nations, and languages fell down and worshiped the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up.

The events of chapter 3 are clearly subsequent to those of chapter 2 since Daniel 3:12, referring to the appointment of Daniel’s companions over the affairs of the province of Babylon, and Daniel 3:30 imply that the event was subsequent to Daniel 2:49. The exact date of the image, however, is debated. The Septuagint and the Hellenistic Jewish scholar Theodotion connect it with the destruction of Jerusalem, which, according to 2 Kings 25:8–10 and Jeremiah 52:12, places this event in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar—a much longer lapse of time than suggested above.

There is no certainty, however, that there is a relationship between the destruction of Jerusalem and the erection of the image. Although no reason is given for Daniel’s absence when the image was made, it is possible that he was away on business for the empire. If so, this would suggest at least some passage of time between Daniel’s appointment to royal duty (2:48) and the erection of the image.

The image of gold is described as being sixty cubits (90 ft.) high and six cubits (9 ft.) wide, a very impressive sight. The Hebrew word for image implies, as Leupold says, “an image in the very broadest sense,” probably in human form although the proportions are far too narrow for a normal figure.[6] Scripture does not solve this problem, but most commentators agree that images of this kind in antiquity frequently varied from ordinary human proportions. The image may have stood on a pedestal with only the upper part of the entire structure resembling human form. The obvious intent was to impress by the size of the image—90 feet high x 9 feet wide—rather than by its particular features. Leupold cites numerous ancient images such as that of Zeus in a temple at Babylon; the golden images on the top of the Belus temple, one of which was forty cubits high; and the Colossus at Rhodes, which was seventy cubits high.[7] While an image of this size was unusual, it was by no means unique, and there is no reason to question the historical accuracy of its dimensions.

Although Nebuchadnezzar had tremendous wealth and could conceivably have built this image of solid gold, it is probable that it was made of wood or brick overlaid with gold, as was customary. Montgomery observes, “Its construction of gold has also given rise to extensive argument, with charge of absurdity on one side, e.g., JDMich [J. D. Michaelis], with defense based on the fabulous riches of the East on the other. But Herodotus’ statements about the golden idols in Babylon afford sufficient background. (Cf. Pliny’s account of an all-gold image of Anaitis, which was looted by Antony, Hist, nat., xxxiii, 24.) The gold consisted in overlaid plates, for which we possess not only abundant Classical evidence … but also that of the Bible.”[8] The “golden altar” (Exod. 39:38) was actually wood overlaid with gold (Exod. 37:25–26). idols overlaid with gold are mentioned in Isaiah 40:19 and 41:7. Jeremiah described the same process (Jer. 10:3–9). The appearance of the image, however, was much the same as if it were solid gold.

The use of gold for the image may have been derived from Nebuchadnezzar’s previous experience with the image of chapter 2, where Daniel informed him that he was the head of gold. Although Nebuchadnezzar did not do this intentionally, the image’s dimensions introduce the number six, which is prominent in the Bible as the number of man (cf. Rev. 13:18). This adds another element of authenticity to the story since the Babylonians used a sexagesimal (base 60), rather than a decimal, numbering system.[9] As suggested above, the image’s purpose may have been to evoke an oath of loyalty from the king’s officials after an aborted coup attempt. Some suggest the image may have represented one of the gods of Babylon,[10] but if that were the case it would have been more natural to mention the god’s name. Or, Nebuchadnezzar may have regarded the image as representing himself as the embodiment of divine power, and the worship of the image would then be a recognition of his personal power. In view of his pride as dealt with in chapter 4, this is at least a possible explanation.

The image was set up “on the plain of Dura.” The word Dura, as Leupold states, “is a rather common name in Mesopotamia, being a name that is applicable to any place which is enclosed by a wall,” and a number of locations bear this title.[11] Both Keil and Young mention two possible locations that seem to be eliminated by being too far from Babylon. Young states, “The name Dura has occurred in classical sources; Polybius 5:48, Amm. Mar. 23:5, 8; 24:1, 5 mention a Dura at the mouth of the Chaboras where it empties into the Euphrates, but this can hardly be reckoned as being in the province of Babylon, and another Dura is mentioned as being beyond the Tigris not far from Appollonia, Polybius 5:52 and Amm. Mar. 25:6, 9. This also would be too distant.”[12]

The consensus of conservative scholarship is that the most probable location is a mound located several miles southeast of Babylon consisting of a large square of brick construction that would have ideally served as a base for such an image.[13] Its proximity to Babylon would make it convenient and yet its location in a valley plain would make its height impressive. The fact that a specific name is given to the location, which implies an intimate knowledge of Babylon in the sixth century B.C., as Young points out, “is in reality an evidence of genuineness in that it seems to presuppose some knowledge of Babylonian geography.”[14]

The image having been erected, Nebuchadnezzar gathered the principal officials of his empire for its dedication. As there are parallels in similar situations in the ancient world, such as Sargon’s feast upon the completion of a palace erected at Dur Sharrukin,[15] scholars, both liberal and conservative, have agreed that this ceremony is in keeping with the times. Such a display of officials was on the one hand a gratifying demonstration of the power of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire and on the other hand was significant as recognizing the deities who in their thinking were responsible for their victories. The worship of the image was intended to be an expression of loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar rather than an intended act of religious persecution. It was, in effect, a saluting of the flag, although, because of the interrelationship of religious with national loyalties, it may also have had religious connotation.

The list of officials spans the ranks of Babylonian government and includes the rulers of the territories conquered by Babylon. Though the individuals summoned include only government officials, the international scope of Nebuchadnezzar’s gathering is apparent when the herald addressed the officials as “peoples, nations, and languages.”[16]

An undated clay prism discovered at Babylon provides a parallel account of this event. On the prism Nebuchadnezzar wrote, “I ordered the [following] court officials in exercises of [their] duties to take up position in my [official] suite.”[17] Dyer notes,

The prism then lists five ranks of individuals who were evidently summoned before Nebuchadnezzar at approximately the same time and appointed (or reappointed) to official positions in the government of Babylon. These ranks included court officials, officials of the land of Akkad, officials of towns, district officials, and western vassal kings. This list pictures a high government gathering. If this assembly occurred after the unsuccessful revolt against Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, it is likely that Nebuchadnezzar intended it as an awe-inspiring event to assure the future loyalty of those who held positions of authority under him.[18]

This list of officials in Daniel 3 has occasioned comment because some of the titles are Persian rather than Babylonian. The speculation as to why Persian terms should be used is much ado about nothing. It would be natural for Daniel, who may have written or at least edited this passage after the Persian government had come to power, to bring the various offices up-to-date by using current expressions. The fact that Daniel was so familiar with these offices is another evidence that he lived in the sixth century B.C., refuting the second-century date assigned to the book by its critics. Kitchen points out,

If the first important Greek translation of Daniel was made some time within c. 100 B.C.-A.D. 100, roughly speaking, and the translator could not (or took no trouble to) reproduce the proper meanings of these terms, then one conclusion imposes itself: their meaning was already lost and forgotten or, at least, drastically changed long before he set to work. Now if Daniel (in particular, the Aramaic chapters 2–7) was wholly a product of c. 165 B.C., then a century or so in a continuous tradition is surely embarrassingly inadequate as a sufficient interval for that loss (or change) of meaning to occur, by Near Eastern standards. Therefore, it is desirable on this ground to seek the original of such verses (and hence of the narratives of which they are an integral part) much earlier than this date, preferably within memory of the Persian rule—i. e. c. 539 (max.) to c. 280 B.C. (allowing about fifty years’ lapse from the fall of Persia to Macedon).[19]

The exact functions of each office are not given, but seven classes of officials are designated. Keil probably gives the best explanation of the various terms. The “satraps” were administrators, guardians, or watchers, and the chief representatives of the king. The “prefects” were commanders or military chiefs. The “governors” seemed to refer to presidents or governors of civil government. The “counselors” were of the government or chief arbitrators. The “treasurers” were superintendents of the public treasury. The “justices” were lawyers or guardians of the law. The “magistrates” were judges in a stricter sense of the term, that is, those who gave a just sentence. The summons also went out to “all the officials,” governors of the provinces subordinate to the chief governor.[20] This list of officers is repeated in verse 3 and some are repeated in verse 27.

According to verse 3, they were assembled before the image, awaiting the call to universal worship signaled by the cry of the herald. The word for herald (kārôz), because it closely resembles the Greek word kērux, introduces the interesting problem of Greek words in Daniel. Archer and others have challenged whether these words are actually Greek words, pointing out that karoz (herald, classified as a Greek word by Brown, Driver, and Briggs Lexicon) has in works like Koehler-Baumgartner’s Hebrew Lexicon been traced to the Old Persian khrausa, meaning “caller.”[21]

Several of the instruments listed in verse 5 also seem to be of Greek origin. This has been claimed as confirmation that Daniel wrote during the period of Greek dominance of Western Asia—in the second rather than sixth century B.C., in other words.

But Edwin Yamauchi notes that it was not uncommon for monarchs to have foreign musicians and musical instruments in their royal court.[22] Robert Dick Wilson points out that the argument actually boomerangs since, if Daniel was written in a Greek period, there would be many more Greek words than the few that occur here and there.[23] The fact is that there is nothing strange about some amount of Greek influence in Babylonian culture in view of the contact between Babylonians and Greeks. Greek traders were common in Egypt and western Asia from the seventh century B.C. onward.[24] Greek mercenaries who served as soldiers for various countries are found more than one hundred years before Daniel, as in the Assyrian army of Esarhaddon (682 B.C.) and even in the Babylonian army of Nebuchadnezzar.[25] Not only did the Greeks affect the Semitic world, but Assyrian and Babylonian influences appear in the Greek language as well.[26]

Recent studies on the musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3 have given support to the authenticity of these instruments in the sixth century B.C. Further studies by Yamauchi support the conclusion that Greek words in Daniel are not to be unexpected and in fact illustrate the interchange of cultures in the ancient world.[27]

The first instrument was a horn. Though it usually referred to the horn of an animal, it also described musical instruments made of wood or metal. The second instrument was a pipe, this identification being based on the fact that the word comes from a root that means “to hiss.”[28]

With the third instrument Daniel introduced a new grouping in Nebuchadnezzar’s musicians. While the first two instruments are wind instruments, the next three are stringed instruments. The first of these is translated as “lyre” in the ESV and has been variously identified as the harp, lyre, or zither. The “trigon” may be identified with the Greek sambukē and Roman sambuca, which was a horizontal, angular harp.[29] This word was incorrectly translated as “sackbut” in the KJV. The word translated “harp” was likely a trapezoid-shaped dulcimer either plucked or played with plectra (small piece of metal or wood).

The final instrument is translated “bagpipes,” but this identification is problematic. There is good linguistic evidence for identifying it as a drum, similar to a tympani. Besides, it would seem odd to list two wind instruments and three stringed instruments, followed by another wind instrument. If the final instrument is for percussion, however, the order of the instruments is harmonious. Daniel would have listed two wind instruments, then three stringed instruments, and one percussion instrument. While the exact identification of the instruments remains difficult, here is a proposed listing: horn, double-reed pipe, lyre, harp, dulcimer, and drum.[30]

At the sound of the music, all those gathered were to fall prostrate to the ground and give homage to the golden image. This has been taken by some to prove that the image was a deity or idol. But as pointed out above, the purpose of this event was most likely to reaffirm loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar and honor the greatness of his kingdom. This is why the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to fall before the golden image was, to the king, an act of high treason. Because the purpose of this event was primarily governmental and political rather than religious—although the image could represent a Babylonian god—we can conclude that there is no direct parallel between this and the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century B.C., which liberals cite as the background for this story in Daniel. Antiochus was attempting to destroy the Jewish religion, but this was not Nebuchadnezzar’s objective. Even so, the order to bow down to the image was religiously offensive to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

Photo of a modern brick kiln in Iraq. It’s likely the “fiery furnace” used by Nebuchadnezzar was a brick kiln.

The herald made plain that anyone who did not obey the command to fall down and worship would be immediately thrown into a burning furnace. The expression “immediately” does not necessarily indicate that the furnace was already burning. It is likely that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into an updraft brick kiln, similar in function to the one pictured here. Most building in Babylon was done using brick, and it’s reasonable to assume that there was an abundant supply of brick kilns in the area. Sun-dried bricks were placed inside the kiln and heated to about fifteen hundred degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature within the kiln was controlled by opening or closing flue vents. Since the Babylonians didn’t have an exact method for determining temperature, it’s possible that Nebuchadnezzar’s order to heat the furnace “seven times more than it was usually heated” (v. 19) is to be understood in the sense of heating the furnace to the highest level possible.

In Jeremiah 29:22–23 the prophet described Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment of two Jewish prophets who predicted his imminent downfall. As punishment for their seditious behavior, they were “roasted in the fire.” This seems to be another case where Nebuchadnezzar threw his enemies into a fiery furnace. Jeremiah announced that the gruesome fate of these false prophets would be used as a curse among the exiles. Jeremiah wrote chapter 29 about 597 B.C., just a few years before the events of Daniel 3.

The threat of being executed by being burned alive was sufficient to cause the entire group to fall down and worship when the music sounded. Apparently, the only exceptions were the three Hebrew young men. The stage was now set for the trial of the three faithful Jews.

SHADRACH, MESHACH, AND ABEDNEGO ACCUSED BY THE CHALDEANS (3:8–12)

3:8–12 Therefore at that time certain Chaldeans came forward and maliciously accused the Jews. They declared to King Nebuchadnezzar, “O king, live forever! You, O king, have made a decree, that every man who hears the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image. And whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast into a burning fiery furnace. There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These men, O king, pay no attention to you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

Although there is no previous mention in the text of this refusal, the Chaldeans, who were the court astrologers, approached the king to bring their accusation. Undoubtedly, there was resentment against these Jews whom Nebuchadnezzar had placed in charge of the province of Babylon because they were of another race and of a captive people. It was quite clear to the Chaldeans also that the Jews did not worship the gods of Babylon and were actually a foreign element in the government. Thus they eagerly seized on this opportunity to slander Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The word “accused” translates an Aramaic expression common to Semitic languages that literally means “they ate their pieces,” that is, to devour piecemeal.[31] This is why their accusation is identified as malicious.

The Chaldeans approached Nebuchadnezzar and reminded him of the details of his decree and the penalty for disobedience. With the stage thus set for the accusation, the Chaldeans made three charges against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. First, they showed no regard for the king. Second, they did not serve the king’s gods. Third, they refused to worship the golden image Nebuchadnezzar had set up.

The form of the accusation was almost a rebuke to the king himself. It is clear that, given the Chaldeans’ deep-seated resentment against the Jews, they felt the king had made a serious mistake in trusting foreigners with such high offices. They reminded the king that these men were Jews, different in race and culture from the Babylonians. The king had set them over the affairs of the province of Babylon, the most important province in the empire and the key to political security for the entire realm. The personal loyalty of such officers should be beyond question; but, as the Chaldeans pointed out, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego had not shown regard for the king himself.

The second accusation that they did not serve Nebuchadnezzar’s gods was more than merely a religious difference. The whole concept of political loyalty, of which the worship of the image was an expression, was bound up in the idea that Nebuchadnezzar’s gods had favored him and given him victory. To challenge Nebuchadnezzar’s gods, therefore, was to challenge Nebuchadnezzar himself and to raise a question as to the political integrity of the three men accused. As proof of their suspicions, the Chaldeans charged the three with not worshiping the golden image. The arguments were calculated to arouse Nebuchadnezzar’s anger and bring about the downfall of these three men with the possibility that the Chaldeans themselves might be given greater authority in political affairs. Their plot almost succeeded.

THE THREE JEWS REFUSE TO WORSHIP THE IMAGE (3:13–18)

3:13–18 Then Nebuchadnezzar in furious rage commanded that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought. So they brought these men before the king. Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good. But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?” Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

The argument and accusation of the Chaldeans had a telling effect upon Nebuchadnezzar. The king regarded the disobedience of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego not only as a threat to his political security, but also a personal affront. However, in view of the fact that they probably had held their offices for some years and had evidently been faithful and efficient in the conduct of their duties, Nebuchadnezzar gave them a second chance that lesser men might not have been offered—although he also restated the consequences for disobeying his command. It is worth noting that the king’s questions distinguished between serving his gods and worshiping the image. Though these two aspects were interrelated, it seems to confirm the idea that the worship was primarily political, although the fact that they did not worship Babylon’s gods was a condemning circumstance. Though Nebuchadnezzar was probably well aware of the Chaldeans’ jealousy, he made it clear that there was no alternative but to worship the image.

Nebuchadnezzar’s challenge, “Who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?” (v. 15) showed amazing arrogance, given that he had seen the true God’s superiority over Babylonian gods in interpreting his dream. But the king refused to believe that the God of the Jews would be able to deliver these three men from his hand. Nebuchadnezzar apparently felt supreme in his power and did not expect any god to interfere. Rabshakeh made the same arrogant and blasphemous claim when threatening King Hezekiah (Isa. 36:13–20)—the claim to possess human power so great that there was no divine power to which the victim could turn for help.

The reply of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to the king might ordinarily call for a long discourse explaining why they could not worship the image. They seemed to recognize, however, that any defense would have been useless, and that the issue was clearly whether their God was able to deliver them or not. Accordingly, they confronted the king with their confidence in God to such an extent that their reply might be considered disrespectful. But that was probably not their intention; they were simply stating their confidence in God’s power over that of the king.

Nebuchadnezzar’s question to his three Jewish officials regarding their refusal, “Is it true?”, was not directly answered since apparently their actions had already been confirmed. Another possibility is that the word “true” has to do with purpose, which means the king was asking the three why they had disobeyed him.[32] In any case, the men’s explanation left no question as to the answer. They would not serve the gods of Babylon and worship the image. This was forbidden in Exodus 20:4–6. They stated that their God was able to deliver them from a fiery furnace. The article “the” should be omitted before “burning fiery furnace” in verse 17, meaning that God could save them from any fiery furnace, not just the one at hand.

The three men, however, also faced the alternative that God might not deliver them. The expression “But if not” should be understood as referring to the deliverance, not to God’s ability. They took into consideration the possibility that sometimes it is not in God’s purpose to deliver His faithful ones from martyrdom.[33]

The response of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is the focal point of the story. When tested, they chose to remain faithful to God in spite of the consequences. Though they had confidence in God’s ability to rescue them from persecution, they did not demand that God perform a miracle for them. Like Job, they could declare, “Though he slay me, I will hope in him” (Job 13:15).

SHADRACH, MESHACH, AND ABEDNEGO THROWN INTO THE FURNACE (3:19–23)

3:19–23 Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the expression of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace heated seven times more than it was usually heated. And he ordered some of the mighty men of his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. Then these men were bound in their cloaks, their tunics, their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace. Because the king’s order was urgent and the furnace overheated, the flame of the fire killed those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the burning fiery furnace.

Nebuchadnezzar took the Jews’ answer not only as proof of the accusation made by the Chaldeans, but also as evidence of disloyalty to him personally, which made him furious. His pride had been severely punctured, so he gave the foolish order to overheat the furnace as if this would increase the torment. Actually, a slower fire would have been far more torture. Evidently, however, Nebuchadnezzar in his irrational anger wanted the furnace to be as hot as his rage!

There was no second chance this time; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were condemned to immediate execution. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar ordered them to be tied up by the strongest men in his army also reveals the irrationality of the king’s fury—as if the three would be able to break their ropes and escape if ordinary soldiers tied them up. The king did not even want to take the time to have the condemned men stripped of their clothes, which would have been normal in the ancient world. The men’s clothing later became a further testimony to God’s delivering power.

The heating of the furnace must have added a high note of tension to the entire situation as the crowd assembled for the event waited in anxious anticipation. They may have gasped when the three Jews fell into the flames and the executioners were killed. The Septuagint inserts the apocryphal “Prayer of Azariah” (Azariah was the Hebrew name of Abednego) and the “Song of the Three Youths” at this point with some additional explanation. Conservative scholars agree that this is not part of the scriptural text, although it is possible that these men, godly as they were, might have prayed in a similar way if time permitted. But Nebuchadnezzar had accomplished his purpose, his decree had been fulfilled, and he could leave to the furnace the task of consuming these men who had challenged his authority and his gods.

THE MIRACULOUS DELIVERANCE (3:24–27)

3:24–27 Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He declared to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.” He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.” Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the door of the burning fiery furnace; he declared, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here!” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out from the fire. And the satraps, the prefects, the governors, and the king’s counselors gathered together and saw that the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men. The hair of their heads was not singed, their cloaks were not harmed, and no smell of fire had come upon them.

Nebuchadnezzar apparently was able to observe the interior of the furnace from a safe distance. What he saw, however, brought him to complete astonishment. He could not believe his eyes and in his excitement stood up and asked his famous question in verse 24. Yes, three men had been thrown into the furnace, but Nebuchadnezzar saw four men. What’s more, they were free, unhurt, and walking around in the heat and flames, making no attempt to come out. Most astounding of all was Nebuchadnezzar’s statement that “the appearance of the fourth [man] is like a son of the gods.” Who was the fourth person in the furnace? While the King James Version identifies this individual as “the Son of God,” the English Standard Version more accurately interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s identification of this fourth person. Could this be a reference to a theophany, an appearance of the preincarnate Christ? While it is possible, we must remember that the identification is being made by a pagan king. It is doubtful that Nebuchadnezzar would recognize the Son of God unless he was given prophetic insight. But he realized that the fourth person was more than a mere human. Possibly this was an angel sent to protect these three faithful servants of God (cf. 3:28; 6:22).

When the men came out, it was immediately apparent to Nebuchadnezzar and the assembled throng that the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego was greater than the gods of Babylon. Although obviously all the people could not get close enough to see precisely what had happened, the king’s officials witnessed the event. In using the expression “the Most High God,” Nebuchadnezzar was not disavowing his own deities but merely recognizing on the basis of the tremendous miracle that had been performed that the God of Israel was higher.

There was no question that a mighty miracle had been performed. The Scripture is careful to note that the hair of the three Hebrews had not been singed and their clothes were intact without even the smell of smoke. The fire had destroyed nothing except the ropes that bound them, the symbols of Nebuchadnezzar’s unbelief and wrath.

Just as Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is symbolic of the entire period of the times of the Gentiles, so the deliverance of the three Jewish officials is emblematic of Israel’s deliverance during the period of Gentile domination. Particularly at the end of this period, Israel will be in fiery affliction; but as Isaiah prophesied, “But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: ‘Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you’” (Isa. 43:1–2).

THE DECREE OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR (3:28–30)

3:28–30 Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set aside the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way.” Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon.

Just as Nebuchadnezzar had acknowledged Daniel’s God at the conclusion of chapter 2, so here he admitted the power of the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The king issued a decree in oriental style commemorating the event. First, he recognized God’s delivering power through His “angel.” It was generally believed that the pagan gods used messengers to accomplish their purpose, and Nebuchadnezzar analyzed the event in this way.

Although there is no clear indication whether the fourth person in the furnace was actually deity or an angel—as all we have is Nebuchadnezzar’s conclusion on the basis of what he saw—it is at least possible that the protector of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego was Christ Himself, appearing in the form of an angel. The expression “a son of the gods” (3:25) is a translation of an Aramaic phrase meaning “a divine being.” Nebuchadnezzar interpreted this in verse 28 as an angel. If it was not the preincarnate Christ, then the alternative is that God sent an angel to protect them. This, of course, is also plausible and in keeping with other Scripture.[34]

Nebuchadnezzar not only recognized the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but now belatedly commended them for their trust in God even though it resulted in contradicting his word. He also recognized the superior obligation of the men not to worship any deity except their own. This was a remarkable admission for a king in Nebuchadnezzar’s situation.

Having given this preamble, Nebuchadnezzar made his decree. He did not deprecate his own gods but acknowledged the power of the God whom Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego worshiped. Nebuchadnezzar also warned everyone in his realm not to speak ill of this God, and made dire threats that everyone knew he had the power to carry out. Although Nebuchadnezzar was greatly impressed, he had not yet been brought to the place where he was willing to put his trust solely in the God of Israel.

The chain of events that had brought about this miracle also consolidated the position of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as principal officials in the province of Babylon. Whatever their former rank and authority, they were now promoted. Although probably in the same office, they were relieved of any opposition and had the special favor of the king in what they did. Interestingly, these men are not mentioned again after this chapter.

As pointed out in an extended discussion by Leupold, the nature of this trial and persecution was quite different from that of Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century B.C., and scholars who attempt to draw parallels to support the idea of a pseudo-Daniel writing the book of Daniel in the second century have no basis for such claims. Nebuchadnezzar at least respected the God of Israel, something that was quite untrue in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes.[35] As recorded in the Word of God, it is characteristic of Gentile times that there will be tensions between obedience to God and obedience to men. This will reach its peak in the future great tribulation when once again the choice between obeying an earthly ruler and obeying God will result in many martyrs.

Daniel 3 is a thrilling account of young men who remained true to God under severe trial. The common excuses for moral and spiritual compromise, especially the blaming of contemporary influences, are contradicted by the faithfulness of these men. In spite of separation from parents and the corrupting influences of Babylonian religion, political pressure, and immorality, they did not waver in their hour of testing. Critics are probably right that Daniel intended this chapter to remind Israel of the evils of idolatry and the necessity of obeying God rather than men.

But the main thrust of the passage is not an invented moral story that actually never happened, as critics assert, but rather the display of a God who is faithful to His people even in captivity and is always ready to deliver those who put their trust in Him. The contrast of the God of Israel with the idols of Babylon is a reminder that the god of this world, behind Gentile dominion, is doomed to judgment at the hands of the sovereign God. This is illustrated in the fall of Babylon and of the succeeding empires of Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The downfall of these nations is a foreshadowing of the end of the times of the Gentiles when the Lion of the tribe of Judah returns to reign.

chapter 3, the first of four chapters dealing with individuals, is a preparation for chapter 4, which relates Nebuchadnezzar’s conversion. Here the king was confronted by the superior power of God that nullified his command to execute God’s servants. This was in preparation for the lesson the king was to learn in chapter 4 that all of his power was delegated by God and could be withdrawn at His will.

NOTES

[1] S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel, 7th ed. (London: Sovereign Grace, 1965).

[2] R. D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody, n.d.).

[3] John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 67–68.

[4] D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1961), 73.

[5] For an excellent presentation on this historical background, see William H. Shea, “Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Spring 1982), 29–52.

[6] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 136–37.

[7] Ibid., 137; cf. Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 83–85; and Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 118–19.

[8] James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 195.

[9] Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 80.

[10] Goldingay, Daniel, 70.

[11] Cf. Leupold, Daniel, 137; and Keil, Daniel, 119.

[12] Young, Daniel, 85.

[13] Wood, Daniel, 80.

[14] Young, Daniel, 85.

[15] Ibid., 86.

[16] Charles Dyer, “The Musical instruments in Daniel 3,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (October–December 1990), 427.

[17] Shea, “Daniel 3,” 37.

[18] Dyer, “Musical instruments,” 427.

[19] K. A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, D. J. Wiseman et al., eds. (London: Tyndale, 1965), 43. For the entire discussion, see 35–50.

[20] Keil, Daniel, 120–21.

[21] Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 375.

[22] Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137, no. 3 (January–March 1980), 16.

[23] Robert Dick Wilson, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” in Biblical and Theological Studies (New York: Scribner, 1912), 296. Cf. Leupold, Daniel, 143.

[24] William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed. (New York: Anchor Books, 1957), 259.

[25] Leupold, Daniel, 143.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Yamauchi, “Daniel,” 17–24.

[28] Ibid. Both Patton and Galpin identify the instrument with the syrinx, or pipes of Pan, based on the suggested etymology of mashrôqîta being sharak. However, this identification is tenuous. See Priscilla Patton and Rebecca Patton, Before the Times (San Francisco: Strawberry Hill Press, 1980), 190; Francis William Galpin, The Music of the Sumerians and Their Immediate Successors, the Babylonians and Assyrians (repr. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries, 1970), 67.

[29] Patton and Patton, Before the Times, 188. See also The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1986 ed.), s.v. “Music,” by D. A. Foxvog and A. D. Kilmer, 3:446.

[30] Dyer, “Musical instruments,” 436.

[31] Joyce C. Baldwin, Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978), 103.

[32] Wood, Daniel, 87.

[33] “Notice that these men of faith would not have regarded their deaths in the flames to be a failure of faith but rather an indication of God’s will” (Sinclair B. Ferguson, Daniel: Mastering the Old Testament, The Communicator’s Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1988], 78).

[34] Wood, Daniel, 93–94.

[35] Leupold, Daniel, 163–64.

4

Nebuchadnezzar’s Pride and Punishment

This chapter, one of the longest in the book of Daniel, is more than a profound story of how God can bring a proud man low. It is also the climax of Nebuchadnezzar’s spiritual biography that began with his recognition of the excellence of Daniel and his companions, continued with the interpretation of the dream of the image in chapter 2, and was furthered by his experience with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

Structurally, chapter 4 is parallel to chapter 5 and sits at the center of the chiasm formed in the Aramaic section of the book. chapters 2 and 7 highlight the certain coming of God’s kingdom following the rise of four successive Gentile powers. chapters 3 and 6 focus on the need for God’s people to remain faithful despite opposition and persecution as they await His kingdom. And chapters 4 and 5—featuring the kings God identifies as the starting (2:37–38) and ending (5:30–31) kings of the first Gentile empire—serve as reminders that even Gentile rulers will eventually acknowledge that ultimate power and control over nations rests with the God of heaven.

Daniel, who was a man of prayer, undoubtedly prayed for Nebuchadnezzar, whom he had served for so many years. While the king’s experience in chapter 4 was not what Daniel had anticipated, the outcome must have approximated this godly man’s fondest hope. Although some like Leupold, after Calvin, “doubt whether the king’s experience led to his conversion,”[1] it may well be that these events brought Nebuchadnezzar to the place where he put his trust in the God of Daniel. Even if merely a lesson in the spiritual progress of a man in the hands of God, this chapter is a literary gem.

In the light of Daniel’s revelation of the scope of Gentile power beginning in chapter 2, the king’s experience seems to take on the larger meaning of God’s humbling of Gentile power and the bringing of the world into submission to Himself. When compared to other Bible passages that speak prophetically of Babylon and its overthrow (cf. Isa. 13 and 14), it becomes clear that the contest between God and Nebuchadnezzar is a broad illustration of God’s dealings with the human race and especially the Gentile world in its creaturely pride and failure to recognize God’s sovereignty.

The theme of this chapter, as given by Daniel himself in the interpretation of the king’s dream, is God’s dealings with Nebuchadnezzar “till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will” (v. 25). Alongside the demonstration of God’s sovereignty, the bankruptcy of Babylonian wisdom forms another motif. It is certainly by design that this chapter precedes the downfall of Babylon itself in chapter 5. However, there is no justification in pushing this to the extreme of making it a particular application to Antiochus Epiphanes, in the effort to support a late date of Daniel. There is nothing whatever to link this passage to the second century B.C. In fact, it is far more applicable to that fateful night in October 539 B.C. when Babylon fell.

Whether chapter 4 was written by Nebuchadnezzar himself, or more probably by one of his scribes at his dictation, or possibly by Daniel himself at the king’s direction, the inclusion of it here is by divine inspiration. Those who reject this account assume that it is not inspired of the Holy Spirit, that an experience like Nebuchadnezzar’s is essentially incredible, and that it is a myth rather than an authentic historical record.

Such objections obviously assume that higher criticism is right in declaring Daniel a forgery of the second century B.C. This conclusion is subject to question not only because of the fallacious reasoning that supports it, but because it is challenged by the documentary evidence in the Qumran text of Daniel, which on the basis of the critics’ own criteria would require Daniel to be much older than the second century (see additional discussion in chapter 3). Conservative scholarship has united in declaring this chapter a genuine portion of the Word of God, equally inspired as other sections of Daniel.

INTRODUCTION OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S PROCLAMATION (4:1–3)

4:1–3 King Nebuchadnezzar to all peoples, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied to you! It has seemed good to me to show the signs and wonders that the Most High God has done for me. How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion endures from generation to generation.

While no extrabiblical copies of this proclamation have yet been discovered, there is sufficient time within Nebuchadnezzar’s forty-three-year reign for the events described to have taken place. And there are extrabiblical accounts that hint at the historicity of the events in the life of Nebuchadnezzar.[2] Although it is clear that the opening verses are an introduction to the decree, various versions differ in their versification, with the Masoretic text beginning the decree at the close of chapter 3. The Septuagint rendering of chapter 4 also differs considerably from the Hebrew-Aramaic text. Charles summarizes the differences:

In the Massoretic text, which is followed by Theodotion, the Vulgate, and the Peshitto, the entire narrative is given in the form of an edict or letter of Nebuchadnezzar to all his subjects. It begins with a greeting to “all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth,” and proceeds to state the king’s desire to make known to them the signs and wonders that the Most High had wrought upon him (1–3). He then recounts a dream which troubled him, and tells how he summoned the magicians, Chaldeans, and soothsayers to make known its interpretation.[3]

Charles then contrasts this with the Septuagint:

Turning now to the LXX we observe first of all that there is nothing in it corresponding to the first three verses in the Massoretic, which transform the next thirty-four verses into an edict. The chapter begins simply, in the LXX, with the words: “And in the eighteenth year of his reign Nebuchadnezzar said: I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house….”: Then follows in the same narrative form the next thirty-three verses. At their close comes the edict as a result of the king’s spiritual and psychical experiences, in which are embodied very many of the phrases in iv.1–3. A close study of the texts and versions has forced me to the conclusion that the older order of the text is preserved in the LXX and not in the Aramaic.[4]

Liberal critics generally unite in a low view of this chapter. They assign it to a pseudo-Daniel of the second century and find the text itself suspect. But there is insufficient evidence in favor of the Greek translation of the Septuagint. Even Montgomery, who does not regard this as authentic Scripture, rejects the view that the Septuagint is the older text than the present Aramaic text, although he considers the Aramaic also a revision of an earlier text.[5] There is actually little justification for all these variations of skepticism. The chapter on the face of it is credible, a record of supernatural revelation. Generally, those who accept the sixth-century date for Daniel also accept this chapter more or less as it is.

The first verse is the natural form for such a decree, beginning with the name of the sender, the people to whom it is sent, and a general greeting. Nebuchadnezzar’s address to “all the earth” was in keeping with the extensive character of his empire, although he was well aware that all of the earth’s geography was not under his power. It is similar to the extensive decree of Daniel 3:29 that was addressed to “Any people, nation, or language.” Montgomery was obviously prejudiced in his judgment: “As an edict the document is historically absurd; it has no similar parallels in the history of royal conversions nor in ancient imperial edicts.”[6]

The folly of this kind of objection is that if Montgomery had found even one example in any other literature, his criticism would become invalid. But he feels perfectly free to ignore the parallels in Daniel 3 and 6. In this case, as is so often true, the critics argue from alleged silence in the records, although admittedly we possess only fragments of ancient literature. This chapter is no more difficult to believe than any other unusual divine revelation. Certainly ancient kings in Assyria and Babylon did issue decrees in which they claimed that their rule extended over all the earth or all the world. Examples can be found of the Assyrian kings Shalmaneser III (858–824 B.C.) and Esarhaddon (680–669 B.C.) issuing statements in which they claimed to be “king of the world.”[7] And Ashurbanipal claimed the title “king of the world, king of Assyria, king of (all) four rims (of the earth).”[8] On the Cyrus cylinder the king who conquered Babylon said of himself, “I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims (of the earth)….”[9]

Although the benediction “Peace be multiplied to you” is strikingly similar to some of Paul’s greetings in his epistles, it was a common form of expression in the ancient world. A greeting much like this is found in Daniel 6:25 where Darius wrote a similar decree with almost the same wording. It is possible that Daniel himself affected the form even if he did not write it, since in both instances he was in a position of high authority, and the edicts in both cases may have been issued under his direction. The decree actually begins with the word peace as that which preceded it was the designation of the recipients.

Nebuchadnezzar then set the stage for the presentation of his experience by declaring that it was his judgment that the amazing signs and wonders wrought in his life by “the Most High God” were of such unusual significance that he should share them with his entire realm. The expression “signs and wonders” is a familiar idiom of Scripture occurring in many passages (Deut. 6:22; 7:19; 13:1, 2; 26:8; Neh. 9:10; Isa. 8:18, etc.). Because of its frequency in the Bible, it has led to questions by higher critics; but actually there is a great deal of similarity between Babylonian psalms and biblical psalms, and there is nothing technical about this phrase.[10] The expression “the Most High God” is another evidence that Nebuchadnezzar regarded the God of Israel as exalted, but it is not in itself proof that he was a monotheist, trusting only in the true God.

Nebuchadnezzar’s exclamation of the greatness of God and His signs and wonders is quite accurate and in keeping with his experience. The signs wrought in his life were indeed great, and God’s wonders were indeed mighty. His conclusion that God’s kingdom is everlasting was a logical one based on his experience and reveals God in a true light (cf. Ps. 14).

WISE MEN UNABLE TO INTERPRET DREAM (4:4–7)

4:4–7 I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace. I saw a dream that made me afraid. As I lay in bed the fancies and the visions of my head alarmed me. So I made a decree that all the wise men of Babylon should be brought before me, that they might make known to me the interpretation of the dream. Then the magicians, the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers came in, and I told them the dream, but they could not make known to me its interpretation.

Nebuchadnezzar’s account of his dream described his secure and flourishing situation in his palace. In his early reign he was active in military conquest. Now his vast domains had been made secure, and Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilling his heart’s desire by making Babylon one of the most fabulous cities of the ancient world. He was already enjoying his beautiful palace, and at the time of the dream itself he was in bed in his house (vv. 5, 10). The word the king used for “prospering” means “to be green,” such as the growth of green leaves on a tree, an evident anticipation of the dream that followed. The context of Nebuchadnezzar’s security and prosperity, surrounded by the monuments of his wealth and power, made his dream all the more troubling. The expression “made me afraid” is actually much stronger in the original and indicates extreme terror or fright.

As Nebuchadnezzar contemplated the meaning of his experience, he called all the wise men of Babylon before him to make known its interpretation. As illustrated in chapter 2 this was a standard procedure, and the wise men were supposed to be able to interpret mystical experiences. But upon being told the dream, the wise men—described here in their various categories, as also in Daniel 2:2—had no interpretation to offer the king. It seems that they not only did not make known the interpretation, but were unable to do so. Even though the dream was adverse and might present a problem in telling Nebuchadnezzar the bad news, they probably would have made some attempt to explain it to him if they had understood it.

DANIEL TOLD THE KING’S DREAM (4:8–18)

4:8–9 At last Daniel came in before me—he who was named Belteshazzar after the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods—and I told him the dream, saying, “O Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you and that no mystery is too difficult for you, tell me the visions of my dream that I saw and their interpretation.”

For some unexplained reason, Daniel was not with the other wise men when the king told them his dream. Questions have been raised as to why Daniel was addressed by both his Hebrew name and as Belteshazzar, his Babylonian name. Given that Daniel is so prominent in this part of the narrative, why the double name?

The answer is quite simple. This decree was going throughout the Babylonian kingdom, where most people would know Daniel as Belteshazzar. In recognition of the fact that Daniel’s God is the interpreter of his dream, Nebuchadnezzar called Daniel by his Hebrew name, the last syllable of which refers to Elohim, the God of Israel. The king explained that the name Belteshazzar was given “after the name of my god,” that is, the god Bel. The double name is not unnatural in view of the context and the dream’s explanation.

The king said that Daniel possessed “the spirit of the holy gods.” It is debatable whether gods is singular or plural, as it could be translated either way. Young, with a wealth of evidence from Montgomery, considers it a singular noun and thus a recognition by the king “that the God of Dan. was different from his own gods.”[11] This distinction is borne out by the adjective “holy” (4:8, 18; 5:11). The philological evidence supports the singular, although Leupold agrees with Driver that the noun and its adjective are plural and a reflection of the king’s polytheism.[12] Driver notes, “The same expression occurs in the Phoenician inscription of Eshmunazar, king of Sidon (3–4 cent. B.C.), lines 9 and 22.”[13] The word holy, according to Young, refers to gods who are divine, rather than specifically having moral purity.[14] The ultimate judgment of the expression depends on how well Nebuchadnezzar comprehended the nature of Daniel’s God. He obviously had high respect for the God of Daniel and may have had a true faith in the God of Israel.

Daniel was further described as the “chief of the magicians,” Nebuchadnezzar’s compliment of Daniel’s genius. The king also referred to Daniel’s thorough knowledge of the whole field of Babylonian astrology and religion. Leupold suggests that magicians should be translated “scholars” to give the true meaning and avoid the implication of mere magic.[15] Of interest is the statement concerning the prince of Tyre, “You are indeed wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you” (Ezek. 28:3). This statement, which the critics work hard to explain as it confirms a sixth-century Daniel, also supports the idea that Daniel’s fame had spread far and wide.

4:10–12 “The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. Its leaves were beautiful and its fruit abundant, and in it was food for all. The beasts of the field found shade under it, and the birds of the heavens lived in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it.”

Knowing he finally had the right person before him, Nebuchadnezzar began telling his dream to Daniel. The king saw a tree apparently standing somewhat by itself and dominating the view because of its great height. Porteous notes that Bentzen “refers to a building inscription of Nebuchadnezzar in which Babylon is compared to a spreading tree.”[16] The use of trees in the Bible for symbolic purposes as well as in extrascriptural narratives is found frequently (cf. 2 Kings 14:9; Pss. 1:3; 37:35; 52:8; 92:12; Ezek. 17).

A parallel to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is recorded in Ezekiel 31, where the Assyrian as well as the Egyptian Pharaoh are compared to a cedar of Lebanon. In extrabiblical literature, there is the account of Astyages the Mede who had a dream in which a vine grew out of the womb of Mandane his daughter and subsequently covered all Asia. Herodotus interpreted this as referring to Cyrus.[17] Another famous illustration is that of Xerxes, who in a dream was crowned with a branch of an olive tree that extended over the world.[18] There are similar allusions in Arabic and Turkish sources.[19] Nebuchadnezzar probably anticipated that the tree represented himself, and this added to his concern.

Nebuchadnezzar described the tree as growing, becoming very strong and very high until it was visible all over the earth, obviously exceeding the possibilities of any ordinary tree. It had abundant foliage, and it bore enough fruit that “all flesh was fed from it.” Symbolically, it included mankind as under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar.

4:13–15a “I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven. He proclaimed aloud and said thus: ‘Chop down the tree and lop off its branches, strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit. Let the beasts flee from under it and the birds from its branches. But leave the stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, amid the tender grass of the field.’”

Then Nebuchadnezzar said someone appeared from heaven, calling him “a watcher, a holy one.” This expression has generated a lot of comment, especially by liberal critics who consider this a vestige of polytheism. Even Keil says, “The conception … is not biblical, but Babylonian pagan.”[20] In Babylonian religion, it was customary to recognize “council deities” who were charged with the special task of watching over the world. The question raised on this passage is whether Nebuchadnezzar used this pagan concept.

In his detailed note on the subject of watchers, Montgomery refers to the considerable role played by the “watchers” in the intertestamental literature and to a possible occurrence in the Zadokite fragment. He quotes Meinhold as drawing attention in this connection to “full of eyes all around,” in Ezekiel 1:18, and “These seven are the eyes of the LORD, which range through the whole earth,” in Zechariah 4:10, and goes on to trace the still closer parallel with “the Watchers” (shōmerîm) and “You who put the LORD in remembrance, take no rest” (hammazkirîm ’eth-Yahweh) of Isaiah 62:6.[21]

In the light of the full revelation of Scripture, the most natural conclusion is that this person was an angel sent from God, even though the word angel is not used. That angels are watchers, or better, “vigilant, making a sleepless watch,” is not foreign to the concept of angels in Scripture. The expressions “watchers” and “the holy ones” are mentioned in verse 17 by the messenger himself. Nebuchadnezzar seems to use the term in its pagan connotation. He probably would not have understood what was meant by the term angel in this connection, although he used “angel” himself in 3:28.

The heavenly messenger cried aloud to the unnamed listeners, calling for the tree to be almost completely destroyed, with only the stump remaining. But the instructions given for this stump indicate that the tree will be revived later. The purpose of the stump’s band of iron and bronze is not clear, unless perhaps it helped preserve the stump by preventing it from either splitting and rotting, or from being removed.[22]

The band may also be symbolic of the insanity that would soon afflict Nebuchadnezzar and hold him symbolically in chains. The fact that the stump is to be surrounded by the grass of the field, to be wet with dew, and to have its portion with the animals describes what Nebuchadnezzar would experience during his insanity. This becomes clearer in verse 16 where the person is given an animal’s mind instead of a human mind.

4:15b-18 “‘Let him be wet with the dew of heaven. Let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth. Let his mind be changed from a man’s, and let a beast’s mind be given to him; and let seven periods of time pass over him. The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men.’ This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, saw. And you, O Belteshazzar, tell me the interpretation, because all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation, but you are able, for the spirit of the holy gods is in you.”

The prophecy concludes with the expression, “let seven periods of time pass over him” (v. 16; cf. v. 32). These are best understood as seven years, during which time Nebuchadnezzar’s hair would grow “as long as eagles’ feathers” and his nails become “like birds’ claws” (v. 33). Hair grows at the rate of one-half inch per month (six inches per year), and fingernails grow an average of one and a quarter inches per year. Seven days, weeks, or months provide insufficient time for the unkempt appearance Nebuchadnezzar experienced. The translators of the Septuagint reflected this understanding when they translated “seven periods of time” as “seven years.” Josephus also understood the period to be seven years in length: “… the king saw in his sleep again another vision; how he should fall from his dominion, and feed among the wild beasts, and that when he had lived in this manner in the desert for seven years, he should recover his dominion again” (Antiquities of the Jews 10.10.6). It is certain that the period is specific and not more than seven years.

The messenger then concluded his decree and stated its purpose: that all people would recognize the true God, “the Most High,” and acknowledge Him as the true ruler of mankind who has the power to place “the lowliest of men” over earthly kingdoms. That God can set the lowly in positions of power is a common truth of Scripture (see 1 Sam. 2:7–8; Job 5:11; Ps. 113:7–8; Luke 1:52; and the story of Joseph). This statement was a direct confrontation of Nebuchadnezzar’s pride in his own attainments and power.

Nebuchadnezzar finished relating his dream and then appealed to Daniel to interpret it. The wise men of Babylon were not able to do this, but the king again expressed his confidence in Daniel. The stage was now set for Daniel’s interpretation.

DANIEL INTERPRETS THE DREAM (4:19–27)

4:19–23 Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was dismayed for a while, and his thoughts alarmed him. The king answered and said, “Belteshazzar, let not the dream or the interpretation alarm you.” Belteshazzar answered and said, “My lord, may the dream be for those who hate you and its interpretation for your enemies! The tree you saw, which grew and became strong, so that its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth, whose leaves were beautiful and its fruit abundant, and in which was food for all, under which beasts of the field found shade, and in whose branches the birds of the heavens lived—it is you, O king, who have grown and become strong. Your greatness has grown and reaches to heaven, and your dominion to the ends of the earth. And because the king saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying, ‘Chop down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, in the tender grass of the field, and let him be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven periods of time pass over him….’”

Keil well summarizes the situation facing Daniel: “As Daniel at once understood the interpretation of the dream, he was for a moment so astonished that he could not speak for terror at the thoughts which moved his soul. This amazement seized him because he wished well to the king, and yet he must now announce to him a weighty judgment from God.”[23] No doubt Daniel was not only troubled by the dream’s content but by the need to tell Nebuchadnezzar the interpretation in an appropriate way.

Verse 19 introduces both names of Daniel again, the Hebrew name in recognition that he is acting as a servant of the God of Israel and his Babylonian name by which he was known officially. Daniel’s consternation at the interpretation of the dream is indicated in that he “was dismayed for a while,” to be understood as being in a state of perplexity for a period of time. Nebuchadnezzar urged Daniel not to let the dream trouble him. The comment reflected his respect for Daniel as a person as well as the interpreter of the dream, and indirectly this was an assurance that Daniel himself need not fear the king regardless of what he revealed.

With this encouragement, Daniel replied with typical oriental courtesy that he wished the dream and its interpretation would apply to Nebuchadnezzar’s enemies. Was this mere flattery? it would not seem so. Daniel had a high regard for Nebuchadnezzar and undoubtedly wished the interpretation of the dream could have been different. Besides, he ended his interpretation by calling for Nebuchadnezzar to turn from his sins.

Daniel began by describing Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in detail. He immediately identified the tree as representing Nebuchadnezzar. Just like the tree in the dream, the king had grown and become strong, with his dominion reaching to the end of the earth. After recounting the announced destruction of the tree and the other details that the king had already recited, Daniel proceeded to the detailed interpretation. It is significant that he called it “a decree of the Most High” (v. 24), which was Daniel’s interpretation of the expression in verse 17, “the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones.” Although Nebuchadnezzar’s description did not immediately specify divine agency, it is clear that this was Daniel’s interpretation.

4:24–27 “This is the interpretation, O king: It is a decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king, that you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. You shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and you shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven periods of time shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will. And as it was commanded to leave the stump of the roots of the tree, your kingdom shall be confirmed for you from the time that you know that Heaven rules. Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity.”

The meaning of the tree being cut down and the attendant circumstances was then defined. Nebuchadnezzar would be driven from ordinary human association to live with animals in the field. There he would eat grass as the ox and suffer the dew of heaven until he understood that God gives to men the power to rule as He wills. The stump with its bands of iron and brass meant that Nebuchadnezzar would retain control of his kingdom and that it would be restored to him after he came back to his senses. To have had his mind restored without the kingdom would have been a hollow victory. In spite of his pride, Nebuchadnezzar would experience God’s graciousness.

The expression “Heaven rules” is of interest because it is the only time in the Old Testament where the word heaven is substituted for God. This usage became prominent in later literature such as in 1 Maccabees and in the New Testament in Matthew where the term “kingdom of heaven” is similar to this expression. Daniel was not accepting the Babylonian deification of heavenly bodies, as he made clear in 4:25 that “the Most High” is a person. He was probably only contrasting divine or heavenly rule with earthly rule, such as Nebuchadnezzar exercised, with the implication that Nebuchadnezzar’s sovereignty was much less than that of “Heaven.” This matches the overall chiastic structure of chapters 2–7, since chapters 4 and 5 both announce that “the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will” (4:25; cf. 5:21).

With the interpretation of the dream now clearly presented to Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, as a prophet of God, gave a word of solemn exhortation to the king. With utmost courtesy, he urged Nebuchadnezzar to turn from his sins and show mercy to the poor. Nebuchadnezzar undoubtedly had been morally wicked and cruel to those whom he ruled. His concern had been to build a magnificent city as a monument to his name rather than to alleviate the suffering of the poor. All of this was quite clear to Daniel, and the exhortation was faithfully delivered as this decree went out to Nebuchadnezzar’s entire realm.

This passage has created some controversy because of a mistranslation in the Vulgate that reads in translation, “Cancel thy sins by deeds of charity and thine iniquities by deeds of kindness to the poor.” This, of course, is not what is recorded in the book of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar was not promised forgiveness on the basis of good works or alms to the poor; rather, the issue was that, if he were a wise and benevolent king, he would alleviate the necessity of God’s intervening with immediate judgment because of his pride.[24]

THE DREAM FULFILLED (4:28–33)

4:28–33 All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar. At the end of twelve months he was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, and the king answered and said, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?” While the words were still in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, “O King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is spoken: The kingdom has departed from you, and you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. And you shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and seven periods of time shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.” Immediately the word was fulfilled against Nebuchadnezzar. He was driven from among men and ate grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers, and his nails were like birds’ claws.

Although fulfillment of the dream was not immediate, it was inevitable given Nebuchadnezzar’s pride. He was admiring the great city he had built, and his pride reached a new peak at what he had accomplished. There are frequent mentions of the great buildings of Babylon in ancient literature.[25] In an inscription recounting an expedition to Syria, Nebuchadnezzar wrote, “I have made … the city of Babylon to the foremost of all the countries and every human habitation; its name I have [made/elevated] to the (most worthy of) praise among the sacred cities….”[26]

Montgomery says the description of Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar precisely fits the historical context:

The setting of the scene and the king’s self-complaisance in his glorious Babylon are strikingly true to history. Every student of Babylonia recalls these proud words in reading Neb.’s own records of his creation of the new Babylon; for instance (Grotefend Cylinder, KB iii, 2, p. 39): ‘Then built I the palace the seat of my royalty (e, kallu mu, sŒ–, b sŒarru, ti, a), the bond of the race of men, the dwelling of joy and rejoicing’; and (East India House Inscr., vii, 34, KB ib., p. 25): ‘In Babylon, my dear city, which I love was the palace, the house of wonder of the people, the bond of the land, the brilliant place, the abode of majesty in Babylon.’ The very language of the story is reminiscent of the Akkadian. The glory of Babylon, ‘that great city’ (Rev. 18), remained long to conjure the imagination of raconteurs. For the city’s grandeur as revealed to the eye of the archaeologist we may refer to R. Koldewey, Das wieder erstehende Babylon, 1913 (Eng. tr. Excavations at Babylon, 1915), with its revelation of Neb.’s palace, the temples, etc.[27]

Inscription—A brick discovered in Babylon with inscription from Nebuchadnezzar.

Building Babylon was one of Nebuchadnezzar’s principal occupations. Inscriptions for about fifty building projects have been found, usually made of brick and sometimes of stone. Among the wonders of Nebuchadnezzar’s creation were the famous “hanging gardens,” regarded as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The gardens were planted on top of a building and served both to beautify and to keep the building cool from the heat of summer. They probably were in view from Nebuchadnezzar’s palace. Although Nebuchadnezzar built or restored numerous temples in other cities, the city of Babylon itself was the symbol of his power and majesty, and he spared no expense or effort to make it the most beautiful city of the world. If the construction of a great city—magnificent in size, architecture, parks, and armaments—was a proper basis for pride, Nebuchadnezzar was justified. What he had forgotten was that none of this would be possible apart from God’s sovereign will.

No sooner were the words expressing his pride out of his mouth than he heard a voice from heaven pronouncing his judgment. His transition from sanity to insanity was immediate, and so was the dream’s fulfillment as he was driven from the palace to begin his period of trial. The condition of his hair and nails (v. 33) is a new detail. How quickly God can reduce a man at the pinnacle of power and majesty to the level of an animal! The brilliant mind of Nebuchadnezzar, like the kingdom that he ruled, was his only by the sovereign will of God.

Scripture draws a veil over most of the details of Nebuchadnezzar’s period of trial. It is probable that he was kept in the palace gardens, away from abuse by common people.[28] Although allowed to live in nature, he was protected, and in his absence his counselors, possibly led by Daniel himself, continued to operate the kingdom efficiently. Although Scripture does not tell us, it is reasonable to assume that Daniel had much to do with the kind treatment and protection of Nebuchadnezzar. He undoubtedly informed the counselors of what the outcome of the dream would be and that Nebuchadnezzar would return to sanity. God must have inclined the hearts of Nebuchadnezzar’s counselors to cooperate, quite in contrast to what was often the case in ancient governments when at the slightest sign of weakness rulers were cruelly murdered. Nebuchadnezzar seems to have been highly respected as a brilliant king by those who worked with him, and this helped set the stage for his recovery.

Although Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity was supernaturally imposed, it is not to be regarded as much different in its result from what might be expected if it had been produced by natural causes. God may have struck Nebuchadnezzar with clinical lycanthropy, a mental illness that causes a person to believe they are an animal and to act like one. A person with this form of insanity remains somewhat unchanged in his inner consciousness, but his outer behavior is irrational. In any case, the malady supernaturally imposed by God was supernaturally relieved at the proper time.

The experience of Nebuchadnezzar has been compared by liberal critics to the “Prayer of Nabonidus,” in Cave IV Document of the Qumran literature. The prayer is introduced as “The words of the prayer which Nabonidus, King of Assyria and Babylon, the great king, prayed …” The prayer describes Nabonidus as being afflicted with a “dread disease by the decree of the Most High God,” which required his segregation at the Arabian oasis of Teima for a period of seven years. An unnamed Jewish seer is said to have advised Nabonidus to repent and give glory to God instead of the idols he formerly worshiped. Because of the parallels between this account and that of Nebuchadnezzar, liberal scholars who consider the book of Daniel to be of second-century origin have concluded that the account of Nabonidus is the original account, and that what we have in Daniel 4 is a tradition based on it that substitutes the name of Nebuchadnezzar for that of Nabonidus. As Frank M. Cross relates,

There is every reason to believe that the new document [the Prayer of Nabonidus] preserves a more primitive form of the tale [Daniel 4]. It is well known that Nabonidus gave over the regency of his realm to his son Belshazzar in order to spend long periods of time in Teima; while Nebuchadnezzar, to judge from extrabiblical data, did not give up his throne. Moreover, in the following legend of Belshazzar’s feast, the substitution of Nebuchadnezzar for Nabonidus as the father of Belshazzar (Dan. 5:2) is most suggestive. Evidently in an older stage of tradition, the cycle included the stories of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan. 1–3), Nabonidus (Dan. 4), and Belshazzar (Dan. 5).[29]

Conservative scholars, who recognize the genuineness of the book of Daniel as a sixth-century B.C. writing, see no conflict in accepting both Daniel 4 as it is written and the “Prayer of Nabonidus” as having some elements of truth, although apocryphal.[30] In fact, as the discussion of Daniel 5 will bring out, the fact that Nabonidus lived at Teima for extended periods, well attested in tradition, gives a plausible explanation as to why Belshazzar was in charge in Babylon in Daniel 5. It is not necessary to impugn the record of Daniel in order to recognize the non-inspired story relating to Nabonidus.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S RESTORATION (4:34–37)

4:34–37 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me. Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.

Although the previous narrative had been couched in the third person, Nebuchadnezzar now returned to first-person narrative. He told how he lifted up his eyes to heaven and his understanding returned. Whether this was simultaneous or causal is not stated, but looking to the heavens was possibly the first step in his recognition of the God of heaven and regaining his sanity. Nebuchadnezzar’s immediate reaction was to express praise to God, whom he now also recognized as “the Most High.” What effect this had on his belief in other deities is not stated, but it at least opens the door to the possibility that Nebuchadnezzar had placed true faith in the God of Israel. The king attributed to God the qualities of eternity and sovereignty that are far greater than those attributed to Babylonian deities.

Having regained his reason, Nebuchadnezzar uttered these words of praise to God. No doubt his counselors had maintained a watch on him, and upon the sudden change they immediately sought his return to his former position of honor. Apparently the transition was almost immediate, and Nebuchadnezzar was once more established in his kingdom. It is in this role that he was able to issue the decree and make the public confession involved.

Nebuchadnezzar’s experience gives us the obvious spiritual lesson that even the greatest of earthly sovereigns is completely subject to the absolute power of God. The debate as to whether he was actually saved in a spiritual sense remains unsettled. Notable scholars like Calvin, Hengstenberg, Pusey, and Keil believe the evidence is insufficient.[31] As Young and others point out, however, there is considerable evidence of Nebuchadnezzar’s spiritual progress, of which chapter 4 is the climax (cf. 2:47; 3:28; 4:34–35). There can be little question that he acknowledged Daniel’s God as the omnipotent sovereign of the universe (4:34, 35, 37). His issuing of a decree somewhat humiliating to his pride and containing an abject recognition of the power of God gives some basis for believing that Nebuchadnezzar had a true conversion. Inasmuch as in all ages some men are saved without gaining completely the perspective of faith or being entirely correct in the content of their beliefs, it is quite possible that Nebuchadnezzar will be numbered among the saints. His autobiography is truly remarkable and reflects the fruitfulness of Daniel’s influence upon him and probably of Daniel’s daily prayers for him. Certainly God is no respecter of persons and can save the high and mighty in this world as well as the lowly.

NOTES

[1] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 204.

[2] John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 83–84.

[3] Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 79.

[4] Ibid., 80.

[5] James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 247–49.

[6] Ibid., 222.

[7] James B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 276, 289.

[8] Ibid., 297.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Cf. Leupold, Daniel, 170–71.

[11] Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 99; Montgomery, Daniel, 225–26.

[12] Leupold, Daniel, 176; Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Daniel, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 48.

[13] Driver, Daniel, 48, citing his essay “Hebrew Authority,” in Authority and Archeology, sacred and profane; essays on the relation of monuments to Biblical and classical literature (London: J. Murray, 1899), 137–38.

[14] Young, Daniel, 99; cf. Driver, Daniel, 48.

[15] Leupold, Daniel, 178.

[16] Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 68.

[17] Herodotus, Histories 1.108.

[18] Ibid., 7.19.

[19] Cf. Porteous, Daniel, 101–2; Leupold, Daniel, 180; and Montgomery, Daniel, 228–30.

[20] Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 150.

[21] Montgomery, Daniel, 231–32.

[22] Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 110; Joyce C. Baldwin, Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978), 112.

[23] Keil, Daniel, 154.

[24] For further discussion of this, see Leupold, Daniel, 194–96.

[25] Keil mentions the statements of Berosus in Josephi Ant. x. 11, 1, and con. Ap. I. 19, and of Abydenus in Eusebii praepar. evang. ix. 41, and Chron. I. 59; also the delineation of these buildings in Duncker’s Gesch. des Alterth. i. 854 ff. (Keil, Daniel, 159). See also the excellent description by Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 66–67.

[26] Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 307.

[27] Montgomery, Daniel, 243–44.

[28] Leupold, Daniel, 201.

[29] Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1958), 123–24; cf. Millar Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking, 1958), 400, and David N. Freedman, “The Prayer of Nabonidus,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 145 (February 1957), 31–32. For a conservative evaluation, see R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 1117–21.

[30] For a more detailed discussion see Baldwin, Daniel, 116–18.

[31] Young, Daniel, 113.

5

Belshazzar’s Feast and the Fall of Babylon

Thanks to the Babylonian Chronicle, the date of Belshazzar’s feast can be determined with a high degree of precision. The Chronicle states that on the sixteenth day of the month Tishri in Nabonidus’s seventeenth year (Saturday, October 12, 539 B.C.) “the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle.”[1] Herodotus notes that Babylon fell during a time of “festival” or celebration (Herodotus, Histories 1.191). This corresponds closely to Daniel’s description of the fall happening the night Nabonidus held a “great feast for a thousand of his lords” (Dan. 5:1).

The identification of Belshazzar as “king” (5:1) was thought by some past scholars to be a clear example of historical error since the final king of Babylon was Nabonidus. Herodotus never mentioned Belshazzar as a ruler in Babylon, identifying instead Labynetus (i.e., Nabonidus) as the king when the city fell to Cyrus (Herodotus, Histories 1.77). Josephus, reflecting the understanding of his day, tried to solve the apparent problem by identifying Nabonidus and Belshazzar as two names for the same individual. “And when he was dead, [the kingdom] came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus” (Josephus, Antiquities 10.11.2).

Archeological discoveries over the past century have helped clarify the alleged discrepancy and attest to the historicity, as well as the antiquity, of the book of Daniel. The discovery of the Babylonian Chronicle finally resolved the apparent problem. Nabonidus was an absent king who abandoned the city of Babylon and its religious festivals and left his son, Belshazzar, to rule in his place as crown prince. This continued for at least five years—from the seventh through eleventh years of Nabonidus’s reign—and probably longer.[2] Texts have been uncovered that elevate Belshazzar to the functional role of king during the long absence of his father.

Belshazzar’s role of coregent with his father appears to have been forgotten by the time of Herodotus. But Daniel not only identified Belshazzar as the king ruling in Babylon, he also clearly implied his role as coregent when he noted that Belshazzar could only offer him the position as “third ruler in the kingdom” (5:16)—the position just below that occupied by Belshazzar himself! The story reflects a detailed knowledge of politics and history that points to someone writing during the time of the events themselves—someone like Daniel.

Before we proceed to the exposition of this chapter, it is worth noting that in the chiastic structure of Daniel 2–7, chapter 5 is parallel to chapter 4. God’s revelation to Babylon’s last king mirrors His revelation to Babylon’s first king. Nebuchadnezzar learned that “those who walk in pride [God] is able to humble” (4:37). Sadly, “you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this” (5:22). Following his time of humiliation Nebuchadnezzar “honored him who lives forever” (4:34). But as for Belshazzar, “the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored” (5:23).

BELSHAZZAR’S FEAST IN HONOR OF BABYLON’S GODS (5:1–4)

5:1–4 King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords and drank wine in front of the thousand. Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. Then they brought in the golden vessels that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. They drank wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.

In the interpretation of the image in chapter 2, Daniel had predicted to Nebuchadnezzar, “Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you” (Dan. 2:39). Now this prophecy was about to be fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliating experience in chapter 4 had been followed by his death in 562 B.C. During the approximately twenty-three years that elapsed between chapters 4 and 5, a number of monarchs had succeeded Nebuchadnezzar. Nabonidus eventually assumed the throne in 556 B.C. and reigned until 539 B.C. when his kingdom was conquered by the Medes. Nabonidus evidently married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar to strengthen his claim to the throne.[3] His eldest son from this union was Belshazzar. This explains why Belshazzar was said to be in the lineal descent from Nebuchadnezzar (5:2, 11, 18) and why he was honored as a coruler under Nabonidus. Although there are alternative explanations and some dates vary, this succession of kings and identification of characters has reasonable justification.

It was during this near quarter of a century between chapters 4 and 5 that the further revelations given to Daniel in chapters 7 and 8 occurred. chapter 7 was revealed to Daniel “in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon” (Dan. 7:1) and the vision of the ram and he-goat in chapter 8 occurred “in the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar” (Dan. 8:1). The information embodied in these two visions, insofar as Daniel understood it, was therefore known to Daniel before the events of chapter 5, which chronologically came after chapters 7 and 8. If Belshazzar began his reign in 553 B.C., when Nabonidus went to Teima, the visions of chapters 7 and 8 actually occurred fourteen and twelve years, respectively, before the events of chapter 5.

Verse 1 introduces the fact that Belshazzar had given a great feast for one thousand of his lords. That such a large feast should be held by a monarch like Belshazzar is not at all strange. Leupold cites the ancient historian Ktesias to the effect that Persian monarchs frequently were known to dine daily with 15,000 people.[4] M. E. Mallowan mentions the great feast that Ashusnasirpal II gave to 69,574 guests when he dedicated his new capital city of Calah (Nimrud) in 879 B.C.[5]

Although the size of the banquet is not amazing, the situation was most unusual. King Nabonidus had returned to Babylon, which was now threatened by the Medes and the Persians. According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, the final days of Babylon were chaotic, with Nabonidus trying to put down a rebellion inside the city while simultaneously facing the Babylonian army outside:

In the month Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants. The 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Guttium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned (there).[6]

On that final fateful night, the whole territory surrounding the city of Babylon and the related provinces had already been conquered. Only Babylon with its massive walls and fortifications remained intact. Nabonidus had been defeated in battle and fled, leaving Belshazzar in charge of the remaining forces in the city of Babylon.

Possibly to reassert their faith in their Babylonian gods and to bolster their own courage, this feast in the form of a festival had been ordered. The storehouses of Babylon were still abundant with food and wine, and there is evidence that there was plenty of both at this feast. The expression “drank wine in front of the thousand” indicates that Belshazzar was probably on a platform at a higher level than the guests and led them in drinking toasts to their deities. Under the stimulus of wine, the thought occurred to Belshazzar to bring in the gold and silver vessels taken from the temple in Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar almost seventy years before. The implication in the clause “when he tasted the wine” is that Belshazzar in his right mind probably would not have committed this sacrilegious act.

Drinking bouts like this that characterized Babylon were also common among other peoples, such as the Persians. Athenaeus quotes Heracleides of Cumae, the author of Persian History, in describing in detail the custom of drinking to excess after dinner.[7] The luxury of both the drinking and the eating is also illustrated in Athenaeus in describing dinners among the Persians of high station as follows: “For one thousand animals are slaughtered daily for the king; these comprise horses, camels, oxen, asses, deer, and most of the smaller animals; many birds also are consumed, including Arabian ostriches—and the creature is large—geese, and cocks.”[8]

Much has been made of the reference to Belshazzar’s relationship to Nebuchadnezzar, who is described as “his father” in verse 2; even Keil is influenced by this to consider Belshazzar a literal son of Nebuchadnezzar.[9] This is not entirely impossible, of course, for as Leupold shows,[10] Nabonidus could have married a widow of Nebuchadnezzar who had a son by Nebuchadnezzar, which son could then be adopted by Nabonidus as a way of strengthening his own hold on the throne. Nabonidus assumed the throne in 556 B.C., only six years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar was probably at least a teenager when Nebuchadnezzar died—if he was old enough to be coregent with Nabonidus in 553 B.C.—and thus it is at least possible that Belshazzar could have been a genuine son of Nebuchadnezzar and that his mother, after Nebuchadnezzar’s death, was married to Nabonidus. This, however, is conjecture, and it is more natural to consider Belshazzar a son of Nabonidus himself—though, as noted earlier, his mother could have been Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter.

Although the precise identity of Belshazzar may continue to be debated, available facts support Daniel’s designation of Belshazzar as king and a physical descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. The reference to father may be construed as “grandfather.” As Pusey states, “Neither in Hebrew, nor in Chaldee, is there any word for ‘grandfather,’ ‘grandson.’ Forefathers are called ‘fathers’ or ‘fathers’ fathers.’ But a single grandfather, or forefather, is never called ‘father’s father’ but always ‘father’ only.”[11]

The sacred vessels taken from Jerusalem had apparently been kept in storage without sacrilegious use from Nebuchadnezzar’s day until this feast. Now these holy vessels were distributed among the crowd for drinking their wine—everyone from the king and lords to his wives and concubines. This act of sacrilege was an intentioned religious gesture in praise of the gods of Babylon mentioned in descending order of importance as “the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.” That Belshazzar well knew the blasphemous character of his act is evident from Daniel 5:13, 22. He knew the history of Nebuchadnezzar’s experience with God’s chastening. The fact that the gods of gold and silver are separated by the conjunction “and,” which is not true of the other gods, may suggest two classes of deities.[12]

The revelers’ pride in their deities may have been bolstered by the magnificence of the city of Babylon itself, interpreted as an evidence of the power of their gods. Herodotus gives a glowing account of Babylon as a monument to the genius of Nebuchadnezzar and undoubtedly a source of much pride for all Babylonians. According to Herodotus, Babylon was about fourteen miles square, with great outer walls 87 feet thick and 350 feet high, with a hundred great bronze gates in the walls. A system of inner and outer walls with a water moat between them made the city very secure. So broad and strong were the walls that there was enough room “for a four-horse chariot to turn.” Herodotus pictures hundreds of towers at appropriate intervals reaching another 100 feet into the air above the top of the wall.[13]

Modern interpreters view these figures as greatly exaggerated, with the real dimensions only about one-fourth of what Herodotus claimed. The outer wall seems to have been only seventeen miles in circumference, instead of about fifty-six as Herodotus claimed, with many fewer towers and gates. Probably even the towers were not more than 100 feet tall. While the dimensions may be questioned, the magnificence of the city was not seriously exaggerated.[14]

The great Euphrates River flowed through the middle of the city in a general north-south direction and was bordered by walls on each side to protect the city from attack from the river. Within these walls were beautiful avenues, parks, and palaces. Many of the streets were lined with buildings three and four stories high. Among these buildings were the Temple of Bel, an eight-tiered ziggurat or tower, and the magnificent palace of the king, which was actually a complex of buildings. A great bridge spanned the Euphrates River, connecting the eastern section and the western or new section of the city. The famed “hanging gardens” were large enough to support trees.

In many respects, Babylon was the most fabulous city of the ancient world both for the beauty of its architecture and for the safety of its huge walls and fortifications. It was hard for the Babylonians to believe that even the Medes and the Persians who had surrounded their beloved city could possibly breach the fortifications or exhaust their supplies that were intended to be ample for a siege of many years. Their confidence in their gods was bolstered by their confidence in their city.

THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL (5:5–9)

5:5–9 Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, opposite the lampstand. And the king saw the hand as it wrote. Then the king’s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. The king called loudly to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers. The king declared to the wise men of Babylon, “Whoever reads this writing, and shows me its interpretation, shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around his neck and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.” Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or make known to the king the interpretation. Then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, and his color changed, and his lords were perplexed.

While the feast was in progress with its drinking and shouting of praises to the gods of Babylon, the fingers of a man’s hand suddenly appeared and wrote on the plastered wall of the palace. With only the fingers of the hand visible, the spectacle immediately attracted attention.

In the ruins of Nebuchadnezzar’s palace archeologists have uncovered a large throne room 56 feet wide and 173 feet long that probably was the scene of this banquet. Midway in the long wall opposite the entrance there was a niche in front of which the king may well have been seated. The walls were washed over with white gypsum and covered in one place with a façade of ornamental bricks.[15]

A reconstruction of the throne room in Nebuchadnezzar’s palace in Babylon.

It is probable that the banquet that night was illuminated by torches, which not only produced smoke but fitful light that would only partially light the great hall. As the writing appeared on “the plaster of the wall … opposite the lampstand” (v. 5), it may have appeared in an area of greater illumination than the rest of the room and thus also have attracted more attention.

The effect upon Belshazzar was immediate. According to Daniel, his face drained of color and his knees began to knock. His thin courage, bolstered by wine drunk from vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had plundered and were seemingly a symbol of the power of Babylon’s gods, deserted him. He hardly had the strength to stand. Probably before the babble of conversation in the banquet room had subsided, Belshazzar began to call out loudly to summon his wise men. Only three classes are mentioned, but it is doubtful that any class was intentionally omitted.

The enchanters corresponded more closely to the modern concept of astrologers, although they may have also practiced sorcery. The Chaldeans were a broad class of scholars and learned men in the lore of the Babylonians, and the astrologers were actually magicians. Daniel had used all three terms before (see 1:20 and 2:27). It is possible that in the decline of the Babylonian Empire that there were far fewer wise men at this point than there were under Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel may have been absent that night because he was not invited to the banquet.

As soon as a suitable number of wise men had assembled, Belshazzar announced that anyone who could interpret the writing would be “clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around his neck” (v. 7). These were special tokens of the king’s favor and certainly would have been coveted by any of the wise men. What’s more, Belshazzar promised to make this person “the third ruler in the kingdom” (v. 7). This was the highest position next to his own, since King Nabonidus was still alive and was officially first. As a result, Belshazzar was only the second highest ruler. Belshazzar was evidently terrified and desperately desired to know the meaning of the writing.

The large reward that was offered, however, was to no avail, for the wise men who assembled could not read or interpret the writing. This implies a twofold difficulty. Some have claimed that the text does not plainly indicate the language. Charles, for instance, suggests that the writing was in unfamiliar ideograms.[16] This, however, is mere conjecture. The probability is that the writing was in Aramaic and therefore not entirely unknown to the wise men. Goldingay offers a simple suggestion. “It is not specified what made the words unreadable as well as unintelligible (v. 8)…. But most straightforwardly the story envisages them written as unpointed consonants: being able to read out unpointed text is partly dependent on actually understanding it, and Daniel later reads the words out one way and interprets them another.”[17]

In any case Daniel read the writing as Aramaic, and the suggestion of puns in the language (see later discussion) depends upon the Aramaic. The difficulty of the wise men in reading the writing may have been that it was written in Aramaic script without the vowels being supplied; but if written in cuneiform, the vowels would have been included. Daniel did not explain the difficulty in reading the writing on the wall, but apparently the language was in a form of Aramaic that the wise men could neither read nor understand—nor, of course, could they interpret its significance. (For further discussion, see exposition of vv. 24–28.)

The wise men’s failure to decipher the writing only increased Belshazzar’s concern. Perhaps the full force of his wickedness in using the vessels taken from the temple in Jerusalem had begun to dawn upon him, or the fears suppressed concerning the armies surrounding Babylon may have emerged. His concern was shared by the entire assembly.

Belshazzar’s predicament is another illustration of the insecurity and powerlessness of the rulers of this world when confronted by the power and wisdom of God. God holds in derision the rulers of the world who take counsel against Him (Ps. 2:1–4). Like Nebuchadnezzar before him, Belshazzar was soon to experience divine judgment, but without the happy ending.

DANIEL SUGGESTED AS THE INTERPRETER (5:10–12)

5:10–12 The queen, because of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banqueting hall, and the queen declared, “O king, live forever! Let not your thoughts alarm you or your color change. There is a man in your kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father, light and understanding and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him, and King Nebuchadnezzar, your father—your father the king—made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers, because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.”

The crisis produced by the wise men’s inability to interpret the handwriting on the wall is met by the entrance of one described as “the queen.” Since the wives of the lords and the king himself were said to be already at the banquet (v. 3), the queen would most probably be Belshazzar’s mother, who had not attended the banquet. This would be understandable if she were older and not physically up to, or interested in, a night of drunken revelry.

Hearing the unusual clamor at the banquet and learning of the distress of her son, because of her position the queen was able to enter the banquet hall freely and speak to the king. Her address was courteous, but to the point. Like a mother, she told her son in effect to pull himself together because there must be some solution to his problem. Since one holding her position was highly regarded and treated with respect, she could speak out in a way that no other could. Honoring of parents was characteristic of the Israelites (Exod. 20:12; 1 Kings 2:13–20; 2 Kings 24:12–15). The same was true in the Gentile world, and the queen was able to enter the banquet hall without an invitation.

The solution the queen suggested was to invite Daniel the prophet, who had served as a man of wisdom under Nebuchadnezzar, to interpret the writing. The queen used the very words that presumably she had heard Nebuchadnezzar express (Dan. 4:8–9, 18): Daniel, she said, had “the spirit of the holy gods.” So great was Daniel’s genius that Nebuchadnezzar had made him “chief” of his wise men, which in itself was a remarkable position for one who was not a Chaldean. This honor placed upon him testified to Nebuchadnezzar’s confidence in Daniel’s abilities. The reference to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar, as previously noted, probably indicates grandfather, since the same term was used for both designations. It does imply, however, that Belshazzar was a physical descendent of Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel’s excellent qualities manifested themselves in unusual knowledge and understanding, and the ability to “interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems” (v. 12). Daniel had not been assembled with the other wise men because he probably was in semiretirement and was no longer chief of the wise men. The queen urged, however, that he now be brought in to solve the present problem.

DANIEL CALLED IN TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM (5:13–16)

5:13–16 Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king answered and said to Daniel, “You are that Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom the king my father brought from Judah. I have heard of you that the spirit of the gods is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you. Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me to read this writing and make known to me its interpretation, but they could not show the interpretation of the matter. But I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve problems. Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.”

It seems clear that Belshazzar knew something of Daniel, for his form of address in verse 13 goes beyond the information supplied by his mother. He knew for instance that Daniel was of the captivity of Judah and that he was one of the captives that Nebuchadnezzar had brought out of Jerusalem. It may well be that because of awareness of his ancestry and religious convictions that Daniel had been demoted by Belshazzar himself. Now Belshazzar was all too eager to have the gifts of this man exercised to interpret the writing. Belshazzar goes on in verse 14 to repeat what his mother had said concerning Daniel’s wisdom.

Belshazzar informs Daniel of the inability of all the wise men either to read or to interpret the writing. Belshazzar then offers Daniel the same promise he made to the others of being clothed with purple and having a chain of gold and the privilege of being “the third ruler in the kingdom.” As in the previous instances in Daniel 2 and 4, the wisdom of the world is demonstrated to be totally unable to solve its major problems and to understand either the present or the future. Daniel as the prophet of God is the channel through whom divine revelation would come, and Belshazzar in his predicament was willing to listen.

Too often the world, like Belshazzar, is not willing to seek the wisdom of God until its own bankruptcy becomes evident. Then help is sought too late, as in the case of Belshazzar, and the cumulative sin and unbelief that precipitated the crisis in the first place becomes the occasion of downfall.

The situation before Belshazzar had all the elements of a great drama. Here was Daniel, an Old man well in his eighties, with the marks of godly living evident in his bearing—in sharp contrast to the wine-flushed faces of the crowd. In the midst of this atmosphere of consternation, apprehension, and fear, Daniel’s countenance alone reflected the deep peace of God founded on confidence in Him and His divine revelation.

DANIEL’S REBUKE OF BELSHAZZAR (5:17–23)

5:17–23 Then Daniel answered and said before the king, “Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another. Nevertheless, I will read the writing to the king and make known to him the interpretation. O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father kingship and greatness and glory and majesty. And because of the greatness that he gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Whom he would, he killed, and whom he would, he kept alive; whom he would, he raised up, and whom he would, he humbled. But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was brought down from his kingly throne, and his glory was taken from him. He was driven from among the children of mankind, and his mind was made like that of a beast, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. He was fed grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, until he knew that the Most High God rules the kingdom of mankind and sets over it whom he will. And you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this, but you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven. And the vessels of his house have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored.”

Daniel’s reply to the king is properly called a sermon, and as King says, “What a great sermon it is!”[18] Daniel began by disavowing any interest in the gifts or rewards that the king offered. This was not prompted by disrespect or by the evident fact that they would be short-lived. Daniel was simply saying that he would give an unprejudiced interpretation with no attempt to seek favor from Belshazzar. Daniel promised both to read and to make known the interpretation.

Daniel did not address the king as he did, for instance, in connection with Darius (Dan. 6:21). No doubt Daniel held Belshazzar in contempt for his desecration of the sacred vessels. However, the narration here must be considered a condensed account, and probably Daniel addressed the king in a formal way. Parallels are found in Daniel 2:27 and 4:19, where Daniel addressed Nebuchadnezzar without a formal greeting. This was hardly a time in any case for Daniel to greet Belshazzar as he did Darius, “O king, live forever!” when as a matter of fact, Belshazzar’s hours were numbered. Instead, Daniel recognized Belshazzar as king but then immediately delivered his prophetic message of condemnation.

In 5:17 Daniel announced he would read and interpret the writing for the king. However, he did not begin doing so until 5:24. Between these verses Daniel shared a history lesson from the life of Babylon’s first great king. It is the Most High God who sets up, and takes down, human rulers, and those human rulers need to acknowledge that the Most High God “rules the kingdom of mankind.”

Daniel first reminded Belshazzar that God gave Nebuchadnezzar his great kingdom and the honor that went with it. In verse 19, Daniel described graphically how Nebuchadnezzar was feared and had absolute authority of life and death over his people and, accordingly, was an absolute sovereign. As Young points out, however, the very character of this absolute authority delegated to Nebuchadnezzar by God also made Nebuchadnezzar accountable.[19]

This is demonstrated and supported by Nebuchadnezzar’s experience of insanity when, as Daniel expressed it, “he was brought down from his kingly throne, and his glory was taken from him” (v. 20). Daniel then itemized in detail the characteristics of Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity—how he lived with the wild animals, ate grass like the ox, and was wet with dew. All of this proved that God was greater than Nebuchadnezzar and held him responsible for his authority. Only when Nebuchadnezzar was properly humbled did God restore him to his glory and kingdom.

These facts were pertinent to Belshazzar’s situation because the king knew all of this. The difference was that he had not humbled himself the way Nebuchadnezzar had done. The contrast between the supreme power of Nebuchadnezzar and the very limited power of Belshazzar is also evident. Belshazzar was not even the first ruler in the kingdom, and was humiliated by the fact that Babylon was besieged and had already lost its power over the provinces surrounding the city.

Belshazzar’s situation and his knowledge of Nebuchadnezzar’s humbling made all the more blasphemous his taking of the vessels captured in Jerusalem and using them to drink wine in praising the gods of Babylon. With eloquent scorn Daniel described the gods of Babylon “which do not see or hear or know.” But the true God “in whose hand is your breath” Belshazzar had not “honored” (v. 23).[20]

Although the Scriptures do not say expressly, it is probable that Daniel’s message to the king was heard by the entire company. It would have been quite improper for the entire company to keep on talking, especially in these dramatic circumstances, when Daniel was reporting to the king. They would naturally want to hear what he had to say. One can well imagine the tense moments as these ringing words reached every ear in the vast hall in the deathly silence that greeted Daniel’s prophetic utterance. Here was a man who did not fear man, but feared only God. Daniel condemned in measured tones that which was blasphemous in the sight of the holy God. There was, however, nothing insolent or discourteous in Daniel’s address to Belshazzar, and the charges were stated in a factual and objective way. Besides, the king was in no position to dispute with Daniel, even though Daniel’s words brought even greater fear and apprehension to his heart.

DANIEL’S INTERPRETATION OF THE WRITING (5:24–28)

5:24–28 “Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. And this is the writing that was inscribed: Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin. This is the interpretation of the matter: Mene, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; Peres, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

Having shared the most important message Belshazzar needed to hear, Daniel then turned to read the writing on the wall. There has been almost endless critical discussion of the inscription’s meaning, and the interpretation is complicated by a number of factors.[21] In the book of Daniel the words are given in Aramaic, but some have questioned this.[22] If it was written in Aramaic script, however, only the consonants may have appeared. If in cuneiform, the vowels would be included. While in ordinary discourse the lack of vowels could normally be supplied rather easily, in a cryptic statement such as this the addition of vowels is a problem. The inscription on the wall may have appeared like this, “MN’ MN’ TQL PRSN.” The order of the letters in the Aramaic would be the reverse of this—that is, from right to left.

Young suggests, following some of the rabbis, that the characters may have been written vertically,[23] and in that case in the Aramaic order they would have appeared as follows:

If, in addition to the complications of Aramaic script, some unfamiliar form of their characters was used, it would indeed have required divine revelation to give a suitable explanation and interpretation, and may account for the difficulty in reading the writing. Daniel’s explanation, however, is reasonable and cogent, and does not give any indication that the words mean other than he indicates.

The words, in Aramaic, are cognates of several Hebrew words that were measures of weight or currency.

Mene is related to the Hebrew word mina. A mina was equal to fifty shekels. The word can also be translated “to count” or “to number.” The word is repeated twice, perhaps for emphasis. Daniel interpreted it to mean “God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end” (v. 26).

Tekel is related to the Hebrew word shekel. A shekel was a unit of weight, but the word can be translated “to weigh” or “to be found light or wanting.” Daniel interpreted it to mean “you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting” (v. 27).

Parsin is related to the Hebrew word peres, which was a unit of weight (a half-shekel). The word also can be translated “divided,” and as a play on words it could also refer to the Persians. Daniel interpreted it to mean “your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians” (v. 28).

Through the handwriting, Belshazzar was made to understand that Babylon would fall to the enemies that were besieging the city at that very moment. Even while Daniel was interpreting the writing, the prophecy was being fulfilled as the Medes and the Persians poured into the city.

DANIEL’S REWARD AND THE PROPHECY FULFILLED (5:29–31)

5:29–31 Then Belshazzar gave the command, and Daniel was clothed with purple, a chain of gold was put around his neck, and a proclamation was made about him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

The drama of the writing on the wall and its interpretation was brought to its fulfillment as Belshazzar kept his promise and made Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom. It was a short-lived honor, however, as Daniel well knew, and typical of the honors of this world. In its rise to power the Babylonian Empire had conquered Jerusalem, taken its inhabitants into captivity, looted its beautiful temple, and destroyed the city. Yet this empire was to have as its last official act the honoring of one of these Hebrew captives who by divine revelation predicted not only the downfall of Babylon, but the course of the times of the Gentiles until the Son of Man comes from heaven. Man may have the first word, but God will have the last word.

Herodotus gives an interesting account of the circumstances surrounding the capture of Babylon:

Cyrus … then advanced against Babylon. But the Babylonians, having taken the field, awaited his coming; and when he had advanced near the city, the Babylonians gave battle, and, being defeated, were shut up in the city. But as they had been long aware of the restless spirit of Cyrus, and saw that he attacked all nations alike, they had laid up provisions for many years, and therefore were under no apprehensions about a siege. On the other hand, Cyrus found himself in difficulty, since much time had elapsed, and his affairs were not at all advanced. Whether, therefore, someone else made the suggestion to him in his perplexity, or whether he himself devised the plan, he had recourse to the following stratagem. Having stationed the bulk of his army near the passage of the river where it enters Babylon, and again having stationed another division beyond the city, where the river makes its exit, he gave order to his forces to enter the city as soon as they should see the stream fordable. Having stationed his forces and given these directions, he himself marched away with the ineffective part of his army; and having come to the lake, Cyrus did the same with respect to the river and the lake as the queen of the Babylonians had done; for having diverted the river, by means of a canal, into the lake, which was before a swamp, he made the ancient channel fordable by the sinking of the river. When this took place, the Persians who were appointed to that purpose close to the stream of the river, which had now subsided to about the middle of a man’s thigh, entered Babylon by this passage. If, however, the Babylonians had been aware of it beforehand, or had known what Cyrus was about, they would not have suffered the Persians to enter the city, but would have utterly destroyed them; for, having shut all the little gates that lead to the river, and mounting the walls that extend along the banks of the river, they would have caught them as in a net; whereas the Persians came upon them by surprise. It is related by the people who inhabited this city, that, by reason of its great extent, when they who were at the extremities were taken, those of the Babylonians who inhabited the centre knew nothing of the capture (for it happened to be a festival); but they were dancing at the time, and enjoying themselves, till they received certain information of the truth. And thus Babylon was taken for the first time.[24]

Keil discusses at length both Herodotus’s account and that of Xenophon in his Cyropaedia, which is similar, and summarizes the arguments of Kranichfeld discounting these records. Discoveries since Keil tend to support Herodotus and Xenophon, although Darius the Mede is not accounted for. The battle probably took place much as Herodotus records it.[25]

Prophecy anticipating the fall of Babylon is found in both Isaiah and Jeremiah, written many years before. Both prophets had said that Babylon would fall to the Medes on just such a night of revelry as Daniel records (Isa. 13:17–22; 21:1–10; Jer. 51:33–58). Some of these prophecies may have their ultimate fulfillment in the future (Rev. 17–18). More specifically, Isaiah writes of the invasion of the Medes, “Go up, O Elam; lay siege, O Media” (Isa. 21:2), and speaks of his own shock at the horrors of war and judgment: “My heart staggers; horror has appalled me; the twilight I longed for has been turned for me into trembling. They prepare the table, they spread the rugs, they eat, they drink. Arise, O princes; oil the shield!” (Isa. 21:4–5).

Finally, the tidings come, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon; and all the carved images of her gods he has shattered to the ground” (Isa. 21:9). Jeremiah is explicit: “I will make drunk her officials and her wise men, her governors, her commanders, and her warriors; they shall sleep a perpetual sleep and not wake, declares the King, whose name is the LORD of hosts. Thus says the LORD of hosts: The broad wall of Babylon shall be leveled to the ground, and her high gates shall be burned with fire” (Jer. 51:57–58).

The account of Cyrus himself of the fall of Babylon was found in an inscription on a clay barrel:

Marduk, the great lord, a protector of his people/worshipers, beheld with pleasure his (i.e., Cyrus’) good deeds and his upright mind (lit.: heart) (and therefore) ordered him to march against his city Babylon…. He made him set out on the road to Babylon … going at his side like a real friend. His widespread troops—their number, like that of the water of a river, could not be established—strolled along, their weapons packed away. Without any battle, he made him enter his town Babylon, … sparing Babylon … any calamity. He delivered into his (i.e., Cyrus’) hands Nabonidus, the king who did not worship him (i.e., Marduk).[26]

Daniel himself recorded with simplicity the fulfillment of his prophecy: “That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed” (v. 30). The concluding verse of the chapter records how Darius the Mede became ruler of Babylon at the age of sixty-two.

The long chapter devoted to this incident that brought the Babylonian Empire to its close is undoubtedly recorded in the Word of God for several reasons. First, there is the historic fulfillment of the prophecies relative to the Babylonian Empire. Second, this chapter is also an illustration of divine dealing with a wicked world. The downfall of Babylon is in type the downfall of the unbelieving world. In many respects, modern civilization is much like ancient Babylon, resplendent with its monuments of architectural triumph, as secure as human hands and ingenuity can make it, and yet defenseless against the judgment of God at the proper hour.

Contemporary civilization is also similar to ancient Babylon in that it has much to foster human pride, but little to provide human security. Much as Babylon fell on that sixteenth day of Tishri (October 12) 539 B.C., as indicated in the Nabonidus Chronicle,[27] so the world will be overtaken by disaster when the day of the Lord comes (1 Thess. 5:1–3). Babylon’s disaster, however, did not overtake the servant of God. Daniel survived the purge and emerged triumphant as one of the presidents of the new kingdom.

NOTES

[1] A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 109–10.

[2] Ibid., 106–8.

[3] Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 69.

[4] Montgomery mentions a marriage feast of Alexander with 10,000 guests. James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 250.

[5] M. E. L. Mallowan, “Nimrud,” in Archaeology and Old Testament Study, D. Winton Thomas, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 62.

[6] James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 306.

[7] Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae IV, in Athenaeus, Charles Burton Gulick, trans., Loeb Classical Library (London: Heinemann, 1927–41), 145.

[8] Ibid., 165.

[9] Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 174–75.

[10] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 211.

[11] Edward B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885), 346. See also Leupold, Daniel, 216–17, who discusses this quotation from Pusey.

[12] Keil, Daniel, 181.

[13] Herodotus, History of the Persian Wars 1:178–83.

[14] Cf. Merrill F. Unger, New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, R. K. Harrison, ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1988), 135; T. G. Pinches, “Babel, Babylon,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 1, James Orr, ed. (Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1930), 350. For a map of Babylon in sixth century B.C., see D. J. Wiseman, “Babylon,” in The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 117–20. For pictures and further details, see R. K. Harrison, “Babylon,” in The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Merrill C. Tenney, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 89–93.

[15] Robert Koldewey, The Excavations at Babylon, Agnes S. Johns, trans. (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Library, 1914), 103–4.

[16] Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 57–59; cf. Keil, Daniel, 184–85.

[17] John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 148.

[18] Geoffrey R. King, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 148.

[19] Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 124.

[20] There is a remarkably close parallel to the language of 5:23 in the Prayer of Nabonidus found in Qumran Cave 4: See J. T. Milik, “‘Priere de Nabonide’ et autres ecrits d’un cycle de Daniel,” Revue Biblique 63 (July 1956), 407–15.

[21] In the end, even the critics accept either the interpretation of Daniel (mene, “numbered”; tekel, “weighed”; peres, “divided”), or the reading, “a maneh, a maneh, a shekel, and a half-maneh.” Cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 262–64.

[22] Charles, Daniel, 57–59; Keil, Daniel, 126.

[23] Young, Daniel, 125–26.

[24] Herodotus, Histories 1:190–91.

[25] Keil, Daniel, 171–72.

[26] Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 315–16.

[27] John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Darius the Mede (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 73.

6

Daniel in the Lions’ Den

The account of Daniel being cast into the lions’ den is one of the most familiar stories of the Old Testament. The fact that such an event should be given the same amount of space in Scripture as the panoramic view of world history in chapter 7 leads to the conclusion that, from God’s viewpoint, this was an important event not only for Daniel but all students of Scripture.

Structurally, Daniel 6 parallels Daniel 3 within the large chiasm that defines the Aramaic section of the book. In both chapters God’s followers are challenged by a decree of the king, but resolve to remain faithful even when threatened with death. God miraculously intervenes to deliver His followers, and the king is forced to acknowledge God’s superiority as a result. The chapters serve as reminders to God’s people of the need to remain faithful as they wait for God to establish His promised kingdom (chapters 2 and 7).

From the standpoint of biblical scholarship, however, more attention has been directed to Darius the Mede, the king of Babylon at this time, than to the events of the chapter itself. The reason is that much of the critical unbelief in relation to the book of Daniel is based on what is claimed to be an obvious historical error—that history allows no room for a person by this name. The alleged error is another important argument used to prove a second-century date for Daniel, at which time the true facts of four hundred years before would be obscure.

H. H. Rowley, who has written one of the most important scholarly studies on this question, begins his work by stating, “The references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problem in the book.”[1] The problem to which he refers is that the book of Daniel states that Darius the Mede, at the age of sixty-two, received the kingdom after the death of Belshazzar (Dan. 5:31) and was “the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans” (Dan. 9:1).

In chapter 6 we learn that Darius organized “the whole kingdom,” setting up 120 satraps and three presidents, of which Daniel was one. The Septuagint translates Daniel 6:28 to read that after Darius’s death, Cyrus the Persian king took control, implying a Median kingdom under Darius that was followed by a Persian kingdom under Cyrus. Sources outside the Bible, however, clearly indicate that this is not the case.

Basing his findings on the Nabonidus Chronicle, Wiseman says the actual events went something like this.[2] Babylon was conquered by Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium, who led the army of Cyrus and entered the city of Babylon on the night of Belshazzar’s feast. Nabonidus, who was Belshazzar’s father, had fled Babylon the day before only to be captured and later die in exile. When Babylon fell to Ugbaru on October 12, 539 B.C., Cyrus himself had remained with other troops at Opis, and not until eighteen days later, October 30, 539 B.C., did he arrive in Babylon. He then appointed a man named Gubaru (probably an alternate form of Ugbaru) to rule in Babylon. Eight days after Cyrus arrived, Ugbaru died. If this history of the events following Babylon’s fall is correct, it is obvious that there is no room for Darius the Mede to reign over Babylon. Although there are several explanations, three predominate.

The first explanation is that the book of Daniel is historically in error, and the writer has confused Darius the Mede with some other important person. H. H. Rowley advocates this view. He successively dismisses identification of Darius the Mede with Astyages, the last of the Median kings;[3] Cyaxares, the son of Astyages;[4] Gobryas, another form of the name Gubaru, or Ugbaru, who led the forces conquering Babylon;[5] and Cambyses, a son of Cyrus.[6] Rowley offers rather thorough proof that none of these suggestions is valid and supports that there is no reliable evidence that a person named Darius the Mede ever lived, as only Daniel mentions him. Rowley suggests that this ruler was so designated by the author of Daniel because of confusion with Darius the son of Hystaspes, who is associated with a later fall of Babylon in 520 B.C. In a word, Rowley believes that Daniel’s book is not reliable historically in its reference to Darius the Mede. This would also support the theory that Daniel the prophet of the sixth century B.C. could not have written the book, as he would have had accurate information.

Two explanations have been offered by conservative scholars. Both recognize Darius the Mede as an actual historical character who fulfilled the role assigned him in Daniel 6.

The first explanation, which is quite popular, is that Darius the Mede is the same as Gubaru, the governor appointed over Babylon by Cyrus. This view is strongly supported by Robert Dick Wilson[7] and a host of others such as Friedrich Delitzsch, C. H. H. Wright, Joseph D. Wilson, and W. F. Albright.[8] John C. Whitcomb Jr. has attempted to revive this view and answer Rowley.[9]

Whitcomb is careful to distinguish Gubaru from Ugbaru, both of whom are called Gobryas in some translations of the Nabonidus Chronicle. Whitcomb holds that Ugbaru, identified previously as the governor of Gutium in the Nabonidus Chronicle, led the army of Cyrus into Babylon, but died less than a month later. Gubaru, however, is identified by Whitcomb as Darius the Mede. Gubaru was the ruler of Babylon under the authority of Cyrus. Although sources outside the Bible do not call Gubaru a Mede, identify him explicitly as “king” of Babylon, or give his age, Whitcomb notes there is no real contradiction between the secular records and how Daniel describes Darius the Mede.

The second view, held by the conservative scholar D. J. Wiseman, has simplicity in its favor. It claims that Darius the Mede is another name of Cyrus the Persian. This is based upon a translation of Daniel 6:28 that the Aramaic permits to read: “Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”[10] The fact that monarchs had more than one name was common in ancient literature, and Wiseman’s view offers another conservative explanation of this problem in Daniel. Archer offers a slight variation on this view in suggesting that “‘Darius’ may have been a title of honor, somewhat as ‘Caesar’ or ‘Augustus’ became in the Roman Empire. It is apparently related to ‘dara’ (‘king’ in Avestian Persian)….”[11]

All who discuss the question of Darius the Mede must necessarily base their arguments on a relative scarcity of factual material. Critics frequently appeal to silence as an argument in their favor, as if the absence of a fact from our fragmentary records is a conclusive point. Most Bible-believing Christians feel that, until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the scriptural record should be given more consideration than the fragmentary records, or lack of records, outside the Bible. K. A. Kitchen has summarized the inconclusive nature of this negative evidence, demonstrating that it does not support the sweeping conclusion that Daniel is in error.[12] It must be emphasized that there is no established fact that contradicts a person by the name of Darius the Mede reigning over Babylon if Darius is an alternate name for a known ruler.

DANIEL EXALTED BY DARIUS (6:1–3)

6:1–3 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom 120 satraps, to be throughout the whole kingdom; and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one, to whom these satraps should give account, so that the king might suffer no loss. Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him. And the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.

With the successful conquest of Babylon and the surrounding territory, it now is appropriate for the conquerors to organize their new kingdom, both for law and order and for the benefit of taxation that this would allow. In such an organization, it would not be unsuitable to use qualified men who had served previously in the Babylonian kingdom. The conquerors did what they could to set up a friendly relationship with the people in their power, and although Belshazzar was slain, his father, Nabonidus, lived for some years afterward. Even some of the gods of Babylon were honored by the conquerors.[13]

Cyrus claims to have been chosen by Marduk himself to conquer Babylon and rescue the gods of Sumer and Akkad whose temples had fallen into disrepair under Nabonidus.[14] He also claims that “all the inhabitants of Babylon as well as the entire country of Sumer and Akkad, princes and governors (included), bowed to him and kissed his feet, jubilant that he (had received) the kingship….”[15]

Some have suggested that the figure of 120 satraps is inaccurate. Montgomery says, “The 120 satraps (AV ‘princes’) is an exaggeration, or at least an inaccuracy. Her[odotus], iii, 89, records that Darius created 20 satrapies, and that king’s inscriptions give their numbers successively as 21, 23, 29.”[16] Montgomery goes on, however, to admit that there were 127 provinces according to Esther 1:1, but still insists that Daniel is inaccurate. He also objects to the “three presidents” as being without parallel.[17] The fact is that the appointment of 120 officials to rule such a vast territory and of three presidents to rule over them was not at all unreasonable.[18]

The point of introducing these facts in Daniel’s narrative is to give the setting for Daniel’s place of honor as the first among the three presidents. They were required to give financial accounts and protect the king’s interests. In such a function, an honest and capable administrator familiar with the territory and problems of taxation would be of immeasurable benefit to Darius. For this reason, Daniel was preferred above the others because of his “excellent spirit” (v. 3). This appointment set the stage for the supreme test of Daniel that followed.

THE PLOT AGAINST DANIEL (6:4–5)

6:4–5 Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom, but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. Then these men said, “We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God.”

Daniel’s sterling character soon became a barrier to the ambitions of the princes and presidents with whom he was associated. Daniel’s integrity made impossible any corruption, and his favor with Darius aroused the jealousy of his fellow officials. It could be expected that these men, most of them probably much younger than Daniel and anxious to get ahead, should try to find some means of disposing of Daniel. But his faithfulness was such that they could not put their finger on any error or fault in his service. Some other method had to be found if Daniel was to be eliminated. So these men concluded that the only way they could trip up Daniel was to provide a conflict between official regulations, and Daniel’s conscience and observance of God’s law. We do not know all of what went on behind Daniel’s back, but apparently there were numerous discussions and finally a plot was formed.

The irony of the characters in the story makes for an interesting contrast. Those seeking to find a cause of complaint against Daniel reveal their own conniving, manipulative character. “Daniel’s colleagues appear as simply (in both senses of the word) plotters. Most of the speech in the story is theirs, and they condemn themselves out of their own mouths; every word they speak, as well as every move they make, concerns intrigue, manipulation, treachery, duplicity, and scheming.”[19] In contrast to their treacherous words and deeds, Daniel is presented as a man of integrity whose righteousness shone so brightly he barely needed to say a word throughout most of the chapter.

THE CONSPIRATORS SECURE A BAN ON PRAYER (6:6–9)

6:6–9 Then these presidents and satraps came by agreement to the king and said to him, “O King Darius, live forever! All the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an injunction, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the injunction and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked.” Therefore King Darius signed the document and injunction.

The conspirators lost no time putting their plot into effect. They presented their scheme to Darius—and verse 6 seems to indicate that they all were there, which would have been an unusual occasion.[20] Their spokesman also told the king that every official named had agreed to their petition. Some object to this account as being most improbable, if not impossible, but stranger things have happened. Montgomery notes, “Their ostensibly honorific plea that the king sign a decree that none should make request of god or man except of the king for thirty days appears to many commentators as absurd, and probably for this reason [the LXX] omits the item.”[21] But even Montgomery adds, “But these stories are generally reasonable; the terms of the request may be meant as a satiric hyperbole, cf. Jon. 3:8, where the Ninevite king orders both man and beast to put on sackcloth. [Behrmann’s] position is an entirely sensible one that the implication of the story means a petition of religion (not with [Bevan] any kind of request), and that this one king was to be regarded for the time being as the only representative of Deity.”[22]

Their petition was for an ordinance that would prohibit anyone from presenting a petition to any god or man for thirty days except to the king. The penalty for disobedience would be death in the den of lions. Under the psychological impact of these officials assembling in such force and presenting such an unusual petition designed to honor Darius and recognize in him divine powers, he signed the ordinance into a law that could not be changed. The book of Esther (1:19; 8:8) and Diodorus Siculus also establish the fact that Medo-Persian law stipulated that a royal edict could not be revoked.[23] The verb translated “sign” in verses 8, 9, and 10 can be understood to mean “to draw, to draw up, to inscribe, to write,” and hence “to draft,” which would be more comprehensive than merely signing.[24]

As Young and others have pointed out, there is nothing unusual in ascribing to Persian kings worship such as would be afforded the pagan gods. Young observes, “The action of Darius was both foolish and wicked. What led him to yield to the request of the ministers can only be conjectured, but probably he was greatly influenced by the claim of deity which many of the Persian kings made.”[25] Stuart justifies this situation in these words, “Parsism did not indeed require men to regard the king as a god in his own proper nature, but to pay him supreme homage as the representative of Ormusd. Such being the state of the case, it is easy to see that the account of Darius’ behavior, when he was importuned by his courtiers and nobles, wears no special marks of improbability.”[26] Most likely, Darius regarded this act as a pledge of loyalty to himself and a token of their desire to respect his authority to the utmost.

DANIEL’S FAITHFULNESS IN TESTING (6:10–11)

6:10–11 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously. Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and plea before his God.

As noted earlier, Daniel’s remarkable faithfulness in the face of this ordinance parallels the actions of his three companions in chapter 3 as they faced the fiery furnace. Although he knew the law was now in effect, Daniel nevertheless went to his house where his windows were opened in the direction of Jerusalem, which still lay in ruins, and knelt in keeping with his regular schedule of coming to God three times a day in prayer and thanksgiving. In his prayer life Daniel followed the inspired instructions of Jeremiah addressed to the people of Israel in the captivity (Jer. 29:1). Jeremiah had assured them, “Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you” (Jer. 29:12). According to Daniel 9:2, the book of Jeremiah was in Daniel’s hands. The custom of praying toward the temple in Jerusalem was adopted by Solomon (cf. 2 Chron. 6:34–39) and continued until the new instruction Christ gave to the Samaritan woman in John 4:20–24. Praying three times a day is also mentioned in Psalm 55:16–17. Here we learn the secret of Daniel’s consistency of life and testimony. In spite of the pressures of being a busy executive with many demands upon his time, Daniel prayed faithfully for the peace of Jerusalem as well as for his personal needs. This was not the act of a person courting martyrdom, but the continuation of a faithful ministry in prayer that had characterized his long life.

The opening of the windows toward Jerusalem was symbolic of Daniel’s hope that someday the children of Israel would be able to return to the holy city. Daniel’s effective prayers were the prelude for the return under Zerubbabel in chapter 9. Daniel knelt to indicate his dependence upon God. No doubt the thought crossed Daniel’s mind that he could pray in secret and avoid breaking the king’s ordinance. But to Daniel apparently this was subterfuge, and he did not swerve from his usual prayer custom.

It is significant that Daniel’s enemies anticipated that this would be his response. Quite confidently, they assembled to witness his prayers and to have a basis for charging Daniel before the king. By prearrangement, they gathered in a place where they could observe and hear him. What a testimony Daniel had that even his enemies knew he would be faithful to God although it would cost him his life. Baldwin notes that the repetition of the word “agreement” (see comments on v. 6) shows the “deliberate intent” of the conspirators.[27]

DANIEL ACCUSED BEFORE DARIUS (6:12–15)

6:12–15 Then they came near and said before the king, concerning the injunction, “O king! Did you not sign an injunction, that anyone who makes petition to any god or man within thirty days except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?” The king answered and said, “The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked.” Then they answered and said before the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or the injunction you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day.” Then the king, when he heard these words, was much distressed and set his mind to deliver Daniel. And he labored till the sun went down to rescue him. Then these men came by agreement to the king and said to the king, “Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no injunction or ordinance that the king establishes can be changed.”

The conspirators crowded once again into the king’s courtroom to present their evidence against Daniel. This record is probably an abbreviated summary of the conversation. The accusers began by asking whether the decree had been signed. The king assured them that it had been officially executed and was now the unchangeable law of the land. With this assurance, they then proceeded to accuse Daniel, introducing him not as a president in an honored position, but as simply “one of the exiles from Judah.” They accused Daniel of disregarding the king and his decree, and doing so three times a day as he offered prayer to his God.

Their confidence in making this accusation was probably bolstered by the justification for the injunction in the first place. No doubt the Scriptures do not record all the conversation between King Darius and these officials. It is probable that they had justified the law as a means by which all the peoples in the kingdom would be forced to recognize Darius as their ruler and present their petitions to their deities in Darius’s name. There was little in this that would be offensive to a pagan who worshiped many gods, and it could have been a useful device to expose anyone who was rebellious against the king.

Yet now that the trap was sprung on Daniel, the king immediately saw through the conspirators’ scheme. Instead of being angry with Daniel as Nebuchadnezzar had been with Daniel’s companions in chapter 3, the king realized that he himself had made a mistake and attempted in vain to find a legal loophole by which Daniel could be delivered. But those assembled before the king reminded Darius of what he already knew: the law could not be changed according to their customs and beliefs. As the representative of the gods, the king would have to enforce his decree. There was no alternative but to issue the command that Daniel be cast into the lions’ den.

DANIEL CAST INTO THE LIONS’ DEN (6:16–17)

6:16–17 Then the king commanded, and Daniel was brought and cast into the den of lions. The king declared to Daniel, “May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you!” And a stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel.

The king’s command was carried out and Daniel was thrown to the lions—but not before Darius made this remarkable statement to Daniel: “May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you!” The idea is that the king was saying, “I have tried to save you but have failed. Now your God must save you.”[28] Daniel’s personal piety and faithfulness to God had made an obvious impression on Darius, giving the king some hope that Daniel’s God might come to his rescue. Goldingay believes that little can be read into the king’s statement regarding whether or not he believed God would rescue Daniel. “Darius, in turn, uses a form of the verb that leaves open whether God must, will, may, or even can rescue Daniel.”[29] However, Archer believes the king’s words “voiced a tremendous hope.”[30] Verses 18–20 seem to support the idea that the king had his doubts about the ability of Daniel’s God to provide deliverance. The mouth of the den was sealed with the king’s signet as a token of the injunction’s fulfillment. No human could interfere, not even Darius himself.

Keil gives an interesting account of a lions’ den found in more modern times:

We have no account by the ancients of the construction of lions’ dens. Ge. Host, in his work on Fez and Morocco, p. 77, describes the lions’ dens as they have been found in Morocco. According to his account, they consist of a large square cavern under the earth, having a partition-wall in the middle of it, which is furnished with a door, which the keeper can open and close from above. By throwing in food, they can entice the lions from one chamber into the other, and then, having shut the door, they enter the vacant space for the purpose of cleaning it. The cavern is open above, its mouth being surrounded by a wall of a yard and a half high, over which one can look down into the den. This description agrees perfectly with that which is here given in the text regarding the lions’ den.[31]

A lion relief from the Procession Street in Babylon illustrating the culture’s fascination with lions.

This kind of construction would account for the fact that Darius was able to converse freely with Daniel while Daniel was still barricaded inside the den.

THE KING’S LAMENT FOR DANIEL (6:18–20)

6:18–20 Then the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; no diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him. Then, at break of day, the king arose and went in haste to the den of lions. As he came near to the den where Daniel was, he cried out in a tone of anguish. The king declared to Daniel, “O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?”

Quite in contrast to Nebuchadnezzar, who showed no compassion for Daniel’s three companions when they were cast into the fiery furnace, Darius manifested unusual concern. Although he was accustomed to brutality and the execution of criminals and ordinarily did not give the matter a second thought, in this case there was something about Daniel that had involved the king emotionally. While the king had stated his desire that Daniel’s God would rescue him, it is clear that Darius did not have any real faith in Daniel’s deliverance, but only perhaps a superstition arising out of stories that had come to him of Daniel’s companions earlier in Babylonian history. In keeping with his grief for Daniel, the Scriptures record that the king fasted, did not have the usual diversions or entertainment, and was unable to sleep. It was most unusual for the king to spend a night in this fashion. He had probably not had such an experience before in his life.

In the dim light of early morning, Darius hurried to the lions’ den. Probably being unable to see because of the early morning light and the shadows of the den, the king called out to Daniel in a remarkable way. He addressed Daniel as the “servant of the living God” and raised the question, “has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?” The king’s trip to the lions’ den gives evidence that he thought there was a possibility Daniel would be alive. That he had little actual faith, however, is shown in the “tone of anguish” in which he called Daniel. The Aramaic verb means “lamentable” or “sad.” He feared that there would be nothing but silence and the growl of the lions in response to his call.

DANIEL’S DELIVERANCE (6:21–23)

6:21–23 Then Daniel said to the king, “O king, live forever! My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not harmed me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no harm.” Then the king was exceedingly glad, and commanded that Daniel be taken up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no kind of harm was found on him, because he had trusted in his God.

For the first time in the chapter, Daniel spoke as he called out in response to the king. And what an amazing response it was! In contrast to the king’s anguish, Daniel calmly answered with the usual courteous greeting, “O king, live forever!” Most people in Daniel’s predicament would have immediately cried out for deliverance from the lions. But Daniel informed the king of the miracle God had done on his behalf. Daniel attributed this not only to the power of God, but to the fact that he was innocent of any crime either against God or the king.

As He had with Daniel’s three friends, God sent a supernatural being to protect and deliver His faithful servant. “How Darius conceived of such an agent is not clear, but the Scriptures teach that angels are spirit beings, created by God for the purpose of serving Him.”[32] God didn’t take away the lions’ hunger; He sent His heavenly messenger to keep their mouths closed and their paws away from Daniel.

King Darius was overjoyed at the deliverance of his favorite counselor and immediately ordered Daniel removed from the den. The aged man of God emerged before the unbelieving eyes of the king and his servants without a scratch because of his faith in God (Heb. 11:32–33). Just as the flames had not been able even to bring the smell of smoke upon Daniel’s companions in chapter 3, so the lions were not permitted to touch the prophet of God.

DANIEL’S ENEMIES DESTROYED (6:24)

6:24 And the king commanded, and those men who had maliciously accused Daniel were brought and cast into the den of lions—they, their children, and their wives. And before they reached the bottom of the den, the lions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces.

The sad end of Daniel’s accusers and their families is recorded as an act of divine justice upon the enemies of God’s servant. Such barbarity was common in the ancient world, and not without parallel even in God’s divine judgment upon the wicked as illustrated in His judgment upon Dathan, Abiram, and Korah when they and their families were swallowed up in an earthquake (Num. 16). The punishment meted out conformed to the injunction about the treatment of false witnesses in the law (Deut. 19:16–21). This principle of lex talionis is also illustrated in the case of Haman (Esth. 7:9–10). God had threatened to act in the same way against nations that sought to harm His people. “For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations. As you have done [to my people], it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head” (Obad. 15).

Some critics have pointed with ridicule to the impossibility of casting 120 officials plus their wives and children into one lions’ den. Montgomery, for instance, regards this “tragic denouement” as “indeed absurd,” as well as the entire story.[33] The Septuagint, apparently in an effort to counter this criticism, makes the victims only the two men who were presidents with Daniel, and, therefore, his principal accusers.[34] The Scriptures do not say that all the princes and presidents were killed, but only those who had accused Daniel—that is, the ringleaders. This served notice on the rest, if they had any further inclination to plot against Daniel. The experience of Daniel’s false accusers is another illustration of God’s faithfulness to the basic Abrahamic Covenant where God promised to bless those who blessed Abraham’s seed and to curse those who cursed them (Gen. 12:3).

THE DECREE OF DARIUS (6:25–28)

6:25–28 Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth: “Peace be multiplied to you. I make a decree, that in all my royal dominion people are to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, enduring forever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end. He delivers and rescues; he works signs and wonders in heaven and on earth, he who has saved Daniel from the power of the lions.” So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

Much as Nebuchadnezzar had done in both chapters 3 and 4, Darius issued a decree to be sent throughout his entire domain calling on people everywhere to fear the God of Daniel. The wording of the decree is quite similar to Daniel 4:1. It may be in both instances that Daniel was the actual author acting under the king’s orders, or it may be that the unknown author was following the usual form of letter writing. In any case, the king took for granted that the world was at his feet, and he used extravagant language addressing the entire world in his decree. The expression “Peace be multiplied to you” is identical to Daniel 4:1, and reminds one of the letters of Paul in the New Testament.

The decree described Daniel’s God as the living God, One who “endure[s] forever.” The point is that in a rapidly changing situation—that is, the Medo-Persians overcoming the Babylonians—God does not change. Again, this is remarkably similar to Daniel 4:3. The king’s decree also ascribed sovereignty and power to God as the One who is able to deliver His servants and work “signs and wonders in heaven and on earth,” and proved it by delivering Daniel. Verses 26–27 are in the form of a hymn in the original. Once again, throughout the world of Daniel’s day, the tidings were carried of the great God who is living, powerful, everlasting, and greater than the gods of the pagans.

The chapter closes with a brief historical note that Daniel continued to prosper in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. Here again critics have attempted to claim an inaccuracy. The probable explanation is, as has been previously pointed out, that either Darius was a governor under Cyrus and later delivered the kingdom to him, possibly at his death, or that Darius and Cyrus were the same person with the word and understood as meaning “even.”

Daniel 6 is a profound illustration of how God cares for His people. Although it is historical and to be accepted in its literal portrayal of an event, it is also parabolic like chapter 3 and is a foreshadowing of Israel’s ultimate deliverance from their persecutors in the great tribulation at the end of the times of the Gentiles. When God’s power is finally demonstrated at the second coming of Christ, the persecutors of Israel and the enemies of God will be judged and destroyed much like the enemies of Daniel. Like Daniel, however, the people of God must remain true regardless of the cost or the persecution.

NOTES

[1] H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1959), 8.

[2] D. J. Wiseman, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel,” in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, D. J. Wiseman et al., eds. (London: Tyndale, 1965), 9–18.

[3] Rowley, Darius the Mede, 30–36.

[4] Ibid., 37–43.

[5] Ibid., 19–29.

[6] Ibid., 12–18.

[7] R. D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel (New York: Putnam, 1917), 128ff.

[8] Rowley, Darius the Mede, 19.

[9] J. C. Whitcomb Jr., Darius the Mede (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 73.

[10] Wiseman, “Historical Problems,” 9–16.

[11] Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 76.

[12] K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament (Chicago: interVarsity, 1966), 30ff.

[13] For example, Cyrus wrote that after his conquest of Babylon he was “daily endeavoring to worship” Marduk, the chief god of Babylon and that he followed Marduk’s command to restore “all the gods of Sumer and Akkad” to their former temples (James B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd. ed. [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969], 316).

[14] Ibid., 315.

[15] Ibid., 316.

[16] James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 269.

[17] Ibid.

[18] See also the explanation by Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 155–56.

[19] John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 125.

[20] Wood notes the word used in verses 6 and 11 has the idea of coming “‘in concert’ with the possible thought of implied conspiracy” (Wood, Daniel, 159).

[21] Montgomery, Daniel, 269–70.

[22] Ibid., 270.

[23] Diodorus Siculus recounted an incident in which a Persian king condemned a man to death for his rude speech. The king “promptly regretted his act and reproached himself for having made a serious mistake, but all his royal power was not able to undo what was done” (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 17.30.6).

[24] Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1961), 96.

[25] Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 134.

[26] Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1850), 171.

[27] Joyce C. Baldwin, Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978), 129.

[28] Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 216.

[29] Goldingay, Daniel, 132.

[30] Archer, “Daniel,” 81.

[31] Keil, Daniel, 216.

[32] Wood, Daniel, 171.

[33] Montgomery, Daniel, 278.

[34] Ibid.

7

Daniel’s Vision of Future World History

Daniel 7 is the final chapter in the Aramaic section of the book. Structurally, the chapter completes the chiastic arrangement of chapters 2–7. It parallels Daniel 2 in presenting the fourfold succession of Gentile powers that will be followed by the establishment of God’s final kingdom.[1] But before we look at the details of the chapter, we need to consider several critical issues.

In biblical prophecy, the seventh chapter of Daniel occupies a unique place. As interpreted by conservative expositors, the vision of Daniel provides the most comprehensive and detailed prophecy of future events to be found anywhere in the Old Testament. Although its interpretation has varied widely, conservative scholars generally are agreed, with few exceptions, that Daniel traces the course of four great world empires, namely, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, concluding with the climax of world history in the second coming of Jesus Christ and the inauguration of the eternal kingdom of God, represented as a fifth and final kingdom which is from heaven.[2]

Interpreted in this way, the chapter forms a panoramic view of future events to which additional details are added later in the book as well as in the New Testament, especially in the Revelation. Such a panorama of future events is of great importance to the student of prophecy, as it provides a broad outline to which all other prophetic events may be related. Conservative interpreters are agreed that this is genuine prophecy, that it is futuristic—that is, related to future events from Daniel’s point of view—and that its culmination is in the kingdom that Christ brings.

In the introduction to his discussion of “The Four World-kingdoms,” Keil has well summarized the issues involved in chapter 7:

There yet remains for our consideration the question, What are the historical world-kingdoms which are represented by Nebuchadnezzar’s image (ch. 2), and by Daniel’s vision of four beasts rising up out of the sea? Almost all interpreters understand that these two visions are to be interpreted in the same way. “The four kingdoms or dynasties, which are symbolized (ch. 2) by the different parts of the human image, from the head to the feet, are the same as those which were symbolized by the four great beasts rising up out of the sea.”[3]

Keil noted also that the commonly accepted view in the church was that these four kingdoms were Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.[4] But when faith in the supernatural origin and character of biblical prophecy was shaken in later centuries, the authenticity of the book of Daniel was rejected, and the identity of the fourth kingdom as the Roman world-monarchy was denied.

Conservative scholarship has solid reasons for interpreting the fourth kingdom as Rome. Porphyry, the third-century A.D. pagan antagonist of Christianity who invented the idea of a pseudo-Daniel writing in the second century B.C., did not find Christian support until the rise of modern higher criticism. The whole attempt, therefore, to make the book of Daniel history instead of prophecy has been considered untenable by orthodoxy. With it, the view that the fourth kingdom is Greece and not Rome has also been rejected by conservative scholars as unsupported by the book of Daniel and contradicted by the New Testament as well as historic fulfillment.

In Matthew 24:15 Christ Himself presented the abomination of desolation predicted in Daniel 9:27 and 12:11 as being future, not past. Prophecies in the book of Revelation written late in the first century also anticipate as future the fulfillment of parallel prophecies in Daniel. For example, Revelation 13 parallels the final stage of Daniel’s fourth empire. This could not, therefore, refer to events fulfilled in the second century B.C. Daniel 9:26 announces that the Messiah will be cut off and the city of Jerusalem destroyed—events that occurred in the Roman period. The Jewish historian Josephus believed that Daniel had predicted the rise of Rome, and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Dan. 9:26). “in the same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.”[5]

The author of the apocryphal book 2 Esdras, who lived near the close of the first century A.D., clearly identified the fourth kingdom of Daniel’s vision as the Roman Empire (2 Esd. 12:11–12). To these arguments may be added the details of the second, third, and fourth empires throughout the book of Daniel, which harmonize precisely with the Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman Empires. The alternate views of the critics can be held only if Daniel’s prophecy be considered in factual error in several places, since the details of the prophecies do not really coincide with the critics’ theories. For these reasons, conservative scholars have held firmly to the traditional identification of the four empires in chapter 7 of Daniel, which mirror those of chapter 2.

The conservative interpretation, however, has been confronted with a broadside of critical objections to the plausibility of such detailed prophecy of future events. As noted previously, critics argue that the real author of Daniel lived during the persecution of the Jews by the Seleucid emperor Antiochus Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.), and from that viewpoint he looked backward over the preceding four centuries, organized history in a manner that was significant for him, and made this the basis for anticipating a climax to the Maccabean persecution then under way. Accordingly, the pseudo-Daniel considered Antiochus to be symbolic of the evil powers of this world that the author believed were soon to be judged by God, who was to intervene and replace the rule of tyranny under Antiochus with that of the saints of the Most High. But this view requires the interpretation of many statements in Daniel as less than factual and actually not scriptural prophecy at all. This point of view as a whole is an expansion of Porphyry’s unbelief rather than a product of a reverent, believing study of the Scriptures.

Critics approach Daniel somewhat a priori, assuming that prediction of particular events in the future is impossible and, therefore, requiring a late date for the book of Daniel so that it is history rather than prophecy. This is often denied, however, by such scholarly writers as H. H. Rowley who states, “The conclusions we have reached have not been born of a priori disbelief in accurate prophecy, but of a posteriori demonstration that we have not accurate prophecy.”[6] Nevertheless, it is quite plain, as the critical view is unfolded, that the content of Daniel itself is quite offensive to the critical mind and that broad statements are made that this or that fact in the book of Daniel is untrue either because of its nature or because there is no outside confirming evidence.

According to the critics, the four empires of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Their theory has two major lines of support. First, they find evidence that the kingdom of Media is represented as being in existence in the book of Daniel by the mention of Darius the Mede (5:31; 6:1, 6, 9, 25, 28). Actually, there was no Median Empire in power at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C., as it had already been swallowed up by Persia by 550 B.C.

The alleged error in relation to Darius the Mede, however, misrepresents what the book actually claims. The fact that Darius was a Mede indicated his race, but does not mean that the empire was Median. Daniel 6 clearly states that the kingdom over which Darius the Mede was reigning in Babylon was the kingdom of the “Medes and Persians” (vv. 8, 12, 15). In other words, the book of Daniel itself identifies the kingdom as the Medo-Persian Empire, not solely a Median empire at this point. The error is in the critics’ interpretation, not in what Daniel actually teaches.

The second critical argument is that the fourth empire is Greece, thus reflecting present circumstances at the time the pseudo-Daniel wrote the book in the second century. This would require the second and third empires to be Media and Persia. The fact that Daniel’s “prophecies” of these empires do not fit the facts of history is taken as error on the part of the pseudo-Daniel. The weakness of the critical approach here is unconsciously revealed in Rowley’s discussion in which he puts most of his weight on the attempt to identify the fourth kingdom as Greece, rather than addressing the serious historical problems that arise if one attempts to separate Medo-Persia into two sequential empires.[7] The conservative interpreter of the book of Daniel finds that Rowley’s interpretation tends to emphasize extrascriptural sources, magnify minor points of obscurity, and often ignores the plain statements of the book of Daniel itself.

Montgomery adopts an even more extreme interpretation. He not only attributes the book of Daniel to a second-century author but takes the position that the first six chapters were written by a different author and at a different time from chapters 7 to 12. He states, “The criticism of the unity of the bk. began in the 17th cent., with the observation of the distinction of languages, the Aram, and Heb.; Spinoza discovered two documents, cc. 1–7 and 8–12, referring the latter to the undoubted authorship of Dan., and confessing ignorance as to the origin of the former.”[8] In order to support this, Montgomery says that chapter 7 was originally written in Hebrew instead of Aramaic as we now have it.[9] He confesses, however, “But a critical distinction on the basis of diversity of language is now generally denied. The extreme positions taken respectively by the defenders and the impugners of the historicity of Dan. have induced the great majority of critics to assign the bk. as a whole to either the 6th or the 2d cent., with as a rule little or no discussion on the part of the [commentator] of the possibility of composite origin; indeed most ignore the problem.”[10]

The final decision can only be made on the basis of which view offers the most plausible explanation of the text itself. The inherent congruity of the conservative interpretation of Daniel 7 as opposed to the critical theories will be considered below. If Daniel is genuine Scripture, of course, this supports the conservative interpretation. If Daniel is a forgery, and its prophecy is actually history, the book becomes quite meaningless for most Bible expositors. Rowley presents the hollow claim that the critical view “which has been adopted does not destroy faith but strengthens it, in that it provides a reasonable ground for it.”[11] Actually, he is saying that the choice is between faith in error and faith in the “true view,” that is, the critical interpretation.

DANIEL’S FIRST VISION: THE FOUR GREAT BEASTS (7:1–3)

7:1–3 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream and told the sum of the matter. Daniel declared, “I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. And four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another.”

The opening verses introduce Daniel’s remarkable experience. The year was probably 553 B.C., fourteen years before the fall of Babylon.[12] Nabonidus, the actual king of Babylon beginning in 556 B.C., had appointed Belshazzar as his coregent in control of Babylonia itself while Nabonidus conducted military maneuvers in Arabia.[13] As Nebuchadnezzar had died in 562 B.C., nine years before Belshazzar began to reign, it is clear that the events of chapter 7 occurred chronologically between Daniel 4 and 5.

A relief of a dragon-like composite creature from the Ishtar Gate in Babylon.

By mentioning the specific time of the vision, Daniel consciously and deliberately rooted his visions as occurring in the historical background of the sixth century. The vision of chapter 8 is dated in Belshazzar’s third year. According to Daniel 9:1–2, he discovered the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years of captivity in the first year of Darius the Mede and, later in the same chapter, had a third vision. Daniel’s fourth vision in chapters 10–12 occurred in the third year of Cyrus (10:1). In chapter 11, there is mention of an earlier activity of the angel in strengthening Darius the Mede in his first year, another historical event related to the prophetic portion of Daniel. All of these are introduced so naturally and are so integral to the narrative that they support the sixth-century date for the book of Daniel.

Daniel was evidently asleep as he received his vision, although he had a later vision while awake (9:23). Here, for the first time in the book of Daniel, a vision is given directly to Daniel, and in verse 2, he is quoted in the first person for the first time.

A great deal of discussion has been devoted to the significance of Daniel 7 as it relates to the book as a whole. One point of view, held by conservative as well as liberal interpreters, is that the book of Daniel divides into two halves or units with six chapters each. From the standpoint of world history this has much to commend itself, for Daniel’s vision in chapter 7 is both a summary of what has been revealed before, especially in the vision of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 2, and the outline of world history with which the last half of Daniel is primarily concerned. In the first six chapters, generalities are revealed. In the last six chapters, specifics are given, such as the detailed description of the end of the times of the Gentiles and the relationship of Israel to world history, with special reference to the time of great tribulation.

Another point of view argued strongly by Culver is that the book of Daniel divides into three major divisions: (1) introduction, Daniel 1; (2) the times of the Gentiles, presented in Aramaic, the common language of the Gentiles at that time, Daniel 2–7; and (3) Israel in relation to the Gentiles, written in Hebrew, Daniel 8–12.[14] Culver’s point of view, which he credits to Auberlen,[15] has much to commend itself and is especially theologically discerning because it distinguishes the two major programs of God in the Old Testament, namely, the program for the Gentiles and the program for Israel. In either point of view, however, chapter 7 is a high point in revelation in the book of Daniel; and, in some sense, the material before as well as the material that follows pivots upon the detailed revelation of this chapter.

Notice the sharp contrast between the vision given to Daniel here and the vision given to Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 2. On the one hand, in chapter 2, an evil, pagan king is used as a vehicle of divine revelation that pictures world history as an imposing image in the form of a man. In chapter 7, the vision is given through the godly prophet, Daniel, and world history is depicted as four horrible beasts, the last of which almost defies description. In chapter 2, Daniel is the interpreter. In chapter 7, an angel is the interpreter. chapter 2 considers world history from a human viewpoint as a glorious and imposing spectacle. chapter 7 views world history from God’s standpoint in its immorality, brutality, and depravity. In detail of prophecy, chapter 7 far exceeds chapter 2 and is in some sense a commentary on the earlier revelation.

Critics have massed their severest criticism against the credibility of Daniel 7 and treated it almost contemptuously. But by so doing they only reveal the artificial criteria by which they judge divine revelation. Conservative scholars, on the other hand, have hailed chapter 7 as one of the great prophecies of the Bible and the key to God’s entire program from Babylon to the second coming of Christ. Critics have suggested that the original form of this chapter was Hebrew and later it was translated into Aramaic,[16] but there is really no justification or documentary support for this apart from a premise that Daniel itself is a forgery. From a literary standpoint, it is only natural that the Aramaic section of Daniel, dealing with the Gentile world, should be in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the time.

Beginning in verse 2, Daniel records what he calls “the sum of the matter” in verse 1, that is, the details of his vision that he declares he “saw” (see 7:7, 13; cf. “looked,” 7:4, 6, 9, 11, 21). The verbs “saw” and “looked” are the same in Aramaic and can be translated, “as I was looking.” (The verb “considered” in 7:8 is a different word.) In the vision, four winds are seen striving on a great sea. Symbolically, the sea may represent the mass of humanity, or the nations of the world, as in Matthew 13:47 and Revelation 13:1 (cf. Isa. 8:6–8; Jer. 46:7–8; 47:2; Rev. 17:1, 15).[17] The sea is identified with the earth in 7:17 and is clearly symbolic. The turbulence of the sea may well represent the strife of Gentile history (Isa. 17:12–13; 57:20; Jer. 6:23).[18]

As Keil states, “The great sea is not the Mediterranean, … for such a geographical reference is foreign to the context. It is the ocean; and the storm on it represents the ‘tumults of the people,’ commotions among the nations of the world, … corresponding to the prophetic comparison found in Jer. 17:12, 46:7 f. ‘Since the beasts represent the forms of the world-power, the sea must represent that out of which they arise, the whole heathen world’ (Hofmann).”[19]

It seems clear that the sea represents the nations and the four great beasts represent the four great world empires that are given subsequent revelation. If this is the case, what is the meaning of the four winds? The Scriptures do not tell us, but since the wind striving with the world is a symbol of the sovereign power of God striving with people (Gen. 6:3; John 3:8), the prophetic meaning may be God’s sovereign power in conflict with sinful humanity. God often used the wind as a means to attain His ends (Gen. 8:1; Exod. 10:13–19; 14:21; 15:10; Num. 11:31; 1 Kings 18:45; 19:11). Compare Satan’s use of wind in Job 1:19. Of more than 120 references in the Bible to wind (more than 90 in the Old Testament and about 30 in the New), well over half are related to events and ideas that reflect the sovereignty and power of God. In Daniel, wind is uniformly used to represent God’s sovereign power, which is the focus of the book. Gentile history is the record of God striving with the nations and ultimately bringing them into subjection when Christ returns to reign (Ps. 2).

THE FIRST BEAST: BABYLON (7:4)

7:4 “The first was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then as I looked its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and the mind of a man was given to it.”

As Daniel looked intently, he saw the wings plucked from this beast, which was then set up on its two feet and given a man’s mind or nature. Interpreters of all stripes have generally agreed that chapter 7 is in some sense a recapitulation of chapter 2 and covers the same four empires. There is also agreement that the first empire represents the reign of Nebuchadnezzar or the Neo-Babylonian Empire, corresponding to the head of gold. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar, “You are the head of gold” (2:38), so there is no uncertainty that in this chapter the first kingdom is either the reign of Nebuchadnezzar or the empire he represents. There is more unanimity on the identification of the first beast of chapter 7 than on any other point in this chapter.[20]

This beast was compared to a lion with eagles’ wings. The lion is a common representation of royal power. Solomon, for instance, had twelve lions on either side of the steps leading up to his throne (1 Kings 10:20; 2 Chron. 9:19). Winged lions guarded the gates of the Babylonians’ royal palaces. The lion was indeed the king of the beasts. In the same way, the eagle was the king of the air. In Ezekiel 17:3, 7, a great eagle is used as a picture first of Babylon and then of Egypt.[21]

Illustration of what the first beast in Daniel 7 might have looked like in Daniel’s dream.

In spite of the power indicated in this symbolism, Daniel saw the beast become man-like. This is most commonly interpreted as the symbolic representation of Nebuchadnezzar’s experience in chapter 4 when he was humbled before God and made to realize that, even though he was a great ruler, he was only a man. His lion-like character, or royal power, was his only at God’s pleasure. The symbolism is accurate and corresponds to the historical facts.

Although Daniel did not dwell on the fall of Babylon, described in detail in chapter 5, the decline of Babylon and the rise of the Medo-Persian Empire were implied. Other prophets spoke at length on the fall of Babylon. Following the reference to the tower of Babel in Genesis 11, there is no biblical mention of Babylon until the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel discuss Babylon’s future. Isaiah describes the fall of Babylon as similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Isa. 13:1–22; cf. Rev. 17), with particular mention of the Medes in verses 17–19. Two other extended prophecies about Babylon are found in Isaiah 21 and 47.

Jeremiah, who witnessed the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, refers to Babylon throughout his prophecy, of which the most important sections are 25:11–14; 29:10; and 50:1–51:62. The last two long chapters of Jeremiah are devoted entirely to Babylon. Ezekiel, himself a captive, is occupied with Babylon (Ezek. 17:12–24) and, like Jeremiah, predicts Babylon’s conquest of Egypt (Ezek. 29:18–20; 30:10–25; 32:1–32).

THE SECOND BEAST: MEDO-PERSIA (7:5)

7:5 “And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear. It was raised up on one side. It had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was told, ‘Arise, devour much flesh.’”

In contrast to the unanimity of identifying the first beast with Babylon, there is a diversity of interpretation concerning the second beast’s identity. Practically all liberal higher critics identify it as the Median Empire. Rowley cites almost overwhelming support for this identification which, according to him, “is found in the Peshitta version of the book of Daniel, in Ephraem Syrus and in Cosmas indicopleustes. It also stands in the anonymous commentator whose work is published in Mai’s Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collection Rowley notes that this long-forgotten theory was revived in the eighteenth century, and cites an imposing group of modern scholars who hold it.[22]

Although conservative scholars might be outnumbered, it is significant that most who attribute accuracy to the book of Daniel regard the second kingdom as Medo-Persia. The central issue is that there was never a time when the Median Empire ruled over the Ancient Near East as a single, dominant power. Herodotus reports that Cyrus conquered the Medes (Histories 1.130) and then this combined empire conquered Babylon (Histories 1.191). Since the Median Empire had already been conquered and subsumed by the Persians, it is impossible for a separate Median empire to exist after the Babylonian empire. Even Rowley admits that his view hangs upon the identification of the fourth empire as Greece, which, as already has been stated, depends first on the conclusion that Daniel is a forgery, and second on the assumption that prophecy cannot be accurately given in detail concerning future events.

The identification of the second kingdom as the Medo-Persian Empire, which even Rowley recognizes as “the traditional identification,” is ably supported by one of the greatest Old Testament scholars of modern times, Robert Dick Wilson. His entire work on Studies in the Book of Daniel methodically devastates the liberal point of view.[23]

Also telling is the fact that archeological discoveries have proved beyond question that the second empire was in fact Medo-Persia. The Persian ruler Cyrus conquered Babylon in less than a month—not nearly enough time for a distinct Median empire to appear—and the myth of a separate Median empire at this time is not supported by the historical facts. The liberal position has to hold that the vision of the second beast is a false prophecy that does not correspond to the facts of history, since it supposedly describes a distinct Median empire. If Daniel’s revelation is truly from God, it must correspond precisely to what history itself records. In chapter 6, a combined kingdom of the Medes and Persians is mentioned repeatedly (cf. vv. 8, 12, 15). These references alone should silence the critic who wants to attribute to Daniel a fallacious and unhistorical kingdom of the Medes. Daniel’s record corresponds to history, whereas the critics’ view does not.

Illustration of what the second beast in Daniel 7 might have looked like in Daniel’s dream.

If Daniel’s revelation is true prophecy, what is the symbolism of the bear, which is not normally related to symbolism in the Old Testament? The meaning seems to be that the second empire will be powerful like a bear, ferocious (Isa. 13:17–18), but less majestic, less swift, and less glorious. The beast of Revelation 13 that gathers into its power the characteristics of all previous beasts is said to have feet as a bear (Rev. 13:2).

The bear was said to raise itself up on one side. As Driver expresses it, “In the O. T. It is spoken of as being, next to the lion, the most formidable beast of prey known in Palestine (1 Sam. 17:34; Am. 5:19; cf. 2 Ki. 2:24; Hos. 13:8); at the same time, it is inferior to the lion in strength and appearance, and is heavy and ungainly in its movements.”[24] Why, however, does the bear raise itself up? While this could picture the animal rising on its hind legs, or lying down with one paw lifted up, it is also possible that it is referring to a physical abnormality by which one side was more dominant than the other.[25] Probably the best explanation is that it represented the one-sided union of the Persian and Median Empires. Persia at this time, although coming up last chronologically, was by far the greater and more powerful and had absorbed the Medes. This is represented also in chapter 8 by the two horns of the ram with the horn that comes up last being higher and greater. The ram with its unequal horns is identified as “the kings of Media and Persia” (Dan. 8:20). This interpretation also helps to support the Medo-Persian character of the second empire and is true to the facts of history.

The bear also was described as having three ribs in its mouth. Normally a bear lives mostly on fruits, vegetables, and roots, but will eat flesh when hungry and attack other animals and people. Scripture does not tell us the meaning of the three ribs, and many suggestions have been offered. One possible suggestion is that it refers to Media, Persia, and Babylon as representing the three major components of the Medo-Babylonian Empire. An alternate view that seems more plausible is that it represents the Medo-Persian conquests of Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt.[26]

Thus, the bear is a symbol of government and military conquest and the ribs are the people subdued by the Medo-Persian Empire. The bear was told to continue its conquest, which is why Egypt could be included as part of the additional conquests the Medes and Persians made in the years that followed the fall of Babylon. Taken as a whole, this prophecy accurately portrays the characteristics and history of the Medo-Persian Empire, which, although beginning in Daniel’s day, continued for over two hundred years until the time of Alexander the Great in 336 B.C.

THE THIRD BEAST: GREECE (7:6)

7:6 “After this I looked, and behold, another, like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back. And the beast had four heads, and dominion was given to it.”

Daniel described a third beast differing from either of the two preceding it. This third beast is commonly identified as the empire of Greece.[27] The only thing said about this beast is that dominion was given to it.

The leopard is less grand and majestic than a lion, but it is swifter and was much feared as an animal of prey in Old Testament times. The leopard’s speed made it the standard of comparison in Habakkuk 1:8 where the horses of the Chaldeans are described as swifter than leopards. Leopards characteristically would lie in wait for their prey (Jer. 5:6; Hos. 13:7) and then pounce upon their victims with great speed and agility. Young prefers the translation “panther,” to indicate a leopard of unusual size and power.[28]

Illustration of what the third beast in Daniel 7 might have looked like in Daniel’s dream.

The impression of great speed inherent in a leopard was further enhanced by the four wings on its back. The wings correspond to the number of the leopard’s heads, which obviously refer to its intelligent direction. The heads indicate that, in contrast to the earlier beasts that had only one head, the third empire would have four governmental divisions with corresponding heads.

In their zeal to promote the idea that the third empire is Persia, liberal critics bring up many petty objections to equating the third beast with Greece. On the face of it, however, the history of Greece under Alexander the Great corresponds precisely to what is here described. With the swiftness of a leopard, Alexander conquered most of the civilized world all the way from Macedonia to Africa and eastward to India. The lightning character of his conquests is without precedent in the ancient world, and this is fully in keeping with the image of speed embodied in the leopard and the four wings on its back.

It is a well-established fact of history that Alexander had four principal successors. Calvin, after Jerome, considered these Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip, and Antigonus.[29] Keil and most modern commentaries prefer to recognize the four kings who emerge about twenty-two years after Alexander’s death after the overthrow of Antigonus at the battle of Ipsus (301 B.C.). These four kings and their reigns were, according to Keil, Lysimachus, who held Thrace and Bithynia; Cassander, who held Macedonia and Greece; Seleucus, who controlled Syria, Babylonia, and territories as far east as India; and Ptolemy, who controlled Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia Petrea.[30]

Other views have been offered, in spite of the aptness of the interpretation of verse 6 as the kingdom of Alexander and the four wings and four heads as its fourfold component parts that became evident after Alexander’s death. For example, Young agrees that the third empire is Greece, but takes the four heads to represent the four corners of the earth and not the four successors of Alexander, or the geographical divisions of Alexander’s conquests—namely, Greece, Western Asia, Egypt, and Persia. He states, “Here the four heads, representing the four corners of the earth, symbolize ecumenicity of the kingdom.”[31]

In view of the transparent fact that Alexander did have four generals who succeeded him and divided his empire into four divisions, it would seem that this is the best interpretation of the four heads and wings. As Leupold states, “We are more firmly convinced than ever that they [the four beasts] are Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The arguments advanced in support of Media as being the second in both series are not convincing.”[32]

The interpretation that takes the four horns as reference to the four subdivisions of Alexander’s kingdom is quite superior to the interpretation of those who want to relate this to Persia in order to eliminate the prophetic element. The issue here, as so often in the book of Daniel, is whether Daniel can accurately predict future events—in this instance, the fourfold division of the Greek Empire several hundred years before it occurred. The difficulty of the liberal critics in interpreting these prophecies is further evidence that they are operating on the wrong premises. The interpretative disputes of the first three empires, however, are relatively insignificant in comparison to the interpretative problems of the fourth world empire. This one was to extend to the end of human history as Daniel saw it, and contains so many elements that by any stretch of the imagination cannot be conformed to the history of the second century B.C. or earlier.

THE FOURTH BEAST: ROME (7:7–8)

7:7–8 “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.”

The crucial issue in the interpretation of the entire book of Daniel, and especially of chapter 7, is the identification of the fourth beast. On this point, liberal critics generally insist that the fourth beast is Greece or the kingdom of Alexander the Great. Conservative scholars with few exceptions generally identify the fourth beast as Rome.[33]

The dominion of Rome, beginning with the occupation of Sicily in 241 B.C. as a result of victory in the first Punic conflict, rapidly made the Mediterranean Sea a Roman lake by the beginning of the second century B.C. Spain was conquered first, and then Carthage at the battle of Zama in North Africa in 202 B.C. After subjugating the area north of Italy, Rome then moved east, conquering Macedonia, Greece, and Asia Minor. The Roman general Pompey swept into Jerusalem in 63 B.C. after destroying remnants of the Seleucid Empire (Syria). During following decades, Rome extended control to southern Britain, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany west of the Rhine River.

The Roman Empire continued to gradually grow for more than four centuries (reaching its height in A.D. 117), in contrast to the sudden rise of the preceding empires. It likewise declined slowly, beginning in the third century. The decline became obvious in the fifth century A.D., with the Romans leaving Britain in A.D. 407 and suffering a sack of Rome in 410 by the Visigoths. It was not until A.D. 1453 that the last Roman or Byzantine ruler was killed in battle and Mehmed II conquered Constantinople. The question facing the expositor is whether Daniel is here describing the Roman Empire, clearly the greatest of all empires of history. The interpreter is forced to make a decision as the evaluation of the supporting evidence, the theological implications, and the resulting prophetic program depend almost entirely on this question.[34]

Illustration of what the fourth beast in Daniel 7 might have looked like in Daniel’s dream.

On this issue the question of whether the book of Daniel is a genuine sixth-century writing or a second-century forgery is determinative. Rowley objects strenuously to the accusation that the liberal view—that the fourth kingdom is Greece—stems from prejudice, and he attempts to turn the argument against the conservative as unfairly accusing the liberal. Rowley quotes Charles H. H. Wright: “Wright imports prejudice into the question by saying: ‘the real objections of the modern school to the Old “Roman” interpretation arise from a determination to get rid at all costs of the predictive element in prophecy, and to reduce the prophecies of the Scripture, Old and New, to the position of being only guesses of ancient seers, or vaticinia post eventa.’ That the Greek view commanded so long and respectable an array of names among its supporters, prior to the establishment of the modern school, is a sufficient refutation of this unworthy remark. That since the establishment of the critical school, the Greek view has continued to be held by scholars of unimpeachable orthodoxy, is ample proof that the case for that view rests on a far more substantial basis than prejudice.”[35]

It is probably fair to say that liberals are not conscious of their prejudice in this matter, but Rowley himself gives the matter away in his later discussion. After describing the bewildering variety of views, both in support of the Roman and of the Greek Empire interpretations, Rowley states:

Within the circle of those who hold the Greek view, therefore, there is wide divergence on this point, and while up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, their reading of history and of the visions run concurrently, and they may be considered together, the only form of the Greek view which is here claimed to fit the prophecies is that which locates the composition of these chapters, at any rate in the form in which they now stand before us, in the Maccabean Age. On this view, the author was a man who was moved of the spirit of God to encourage his fellows to resist the attack of Antiochus Epiphanes upon the religion and culture of his race, and who rightly perceives that the victory must lie with them, if they were to be loyal unto their God, but whose message was coloured with the Messianic hopes that were not to be fulfilled.[36]

In other words, Rowley himself says that the only sensible support for the Greek interpretation is that the book of Daniel is a second-century production. This amounts to a major admission that identification of the fourth empire as Greek depends on the thesis that the book of Daniel is a late forgery.[37] Rowley completely fails to support the Greek interpretation by any consensus among its followers, and his discussion is a hopeless maze of alternating views, which he either rejects or accepts often as matters of opinion.

The diversity of interpretation is indeed confusing to any expositor of this portion of Scripture. But if the book of Daniel is a sixth-century writing, and therefore genuine Scripture, it follows that the Roman view is more consistent than the Greek Empire interpretation. This is especially true for those following premillennial interpretation. The Roman view is supported in the exegesis of the passage that follows.

Daniel described the fourth beast in verse 7 as a fascinating spectacle. It was “terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong.” This description is supported by its great iron teeth that distinguished it from any known animal. As Daniel watched, the beast was observed to devour and break in pieces and stamp the residue of the preceding kingdoms. Daniel was explicit that this beast was quite different from any before it.

The description of the fourth beast to this point more obviously corresponds to the Roman Empire than to the empire of Alexander the Great. Alexander conquered by rapid troop movements and seldom crushed the people whom he conquered. By contrast, the Romans were ruthless in their destruction of civilizations and peoples, killing captives by the thousands and selling them into slavery by the hundreds of thousands. As Leupold states, referring to the iron teeth, “That must surely signify a singularly voracious, cruel, and even vindictive world power. Rome could never get enough of conquest. Rivals like Carthage just had to be broken: Carthago delenda est. Rome had no interest in raising the conquered nations to any high level of development. All her designs were imperial; let the nations be crushed and stamped underfoot.”[38] The description of Daniel 7:7 clearly is more appropriate for the empire of Rome than for the Macedonian kingdom or any of its derived divisions.

Probably the most decisive argument in favor of interpreting the fourth empire as Roman is the fact that the New Testament seems to follow this interpretation. Christ’s reference to the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15) clearly pictures the desecration of the temple, here prophesied as a future event. Even if Young is wrong in identifying this with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70[39] and the view is followed that it represents a still future event signaling the start of the great tribulation, in either case, it is Roman rather than Greek, as the Greek view would require fulfillment in the second century B.C. The New Testament also seems to employ the symbolism of Daniel in the book of Revelation, presented as future even after the destruction of the temple.[40] These New Testament allusions to Daniel that require the fourth empire to be Roman (cf. also Dan. 9:26) make unnecessary the tangled explanations that attempt to identify the ten horns, or at least seven of them, with the Seleucid kings.[41]

The interpretation identifying this empire as Rome immediately has a major problem in that there is no real correspondence to the Roman Empire historically in the phrase “and it had ten horns.” The interpretation of the vision later in the chapter only serves to emphasize this problem.

Interpreters who agree that the Roman Empire is in view differ in their explanations of how the ten horns relate to Rome. Amillennial scholars like Young and Leupold tend to spiritualize both the number ten and the number three, and thus escape the necessity of finding any literal fulfillment. Both of them find literal fulfillment impossible because no ten kings reigned simultaneously in the Roman period.[42] Young, however, considers fulfillment in the Roman Empire in the past, with no further fulfillment being necessary.[43] Leupold finds ultimate fulfillment at the second coming of Christ, rather than in history.[44] Premillennialists offer another view, providing literal fulfillment: ten actual kingdoms will exist simultaneously in the future tribulation period.[45]

In verse 8, as Daniel continued to gaze intently upon the vision, he saw another little horn emerging from the head of the beast, and in the process, uprooting three of the first ten horns. The little horn was described as having eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great things.

If there were no commentary on this passage and the interpreter was left to find its meaning simply on what the text states, it would be a reasonable conclusion that the little horn is a man, and that, therefore, the ten horns that precede were also men who were rulers in relationship to the fourth kingdom. Eyes and a mouth are human characteristics.[46]

Commentators have been quick to note that in chapter 8 there is also a little horn, which conservative expositors have identified with Antiochus Epiphanes. This has been taken as evidence that the little horn of Daniel 7 is also from the Greek or Maccabean period in its latter stages. Further consideration is given to this in chapter 8. It must be observed, however, that the little horn of chapter 8 comes out of an entirely different context than that of chapter 7. Although both horns are described as “little,” the horn of chapter 7 is not said to grow like the horn in chapter 8, although in the end he becomes a greater power than the little horn of chapter 8. To assume that the two little horns are the same is to decide the matter on assumed similarities without regard for the contradictions. Archer states,

There can be no question that the little horn in chapter 8 points to a ruler of the Greek empire, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes. The critics, therefore, assume that since the same term is used, the little horn in chapter 7 must refer to the same individual. This, however, can hardly be the case, since the four-winged leopard of chapter 7 clearly corresponds to the four-horned goat of chapter 8; that is, both represent the Greek empire which divided into four after Alexander’s death. The only reasonable deduction to draw is that there are two little horns involved in the symbolic visions of Daniel. One of them emerged from the third empire, and the other is to emerge from the fourth.[47]

Lang, a conservative premillennial scholar, took a more novel approach to explain the relationship between the two horns. He identified the little horn of Daniel 7 with that of Daniel 8, but he resolved the apparent historical difficulty by suggesting the little horn in both chapters was not to be identified with Rome or with Antiochus Epiphanes. Instead, he concluded the final empire out of which the little horn arises in both chapters is end-time Babylon.[48] However, Lang’s proposal fails to explain the fact that the Roman Empire was in power at the time of Christ’s first coming when the messianic kingdom was presented to Israel or that Rome is associated with both the destruction of the temple and the “prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26. Rome cannot be removed from the prophecies of Daniel, as Lang seeks to do.

THE VISION OF THE ANCIENT OF DAYS (7:9–10)

7:9–10 “As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came out from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.”

No system of biblical interpretation can claim to be adequate unless it provides a satisfactory interpretation of the conclusion of the vision. Three major facts stand out in verses 9–14. First, in verses 9 and 10, Daniel had a vision of heaven at the time of final judgment of the nations. Second, in verses 11 and 12, the little horn representing the last ruler of the times of the Gentiles was destroyed along with his empire. Third, the fifth kingdom—the kingdom of the Son of Man who comes with the clouds of heaven—was brought in, beginning the everlasting dominion of God. All three factors combine to make clear that this is a summary conclusion that is catastrophic in nature and introduces a radical change. The critical assertion of the fourth empire as belonging to Alexander has no reasonable explanation for any one of these three factors, let alone an explanation for all of them. If this is genuine prophecy, it belongs to a future consummation that was not realized by the historical Greeks or the Romans.

In verse 9, Daniel saw thrones placed in heaven, and the “Ancient of Days” was seated on one. The scene as a whole corresponds to what John saw and recorded in Revelation 4–5. The Ancient of Days seems to correspond to God the Father, as distinct from God the Son who is introduced in Daniel 7:13 as the “son of man.”

Basing his argument on John 5:22, Gaebelein declares, “The Ancient of Days is the Lord Jesus Christ,” and finds confirmation in Revelation 1:12–14.[49] To support this, he divides chapter 7 into four separate visions instead of one vision, as it is generally taken. However, if in the same chapter the Ancient of Days is clearly distinct from the son of man as in verse 13, it is futile to argue from other passages in the same chapter that the Ancient of Days is Christ. The expression “Ancient of Days” is used of God only in this chapter where the title is repeated (vv. 13, 22). The whiteness of His hair and clothing emphasize purity rather than age, although it may also imply that God is eternal.[50]

Daniel saw God the Father sitting upon a throne, one of many as indicated in the contrast between the plural early in verse 9 and the singular in the latter part. Who sits on the thrones first mentioned is not indicated, but this may either refer to angelic authority, or the second and third Persons of the Trinity may be intended. The throne’s major characteristic is a burning flame, and the wheels of the throne, whatever their meaning, are also burning (cf. Ezek. 1:13–21). The glory of God, pictured as a fiery flame, is a common representation in Scripture. Fire is a symbol of judgment and is associated with theophanies in the Old Testament. In Psalm 97 it is revealed that “righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne” (v. 2), and “Fire goes before him and burns up his adversaries all around” (v. 3).

John describes Jesus Christ in similar terms in Revelation: “The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace” (Rev. 1:14–15; cf. Exod. 3:2; Deut. 4:24; 1 Tim. 6:16; Heb. 12:29). That Christ as the Son of Man should have a similar glory to God the Father is no contradiction, as their glory is the same even though their persons are distinguished.

In this scene of blazing glory, innumerable saints and angels (cf. Deut. 33:2) are pictured as ministering to God. The books are opened in His presence and judgment is rendered. It is apparent that this is the hour of final decision as far as the nations of the world are concerned. Daniel did not enlarge on the concept of “the books.” The implication is, however, in light of Revelation 20:12, that this is a record of people’s works (cf. Isa. 65:6–7 for record of evil deeds, and Mal. 3:16 for remembrance of good deeds) on the basis of which they will be judged.

In Matthew 25:31–46, there is a corresponding judgment that chronologically may be considered to follow the one here pictured. In Daniel, the judgment is in heaven and relates to the little horn and the beast. In Matthew, the judgment follows the second coming of Christ pictured in Daniel 7:13–14 and extends the original judgment upon the beast to the entire world. Even without any emendation or explanation from other texts of the Bible, it is clear that this is at the end of the interadvent age and the end of the times of the Gentiles. It therefore demands a fulfillment that is yet future, and it is futile to attempt to find anything in history that provides a reasonable fulfillment of this passage.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BEAST (7:11–12)

7:11–12 “I looked then because of the sound of the great words that the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was killed, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.”

The scene of the vision shifted once again to earth. Young, after Montgomery and Keil, holds that because of should be translated “from the time of.”[51] Their point is that the vision of heaven immediately followed the arrogant words of the little horn. As the prophet listened to the great words uttered by the little horn of verse 8, he saw the beast destroyed and given to burning flames. This passage is another illustration of how quickly God can dispose of the mightiest of earthly rulers, and how evil men are ultimately brought to divine judgment. Critics maintain that the beast here is the Seleucid power in general and the mouth is Antiochus Epiphanes, killed in battle in 164 B.C. But the kingdom of God from heaven did not follow the downfall of Antiochus. Although the Maccabean revolt was followed by the independent Jewish kingdom, and the Roman conquest was not until a century later in 63 B.C., the ultimate beneficiary of Antiochus was Rome.

The destruction of the beast, however, does not fit the historic Roman Empire either, which took centuries to lose all its strength. This is a sudden act of divine judgment in which the major ruler is killed and his government destroyed. This passage is an obvious parallel to Revelation 19:20 where the beast and the false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire at the time of the second coming of Christ.

Verse 12 has proved mysterious to liberal critics, who have great difficulty in understanding how the rest of the beasts have their lives prolonged even though their dominion is taken away. If the earlier beasts were empires that were succeeded by the fourth beast, how can they be prolonged after the fourth beast’s death?

The answer is that the destruction of the fourth beast here described refers to a time yet future in connection with the second advent of Christ. Montgomery suggests that the expression “a season and a time” are semantic equivalents (cf. Dan. 2:21; Acts 1:7) and denote “a fixed fate.”[52] Verse 12 is saying that the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Greek Empires were to some extent continued in their successors; that is, Gentile power shifted as to rulership, but continued more or less in the same pattern: thus the statement, “their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.” By contrast, at the second coming of Christ the fourth empire is destroyed, and a totally different kingdom from heaven succeeds it. This is borne out by the image of chapter 2, as Driver notes: “the entire image remains intact until the stone falls upon the feet (representing the fourth and last kingdom), when the whole of it breaks up together.”[53]

When Medo-Persia followed Babylon, the dominion of Babylon was taken away, but in some sense the lives of the participants were prolonged. The same is true when Greece succeeded Medo-Persia and when Rome succeeded Greece. But the end of the fourth beast is dramatic, cataclysmic, and final. Both the rulers and the people involved are to be destroyed. As noted, this interpretation agrees with Revelation 19:19–20, which records the beast as destroyed in the lake of fire and his followers struck down at the second coming of Christ. It is confirmed by Matthew 25:31–46, which records the judgment of the nations at Christ’s return.

THE FIFTH KINGDOM OF THE SON OF MAN FROM HEAVEN (7:13–14)

7:13–14 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”

Here is the climax of Daniel’s vision. Again, heaven rather than earth is in view. verse 13 follows verse 10 chronologically. verses 11–12 are explanatory and do not advance the narrative. Porteous correctly notes, “The interposition, however, of vv. 11 and 12 is necessary to express the author’s meaning.”[54] One described as “like a son of man,” in obvious contrast with the beasts and the little horn, comes before the throne of the Ancient of Days, attended by the clouds of heaven. The purpose of this heavenly presentation is indicated in verse 14 where the Son of Man is given a worldwide kingdom involving all peoples. In contrast to the preceding kingdoms, this is a kingdom that “shall not be destroyed.” This kingdom is obviously the expression of divine sovereignty dealing dramatically with the human situation in a way that introduces the eternal state where God is manifestly supreme in His government of the universe.

Conservative scholars are agreed that the Son of Man is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ rather than an angelic agency.[55] The description of Him as being worthy of ruling all nations is obviously in keeping with many passages in the Bible referring to the millennial rule of Jesus Christ, for example, Psalm 2:6–9 and Isaiah 11. Like the scene in Revelation 4–5, Christ is portrayed as a separate person from God the Father. The expression that He is attended by “clouds of heaven” implies His deity (1 Thess. 4:17). A parallel appears in Revelation 1:7, “Behold, he is coming with the clouds,” in fulfillment of Acts 1 where in His ascension Christ was received by a cloud and the angels tell the disciples that Christ “will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9–11). Clouds in Scripture are frequently characteristic of revelation of deity (Exod. 13:21–22; 19:9, 16; 1 Kings 8:10–11; Isa. 19:1; Jer. 4:13; Ezek. 10:4; Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26).

Some liberal scholars argue that the lack of the definite article with the title “son of man” means that this was merely a human being who appeared to Daniel.[56] Although there might be some linguistic support for this idea, Jesus’ frequent use of this title for Himself in the New Testament is the divine commentary on the phrase (cf. Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27, 28; 17:9, 12, 22, etc.). “Son of Man” was, in fact, Jesus’ favorite description of Himself during His earthly ministry.

In verse 13, the Son of Man is presented as being near the Ancient of Days, and in verse 14 He is given dominion over all peoples and nations. This could not be an angel, nor could it be the body of saints, as it corresponds clearly to other Scriptures that predict that Christ will rule over all nations (Ps. 72:11; Rev. 19:15–16). Only Christ will come with clouds of heaven, and be the King of kings and Lord of lords over all nations throughout eternity. Inasmuch as all the nations that survive His purging judgment and come under His dominion are saints, it would be a confusion to make the Son of Man the personification of the saints. Keil states on this point,

With all other interpreters, we must accordingly firmly maintain that he who appears with the clouds of heaven comes from heaven to earth and is a personal existence, and is brought before God, who judges the world, that he may receive dominion, majesty, and a kingdom. But in the words “as a man” it is not meant that he was only a man. He that comes with the clouds of heaven may, as Kranichfeld rightly observes, “be regarded, according to the current representations, as the God of Israel coming on the clouds, while yet he who appears takes the outward form of a man.”[57]

Young observes that some expositors regard the Son of Man as representing the people of Israel. But as he points out, the earliest interpretation regarded this as messianic and referring to the Christ, and this interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Jesus Christ took the title Himself in the New Testament.[58]

From verse 14 it is apparent that Daniel was given revelation in addition to what he saw in the vision. While the vision could portray the Son of Man receiving authority, the purpose of this act would have to be revealed to Daniel. At every point the kingdom from heaven is contrasted with the preceding kingdoms of the four great world empires and shown to be superior.

If Daniel’s prophecy beginning with the phrase “it had ten horns” in verse 7 and continuing through verse 14 is yet to be fulfilled, a question naturally arises: Why did Daniel not include the events of the age between the first and second advents of Christ?

In the main, commentators have offered three options. First, like the liberal scholars, they could deny literal fulfillment and even claim that Daniel was in error. Second, they could find these prophecies were symbolically fulfilled in church history. This has been the viewpoint in part of postmillennialism and amillennialism. Or third, they could find these prophecies to be distinctly future and not at all fulfilled by the first coming of Christ, the decline of the Roman Empire, or anything else in history. The third view, which is the futuristic interpretation, is the only one that provides the possibility of literal fulfillment of this prophecy.

It has been enthusiastically presented that the church is the fifth kingdom of Daniel’s prophecy, that the Son of Man’s coming is His first coming to the earth, and that the church is responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire. But nothing is stranger to church history than this interpretation. It is questionable whether the Roman Empire had any serious opposition from the Christian church or that the growing power of the church contributed in a major way to its downfall. Edward Gibbon, in his classic work on the Roman Empire, gives “four principal causes of the ruin of Rome, which continued to operate over a period of more than a thousand years: 1. The injuries of time and nature. 2. The hostile attacks of the barbarians and Christians. 3. The use and abuse of the materials. 4. The domestic quarrels of the Romans.”[59]

Undoubtedly, the church’s growing presence in the declining Roman Empire was a factor in its history, and Gibbon includes “the rise, establishment, and sects of Christianity”[60] in a detailed list of factors contributing to the Empire’s decline and fall. Yet it is quite clear that the church was not the major factor and in no way can be identified as a sudden and catastrophic cause for the fall of the Roman Empire. Although the church dominated Europe during the Middle Ages, its power began to be disrupted by the Protestant Reformation at the very time that the Roman Empire was gasping its last in the fifteenth century. Although the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church is recognized by everyone, it does not fulfill the prophecy of Daniel 7:23, that the fourth kingdom “shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces.” This would require figurative interpretation of prophecy far beyond any correspondence to the facts of either prophecy or history.

Far better is the interpretation that does honor to the text and justifies belief in its accuracy as prophetic revelation. This point of view contends that the present church age is not included in the Old Testament’s prophetic foreviews. The first and second comings of Christ are frequently spoken of in the same breath, as for instance in Isaiah 61:1–2, which Christ expounded in Luke 4:18–19. Significantly, Christ quoted only the portion dealing with His first coming and stopped in the middle of a sentence because the last part of the sentence related to His second advent. In a similar way, Daniel’s prophetic vision takes human history up to the first coming of Christ when the Roman Empire was in sway, and then leaps to the end of the age when, in fulfillment of prophecy, the fourth empire will be revived and suffer its fatal judgment at the hands of Christ at His second coming. This interpretation, though not without its problems, allows an accurate and detailed interpretation of this prophecy.[61] Even Leupold, who may be classified as a conservative amillenarian, states,

Why does the sequence of historical kingdoms in this vision extend no farther than the Roman whereas we know that many developments came after the Roman Empire and have continued to come before the judgment? We can venture only opinions under this head, opinions that we believe are reasonable and conform with the situation as it is outlined. One suggestion to be borne in mind is the fact that the prophets, barring the conclusion of chapter 9 in Daniel, never see the interval of time lying between the first and second coming of Christ. In the matter of history, therefore, Daniel does not see beyond Christ’s days in the flesh and perhaps the persecution as it came upon the early church.[62]

If Daniel 7 had concluded with verse 14, it is probable, with the help of the book of Revelation and other scriptural passages, that a reasonable explanation could be made of the text. In view of the complexity and importance of the prophecy, the chapter continues to give the reader a divinely inspired interpretation. It should be borne in mind that while a symbol is obviously parabolic and figurative, its interpretation should be taken literally. Accordingly, the explanation can be taken as a factual exegesis of the truth involved in the vision.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FOUR BEASTS (7:15–18)

7:15–18 “As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious, and the visions of my head alarmed me. I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of the things. ‘These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.’”

With the visions revealed, Daniel recorded his reaction and the interpretation given him. Having such a vision in the middle of the night must have been a terrifying experience; Daniel had seen a panorama of tremendous events to come. Like Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 2, Daniel, although a prophet, is troubled by his lack of understanding of the vision.

Daniel was grieved in his spirit and perplexed. By “my spirit” he referred to his whole personality. The expression “my spirit within me”—literally, “in the midst of the sheath”—compares the soul in the body to a sword in its sheath. Keil notes that it is also found in Job 27:3, in the writings of the rabbis (cf. Buxt. Lex. talm. s. v.), and also Pliny, 7:52.[63] Daniel was extremely concerned about what he had seen.

In verse 16, Daniel became an actor in the scene by addressing a question to a personage standing by, generally considered to be an angel. When Daniel asked for the truth being revealed by this vision, the interpreter made known its meaning. The fact that Daniel could not himself interpret the vision increases the critical questions of those who do not accept Daniel as a sixth-century prophetic book. But there is nothing unusual about this situation. A similar account is found in Genesis 28 when God speaks to Jacob in his vision. In Exodus 3, God speaks to Moses out of the burning bush (although this event did not involve a vision). Conversation with people seen in visions occurs in Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple (Ezek. 40–48), and in the visions of Zechariah (Zech. 1–6). Almost exact parallels can be found in the book of Revelation where John is frequently given the interpretation of a vision (cf. Rev. 20:1–15; 21:9). Daniel had the same experience in chapters 8, 10, and 12.

Even when Daniel described and interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2, the passage clearly states that “the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night” (2:19). In sharing the dream and interpretation with the king, Daniel said, “this mystery has been revealed to me, not because of any wisdom that I have more than all the living” (2:30). It seems that chapter 7 simply provides additional insight into how God revealed His prophetic truth to Daniel.

The interpreter of Daniel’s vision first gave a general interpretation (vv. 17–18). In the verses that follow, more details are given. The summary statement in verse 17 is that the great beasts represent four kings that shall arise out of the earth. Liberal scholars have criticized the fact that the verse states twice that the beasts were four, and Charles states, “The words ‘which are four’ are omitted by the Septuagint. They are certainly unnecessary; for the seer knows perfectly well the number of the kingdoms.”[64] The repetition of the number, however, is to make clear that the four beasts, each individually, represent a king. The “four kings” obviously refer to four kingdoms, as the beasts represent both a king and a kingdom.

Criticism has also been directed at the statement “shall arise out of the earth,” as if this were a conflict with the four beasts coming out of the sea (Dan. 7:3). Charles says, “… the words ‘shall arise out of the earth’ are certainly corrupt. According to 7:3, they arise out of the sea: cf. Rev. 13:1, 4, Ezra 11:1.” He goes on to say, “By a careful study of the LXX and Theod. we arrive at the following text: ‘These great beasts are four kingdoms, which shall be destroyed from the earth.’”[65] What Charles does not take into consideration is that the sea represents symbolically the nations covering the earth, and what is symbolic in Daniel 7:3 is literal in 7:17.

In verse 18, the interpreter stated that “the saints of the most High” shall possess the kingdom forever. There has been considerable discussion about the identity of these saints: this term would seem to include the saved of all ages as well as the holy angels who may be described as “the holy ones” (cf. Dan. 7:21, 22, 25, 27; 8:24; 12:7; cf. Pss. 16:3; 34:9; Jude 14). In The Wars of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the faithful Jews have celestial warriors mingled with them in their ranks.[66] The saints “receive” the kingdom, yet this is more than merely a passive reception. This is implied in the statement that “Darius the Mede received the kingdom” (5:31), meaning that he took aggressive steps to establish his control. Daniel 7:18 goes on to emphasize that the saints possess the kingdom forever, contrasting the everlasting character of the fifth kingdom to the preceding kingdoms, which in due time passed away.

The “Most High” translates a plural noun that could mean “high ones” or “high places.” Young is correct, however, in identifying this as God, with the plural expressing majesty. The expression is repeated in Daniel 7:22, 25, 27. This kingdom is eternal in its characteristics and sovereignty, yet it also may without difficulty include the millennial kingdom and God’s eternal rule that follow.

DANIEL REQUESTS INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTH BEAST (7:19–22)

7:19–22 “Then I desired to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrifying, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze, and which devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet, and about the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn that came up and before which three of them fell, the horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, and that seemed greater than its companions. As I looked, this horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom.”

Daniel wanted to know the particulars about the fourth beast, especially those that distinguished it from the beasts that preceded. After the end was introduced in verse 18, beginning in verse 19 attention again focused on the conflict leading up to this and the items requiring explanation—among them the traits of the fourth beast that made it so terrifying. Here Daniel added particulars not previously indicated in his recital of the vision, namely, the bronze claws, the fact that the little horn was stronger than the other horns, that this little horn made war with the saints and prevailed against them (cf. Rev. 11:7; 13:7), and that judgment was given to the saints.

The fact that Daniel raised questions about the fourth empire rather than the preceding ones has been taken by critical scholars as another proof of the late date for Daniel. They argue that if Daniel actually lived in the sixth century B.C., as conservative scholars maintain, he would have also been very curious about the first three beasts. Montgomery states, “The seer’s contemporary interest is revealed by his inquisitiveness concerning the last beast and the judgment which hitherto had been hid in figures.”[67]

But there is no justification for this argument. Daniel’s vision emphasized the fourth beast because of its uniqueness and because of its impact on God’s saints. As Archer observed, “Of all the beasts Daniel saw, he regarded the fourth with the greatest curiosity and dread (v. 19), because it resembled no animal known to human experience. In particular he wondered about the ten horns from which the little horn emerged (v. 20) and which was allowed to overcome God’s holy people (v. 21).”[68]

Whereas only three verses are given to the first three beasts, the remaining twenty-one verses of the chapter concern the fourth beast and his era; and Daniel used eleven verses to describe the details.

If this is genuine prophecy, it is also true that Daniel was being guided providentially to that which is important from God’s standpoint. Even from a human standpoint, the end of the ages with the triumph of the saints would be a matter of primary concern to Daniel. The critics’ argument is dissipated by their own premise that even the fourth kingdom was already history at the time a second-century writer recorded it, and in that case Daniel’s curiosity would have to be faked in seeking the interpretation of history rather than a prophetic vision. There is no indication in the text that Daniel thought the fourth beast already had been fulfilled in history.

The judgment rendered “for,” or on behalf of, the saints delivers them from the unrighteous oppression of the beast and prepares them to receive the kingdom. The “Ancient of Days” refers to God, as in verses 9 and 13, and is identical to “the Most High” (vv. 18, 25, 27). In the same way the destruction of the fourth beast and the inauguration of the fifth kingdom from heaven is described as the time when the saints will possess the kingdom, a clear factor pointing to the end of the age and the second coming of Jesus Christ.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE VISION OF THE FOURTH BEAST (7:23–25)

7:23–25 “Thus he said: ‘As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces. As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings. He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.’”

The interpreter of the vision states plainly in verse 23 that the fourth beast represents the fourth kingdom, which will be different from the preceding kingdoms and will be worldwide in its sway. In the process, it will tread down and break in pieces the preceding kingdoms. This interpretation eliminates the idea that the fifth kingdom refers to the rule of God in the new heavens and the new earth (Rev. 21 and 22), or that it is merely a spiritual kingdom that gradually gains sway by persuasion, such as the kingdom of God on earth at the present time. By its terminology verses 23–27 demand that, for the fifth kingdom to overcome the fourth, the fifth must be a sovereign and political kingdom, whatever its spiritual characteristics. They also demand that this be a future fulfillment, since nothing in history corresponds to this.

The ten horns of the vision are declared to be ten kings that shall arise. They clearly are simultaneous in their reign because three of them are disrupted by the little horn who is another ruler, but not given the title of king here. He also will be different from the ten horns, and shall subdue three of them.

If the ten kings are in power at the end of the age, which also seems to be supported by the ten kings of Revelation 13:1; 17:12, it follows that they must still be future. The fact that they appear in the book of Revelation, written long after the fall of the Greek Empire, plainly relates them to the Roman Empire in its final stage.

Just as there is special emphasis upon the fourth beast in the vision, so in the prophetic interpretation particular attention is given to the little horn, the outstanding personage at the end of the age, who will be destroyed with the inauguration of the kingdom from heaven. He is described as a blasphemer and a persecutor of the saints. He will also attempt to “change the times and the law,” that is, to change times of religious observances and traditions such as characterize those who worship God. Critics relate this to Antiochus Epiphanes.[69] While Antiochus may foreshadow the activities of the little horn of Daniel 7, the complete fulfillment will be much more severe and extensive.

The duration of the little horn’s power continues “for a time, times, and half a time.” This expression, also found in Daniel 12:7, is incorrectly identified with “the times of the Gentiles” in Luke 21:24 by Montgomery. As he points out, however, the normal, traditional explanation is that the expression means three and one-half years. “Essaying an exact interpretation, ‘time’ may be interpreted as ‘year’ after the usual interpretation at 4:13 (q.v.). The traditional, and by far the most common, understanding of’ ‘times’ is as of a dual; the word is pointed as a [plural], but the [Aramaic], later having lost the dual, the tendency of [the Masoretic text] is to ignore it in the [biblical Aramaic]. Accordingly, one plus two plus one-half equals three and one-half years. The term is identical with the half-year week of 9:27 [which] equals three and one-half years.”[70]

Given other Scriptures (cf. Dan. 4:25 where periods of times equals years), the meaning seems clearly to refer to the last three and one-half years preceding Christ’s second advent, which will bring in the final form of God’s kingdom on earth. This computation is confirmed by the forty-two months, or three and one-half years, in Revelation 11:2 and 13:5, and the 1,260 days of Revelation 11:3. Daniel also refers to 1,290 days in 12:11 and 1,335 days in 12:12, which apparently includes the establishment of the fifth kingdom as well as the destruction of the beast. All of these considerations lend support to the futuristic interpretation of this final period of world history.[71]

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FOURTH EMPIRE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EVERLASTING KINGDOM (7:26–28)

7:26–28 “‘But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end. And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’ Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly alarmed me, and my color changed, but I kept the matter in my heart.”

As Daniel had indicated, the interpreter confirmed the vision as describing judgment upon the fourth beast and its ruler, the taking away of his power to rule, and how he is destroyed, either at the end or destroyed eternally. At the destruction of the fourth empire, the kingdom then becomes the possession of God’s saints. This does not mean that God will not rule, as verse 14 plainly states that dominion is given to the Son of Man. But it does indicate that the kingdom will be for the benefit and welfare of the saints in contrast to their previous experience of persecution. Contrary to the preceding kingdoms, which are terminated abruptly by God’s judgment, the final kingdom will be everlasting, and in it all powers and peoples will serve and obey God.

Daniel then penned a postscript to the interpretation of the vision. He described again how his thoughts troubled him, but he kept the matter in his heart, that is, did not reveal it to others. Thus ends one of the great chapters of the Bible that conservative scholars recognize as a panoramic view of future events revealed to Daniel in the sixth century B.C.

Until the rise of modern criticism, the majority view was that the fourth kingdom is Rome. There is nothing in this chapter to alter the conclusion that Rome’s final state has not yet been fulfilled, and that it is a genuine prophetic revelation of God’s program for human history. Today, when attention is again being riveted upon the Middle East, and particularly upon Israel, these issues are not merely of academic interest because they are the key to the present movement of history in anticipation of what lies ahead.

NOTES

[1] Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 85.

[2] For an outline study of Daniel’s view of world history by the author, see John F. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 53–60.

[3] Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 245.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7.

[6] H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1959), 179.

[7] In this attempt he uses a total of sixty-seven pages, whereas he devotes only twenty-one pages to proving that Daniel taught that the second and third kingdoms are the Median and Persian kingdoms (Rowley, Darius the Mede, 70–137).

[8] James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 88.

[9] Ibid., 282.

[10] Ibid., 88–89.

[11] Rowley, Darius the Mede, 179.

[12] Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 179.

[13] D. J. Wiseman, “Belshazzar,” in The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 139.

[14] R. D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody, n.d.), 95–104.

15 Carl August Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations of St. John (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1857).

[16] Montgomery, Daniel, 282.

[17] So Archer writes, “The sea (v. 2) is symbolic of polluted, turbulent humanity (cf. Isa. 57:20) as they try to exploit and govern in their own wisdom and strength” (Archer, “Daniel,” 85).

[18] Arthur Jeffery, The Book of Daniel, The interpreter’s Bible, George A. Buttrick, ed. (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951), 452.

[19] Keil, Daniel, 222. G. H. Lang argues at length that “the great sea” is the Mediterranean, citing a large number of Scripture references (Num. 34:6–7; Josh. 1:4; 9:1; 15:11–12; 15:47; 23:4; Ezek. 47:10, 15, 19, 20; 48:28). He concludes that the disturbance symbolized by the beast coming out of the sea prophesies that the origin of action would be the Mediterranean. This is, at least, a plausible interpretation (George Henry Lang, The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel [repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1973], 86–89).

[20] The radical textual emendations of H. Ginsberg (Studies in Daniel [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1948], chap. 2, 5ff.) have been successfully disposed of by H. H. Rowley (“The Unity of the Book of Daniel,” in Hebrew Union College Annual 23 [1951], 233–73, and The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament [London: Lutterworth, 1952], 250ff.).

[21] Baldwin also notes, “The lion and eagle are both used by Jeremiah in a description of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 49:10–22)” (Joyce C. Baldwin, Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978], 139).

[22] Rowley, Darius the Mede, 144–46.

[23] R. D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel (repr. New York: Putnam, 1917). See especially his chapter on “The Medes and the Conquest of Babylon,” 1:145–49.

[24] Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Daniel, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 82.

[25] John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 164.

[26] Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 145. Archer notes, “This corresponds perfectly to the three major conquests the Medes and Persians made under the leadership of King Cyrus and his son Cambyses: viz., the Lydian kingdom in Asia Minor (which fell to Cyrus in 546), the Chaldean Empire (which he annexed in 539), and the kingdom of Egypt (which Cambyses acquired in 525)” (Archer, “Daniel,” 85).

[27] For a summary of Daniel’s prophecies about Greece, see Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, 76–82.

[28] Young, Daniel, 145–46.

[29] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 2 vols., Thomas Myers, trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852), 2:18–19; Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, Gleason L. Archer Jr., trans. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 75.

[30] Keil, Daniel, 293. For a brief history of events leading to the division of Alexander’s empire, see Harold Hoehner, “Between the Testaments,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 81–82.

[31] Young, Daniel, 146.

[32] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 287. See also Archer (“Daniel,” 86), who forcefully states, “Very clearly, then, the four heads and four wings represent the Macedonian conquest and its subsequent divisions. But there is no way in which a quadripartite character can be made out for the Persian Empire either under Cyrus or under any of his successors. That empire remained unified till its end, when it suddenly collapsed under the onslaught of Alexander the Great.”

[33] So Miller writes, “By the second century B.C., Rome had superseded Greece as the dominant world power. The fourth beast, therefore, represents the Roman Empire, symbolized in chap. 2 by the iron legs and feet of the great statue” (Stephen Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001], 201).

[34] For a summary of the history of Rome, see Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, 83–87.

[35] Rowley, Darius the Mede, 71.

[36] Ibid., 93.

[37] Goldingay illustrates this point when he refers to the chapter as a “quasi-predictive vision deriving from the period on which it focuses and to which it is especially relevant (that of the king symbolized by the small horn) [rather] than an actual predictive vision from the sixth century. It thus presupposes actions by Antiochus IV against Jerusalem …” (Goldingay, Daniel, 157).

[38] Leupold, Daniel, 297–98.

[39] Young, Daniel, 293.

[40] Cf. ibid.

[41] Cf. ibid., 290.

[42] Cf. Young, Daniel, 275–94; and Leupold, Daniel, 298–99.

[43] Young, Daniel, 148–50.

[44] Leupold, Daniel, 308.

[45] Premillennialists look to Revelation 13 and 17 for support. A beast with ten horns rises from the sea in 13:1. In 17:12 an angel announces to John that “the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast.” Thus the ten horns were still future at the time the book of Revelation was written, six centuries after Daniel.

[46] So Archer writes, “These features seem to imply that this little horn symbolizes an arrogant and vainglorious ruler, rather than an entire kingdom” (Archer, “Daniel,” 87).

[47] Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 384.

[48] G. H. Lang, Daniel.

[49] A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel (New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911), 77.

[50] Miller, Daniel, 204.

[51] Young, Daniel, 152.

[52] Montgomery, Daniel, 302.

[53] Driver, Daniel, 87.

[54] Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 110.

55 For a good discussion as to why this refers to Christ, see Wood, Daniel, 192–93; and Miller, Daniel, 207–10.

[56] So Towner writes, “This usage must simply be understood as a title of address, one could call a prophet ‘son of man’ and mean simply ‘Mister’!” W. Sibley Towner, Daniel, Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Preaching and Teaching (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984), 103.

[57] Keil, Daniel, 236.

[58] The Jewish apocryphal book of Enoch, which is earlier than Jude, attests that the term refers to an individual. See the excellent footnote in Alexander Jones, ed., The Jerusalem Bible (Garden City, NY; London: Doubleday; Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966) at Daniel 7:13 (1437, OT) and Matthew 8:20 (27, NT). Young, Daniel, 155–56.

[59] Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 6 vols. (New York: Peter Fenelon Collier & Son, 1901), 2:1441.

[60] Ibid., 2:1458.

[61] It also agrees with the apostle Paul’s description of the church as a “mystery” that “was not made known to the sons of men in other generations” (Eph. 3:1–6; Col. 1:24–26).

[62] Leupold, Daniel, 313–14.

[63] Keil, Daniel, 237–39.

[64] Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 79.

[65] Ibid.

[66] T. H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956), 275.

[67] Montgomery, Daniel, 307.

[68] Archer, “Daniel,” 93.

[69] Driver, Daniel, 92; cf. also Montgomery, Daniel, 311–12.

[70] Montgomery, Daniel, 312.

[71] For a good summary of the argument from these passages, see Wood, Daniel, 201–2.

8

The Vision of the Ram and the Goat

Two factors mark Daniel 8 as the beginning of a new section. First, the language returns to Hebrew instead of the Aramaic used in 2:4–7:28. Second, the change of language is in keeping with the change in thought introduced by this chapter.

In this vision God presented Daniel with a brief overview of the Medo-Persian and Grecian Empires—the second and third empires in Daniel’s history of the “times of the Gentiles”—through the reigns of the key leaders. He traced prophetically the history of Medo-Persia and Greece in very broad-brush strokes until the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. At that point God gave a detailed revelation because this “little horn” was the mirror image of the still-future “little horn” of chapter 7 (the Antichrist).

From here to the end of Daniel, the prophecy, even though it concerns the Gentiles, is occupied with history as it relates to Israel. Therefore, although many expositors divide the book of Daniel into two halves (1–6 and 7–12), there are also good reasons for dividing Daniel into three sections (1, 2–7, 8–12).[1]

The first of Daniel’s own visions recorded in Daniel 7 is a broad summary of the times of the Gentiles, with emphasis on the climactic events culminating in Christ’s second coming to the earth. Beginning in chapter 8, Daniel’s second vision focuses on the rulers of the empires of Persia and Greece and their relationship to Israel and the Jewish people. Under the Persian government, the Israelites returned from captivity to rebuild their land and their city, Jerusalem. Under Grecian domination, in particular under Antiochus Epiphanes, the city and the temple were again desolated.

Daniel 9 presents Israel’s history from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah to the inauguration of the kingdom from heaven at Christ’s second coming immediately preceded by the time of great trouble for Israel. chapters 10–11 reveal the events relating the Persian and Greek Empires to Israel, with emphasis on the Gentile oppression of Israel. The final section, 11:36–12:13, deals with the end of the age, the period of the revived Roman Empire, and the deliverance of Israel. It is fitting that the last five chapters of Daniel should be written in Hebrew, the language of Israel.

THE VISION AT SUSA (8:1–2)

8:1–2 In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the capital, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the vision, and I was at the Ulai canal.

Daniel’s second vision occurred in the third year of Belshazzar’s reign, about two years after the vision of chapter 7. Since both visions occurred in Belshazzar’s reign, chapters 7 and 8 chronologically occur before chapter 5, the night of Belshazzar’s feast. Before archeological discoveries confirmed this king’s historical character, it was common for critics to conclude that the events of chapter 8 occurred immediately before chapter 5. Gaebelein states, “It was the year when the feast of blasphemy was held and Babylon fell. Then God took His faithful servant aside and revealed to him new things concerning the future.”[2] Edward Young assumes without evidence the same chronology: “[T]his vision occurred shortly before the events of the fatal night of ch. 5.”[3]

On the basis of the Babylonian Chronicle, it is now known that Nabonidus began his reign in 556 B.C., and apparently Belshazzar became coregent in 553 B.C. when Nabonidus took residence at Teima, as brought out in chapter 5. Belshazzar previously had served in other royal capacities beginning in 560 B.C. Accordingly, if the vision of chapter 7 occurred in 553 B.C., the vision of chapter 8 occurred in 551 B.C., or twelve years before Belshazzar’s feast in chapter 5.

There is, therefore, no support for placing Daniel 8 near the downfall of Babylon as was the customary chronology before the Babylonian Chronicle was discovered. A. L. Oppenheim points out that Belshazzar was officially recognized as coregent while also the crown prince. He cites two legal documents dated in the twelfth and thirteenth years of Nabonidus, the king, and Bel-shar-usur, a variation of Belshazzar, the crown prince, for which there is no parallel in cuneiform literature.[4] This confirms beyond question both the role of Belshazzar as coregent and the dating of this vision before 539 B.C., the date of his death. It also indicates the probability of the year 551 B.C. as the date of the vision, which was the sixth year of Nabonidus as well as the third year of Belshazzar.

The vision of chapter 8 is somewhat different in character from that of chapter 7, since Daniel was apparently awake. Daniel was careful to distinguish not only the character of the vision but its time by adding “after that which appeared to me at the first,” that is, chapter 7.

Expositors have differed widely as to whether Daniel was in the palace at Susa in the province of Elam (as 8:2 indicates), or was transported there in vision and actually was in Babylon at the time.[5] Ancient Susa was about 150 miles north of the Persian Gulf, and 225 miles east of Babylon. At the time of Daniel’s vision the status of Susa is unclear, but within ten years the city was under Cyrus’s control. It later became one of the Persian kings’ main residences. According to Josephus, Daniel was actually in Elam.[6] However, this seems somewhat doubtful since the events of chapter 8 are bracketed by the events of chapters 4 and 5, which clearly place his residence in Babylon.

Most expositors, whether liberal or conservative, understand Daniel 8 to teach that Daniel was actually in Babylon and in vision only was transported to Susa. Montgomery cites the overwhelming weight of scholarship on this point, which is supported by the Syriac version and the Vulgate, and held by John Calvin and many contemporary writers.[7] In a similar fashion Ezekiel was transported in a vision from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezek. 8:1–3).

The question as to whether Babylon controlled ancient Susa at this time is debated. The probability is that Babylon did not control this city or area, which may account for Daniel’s astonishment to find himself in this place rather than at Babylon. The expression “Susa the capital” recurs in historical sections dealing with the Persian Empire (Neh. 1:1; Esth. 1:2, 5; 2:3, 5). Susa the capital, nevertheless, was destined in the Persian Empire to become the capital rather than Babylon. This was unknown at the time of Daniel’s vision, although Susa had served as the capital of the Elamites in antiquity. Conservative scholars find a genuine prophetic prediction in this reference to Susa.

Daniel found it necessary to define in particular the location of this city, something a second-century pseudo-Daniel would not have had to do. Some critics have attempted to prove that Daniel was in error because Elam was probably not a province of Babylon at that time; however, Daniel did not literally say that it was.[8] It is possible that Susa was a province of Media when Daniel had his vision.[9]

Daniel was by the “Ulai canal,” which Montgomery says “can best be identified with an artificial canal which connected the rivers Choastes and Coprates and ran close by Susa.”[10] Archer notes that the canal was not too far from the city itself.[11] The fact that Daniel was standing beside the canal, and not inside the palace, suggests that birah is better translated as “capital” than “citadel” in verse 2.

In a word, Daniel found himself projected in vision to a canal beside a town little known at that time and unsuspected for future grandeur, yet destined to be the important capital of Persia, the home of Esther, and the city from which Nehemiah came to Jerusalem. Beginning in 1884, the site of ancient Susa, then a large mound, has been explored and has divulged many archeological treasures. The code of Hammurabi was found there in 1901. The famous palace there was begun by Darius I and enlarged by later kings. Remains of its magnificence can still be seen near the modern village of Shush.[12] This unusual setting described in detail by Daniel became the stage on which a great drama was portrayed in symbol, describing the conquests of the second and third empires.

THE RAM WITH THE TWO HORNS (8:3–4)

8:3–4 I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward. No beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great.

The two-horned ram Daniel saw is revealed in verse 20 to be Medo-Persia, with the horns representing its major kings. The fact that the ram represents both the Median and Persian Empires in their combined states rather than as separate empires is another important proof that the critics are wrong. The critics attempt to prove that Daniel’s reference to Darius the Mede means that Daniel erroneously taught two empires, first a Median and then a Persian. This, of course, is contradicted by history, and the critics attribute to Daniel what he did not teach. The problem is their faulty interpretation. Young says, “Neither here or elsewhere does Dan. conceive of an independently existing Median empire.”[13] Historically, it was the combination of the Medes and the Persians that proved irresistible for almost two hundred years, until the time of Alexander the Great.[14]

Illustration of what the ram in Daniel 8 might have looked like in Daniel’s vision.

The portrayal of the two horns representing the Medo-Persian Empire is very accurate, as the Persians coming up last and represented by the higher horn were also the more prominent and powerful. The directions that represent the ram’s conquests include all except east.[15] Although Persia did expand to the east, its principal movement was to the west, north, and south. This prophecy is so accurate that it is embarrassing to the critic who does not want to accept a sixth-century Daniel who wrote genuine prophecy.

Keil observes, “in the Bundehesch the guardian spirit of the Persian kingdom appears under the form of a ram with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns, and … the Persian king, when he stood at the head of his army, bore, instead of the diadem, the head of a ram.”[16] The references to beasts, as Keil states, “represent kingdoms and nations.”[17]

Not only are both the ram and the goat mentioned in the Old Testament as symbols of power, but Cumont has noted that different lands were assigned to the signs of the Zodiac according to astronomical geography. In this view, Persia is thought of as under the zodiacal sign of Aries, the “ram,” and Greece as sharing with Syria—the principal territory of the Seleucid monarchy—the zodiacal sign of Capricorn, the “goat.” The word Capricorn is derived from the Latin, caper, a goat and cornu, a horn.[18] Taken as a whole, as Driver states, “The verse describes the irresistible advances of the Persian army, especially in the direction of Palestine, Asia Minor, and Egypt, with particular allusion to the conquests of Cyrus and Cambyses.”[19]

THE MALE GOAT FROM THE WEST (8:5–7)

8:5–7 As I was considering, behold, a male goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground. And the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing on the bank of the canal, and he ran at him in his powerful wrath. I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged against him and struck the ram and broke his two horns. And the ram had no power to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled on him. And there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power.

Interpreters of Daniel 8 are generally agreed that the male goat represents the king of Greece. More particularly, the single important horn between its eyes, “the first king” (cf. Dan. 8:21), is Alexander the Great. All the facts about this goat and his activities obviously anticipate Alexander’s dynamic role. Like Alexander, the goat’s conquests begin “from the west” in Greece and move east to cover the entire territory. The tremendous speed of the goat’s conquests is symbolized by its moving “without touching the ground.” Such speed characterized Alexander. The unusual horn—one large horn instead of the normal two—symbolically represents the single leadership he provided.

Daniel then watched the goat attack the ram, the Medo-Persian Empire, that he had seen by the Ulai canal. An unusual feature of the goat’s attack was its fury, borne out by history. The Persians had attacked Greece earlier. Now it was time for Greek retaliation. The Medo-Persian Empire disintegrated to the point that it had no power to stand before the goat, Alexander, who crushed it into the ground.

All of this was fulfilled dramatically in history. The forces of Alexander first defeated the Persians at the Granicus River in Asia Minor in May 334 B.C., which was the beginning of the conquest of the entire Persian Empire. A year and a half later, the battle of Issus occurred (November 333 B.C.) near the northeastern tip of the Mediterranean Sea. Persia’s power was finally broken at Gaugamela near Nineveh in October 331 B.C.[20]

Illustration of what the goat in Daniel 8 might have looked like in Daniel’s vision.

There is no discrepancy between history, which records a series of battles, and Daniel’s representation that the Medo–Persian Empire fell with one blow. Daniel was obviously describing the result rather than the details.[21] That the prophecy is accurate, insofar as it goes, most expositors concede. Here again, the correspondence of the prophecy to later history is so accurate that liberal critics attempt to make it history instead of prophecy.[22]

The divine view of Greece is less complimentary than that of secular historians. Tarn says of Alexander: “He was one of the supreme fertilizing forces in history. He lifted the civilized world out of one groove and set it in another; he started a new epoch; nothing could again be as it had been…. Particularism was replaced by the idea of the ‘inhabited world,’ the common possession of civilized men…. Greek culture, heretofore practically confined to Greeks, spread throughout the world; and for the use of its inhabitants, in place of the many dialects of Greece, there grew up the form of Greek known as the koine, the ‘common speech.’”[23] Porteous comments, “Not a glimmer of all this appears in the book of Daniel.”[24] God’s view is different from man’s.

THE GREAT HORN BROKEN (8:8)

8:8 Then the goat became exceedingly great, but when he was strong, the great horn was broken, and instead of it there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.

An unexpected development took place in reference to the goat. The great horn between his eyes was broken just when the goat had reached the pinnacle of his strength. Out of this grew four horns described as being “toward the four winds of heaven.” Expositors, both liberal and conservative, have interpreted this verse as representing the untimely death of Alexander and the division of his empire into four major sections.[25] Although Alexander conquered more of the world than any previous ruler, he was not able to conquer himself. Partly due to a strenuous exertion, his dissipated life, and a raging fever, Alexander died in a drunken debauch at Babylon, not yet thirty-three years of age. His death left a great conquest without an effective single leader, and it took twenty years for the empire to be successfully divided.[26]

Practically all commentators recognize the four horns as symbolic of the four kingdoms of the Diadochi which emerged as follows: (1) Cassander assumed rule over Macedonia and Greece; (2) Lysimachus took control of Thrace, Bithynia, and most of Asia Minor; (3) Seleucus took Syria and the lands to the east including Babylonia; (4) Ptolemy established rule over Egypt and possibly Palestine and Arabia Petraea.[27] A fifth contender for political power, Antigonus, was soon defeated. With remarkable accuracy Daniel predicted that Alexander’s empire would be divided into four sections.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE LITTLE HORN (8:9–10)

8:9–10 Out of one of them came a little horn, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land. It grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them.

Practically all the controversy over this vision has centered on the meaning of the little horn. Daniel saw this little horn emerge from one of the four horns mentioned in verse 8. The horn, small in the beginning, grew in three directions. The implication is that the point of reference is Syria, that “the south” is equal to Egypt, “the east” is in the direction of ancient Medo-Persia or Armenia, and “the glorious land” refers to Israel or Canaan, which lay between Syria and Egypt. The original for “glorious land” actually means “beauty,” with the word for “land” supplied from Daniel 11 (cf. Dan. 11:16, 41, 45; Jer. 3:19; Ezek. 20:6, 15; Mal. 3:12). The word here could refer to Jerusalem in particular rather than to the land in general.

These conquests, of course, were confirmed in the history of Syria, especially under Antiochus Epiphanes, the eighth king in the Syrian dynasty who reigned 175–164 B.C. (1 Macc. 1:10; 6:16). Antiochus conducted military expeditions in relation to all of these areas. Montgomery considers the expression “toward the glorious land” as a gloss “which is absurd when aligned with the given points of the compass, in which the book is remarkably accurate.”[28] There is no justification for this deletion from the text, however. From Daniel’s viewpoint in this whole section, the important question was how the times of the Gentiles related to Israel. Israel indeed became the battleground between Syria and Egypt, and the setting of some of Antiochus Epiphanes’ most significant blasphemous acts against God. According to the Revised Standard Version of 1 Maccabees 1:20: “after subduing Egypt, Antiochus returned in the one hundred and forty-third year. He went up against Israel and came to Jerusalem with a strong force.”

As a result of his military conquests, the little horn, representing Antiochus Epiphanes, was said to grow “even as great as the Prince of the host” (v. 11). He was pictured as casting some of the host of heaven and the stars to the ground and stamping upon them. This is a difficult prophecy; but if the mythological explanations such as identifying stars with heathen gods or the seven planets is discarded and this is considered genuine prophecy, probably the best explanation is that this prophecy relates to the persecution and destruction of God’s people, with its defiance of the angelic hosts who are their protectors, including the power of God Himself. In 12:3 Daniel describes the resurrected saints shining “like the stars forever and ever.”[29]

Leupold says, “That stars should signify God’s holy people is not strange when one considers as a background the words that were spoken to Abraham concerning the numerical increase of the people of God, Gen. 15:5; 22:17. To this may be added Dan. 12:3, where a star-like glory is held out to those who ‘turn many to righteousness.’ Compare also Matthew 13:43. If the world calls people stars who excel in one or another area, why should not a similar statement be still more appropriate with reference to God’s people?”[30] Leupold considers the host and the stars in apposition, that is, “the host even the stars.” That Antiochus blasphemed God and heavenly power as well as persecuted the people of Israel, the people of God, is all too evident from history.

THE DESOLATION OF THE SANCTUARY (8:11–14)

8:11–14 It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper. Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”

Up to verse 11, it is not difficult to find fulfillment of the vision in the history of the Medo-Persian, Alexandrian, and post-Alexandrian periods. Beginning with verse 11, however, expositors have differed widely as to whether the main import of the passage refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, with complete fulfillment in his lifetime, or whether the passage either primarily or secondarily refers also to the end of the age, that is, the period of great tribulation preceding Christ’s second coming. Montgomery says that verses 11 and 12 “constitute … the most difficult short passage of the book.”[31]

If the many divergent views can be simplified, they fall into three general classifications. The critical view that Daniel was a second-century forgery regards this prophecy as simply history written after the fact and completely fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes.[32] Second is the view that this is genuine sixth-century B.C. prophecy, but completely fulfilled historically in Antiochus Epiphanes.[33] Third is the view that the prophecy is genuine prediction fulfilled historically in the second century B.C., but also typical and anticipatory of the final conflict between God and Gentile rulers at the time of Israel’s persecution prior to Christ’s return.[34] The ultimate decision must rest not simply on verses 11 through 14, but also on the interpretation of the prophecy given in verses 20–26.

According to verse 11, the little horn, fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes historically, magnified himself even to the Prince of the host. By this is meant that he exalted himself up to the point of claiming divine honor, as brought out in his name “Epiphanes,” which refers to glorious manifestation such as belonged to God. This ruler’s pretensions were similar to the little horn of Daniel 7:8, 20. Antiochus, however, also directed blasphemous opposition against God Himself and to this extent magnified himself against God as well as reaching toward the glory and honor belonging to God.

As a specific illustration and supreme act manifesting this attitude, Antiochus stopped the morning and evening sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem, taking away from God what were daily tokens of Israel’s worship.[35] The expression “regular burnt offering,” from the Hebrew tamid which means “constant,” applied to the daily offerings (cf. Exod. 29:38ff.; Num. 28:3ff.). Young, accordingly, feels that it should not be restricted to the morning and evening sacrifices, but that it included all the offerings customarily offered in the temple services.[36]

This is brought out in 1 Maccabees 1:44–50, referring to Antiochus’s command to Israel to depart from the worship of the law of Moses: “And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and feasts, to defile the sanctuary and the priests, to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals, and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, so that they should forget the law and change all the ordinances. And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die” (RSV).

Although it is not necessary to take the expression “the place of his sanctuary was overthrown” as meaning Antiochus destroyed the temple itself, it is of interest that in 1 Maccabees 4:42ff., when the sanctuary was cleansed, the Jews tore down the altar and built a new one. “Apparently Antiochus did not actually tear down the temple, although eventually he desecrated it to such a point that it was hardly fit for use.”[37]

The obvious parallel between the cessation of the daily sacrifice by Antiochus Epiphanes and that anticipated in Daniel 9:27, which occurs three and one-half years before the second coming of Christ, has led some expositors to find here evidence for reference to the end of the age and not simply to Antiochus. As far as this prophecy is concerned, however, it did have complete fulfillment in Antiochus.

Verse 12 is a recapitulation of Antiochus Epiphanes’ activities against God. The verse seems to indicate the people of Israel were under his power with divine permission. The daily sacrifices were also in his power and he was able to substitute a pagan worship, in order to permit him to transgress against God. Antiochus threw “truth to the ground,” that is, the truth of the law of Moses, practiced his activities, and seemingly prospered. The extent of departure from the law is indicated in 1 Maccabees 1:44–49, quoted above.

The blasphemous activities of Antiochus Epiphanes were followed by a conversation between two holy ones, apparently angels, concerning the duration of the sanctuary’s desecration. The answer given in verse 14 has touched off almost endless exegetical controversy: “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.” The answer was given to Daniel rather than to the other angel. Obviously, these angels were brought in for Daniel’s benefit. The interpretation and fulfillment of this passage is to some extent the crux of this entire chapter.

The Seventh Day Adventists erroneously understood that the 2,300 days referred to years which, on the basis of their interpretation, were to culminate in the year 1884 with Christ’s second coming.[38] If the 2,300 days are to be considered as days, instead of years, two basic alternatives are offered. Many have taken this as 2,300 twenty-four-hour days.[39] Because the days are related to the cessation of the evening and morning sacrifices, another theory is that the phrase actually referred to 1,150 days, that is, 2,300 evenings and mornings.[40] The interpretation of this difficult time period is determined largely by the expositor’s desire to find fulfillment either in Antiochus’s total time of oppression over the Jews or in the specific time when the temple was desecrated. On one side of the debate stand scholars like Keil:

A Hebrew reader could not possibly understand the period of 2300 evening-mornings as 2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because evening and morning at the creation constituted not the half but the whole day. Still less, in the designation of time, ‘till 2300 evening-mornings,’ could ‘evening-mornings’ be understood of the evening and morning sacrifices, and the words be regarded as meaning that till 1150 evening sacrifices and 1150 morning sacrifices are discontinued. We must therefore take the words as they are, i.e., understand them as 2300 whole days.[41]

Keil supports this by numerous arguments including the fact that “when the Hebrews wished to express separately day and night, the component parts of a day of a week, then the number of both is expressed. They say, e.g., forty days and forty nights (Gen. 7:4, 12; Ex. 24:18; 1 Kings 19:8), and three days and three nights (Jonah 2:1; Matt. 12:40), but not eighty or six days-and-nights, when they wish to speak of forty or three full days.”[42]

If these are 2,300 days, what is the fulfillment? The attempts to relate this to the last seven years of the Gentile period referred to in Daniel 9:27 have confused rather than helped the interpretation. Twenty-three-hundred days is less than seven years of 360 days, and the half figure of 1,150 days is short of the three and one-half years of the great tribulation. A safe course to follow is to find fulfillment in Antiochus Epiphanes, and then proceed to consider what eschatological or unfilled prophecy may be involved.

Innumerable explanations have been attempted to make the 2,300 days coincide with the history of Antiochus Epiphanes. The terminus ad quem, or finishing point, of this period is taken by most expositors as 164 B.C. when Antiochus died during a military campaign in Media. This permitted the purging of the sanctuary and the return to Jewish worship. Figuring from this date backward, 2,300 days would fix the beginning time at 171 B.C. In that year, Onias III, the legitimate high priest, was murdered and a pseudo line of priests assumed power. This would give adequate fulfillment in time for the 2,300 days to elapse at the time of the death of Antiochus. The actual desecration of the temple, however, did not occur until December 25, 167 B.C. when the sacrifices in the temple were forcibly caused to cease and a Greek altar erected in the temple. The actual desecration of the temple lasted only about three years. During this period, Antiochus issued coins with the title “Epiphanes,” which claimed that he manifested divine honors and that showed him as beardless and wearing a diadem.[43]

On the other side of the debate are individuals like Archer who writes, “But none of the scholars espousing this view [that it refers to 2,300 days] can give any convincing explanation as to why this particular expression should have been used here for ‘day.’ Moreover, there is not the slightest historical ground for a terminus a quo, or starting point, beginning in 171 B.C.”[44] Archer’s second point is significant because it is easier to fit the potential fulfillment of the prophecy into the disruption of temple sacrifices by Antiochus if it refers to a period of 1,150 days:

Consequently we are to understand v. 14 as predicting the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabaeus on 25 Chislev (or 14 December) 164 B.C.; 1,150 days before that would point to a terminus a quo of three years, one month, and 25 days earlier, or in Tishri 167 B.C. While the actual erection of the idolatrous altar in the temple took place in Chislev 167, or one month and 15 days later, there is no reason to suppose the Antiochus Epiphanes’ administrators may not have abolished the offering of the tāmîd itself at that earlier date.[45]

In looking at all the evidence it appears both interpretations have the potential to fit the historical record. At this point we simply don’t have sufficient historical data to know which is correct. But in either case this prophecy may safely be said to have been fulfilled and does not have any further eschatological significance in the sense of anticipating a future fulfillment. It is adequately explained in the history of the Medo-Persian and Greek Empires, and specifically, in the activities of Antiochus Epiphanes.

VISION INTERPRETED IN RELATION TO THE TIME OF THE END (8:15–19)

8:15–19 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it. And behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, “Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.” So he came near where I stood. And when he came, I was frightened and fell on my face. But he said to me, “Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.” And when he had spoken to me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face to the ground. But he touched me and made me stand up. He said, “Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation, for it refers to the appointed time of the end.”

Daniel’s desire to understand the vision was answered by the angel Gabriel. The man’s voice may have been that of Michael the archangel, or even the voice of God, but it is not identified. Calvin believes that the man speaking is Christ.[46] Young points out that the word for man in verse 15 is gāber, similar in sound to Gabriel and denoting strength or power.[47] To this is added el, the word for God, to form the name Gabriel.

This is the first mention in the Bible of a holy angel by name. Gabriel is again mentioned in Daniel 9:21 and in Luke 1:19, 26, where he is the messenger to Zacharias, announcing the future birth of John the Baptist, and to the virgin Mary, announcing the coming birth of Jesus Christ. The only other angel in Scripture named, aside from Satan, is Michael, mentioned in Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1; and in the New Testament in Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7. The restraint of Scripture in naming angels is in contrast to prolific nomenclature of angels in apocalyptic literature outside the Bible.[48]

The whole context of the vision, the powerful presence of Gabriel, and the mysterious voice that may have been the voice of Deity caused Daniel to be panic-stricken and fall on his face. The situation was not much different from the reaction of John the apostle in Revelation 1 at the tremendous vision of the glorified Christ. But Gabriel was reassuring to Daniel, and for the first time in the entire chapter indicated that “the time of the end” is in question in relation to the vision.

Although Daniel apparently had been awake in the earlier part of the vision, he now fell into a deep sleep. It was not a natural sleep but the result of his fear. As in the case of Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:28–2:2), Daniel was awakened. Gabriel touched him and made him stand up. Gabriel then began a further explanation of what he introduced in verse 17 concerning the time of the end, making clear his intention to let Daniel know the interpretation of the vision.

Judging by the context, the expression “the indignation” (cf. Dan. 11:36) here seems to refer to God’s anger against Israel.[49] As in the days of Isaiah, when God used Assyria as His chastening rod (Isa. 10:5, 25), God in His indignation was using for His corrective purposes the tyranny of Antiochus and “lawless men” (cf. 1 Macc. 1:11–15) who carried out Antiochus’s orders. God permitted the persecution to chasten Israel.

Because of the terms used in verse 19, many scholars find in this chapter reference to the ultimate consummation of Gentile times at the second advent of Christ.[50] Although an adequate fulfillment of the prophecy through verse 14 can be found in the centuries before Christ, how can these references to the time of the end be understood? The matter is complicated by references that clearly relate to the end of the Gentile period in Daniel 9:27 and by the extended passage of Daniel 11:35ff., where again the time of the end is mentioned, with additional references in chapter 12. The expositor has numerous options, each of which has some support from reputable scholarship.

Four major views emerge: (1) the historical view that all of Daniel 8 has been fulfilled; (2) the futuristic view, the idea that it is entirely future; (3) the view based upon the principle of dual fulfillment of prophecy, that Daniel 8 is intentionally a prophetic reference both to Antiochus Epiphanes, now fulfilled, and to the end of the age and the final world ruler who persecutes Israel before the second advent; and (4) the view that the passage is prophecy, historically fulfilled but intentionally typical of similar events and personages at the end of the age.

Premillenarians who emphasize historical fulfillment in this chapter invariably agree to typical anticipation. The historical view is supported largely by liberal critics and amillenarians. Driver, representing liberal criticism, states, “In ch. 8 there is a ‘little horn,’ which is admitted on all hands to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, and whose impious character and doings (8:10–12, 25) are in all essentials identical with those attributed to the ‘little horn’ in ch. 7 (7:8 end, 20, 21, 25): as Delitzsch remarks, it is extremely difficult to think that where the description is so similar, two entirely different persons, living in widely different periods of the world’s history, should be intended.”[51]

Driver identifies the fourth empire of Daniel 7 as the Greek Empire, as liberal critics do in contrast to most conservative expositors. Thus Driver finds the two little horns identical. In keeping with this, he defines the time of the end as meaning from Daniel’s standpoint “the period of Antiochus’s persecution, together with the short interval consisting of a few months, which followed before his death (xi. 35, 40), that being, in the view of the author, the ‘end’ of the present condition of things, and the divine kingdom (7:14, 18, 22, 27, 12:2, 3) being established immediately afterwards.” Driver goes on, “This sense of ‘end’ is based probably upon the use of the word in Am. 8:2, Ez. 7:2, ‘An End! The end is come upon the four corners of the land,’ 3, 6: cf. also ‘the end has come; it has awakened against you,’ Ez. 21:25, 29, 35:5; and Hab. 2:3, ‘For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end—it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay.’”[52]

Most conservative amillenarians distinguish between the little horns of chapters 7 and 8. Young writes, “A comparison of the horns of ch. 8 and the little horn of ch. 7 makes it apparent that the two horns are intended to represent different things. Since the horn of ch. 8 evidently stands for Antiochus Epiphanes, it follows that the little horn of ch. 7 does not stand for Antiochus Epiphanes.”[53] Young finds chapter 8 completely fulfilled in history. The principal difficulty with the purely historical view is that it provides no satisfactory explanation of the expression “the time of the end,” the other references in the book of Daniel that use it as the end of the time of the Gentiles, and certain details that are given in the interpretation of the vision.

In sharp contrast to the historical interpretation is the view that takes the little horn of chapter 8 as being the same as the little horn of chapter 7, but considers the entire prophecy to be subject to future fulfillment. It is like the liberal critical view in equating the two horns, but unlike the liberal critical view in positing a future Roman or Babylonian Empire and not the Greek Empire of the past. Although only a few writers have taken this position, G. H. Pember takes as “the first clue to the interpretation” the premise: “The vision is no prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes: the Little Horn is a far more terrible persecutor, who will arise in the last days.”[54]

Tregelles argues for the same view: “Further, the four divided kingdoms which formed themselves out of the empire of Alexander were one by one incorporated within the Roman empire, but it is out of one of these kingdoms that the horn of this chapter springs, hence it is clear that he belongs to the Roman earth. Thus the persons spoken of in the two chapters are found within the same territorial limits.”[55] He goes on to compare the similarities between the little horns of chapters 7 and 8 as well as a description of the final world ruler in Daniel 11:36–45 and says, “The conclusion from all this appears to be inevitable, that the horn of chapter 7 and chapter 8 are one and the same person.”[56]

The majority of premillennial expositors, however, have not followed this view because the Roman Empire is not clearly in view in chapter 8, and, as a matter of fact, there are a number of contradictions. Although the territory involved in the various world empires is often the same, this does not prove that the events are the same or the personages are the same. This is the crux of the matter that Tregelles overlooks.

Pusey points out, “In the Grecian empire, the little horns issue, not from the empire itself, but from one of its four-fold divisions…. Antiochus Epiphanes came out of one of the four kingdoms of Alexander’s successors, and that kingdom existed in him, as the fourth horn issued in the little horn. But in the fourth empire, the horn proceeds, not out of any one horn, but out of the body of the empire itself. It came up among them [the horns], wholly distinct from them, and destroyed three of them. Such a marked difference in a symbol, otherwise so alike, must be intended to involve a difference in the fact represented.”[57]

While there are obvious similarities between the two little horns of Daniel 7 and 8, the differences are important. If the fourth kingdom represented by Daniel 7 is Rome, then obviously the third kingdom represented by the goat in chapter 8 is not Rome. Their characteristics are much different as they arise from different beasts, their horns differ in number, and the end result is different. The messianic kingdom according to Daniel 7 was going to be erected after the final world empire. This is not true of the period following the goat in chapter 8. The rule that similarities do not prove identity applies here. There are many factors that contrast the two chapters and their contents.

Some expositors have posited a dual fulfillment, in which prophecy fulfilled in part in the past also foreshadows a future event that will completely fulfill the passage. Variations exist in this approach with some taking the entire passage as having dual fulfillment, and others taking Daniel 8:1–14 as historically fulfilled and 8:15–17 as having dual fulfillment.

Talbot is one premillennial writer who follows this type of interpretation: “When the vision recorded here was given to Daniel, all of it had to do with then prophetic events; whereas we today can look back and see that everything in verses 1–22 refers to men and empires that have come and gone. We read about them in the pages of secular history. But verses 23–27 of the chapter before us have to do with ‘a king of fierce countenance’ who shall appear ‘in the latter end’ (v. 23); and he is none other than the Antichrist who is to come. Again, while verses 1–22 have to do with history, yet the men of whom they speak were shadows of that coming ‘man of sin,’ who is more fully described in the closing verses of the chapter.”[58] Strictly speaking, Talbot’s view does not conform to any of the divisions indicated here, but illustrates that the passage gives prophecy in two different senses.

A number of other expositors find chapter 8 dealing with both Antiochus Epiphanes and the future world ruler. This view is ably summarized by J. Dwight Pentecost, who gives this illuminating overall view of chapters 7 through 12:

The key to understanding chapters 7 through 12 of Daniel’s prophecy is to understand that Daniel is focusing his attention on this one great ruler and his kingdom which will arise in the end time. And while Daniel may use historical reference and refer to events which to us may be fulfilled, Daniel is thinking of them only to give us more details about this final form of Gentile world power and its ruler who will reign on the earth. In Daniel chapter 8, we have another reference to this one. Daniel describes a king who is going to conquer the Medo-Persian Empire. This is a historical event that took place several centuries after Daniel lived. There was an individual that came out of the Grecian Empire who was a great enemy of the nation Israel. We know him as Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus Epiphanes was a ruler who sought to show his contempt for Palestine, the Jews, and the Jewish religion by going to the temple in Jerusalem with a sow which he slaughtered and put its blood upon the altar. This man was known as one who desolated, or “the desolator.” But this passage in Daniel 8 is speaking not only of Antiochus in his desolation and his desecration of the Temple; it is looking forward to the great desolator who would come, the one who is called “the little horn” in Daniel 7. In Daniel 8:23 we read of this one and his ministry.[59]

Pentecost summarizes the facts from Daniel 8:23–25 as a description of the beast in that (1) he is to appear in the latter times of Israel’s history (v. 23); (2) through alliance with other nations, he achieves worldwide influence (v. 24); (3) a peace program helps his rise to power (v. 25); (4) he is extremely intelligent and persuasive (v. 23); (5) he is characterized by Satanic control (v. 24); (6) he is a great adversary against Israel and the prince of princes (vv. 24–25); and (7) a direct judgment from God terminates his rule (v. 25).[60]

It may be concluded that many premillennial expositors find a dual fulfillment in Daniel 8. Some achieve this by a division of the first part of the chapter as historically fulfilled and the last part prophetically future; some regard the whole chapter as having, in some sense, a dual fulfillment historically as well as in the future; but most of them find the futuristic elements emphasized, especially in the interpretation of the vision.

A variation of the view that the last part of the chapter is specifically futuristic is found in the interpretation that has much to commend itself. This variation regards the entire chapter as historically fulfilled in Antiochus, but to varying degrees foreshadowing typically the future world ruler who would dominate the situation at the end of the times of the Gentiles.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RAM AND THE GOAT (8:20–22)

8:20–22 “As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. And the goat is the king of Greece. And the great horn between his eyes is the first king. As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation, but not with his power.”

Verses 20–21 make explicit what has been assumed in preceding exegesis. Most significant is the fact that Media and Persia are regarded as one empire, refuting the liberal notion that Daniel taught the empire of Media was separate from Persia, which liberals use to justify the exegesis that the second and third empires of Daniel 7 were Media and Persia. All agree that history does not support this, and the liberal interpretation assumes that Daniel was in error. Here the matter is made clear by Daniel himself, and it is evident that the critics are guilty of attributing to Daniel something he did not teach. Although the goat is called “the king of Greece,” it is an obvious reference to the kingdom as a whole, as the great horn between its eyes is identified as the first king. Practically everyone agrees that this is Alexander the Great.

The kingdoms represented by the four horns that replaced the great horn were identified as four kingdoms arising from the goat nation. They are described as not having the power of the great horn. Aside from expositors pressed to relate this to the Roman Empire, where there is no reasonable parallel, the four kingdoms are obviously the four generals of Alexander who partitioned his empire as previously noted. Most expositors agree that verses 20–22 have been fulfilled completely in history in connection with the Medo-Persian and Greek empires and the four divisions following Alexander the Great. The exegetical challenges arise in the passage that follows.

THE LATTER TIME OF THE KINGDOM (8:23–26)

8:23–26 “And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. His power shall be great—but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall become great. Without warning he shall destroy many. And he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”

Here an individual is pictured prophetically who is said to have the following characteristics: (1) he will appear “at the latter end of their kingdom,” that is, of the four kingdoms of verse 22; (2) he will appear “when the transgressors have reached their limit”; (3) he will be “a king of bold face, one who understands riddles,” that is, having a strong or bold countenance and able to interpret riddles, a mark of intelligence (1 Kings 10:1); (4) he will have great power but his power shall be derived from another (either God, Satan, or Alexander the Great); (5) he will accomplish great exploits including destroying Israel, the mighty and holy people; (6) by his policies “he shall cause fearful destruction and shall succeed in what he does,” always busy hatching plots (1 Macc. 1:16–51)—that is, wickedness shall be on the increase; (7) he will exalt himself, as did Antiochus Epiphanes; (8) by means of a false peace, he will destroy many people; (9) he will oppose “the Prince of princes”; and (10) in the end “he shall be broken—but by no human hand,” that is, his power shall be destroyed without human intervention (Antiochus died of a foul disease). Finally, Daniel was cautioned that the total vision is true, but the understanding of it shall be delayed for many days as well as its fulfillment.

A careful scrutiny of these many points will justify the conclusion that it is possible to explain all of these elements, except the allusion to the end of the age, as fulfilled historically in Antiochus Epiphanes. Most of the factors are obvious and the principal difficulty is occasioned by the expression “at the latter end of their kingdom” and in the statement “he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes.” Antiochus did arise in the latter time of the Syrian kingdom. However, the use of other terms such as “the end” in verses 17 and 19, and “the latter end of the indignation” in verse 19, is difficult to harmonize with Antiochus.

It is also objected, as expressed by Stevens, that “the time of Antiochus was in the former time of those kingdoms. His day was not even in the latter time of the Old Grecian Empire; for he came to his end more than one hundred years before the Grecian Empire ended. The simple solution is that those four kingdoms are to have ‘a latter time’; i.e., they are to be again represented territorially as four kingdoms in the last days at the Times of the Gentiles.”[61] The expression “the end” frequently occurs in Daniel: 9:26; 11:27, 35, 40, 45; 12:4, 6, 9, 13.

Another problem is the statement that the king “shall even rise up against the Prince of princes.” Ironside expresses a common viewpoint that the “Prince of princes can be none other than the Messiah; consequently, these words were not fulfilled in the life and death of Antiochus.”[62] However, this objection is not unanswerable, because opposition to God, to Israel, and to the messianic hope in general, which characterized blasphemers of the Old Testament, can well be interpreted as standing up against “the Prince of princes.” After all, Christ existed in Old Testament times as God and as the Angel of Jehovah and as the Defender of Israel.

Taken as a whole, the principal problem of the passage when interpreted as prophecy fulfilled completely in Antiochus is the allusions to the end of the age. These are hard to understand as relating to Antiochus in view of the larger picture of Daniel 7, which concludes with Christ’s second advent. It is for this reason, as well as for the many details in the passage, that a number of expositors believe the interpretation goes beyond the vision. If the vision itself of the little horn can be fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes, the interpretation given by the angel seems to go beyond Antiochus to the final world ruler.

Some premillennial interpreters, however, convinced of the futuristic character of the vision’s interpretation, identify the personage here as a different future character than the little horn of Daniel 7. That horn is identified as a Roman and a future world dictator, whereas the little horn of Daniel 8 in its futuristic interpretation is understood by them to refer to the king of the north (Dan. 11:6–15), who is also identified with “the Assyrian” (Micah 5:5–6).[63] Contemporary expositors, however, generally interpret these references to Assyria in other prophetic passages as already fulfilled in the previous invasion of the Holy Land by Assyria.[64] These passages then are not relevant to Daniel 8.

This difficult passage apparently goes beyond that which is historically fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes to foreshadow a future personage often identified as the world ruler of the end time—the Antichrist. In many respects this ruler carries on a persecution of Israel and desecration of the temple similar to what was accomplished historically by Antiochus. This interpretation of the vision may be regarded as an illustration of double fulfillment of prophecy or, using Antiochus as a type, the interpretation may go on to reveal additional facts that go beyond the type in describing the ultimate king who will oppose Israel in the last days. He indeed will be “broken—but by no human hand” when Jesus Christ returns.

Gabriel then made it plain that the vision would not become immediately understandable to Daniel and that its fulfillment would occupy many days.

EFFECT ON DANIEL (8:27)

8:27 And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king’s business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it.

The tremendous vision given to Daniel and his exhaustion because of it caused him to be sick for a time. Jeffrey notes that Daniel’s immediate resumption of his work in the king’s service proves that he had been in Babylon all the time, and that his presence in Susa was purely visionary.[65]

The dramatic character of the vision and its tremendous implications, although not understandable to Daniel, remained in his mind. But he could find none that could give him the complete interpretation. It is obvious that God’s intent was for Daniel to record the prophecy for the benefit of future generations rather than for Daniel himself. Unlike the previous instances where Daniel was the interpreter of divine revelation, here Daniel becomes the recorder of it without understanding all that he wrote or experienced.

The emphasis of Daniel 8 is on prophecy as it relates to Israel; and for this reason, the little horn is given prominence both in the vision and in the interpretation. The times of the Gentiles, although not entirely a period of persecution of Israel, often resulted in great trial for them. Of the four great world empires anticipated by Daniel, only the Persian Empire was relatively kind to the Jews. As Christ Himself indicated in Luke 21:24, the times of the Gentiles is characterized by the treading down of Jerusalem, and the subjugation and persecution of the people of Israel.

NOTES

[1] Cf. R. D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody, n.d.), 95–104.

[2] A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel (New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911), 94.

[3] Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 165.

[4] A. L. Oppenheim, “Belshazzar,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, George A. Buttrick, ed. (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951), 1:379–80.

[5] Archer suggests “Daniel received the new vision at the Babylonian capital itself or else while on a diplomatic mission to Susa” (Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985], 96). But Wood writes, “The wording favors the idea that Daniel was not actually in Shushan, but that he saw himself in the vision as being there” (Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973], 207).

[6] Josephus is also the source of the story that Daniel built a building at Ecbatana in Media in which later the kings of Media, Persia, and Parthis were buried. Cf. Montgomery’s discussion on the tomb of Daniel at Susa, and the tradition that Daniel built a tower at Ecbatana (James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927], 10–11, 325). Cf. Josephus, The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, trans. (Chicago: Thompson & Thomas, 1901), 320.

[7] Montgomery, Daniel, 325–26.

[8] Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Daniel, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 111.

[9] Wood, Daniel, 207.

[10] Montgomery, Daniel, 327.

[11] Archer, “Daniel,” 96.

[12] For details on the excavations at Susa, see E. M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison, The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 426–30; M. F. Unger, New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, R. K. Harrison, ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 227.

[13] Young, Daniel, 178.

[14] For a brief history of Medo-Persia, see John Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 70ff.

[15] “By thrusting westward and northward in Asia Minor [Cyrus] bypassed Babylon, only to capture it later and take lands to the south-west and south-east” (Joyce C. Baldwin, Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978], 156).

[16] Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 290.

[17] Ibid., 291.

[18] F. Cumont, “La plus Ancienne geographie astrologique,” Klio 9 (1909): 263–73.

[19] Driver, Daniel, 113.

[20] Young, Daniel, 169; cf. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, 76ff.

[21] Young, Daniel, 169.

[22] Goldingay refers to the vision as a “quasi-prophecy” whose “historical setting lies just after the fulfillment of its portrait of the wicked acts of the small horn/fierce-looking king and before the reversal promised in vv. 14b, 25b” (John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. [Dallas: Word, 1989], 206).

[23] William W. Tarn, Alexander the Great, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), 1:145–46.

[24] Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 123.

[25] Porteous (Daniel, 124) and Wood (Daniel, 211) represent examples of expositors from opposite theological positions who agree on the identification of the four horns.

[26] For details regarding the struggle over succession, see Harold Hoehner, “Between the Testaments,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 181.

[27] Young, Daniel, 169; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 344; Montgomery, Daniel, 332–33.

[28] Montgomery, Daniel, 333.

[29] Archer, “Daniel,” 99; Stephen Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 225–26.

[30] Leupold, Daniel, 346.

[31] Montgomery, Daniel, 335.

[32] Goldingay, Daniel, 210–11.

[33] Young, Daniel, 172–73.

[34] H. L. Willmington, Willmington’s Bible Handbook (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1997), 437.

[35] Montgomery, Daniel, 335–36.

[36] Young, Daniel, 172.

[37] Ibid., 3.

[38] Uriah Smith, The Sanctuary and the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14 (Battle Creek, Mi: Steam Press, 1877), 119.

[39] Young, Daniel, 174; Wood, Daniel, 217–19.

[40] Archer, “Daniel,” 102–3.

[41] Keil, Daniel, 304.

[42] Ibid., 303–4.

[43] See D. H. Wheaton, “Antiochus,” in The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 41–42.

[44] Archer, “Daniel,” 103.

[45] Ibid.

[46] J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 2 vols., Thomas Myers, trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852), 2:112.

[47] Young, Daniel, 175.

[48] For extrascriptural mention of angels, see Montgomery, Daniel, 345.

[49] Though Miller suggests that “the recipients of this wrath are Antiochus and the unfaithful Israelites of the Maccabean period” (Miller, Daniel, 233).

[50] Wood, Daniel, 222–23.

[51] Driver, Daniel, 99.

[52] Ibid., 121.

[53] Young, Daniel, 288.

[54] George H. Pember, The Great Prophecies of the Centuries Concerning Israel and the Gentiles (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895), 289–90; cf. Clarence Larkin, The Book of Daniel (Philadelphia: Rev. Clarence Larkin, Est., 1929), 165.

[55] S. P. Tregeles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel, 7th ed. (London: Sovereign Grace, 1965), 82.

[56] Ibid., 83.

[57] Edward B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885), 135.

[58] Louis T. Talbot, The Prophecies of Daniel, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen, 1954), 43.

[59] J. Dwight Pentecost, Prophecy for Today (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961), 82–83.

[60] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), 332–34. These points are a summary of an extended discussion.

[61] William C. Stevens, The Book of Daniel, rev. ed. (Los Angeles: Bible House of L.A., 1949), 125.

[62] H. A. Ironside, Lectures on Daniel the Prophet (New York: Loizeaux, 1920), 150.

[63] Cf. Ironside, Lectures, 147–51; Gaebelein, Daniel, 111–13.

[64] See, for example, Leslie C. Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, in New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 349.

[65] Arthur Jeffery, “The Book of Daniel,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 6 George A. Buttrick, ed. (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951), 6:483.

9

The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks

The third vision of Daniel the prophet, following the preceding visions of chapters 7 and 8, concerns the program of God for Israel culminating in the coming of their Messiah to the earth to reign. Although other major prophets received detailed information concerning the nations and God’s program for salvation, Daniel alone was given the comprehensive program for both the Gentiles, as revealed to Daniel in preceding chapters, and for Israel, as recorded in Daniel 9:24–27. Because of the comprehensive and structural nature of Daniel’s prophecies, both for the Gentiles and for Israel, the study of Daniel, and especially this chapter, is the key to understanding the prophetic Scriptures. Of the four major programs revealed in the Bible—for the angels, the Gentiles, Israel, and the church—Daniel had the privilege of being the channel of revelation for the second and third of these programs in the Old Testament.

This chapter begins with Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years of the desolations of Jerusalem and is advanced by the intercessory prayer of Daniel. It concludes with Daniel’s third vision, given through the angel Gabriel, which provides one of the most important keys to understanding the Scriptures as a whole. In many respects, this is the high point of the book of Daniel. Although previously Gentile history and prophecy recorded in Daniel was related to the people of Israel, the ninth chapter specifically takes up prophecy as it applies to the chosen people.

THE SEVENTY YEARS OF THE DESOLATIONS OF JERUSALEM (9:1–2)

9:1–2 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans—in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

Daniel received this vision “in the first year of Darius,” which means the events of Belshazzar’s feast in chapter 5 occurred between the visions of chapters 8 and 9. It is not clear where chapter 6 fits into this order of events, but it also may well have occurred in the first year of Darius’s reign, either immediately before or immediately after the events of chapter 9. If Daniel’s experience at Belshazzar’s feast as well as his deliverance from the lions had already been experienced, these significant evidences of the sovereignty and power of God may well have constituted a divine preparation for the tremendous revelation now about to unfold.

The immediate occasion of this chapter, however, was Daniel’s discovery in the prophecy of Jeremiah that the desolations of Jerusalem would be fulfilled in seventy years. In addition to his oral prophetic announcements, Jeremiah had written his prophecies in the closing days of Jerusalem before its destruction by the Babylonians. In 597 B.C. Jeremiah had even written a letter to the exiles in Babylon (Jer. 29) in which he had announced that their time in captivity would last seventy years (v. 10). Jeremiah himself had been taken captive by Jews rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar and had been carried off to Egypt against his will to be buried in a strange land in a nameless grave. But the timeless Scriptures that he wrote found their way across desert and mountain to faraway Babylon and fell into the hands of Daniel. How long Daniel had been in possession of these prophecies is not known, but the implication is that Daniel had now come to fully comprehend Jeremiah’s prediction and realized that the seventy years prophesied had about run their course. The time of the vision recorded in Daniel 9 was 538 B.C., about 67 years after Jerusalem had first been captured and Daniel carried off to Babylon (605 B.C.).

Jeremiah had prophesied, “This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, declares the LORD, making the land an everlasting waste” (Jer. 25:11–12). Later, Jeremiah added in his letter to the exiles: “For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me. When you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the LORD, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile” (29:10–14).

On the basis of these remarkable prophecies, Daniel was encouraged to pray for the restoration of Jerusalem and the regathering of the people of Israel. Daniel was probably too Old and infirm to return to Jerusalem himself, but he had lived long enough to see the first expedition of pilgrims return. This occurred in “the first year of Cyrus king of Persia” (Ezra 1:1), and Daniel lived at least until “the third year of Cyrus king of Persia” (Dan. 10:1) and possibly some years longer.

Darius was either another name for Cyrus, or had been appointed by Cyrus as king of Babylon (see the earlier discussion of chapter 6). The assertion of Daniel 9:1 that Darius “was made king” indicates that he was invested with the kingship by some higher authority. This could well agree with the supposition that he was installed as viceroy in Babylonia by Cyrus the Great.[1] This appointment is confirmed by the verb “was made king,” which does not seem a proper reference to Cyrus himself. It is of interest that in the Behistun inscription, Darius I (not the Darius described in Daniel 9) refers to his father, Hystaspes, as having been made king in a similar way.

Anderson distinguishes the duration of the captivity from the duration of the desolations of Jerusalem in Daniel 9:2. He states, “The failure to distinguish between the several judgments of the Servitude, the Captivity and the Desolations, is a fruitful source of error in the study of Daniel and the historical books of Scripture.”[2]

Anderson goes on to explain that Israel’s servitude and captivity began much earlier than the destruction of the temple. Although Anderson’s dates are not according to current archeological findings (606 B.C. instead of 605 for the captivity, 589 B.C. instead of 586 for the desolation of the temple, and his date for the decree of Cyrus, 536 B.C. instead of 538), his approach to the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy is worthy of consideration. As discussed in the exposition of chapter 1, the captivity probably began in the fall of 605 B.C. at which time a few, such as Daniel and his companions and others of the royal children, were carried off to Babylon as hostages. The major deportation did not take place until about seven years later. According to Wiseman, the exact date of the first major deportation was March 16, 597 B.C., after the fall of Jerusalem following a brief revolt against Babylonian rule. About 60,000 were carried away at that time.[3]

Jerusalem itself was finally destroyed in 586 B.C.,[4] and this, according to Anderson, began the desolations of Jerusalem, the specific prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11, also mentioned in 2 Chronicles 36:21 and in Daniel 9:2.

Jeremiah 25:11–12 predicts that the king of Babylon would be punished at the end of seventy years. Jeremiah 29:10 predicts the return to the land after seventy years. For these reasons, it is doubtful whether Anderson’s evaluation of Daniel 9:2 as referring to the destruction of the temple itself is valid. The judgment on Babylon and the return to the land took place about twenty years before the temple itself was rebuilt and was approximately seventy years after captivity beginning in 605 B.C. Probably the best interpretation, accordingly, is to consider the expression “the desolations of Jerusalem” in Daniel 9:2 as referring to the period 605 B.C. to 539 B.C., and the date of 538 B.C. for the return to the land.

This definition is supported by the word for “desolations,” ḥorbôt, which is plural, apparently including the environs of Jerusalem. The same expression is translated “all her waste places” in Isaiah 51:3 (cf. 52:9). Actually the destruction of territory formerly under Jerusalem’s control even predated the 605 date for Jerusalem’s fall. And as Hoehner notes, “The reason for Israel’s captivity was their refusal to obey the Word of the Lord from the prophets (Jer. 29:17–19) and to give their land sabbatical rests (2 Chron. 36:21). God had stated that Israel, because of her disobedience, would be removed from her land and scattered among the Gentiles until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths (Lev. 26:33–35).”[5] So the length of time for the captivity related to the land as much as it did to the city or the temple.

Although it is preferred to consider Daniel 9:2 as the period 605–539 B.C., Anderson may be right in distinguishing the period of Israel’s captivity from that of Jerusalem’s desolation. Zechariah 1:12 refers to God’s destruction of the cities of Judah for seventy years, which may extend to the time when the temple was rebuilt. This is brought out in Zechariah 1:16: “Therefore, thus says the LORD, I have returned to Jerusalem with mercy; my house shall be built in it, declares the LORD of hosts, and the measuring line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem.” It is most significant that the return took place approximately seventy years after Jerusalem’s capture in 605 B.C., and the restoration of the temple (515 B.C.) took place approximately seventy years after its destruction (586 B.C.), the latter period being about twenty years later than the former. In both cases, however, the fulfillment does not have the meticulous accuracy of falling on the very day, as Anderson attempts to prove. It seems to be an approximate number as one would expect by a round number of seventy. Hence, the period between 605 B.C. and 538 B.C. would be approximately sixty-seven years; and the rededication of the temple in March of 515 B.C. would be less than seventy-one years from the destruction of the temple in August of 586 B.C.

What is intended, accordingly, in the statement in Daniel 9:2 is that Daniel realized that the time was approaching when the children of Israel could return. The seventy years of the captivity were about ended. Once the children of Israel were back in the land, they were providentially hindered in fulfilling the rebuilding of the temple until seventy years after the destruction of the temple had also elapsed.

Several principles emerge from Daniel’s reference to Jeremiah’s prophecy. First, Daniel took the seventy years literally and believed that there would be a literal fulfillment. Even though Daniel was fully acquainted with the symbolic form of revelation that God sometimes used to portray panoramic prophetic events, his interpretation of Jeremiah was literal and he expected God to fulfill His Word.

Second, Daniel realized that the Word of God would be fulfilled only on the basis of prayer, which led to his fervent plea recorded in this chapter. On the one hand, Daniel recognized the certainty of divine purposes and the sovereignty of God that would surely fulfill the prophetic word. On the other hand, he recognized human agency, the necessity of faith and prayer, and the urgency to respond with human action as it relates to the divine program. His custom of praying three times a day with his windows open to Jerusalem revealed his own heart for the things of God and his concern for the holy city.

Third, Daniel recognized the need for confession of sin and national repentance as a prelude to restoration (Deut. 30:1–3; Jer. 29:10–14). With this rich background of the prophetic program revealed through Jeremiah, Daniel’s own prayer life, and his concern for Jerusalem as the religious center of Israel, Daniel expressed his confession and intercession to God on behalf of his fellow exiles.

Because Daniel, for the first time, used the word “LORD” or Jehovah in Daniel 9:2, repeating the expression in verses 4, 10, 13, 14, and 20, some critics have used this as an argument against the authenticity of this passage and the prayer that follows.[6] However, it seems perfectly natural for Daniel to use the personal covenantal name of God in a context where he is interceding on behalf of his people to the God “who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments” (v. 4). Daniel’s entire prayer is based on Israel’s covenant relationship to God, so his use of God’s personal name, which He revealed to Israel, is both appropriate and expected.

DANIEL’S PREPARATION FOR PRAYER (9:3–4)

9:3–4 Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and sackcloth and ashes. I prayed to the LORD my God and made confession, saying, “O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments.”

Daniel’s prayer is a beautiful example of obedience. After announcing the curses of the covenant, with the final curse resulting in exile (Deut. 28), God promised to restore the people if they would repent (Deut. 30:1–5). Daniel prayed on behalf of all the Jewish exiles, acknowledging God’s righteous judgment because of the nation’s sin and asking God to restore the city of Jerusalem, the temple, and the people in exile.

Encouraged by knowing of God’s intention to restore Jerusalem, Daniel sought to make adequate preparation to present his confessions and petitions to the Lord. Every possible element of preparation was included. First, he turned his face “to the LORD God,” meaning that he turned away from other things to concentrate on his prayer. This implies faith, devotion, and worship. Daniel’s activity in prayer had a specific end expressed by the word “seeking,” which anticipated his hope to find ground for an answer to his prayers.

Daniel’s attitude of mind and steadfastness of purpose was supplemented by prayer and supplications, that is, prayer in general and petition specifically. This was accompanied by every known auxiliary aid to prayer: namely, fasting, that he might not be diverted from prayer by food; sackcloth, a putting aside of ordinary garments in favor of rough cloth speaking of abject need; and ashes, the traditional symbol of grief and humility.[7] In a word, Daniel left nothing undone that might possibly make his prayer more effective or more persuasive.

While God honors the briefest of prayers, as Nehemiah 2:4 indicates, effective prayer requires faith in His Word, proper attitude of mind and heart, privacy, and unhurried confession and petition. Daniel’s humility, reverence, and earnestness are the hallmarks of effective prayer. Daniel began his prayer by stating his reliance on the fact that the majesty of God’s person and the greatness of His power are manifested especially in His fulfilling His covenant promises and showing mercy to those who love Him and keep His commandments. As Glueck has brought out in his study of the term “steadfast love” (esed), the term connotes not only forgiveness but loyalty in keeping His covenant with Israel,[8] in stark contrast with the inexcusable disloyalty of the people of Israel. Daniel thus began by assuring himself of God’s greatness and goodness.

DANIEL’S PRAYER OF CONFESSION (9:5–14)

9:5–6 “We have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules. We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.”

Here began Daniel’s prayer of confession. He himself is one of the few major characters of the Old Testament to whom some sin is not ascribed, though we know theologically he was not sinless. In the context of his prayer he was dealing not with his personal sins, but was identifying with Israel’s sin and the collective responsibility he shared both in God’s promises of blessing and warnings of divine judgment. Daniel did not spare himself or his people in his confession. Calvin points out a fourfold description of the extent of their sin: first, they “have sinned” (Heb. ), meaning a serious crime or offense; second, they had “done wrong”; third, they had “acted wickedly,” or “conducted themselves wickedly”; and fourth, by sinning in this way, they had “rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules,” that is, “become rebellious and declined from the statutes and commandments of God.”[9] Stuart notes, “The climactic construction of the sentence is palpable. To turn back from obedience to the divine statutes, in the frame of mind which belongs to rebels, is the consummation of wickedness, and so Daniel rightly considers it. The variety of verbs employed here, indicates the design of the speaker to confess all sin of every kind in its full extent”[10] (italics in original).

The heinousness of Israel’s sin is amplified in verse 6 by the fact that they disregarded the prophets God sent to them. As Wood writes, “Not only had the Law not been obeyed, but the people had not listened to God’s prophets, who had called this disobedience to their attention.”[11] This disobedience to the prophets characterized all classes of Israel, from her kings to “all the people.” Even in such times of revival as the reign of Hezekiah, when the king’s messengers went throughout the land calling people to the Passover at Jerusalem, many of the people “laughed them to scorn and mocked them” (2 Chron. 30:10). Israel’s departure from the precepts and judgments of God’s Word, as well as the disregard of the prophets, “is the beginning of all moral disorders,” as Leupold expresses it.[12]

9:7–9 “To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, butto us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you. To us, O Lord, belongs open shame, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against you. To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against him.”

In verses 7–8, Daniel contrasted God’s righteousness with the confusion that belonged to Israel. God had been righteous in His judgments upon Israel, and in no way did Israel’s distress reflect upon the attributes of God adversely. By contrast, Israel’s shame of face that had made them the object of scorn of the nations was their just desert for rebellion against God. Daniel itemized those who were especially concerned: first, the kingdom of Judah that was carried into captivity by the Babylonians, and second, “all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away,” that is, the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel that were carried off by the Assyrians in 721 B.C. The scattering of the children of Israel to “all the lands to which you have driven them” was not occasioned by one sin, but by generation after generation of failure to obey the Law or to give heed to the prophets.

Tatford summarizes Daniel 9:5–8 in these words:

There was no tautology in the prolific accumulation of expressions he used: it was rather that he sought to express by every possible word the enormity of the guilt and contumacy of himself and his people. They had sinned in wandering from the right, they had dealt perversely in their willful impiety, they had done wickedly in their sheer infidelity, they had rebelled in deliberate refractoriness, they had turned aside from the Divine commandments and ordinances. Their cup of iniquity was full. Their guilt was accentuated by the fact that prophets had been sent to them with the Divine message and they had refused to listen. All were implicated—rulers, leaders (the term “fathers” being used, of course, in a metaphorical rather than in a literal sense), and the people. God was perfectly just, but a shameful countenance betrayed their own guilt. Nor was the confusion of face limited to Judah and Jerusalem: it was true of all Israelites throughout the world. Indeed, their scattering was in punishment for their own unfaithfulness to God. Daniel associated himself completely with his people in acknowledging their wrong-doing and freely confessed that their shamefacedness was due to perfectly justified corrections: they had sinned against God.[13]

In verse 9, Daniel contrasted the mercy and forgiveness of God with Israel’s sin. The righteous God is also a God of mercy. It is on this ground that Daniel was basing his petition. In doing so, he turned from addressing God directly in the second person to speaking of God in the third person, as if to state a truth for all who would hear, a theological fact now being introduced as the basis for the remainder of the prayer.

9:10–14 “[We] have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God by walking in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. All Israel has transgressed your law and turned aside, refusing to obey your voice. And the curse and oath that are written in the Law of Moses the servant of God have been poured out upon us, because we have sinned against him. He has confirmed his words, which he spoke against us and against our rulers who ruled us, by bringing upon us a great calamity. For under the whole heaven there has not been done anything like what has been done against Jerusalem. As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this calamity has come upon us; yet we have not entreated the favor of the LORD our God, turning from our iniquities and gaining insight by your truth. Therefore the LORD has kept ready the calamity and has brought it upon us, for the LORD our God is righteous in all the works that he has done, and we have not obeyed his voice.”

With God’s mercy and forgiveness as a backdrop, Daniel plunged into a recital of the extent of Israel’s sin in verses 10–11. Again, he restated that Israel had not obeyed the voice of God. They had not walked according to His laws as proclaimed to them by the Lord’s servants, the prophets. The word translated “laws” in verse 10 means literally “instructions” (cf. Isa. 1:10ff.). The rebellion was not on the part of a few, but “all Israel has transgressed your law and turned aside.” Because of their persistent failure and rebellion against God, the prophesied curse pronounced upon Israel as “written in the Law of Moses the servant of God” was applied, referring specifically to the covenant curses announced in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.

In Deuteronomy 28, for example, the conditions of blessing and cursing are set forth before Israel in detail. If they obeyed, they would have every blessing, temporal and spiritual, from God. If they disobeyed, God would destroy them and scatter them over the earth. Moses had made perfectly clear that Israel’s situation would indeed be desperate if they disobeyed the Lord. Most of Deuteronomy 28 is devoted to itemizing these curses, concluding with the prophetic warning of Israel’s expulsion from the land (Deut. 28:63–67) and the resultant uncertainty of life and future that would characterize individual Israelites. It was these passages and warnings of God to which Daniel referred.

Mendenhall has shown that the Mosaic covenant has a close parallel to certain suzerainty treaties (i.e., treaties between a Great King and his vassals) of the Hittite Empire. Sanctions are typically supplied in these treaties by a series of blessings and cursings as also illustrated in Leviticus 26:14–39 and Deuteronomy 27. Such warnings are witnessed by heaven and earth (cf. Deut. 4:26 and Isa. 1:2) and in their form are similar to many passages in the Old Testament.[14]

In verses 12–14, Daniel itemized the evil which God had brought upon the people of Israel as a result of their sin. By this judgment God had “confirmed his words, which he spoke against us and against our rulers who ruled us, by bringing upon us a great calamity” (cf. Isa. 1:10–31; Micah 3). The climax of God’s judgment was the destruction He brought “against Jerusalem,” which was the final blow to Israel’s pride and security.

Adding to all their earlier sins, Israel did not turn to the Lord in prayer. Even in the midst of the terrible manifestation of God’s righteous judgment, there was no revival, no turning to Him; rulers and people alike persisted in their evil ways. Daniel was saying that God had no alternative but to judge, even though He was a God of mercy, for when mercy is spurned, judgment is inevitable. Daniel’s conclusion in verse 14 brought out this fact. Porteous notes that the words “kept ready” or “vigilant” are the same words Jeremiah used when he told how God was watchful over His Word to perform it (Jer. 1:12; cf. 31:28; 44:27). God was faithfully keeping His Word both in blessing and in cursing, which must have encouraged Daniel in anticipating the end of the captivity.[15]

DANIEL’S PETITION FOR FORGIVENESS AND RESTORATION (9:15–19)

9:15–19 “And now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and have made a name for yourself, as at this day, we have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy hill, because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a byword among all who are around us. Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of your servant and to his pleas for mercy, and for your own sake, O Lord, make your face to shine upon your sanctuary, which is desolate. O my God, incline your ear and hear. Open your eyes and see our desolations, and the city that is called by your name. For we do not present our pleas before you because of our righteousness, but because of your great mercy. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive. O Lord, pay attention and act. Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name.”

Daniel laid a solid groundwork for his prayer by his confession of sin and acknowledgment of God’s righteousness and mercy. Beginning in verse 15, Daniel turned to the burden of his prayer—that God would act righteously and in mercy to forgive and restore the people of Israel. Daniel appealed first to the power and forgiveness God manifested in delivering His people from Egypt. In doing so, God had “made a name” for Himself among the nations. The deliverance of Israel from Egypt is, in many respects, the standard Old Testament illustration of God’s power and ability to deliver His people. In the New Testament, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is God’s standard of power (Eph. 1:19–20). In Christ’s future millennial reign, the standard of power will be the regathering of Israel and their restoration to the land (Jer. 16:14–15).

The three dispersions of Israel from the land and their regathering are among the more important demonstrations of God’s power. He had allowed them to go into Egypt and then delivered them in the Exodus. He had punished them by the captivities, but now Daniel was pleading with Him to restore His people to their land and their city. The future and final regathering of Israel in relation to the millennial kingdom will be the final act, fulfilling Amos 9:11–15, when Israel will be regathered never to be dispersed again. In both the dispersions and the regatherings, God’s righteousness, power, and mercies are evident. The thought of God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt overwhelmed Daniel with the thought of the nation’s sinfulness that seemed to block the way for restoration. “We have sinned, we have done wickedly” was the theme of Daniel’s prayer to this point. But he went on to petition for Israel’s forgiveness and restoration.

Interestingly, in verses 15–19, Daniel addressed God only as Adonai and Elohim and no longer used His covenant name, Yahweh, as he did in verses 4–14. Most commentators have ignored this significant change in address.[16] Montgomery goes so far as to insert the word Yahweh in his translation, although he calls attention in his critical apparatus to the actual Hebrew.[17] The explanation seems to be that in using the word Adonai, Daniel was recognizing God’s absolute sovereignty over him as Lord.

Daniel significantly appealed again to God’s righteousness in verse 16. Daniel recognized that Israel’s restoration depended on God’s mercy, yet he also acknowledged that it must be “according to all your righteous acts.” Here is implied the whole system of reconciliation to God by sacrifice, supremely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Daniel understood that there is no contradiction between the righteousness of God and His mercy and forgiveness. The same Scriptures that predict God’s judgment upon Israel also predict its restoration. It would be in accordance with the veracity of God as a covenant-keeping God not only to inflict judgment, but to bring in the promised restoration.

Daniel’s appeal for restoration was grounded in the fact that Israel was God’s people, and that Jerusalem was God’s city. His focus in these verses is on “Jerusalem and your people” (v. 16) especially because “your city and your people are called by your name” (v. 19). Israel’s restoration would also be a testimony to the nations before whom she was currently “a byword.” “The prayer is a tragic confession of guilt. Jerusalem should have been the mount unto which all nations would flow, and Israel should have been a light unto the Gentiles, but because of the people’s sins, Jerusalem and Israel had become a reproach.”[18]

In verse 17, Daniel added one additional request to his prayer. The sanctuary itself, the place where God met man in sacrifice, was in desolation and the whole sacrificial system had fallen into disuse because of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Ultimately, it was not simply the restoration of Israel that Daniel sought, nor the restoration of Jerusalem or even of the temple, but specifically the sanctuary with its altar of sacrifice and its holy of holies.

The eloquence of Daniel’s prayer reached its crescendo in verses 18–19. How it must have delighted God to hear His devoted servant present his petitions. How it must have moved God’s heart to hear Daniel plea for Him to listen to Daniel’s prayer and see the plight of Israel. If prayer can be called persuasive, Daniel’s prayer certainly merits this description. Daniel’s holy life, careful preparation in approaching God, uncompromising confession of sin, and appeal to God’s holy character illustrate the kind of prayer that God delights to answer. Led by the Spirit of God, Daniel had expressed precisely the prayer that God wanted to hear and answer.

Although no other portion of the Bible breathes with more pure devotion or has greater spiritual content than Daniel’s prayer, it has been attacked without mercy by the higher critics. Acting on the premise that the book of Daniel is a second-century forgery and not written by Daniel the prophet in the sixth century B.C., the critics take exception to this section as a particular proof that the book of Daniel as a whole could not have been written by Daniel.

Montgomery has summarized the objections of the critics. Although making preliminary concessions that the prayer “is a liturgical gem in form and expression, and excels in literary character the more verbose types found in Ezr. and Neh.,” he holds that “the prayer is of the liturgical type which existed since the Deuteronomic age represented by Solomon’s Prayer, 1 Ki. 8, the prayers of Jer., Jer. 26.32.44, and the prayers in Ezr.–Neh., Ezr. 9, Neh. 1.9.” Montgomery goes on to say, “By far the largest part of this prayer consists of language found in those other compositions.”[19]

Not all the higher critics, however, accept the explanation that Daniel 9:2–19 is an interpolation not originally in the book. Montgomery has summarized the complicated arguments both for and against this view:

Von Gall, Einheitlichkeit, 123–126, has developed the thesis that Dan.’s prayer is an interpolation, although the rest of his work contends for the practical integrity of the canonical books. He is followed by Mar., Cha. [Marti’s Commentary, and Charles]. It is patent, as these scholars argue, that the theme of the prayer does not correspond to the context, which would seem to require a prayer for illumination, cf. 2:20 ff., and not a liturgical confession bearing on the national catastrophe. Further, Dan.’s prayer for immediate redemption is in contrast to the recognition of the far distance of that event, 8:26 and end of this chap. It is pointed out that 5:4a repeats 5:3 and especially that 5:20 is a joint with the main narrative, which is resumed in 5:21; this would explain the repetition: “while I was speaking and praying and confessing” “while I was speaking in prayer.” The present writer agrees with Kamp. [Kamphausen] in finding these arguments inconclusive. The second-century author may well have himself inserted such a prayer in his book for the encouragement of the faithful, even as the calculation of the times was intended for their heartening…. For an elaborate study of the Prayer, defending its authenticity and also arguing for its dependence on the Chronicler, S. Bayer, Daniel-studien, Part 1.[20]

The critics’ argument is based on the false premise that Jeremiah’s seventy years and the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24–27 are the same. Because Daniel distinguishes these two periods, it is argued that the material is an interpolation. But it is the critics who are wrong, not Daniel. The alleged copying from a common source on the part of Daniel, Nehemiah, and Baruch is better explained by the fact that Daniel was written first (sixth century B.C.) and that Nehemiah and Baruch had Daniel before them. Again, it is the critics’ theories that are the basis of their argument, and the theories are in error. Daniel’s critics argue in a circle. Assuming a second-century date for Daniel, they then criticize the book for not harmonizing with their erroneous premises. However, the unity and beauty of this passage are its own defense.

THE COMING OF THE ANGEL GABRIEL (9:20–23)

9:20–23 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my plea before the LORD my God for the holy hill of my God, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. He made me understand, speaking with me and saying, “O Daniel, I have now come out to give you insight and understanding. At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision.”

The answer to Daniel’s prayer was already on its way even while he was still making it. Verse 20 implies that the angel Gabriel was sent at the very beginning of his prayer. According to verse 21, Gabriel came about the time of the evening sacrifice. It is obvious that the prayer recorded here is only a summary of the actual prayer, which probably was lengthy and culminated at the time of the evening sacrifice.

The reference to “the man Gabriel” is not a denial that he is an angel, but serves to identify him with the vision of Daniel 8:15–16. The term man (Heb. ’ish) is also used in the sense of a servant.[21] And, as Wood notes, it is possible that ’ish was used because “he appeared in human form….”[22] As brought out in chapter 8, there is an interesting play upon the thought here. Leupold notes: “The term ‘Gabriel’ means ‘man of God,’ but with this difference: the first root, gebher, means ‘man’ as the strong one, and the second root, ’el, means the ‘Strong God.’”[23] In other words, this expression could be translated “the servant, the strong one of the strong God.” Daniel identified Gabriel as the one he had seen in his earlier vision in chapter 8. Gabriel, according to Daniel, “came to me in swift flight,” and arrived at the time of the evening sacrifice. The Hebrew for “came … In swift flight” is difficult. The thought is that God directed Gabriel to go immediately to Daniel at the beginning of his petition.

It is a touching observation that Gabriel arrived at the time of the evening sacrifice. There had been no evening sacrifice for half a century since the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C.; but in Daniel’s youth, he had seen the smoke rise from the temple into the afternoon sky with its reminder that God accepts a sinful people on the basis of a sacrifice offered on their behalf. This sacrifice usually began about 3 P.M., and consisted of a perfect yearling lamb offered as a whole burnt offering accompanied by meal and drink offerings. All of this typified the future sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross as the spotless Lamb of God (Heb. 9:14). As the evening sacrifice was also a stated time for prayer, Daniel was encouraged to pray. Just as God in a sense met the spiritual need of His people at the time of the sacrifice, so Gabriel was sent by God to meet Daniel’s special need at this time and to remind him of God’s mercy.

Gabriel stated that the purpose of his coming was to give Daniel “insight and understanding” (v. 22). Daniel’s prayer was not specifically directed to his own need of understanding God’s dealings with Israel, but this was the underlying assumption of his entire prayer. God wanted to assure Daniel of His unswerving purpose to fulfill all His commitments to Israel, including their ultimate restoration. The commandment to Gabriel to go apparently came from God Himself, although conceivably he might have been sent by Michael the Archangel. Because of the magnitude of the revelation that follows, however, it is better to ascribe it to God Himself. Gabriel had come to show Daniel what was necessary to understand the entire matter of Israel’s program, and specifically, to consider the vision of the seventy weeks described in the verses that follow. Gabriel also spoke of Daniel’s special relationship to the Lord as one who was “greatly loved.” In many spiritual and moral characteristics Daniel was like the apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23). The long preamble of twenty-three verses leading up to the great revelation of the seventy weeks is, in itself, a testimony to the importance of this revelation. The stage is now set for Gabriel to reveal to Daniel God’s purposes for Israel, culminating in Christ’s second coming to establish His kingdom on the earth.

THE REVELATION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF ISRAEL (9:24)

9:24 “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.”

The concluding four verses of Daniel 9 contain one of the most important prophecies of the Old Testament. Although many divergent interpretations have been advanced to explain this prophecy, they may first be divided into two major divisions, namely, the Christological and the non-Christo-logical views.

The non-Christological approach may be subdivided into the liberal critical view and the conservative amillennial view. Liberal critics, assuming that Daniel is a forgery, find in this chapter that the pseudo-Daniel confused the seventy years of Israel’s captivity with the seventy weeks of Gabriel’s vision. As Montgomery summarizes the matter in the introduction to chapter 9, “Dan., having learned from the Sacred Books of Jer.’s prophecy of the doom of seventy years’ desolation for the Holy City, a term that was now naturally drawing to an end (1.2), sets himself to pray for the forgiveness of his people’s sin and the promised deliverance (3–19). The angel Gabriel appears to him (20–21), and interprets the years as year-weeks, with detail of the distant future and of the crowning epoch of the divine purpose (22–27).”[24] For Montgomery, this is not prophecy at all but merely presented by the pseudo-Daniel as if it were. Whatever fulfillment there is, it is a fulfillment in history largely accomplished in the life and persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes.[25] In his summary, Montgomery states,

The history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is the Dismal Swamp of O. T. criticism. The difficulties that beset any “rationalistic” treatment of the figures are great enough, but the critics on this side of the fence do not agree among themselves; but the trackless wilderness of assumptions and theories and efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology. As we have seen, the early Jewish and Christian exegesis came to interpret that datum eschatologically and found it fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem; only slowly did the theme of prophecy of the Advent of Christ impress itself upon the Church, along with the survival, however, of other earlier themes. The early Church rested no claims upon the alleged prophecy, but rather remarkably ignored it in a theological atmosphere surcharged with Messianism. The great Catholic chronographers naturally attacked the subject with scientific zeal, but their efforts as well as those of all subsequent chronographers (including the great Scalinger and Sir Isaac Newton) have failed.[26]

In other words, Montgomery, for all of his scholarship and knowledge of the history of interpretation, ends up with no reasonable interpretation at all.

Goldingay takes a slightly different approach, but arrives at essentially the same conclusion. “A fundamental objection to such attempts either to vindicate or to fault Daniel’s figures is that both are mistaken in interpreting the 490 years as offering chronological information. It is not chronology but chronography: a stylized scheme of history used to interpret historical data rather than arising from them….”[27] In essence he seems to argue that no precise historical fulfillment can be found because one was never intended. But such a view ignores precise historical markers at the beginning of the chapter (vv. 1–2) as well as Gabriel’s announcement that what follows was God’s answer to Daniel’s prayer, designed to give Daniel “insight and understanding.” The vision must relate to Daniel’s prayer for the ultimate restoration of the Jewish people, the city of Jerusalem, and the temple.

Some conservative scholars have done no better, however, as illustrated by Young. He treats the Scriptures with reverence, but finds no satisfactory conclusion for the seventy weeks of the prophecy and leaves it more or less like Montgomery, without a satisfactory explanation.[28]

The conservative interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27 usually regards the time units as years. “Weeks” is literally “sevens,” and can refer to a week of days (i.e., 7 days, Gen. 29:27) or to a week of years (Lev. 25:8). The decision is, however, by no means unanimous. Some amillenarians, like Young, who have trouble fitting this into their system of eschatology, consider this an indefinite period of time and leave the issue somewhat open. Further, as Young points out, the word sevens is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels “it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense.”[29]

Most commentators agree that the time unit is not days. Further, the fact that there were seventy years of captivity, discussed earlier in the chapter, would seem to imply that years were also here in view.[30] The interpretation of years is at least preferable to days, as Young comments: “The brief period of 490 days would not serve to meet the needs of the prophecy, upon any view. Hence, as far as the present writer knows, this view is almost universally rejected.”[31]

Leupold, also an amillenarian, says: “Since the week of creation, ‘seven’ has always been the mark of divine work in the symbolism of numbers. ‘Seventy’ contains seven multiplied by ten, which, being a round number, signifies perfection, completion. Therefore, ‘seventy heptads’—7 × 7 × 10—is the period in which the divine work of greatest moment is brought to perfection. There is nothing fantastic or unusual about this to the interpreter who has seen how frequently the symbolism of numbers plays a significant part in the Scriptures.”[32] In view of the precision of the seventy years of the captivity, however, the context indicates the probability of a more literal intention in the revelation.

The conclusion of orthodox Jewry, obviously non-Christological, is that the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 end with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This, of course, also does not give an adequate explanation of the text.

The overwhelming consensus of scholarship, however, agrees that the time unit should be considered years. It is normal for lexicographical authorities in the field of Hebrew to define the time unit as “period of seven (days, years),” and “heptad, weeks.”[33] The English word “weeks” here is misleading, since the Hebrew is actually the plural of the word for seven without specifying whether it is days, months, or years. The only system of interpretation, however, that gives any literal meaning to this prophecy is to regard the time units as prophetic years of 360 days each, according to the Jewish custom of having years of 360 days with an occasional extra month inserted to correct the calendar as needed. The seventy times seven is, therefore, 490 years beginning with “the word to restore and to build Jerusalem” (v. 25) and culminating 490 years later. (A full discussion can be found in an excursis at the end of the chapter.)

In view of the great variety of opinions that find no Christological fulfillment at all in this passage, the interpreter necessarily must approach the Christological interpretation with some caution. Here again, however, diversity of opinion is found even though there is general agreement that the prophecy somehow relates to the Messiah of Israel. All Christological interpretations tend to interpret the first sixty-nine weeks as literal. The division comes on the interpretation of the seventieth week. Amillenarians generally regard it as following immediately after the sixty-ninth week and, therefore, already fulfilled in history. The other point of view regards the seventieth week as separated from the earlier sequence of years and scheduled for fulfillment in the future in the seven years preceding Christ’s second advent. Although many minor variations can be found, the principal question in the Christological interpretation of this text concerns the nature of fulfillment of the last seven years.

The prophetic period of time in question is declared to be “decreed,” which comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to cut, divide.”[34] The idea is that the time period has been divided out or determined. The following timeline, as laid out by Gabriel, will occur because God has marked it out and determined it to be so. But can these weeks of years correspond to actual dates on a calendar? While Goldingay doesn’t believe they can, he acknowledges that “Ancient and modern interpreters have commonly taken vv. 24–27 as designed to convey firm chronological information, which as such can be tested by chronological facts available to us.”[35]

A very important aspect of the prophecy is that the seventy weeks relate to Daniel’s people and his city, Israel and Jerusalem. God’s answer corresponds to Daniel’s prayer, for these were the very subjects of his intercession (cf. vv. 16–19). Even in ruins, Jerusalem remained set apart in the heart of God (cf. 9:20) and Daniel shared this love for the city that is central in God’s program for His kingdom both in the past and the future. Unlike the prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, and 8, which primarily related to the Gentiles, this chapter is specifically God’s program for the people of Israel. To make this equivalent to the church composed of both Jews and Gentiles is to read into the passage something foreign to Daniel’s whole thinking. The church as such has no relation to the city of Jerusalem, or to the promises given specifically to Israel relating to their restoration and repossession of the land.

Gabriel enumerated six important purposes that God would accomplish during the period of the seventy weeks: (1) “to finish the transgression”; (2) “to put an end to sin”; (3) “to atone for iniquity”; (4) “to bring in everlasting righteousness”; (5) “to seal both vision and prophet”; and (6) “to anoint a most holy place.”

These six items are comprehensive in nature, and deserve to be considered in some detail. The first three deal with sin named in three ways. The expression “to finish” is derived from the piel verb form of the root kālâ, “to finish,” in the sense of bringing to an end. The most obvious meaning is that Israel’s course of apostasy and sin and dispersion over the face of the earth will be brought to completion within the seventy weeks. The restoration of Israel that Daniel sought in his prayer will ultimately have its fulfillment in this concept.

The second aspect of the program, “to put an end to sin,” may be taken either in the sense of taking away sins or bringing sin to final judgment.[36] Due to a variation in textual reading, another possibility is to translate it “to seal up sin.” Keil translates this aspect, “to seal up sin,” and states, “The figure of the sealing stands here in connection with the shutting up in prison. Cf. ch. 6:18, the king for greater security sealed up the den into which Daniel was cast. Thus also God seals the hand of man that it cannot move, Job 37:7, and the stars that cannot give light, Job 9:7…. The sins are here described as sealed, because they are altogether removed out of the sight of God.”[37]

The final explanation may include all of these items because the eschatological conclusion of Israel’s history does indeed bring an end to their previous transgressions, brings their sin into judgment, and also introduces the element of forgiveness.[38]

The third aspect of the program, “to atone for iniquity,” seems to be a rather clear picture of the cross on which Christ reconciled Israel as well as the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). As far as the Old Testament revelation of reconciliation is concerned, lexicographers and theologians have understood the Hebrew word kipper (atone), when used in relation to sin, to mean to “cover,” to “wipe out,” to “make … as harmless, non-existent, or inoperative, to annul (so far as God’s notice or regard is concerned), to withdraw from God’s sight, with the attached ideas of reinstating in His favour, freeing from sin, and restoring to holiness.”[39]

While the basic provision for reconciliation was made at the cross, the actual application of it is again associated with Christ’s second advent as far as Israel is concerned. Therefore, an eschatological explanation is possible for this phrase as well as a historical fulfillment. Peters relates Christ’s sacrifice to the kingdom specifically:

Following the Word step by step, it will be found that the sacrifice forms an eternal basis for the Kingdom itself. For it constitutes the Theocratic King, a Saviour, who now saves from sin without violation or lessening of the law, He having died “the just for the unjust,” and even qualifies Him as such a King, so that in virtue of His obedience unto death He is given authority over all enemies, and to restore all things…. The sacrifice affects the restoration of the Jewish nation; for when the happy time comes that they shall look upon Him whom they have pierced, faith in that sacrifice shall also in them bring forth the peaceable fruits of righteousness. The allegiance of the nations, and all the Millennial and New Jerusalem descriptions are realized as resultants flowing from this sacrifice being duly appreciated and gratefully, yea joyfully, acknowledged. It is ever the inexhaustible fountain from whence the abundant mercies of God flow to a world redeemed by it.[40] [italics in original]

The final three items enumerated by Gabriel focus on the positive aspects of God’s prophetic program for His people, His city, and His sanctuary.[41] The fourth aspect of the program is “to bring in everlasting righteousness.” There is a sense in which this also was accomplished by Christ in His first coming in that He provided a righteous ground for God’s justification of the sinner. The many messianic passages, however, that view righteousness as being applied to the earth at the time of Christ’s second coming may be the ultimate explanation. Jeremiah stated, “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness’” (Jer. 23:5–6). The righteous character of the messianic kingdom is also pictured in Isaiah 11:2–5 (cf. Isa. 53:11; Jer. 33:15–18).

The fifth aspect of the prophetic program about to be revealed to Daniel is “to seal both vision and prophet.” This is probably best understood to mean the termination of unusual direct revelation by means of vision and oral prophecy. This expression indicates that no more is to be added and that what has been predicted will receive divine confirmation in the form of actual fulfillment. Once a letter is sealed, its contents are irreversible (cf. 6:8). Young applies this only to the Old Testament prophet,[42] but it is preferable to include in it the cessation of the New Testament prophetic gift seen both in oral prophecy and in the writing of the Scriptures. If the seventieth week is still eschatological, it would allow room for this interpretation.

The sixth aspect of the prophecy, “to anoint a most holy place,” has been referred to the dedication of the temple built by Zerubbabel, to the sanctification of the altar previously desecrated by Antiochus (1 Macc. 4:52–56), and even to the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:1–27).[43] Young suggests that it refers to Christ Himself as anointed by the Spirit.[44] Keil and Leupold prefer to refer it to the new holy of holies in the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:1–3).[45] Gaebelein, expressing a premillennial view, believes the phrase “has nothing whatever to do with Him [Christ], but it is the anointing of the Holy of Holies in another temple, which will stand in the midst of Jerusalem,” that is, the millennial temple (Ezek. 43:1–5).[46]

There is really no ground for dogmatism here. The suggestion that it refers to the holy of holies in the New Jerusalem has much to commend itself. On the other hand, the other items all seem to be fulfilled before the second advent, and the seventieth week itself concludes at that time. If fulfillment is necessary before the second advent, it would probably rule out Keil, Leupold, and Gaebelein, although millennial fulfillment could be regarded as part of the second advent. The six items are not in chronological order, so it would not violate the text to have this prophecy fulfilled at any time in relation to the consummation. If complete fulfillment is found in Antiochus Epiphanes, as liberal critics conclude, or in Christ’s first coming as characterizes amillenarians like Young, this reduces the perspective. But if the final seven years is still eschatologically future, it broadens the possibility of fulfillment to the second advent of Christ and events related to it such as the millennial temple.

THE FULFILLMENT OF THE SIXTY-NINE WEEKS (9:25)

9:25 “Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty–two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.”

The specific sequence of events begins with “the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem.” Daniel was to “know” the main facts of this prophecy, but it is questionable whether he actually understood it. Daniel later confessed that he did not understand every aspect of what had been revealed to him (Dan. 12:8), although the general assurance of God’s divine purpose must have comforted him. The history of the interpretation of these verses confirms the fact that this prophecy is difficult and requires spiritual discernment.

The key to the interpretation of the entire passage is found in the phrase “from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem.” The question of the terminus a quo, the date on which the seventy sevens begin, is obviously most important both in interpreting the prophecy and in finding suitable fulfillment. The date is identified as being the one in which a commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem is issued.

As the history of the interpretation of this verse illustrates, a number of interpretations are theoretically possible. Young says the above expression “has reference to the issuance of the word, not from a Persian ruler but from God.”[47] Young goes on to point out that the expression “the word” (Heb. dābār; cf. 2 Chron. 30:5) is also found in Daniel 9:23 for a word from God. He argues, “It seems difficult, therefore, to assume that here, two vv. later, another subject should be introduced without some mention of the fact.”[48]

It is rather obvious, however, that another subject has been introduced in verse 24 and the two commandments are quite different—that of verse 23 having to do with Gabriel being sent to Daniel and verse 25 having to do with the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Most expositors recognize that the word or commandment mentioned here is a commandment of men even though it may reflect the will of God and be in keeping with the prophetic word. Several commands were issued by the Persians in reference to Jerusalem:[49]

1. Ezra 1:1–4; 2 Chronicles 36:22–23. In 538 B.C. Cyrus king of Persia issued a decree to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. The “house of the LORD” to be rebuilt is specifically said to be located in Jerusalem, but there is no mention in the decree of rebuilding the city itself. This also seems to be supported by the Cyrus Cylinder that records a similar command from Cyrus that allowed for the return of refugees and the rebuilding of sanctuaries but that made no mention of rebuilding cities. “I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations.”[50]

2. Ezra 4:1–24. Ezra 4 provides a summary of several attempts to thwart the remnant who had returned from captivity. Though the passage begins and ends with the opposition that continued from Cyrus to Darius I (4:5, 24), the writer included events that extended beyond the time of the rebuilding of the temple, including attempts to rebuild Jerusalem, and this has caused some confusion. In 4:4–5 Ezra notes there was opposition during the reigns of Cyrus (559–530 B.C.) and Darius I (522–486 B.C.). He then described additional incidents of opposition (4:6–23) that occurred during the reigns of Xerxes (486–465 B.C.) and Artaxerxes I (465–424 B.C.). These specific events took place years after the completion of the temple. Then in 4:24 Ezra returned to the historical narrative regarding the rebuilding of the temple.

In the middle of the narrative on the temple Ezra did record one command issued by the Persians regarding the city of Jerusalem. In 464 B.C. the enemies of the Jews wrote to King Artaxerxes accusing the Jews of “rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations” (Ezra 4:12). Artaxerxes then issued a decree “that these men be made to cease” (4:21). The temple had been completed by this time, but no permission had yet been given to rebuild the city. This command specifically prohibited the Jews from rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. And in light of the city’s continued state of disrepair twenty years later (Neh. 1:3) it is likely the charges made to the king that the Jews were “finishing the walls” had been wildly exaggerated.

3. Ezra 5:1–6:15. In 520 B.C. the Jews began rebuilding the temple. The governor of the region sent a letter of inquiry to King Darius asking if a decree had been issued allowing the work to go forward. Darius responded by reaffirming the earlier decree of Cyrus: “Let the work on this house of God alone. Let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews rebuild this house of God on its site” (Ezra 6:7). There is no mention in the correspondence regarding any command to rebuild the city itself.

4. Ezra 7:13–26. In 457 B.C. King Artaxerxes sent Ezra to Jerusalem “to make inquiries about Judah and Jerusalem according to the Law of your God” (Ezra 7:14), but the remainder of the decree focused specifically on the temple and service of worship. Ezra was to use royal funds to purchase sacrifices and to deliver additional vessels “for the service of the house of your God” (7:19). Though the king’s edict does mention Jerusalem, there seems to be insufficient evidence to relate this directly to the prediction of Daniel 9.[51]

5. Nehemiah 2:1–6. In 444 B.C.[52] King Artaxerxes sent Nehemiah to Jerusalem. Nehemiah asked permission to go because he had heard that “the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates are destroyed by fire” (Neh. 1:3). Nehemiah specifically asked permission to go to “Judah, to the city of my fathers’ graves, that I may rebuild it” (2:5). This is the first and only royal decree granting permission to “restore and build Jerusalem” (Dan. 9:25).

The amillennial interpretation of this passage, however, has usually considered the decree of Cyrus in 538 B.C. as the decree to rebuild the city and the wall. While acknowledging that 2 Chronicles and Ezra do not specifically mention a command to rebuild the city, they note what God predicted in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:13, remarkable prophecies given concerning Cyrus 150 years before he came on the scene. According to Isaiah 44:28, God said of Cyrus, “‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose’; even saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built;’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’” In 45:13 God said of Cyrus, “[He] shall build my city and set my exiles free.”

Although Cyrus is not specifically identified in 45:13, God identified him by name as his “anointed” in verse 1. Young believes these verses indicate Cyrus did authorize the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and he finds confirmation of this in the statement in Ezra 4:12, where the enemies of Israel accuse the Jews of “rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations.” Young, accordingly, concludes, “It is not justifiable to distinguish too sharply between the building of the city and the building of the temple. Certainly, if the people had received permission to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple, there was also implied in this permission to build for themselves homes in which to dwell. There is no doubt whatever but that the people thus understood the decree (cf. Haggai 1:2–4).”[53]

The question whether Jerusalem was rebuilt is answered in the graphic description of Nehemiah, which Young does not mention, that pictures the city in utter ruins (Neh. 2:12–15). He describes the walls as broken down, the gates burned, and the streets so full of debris that his mount could not get through. In his challenge to the people, Nehemiah said, “You see the trouble we are in, how Jerusalem lies in ruins with its gates burned. Come, let us build the wall of Jerusalem, that we may no longer suffer derision” (Neh. 2:17). Later, the people cast lots so that one in ten would have to move to Jerusalem and build a house there (Neh. 11:1).

It is rather evident, when all the evidence is in, that Jerusalem was not rebuilt in the sixth century B.C.—although the rebuilding of the temple was indeed the first step toward the restoration of the city and nation. The prophecies of Isaiah relating to Cyrus need to be understood in light of the more explicit information recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22–23 and Ezra 1:1–4. It is most significant that none of the proclamations in 2 Chronicles or Ezra mention the city, only the temple.

Accordingly, the best explanation for the terminus ad quo in Daniel 9:25 is the decree relating to the rebuilding of Jerusalem itself given in Nehemiah 2:1–6, about ninety years after the first captives returned and started building the temple.

Many commentators identify this reference as the royal edict of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who reigned over Persia 465–425 B.C., and who not only commanded the rebuilding of Jerusalem in 444 B.C. but earlier had commissioned Ezra to return to Jerusalem in 457 B.C. (Ezra 7:11–26).[54] The date 444 B.C. is based on the reference in Nehemiah 2:1ff. stating that the decree was issued in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. As his reign began in 465 B.C., twenty years later would be either 445 or 444 B.C. Most scholars accept the 445 B.C. date for Nehemiah’s decree, though the 444 B.C. date fits best with the Tishri dating system for Nehemiah proposed by Hoehner.[55]

The ultimate decision, to some extent, has to be determined by the fulfillment of the prophecy as a whole. Young’s explanation beginning it with the decree of Cyrus in 538 B.C. does not permit any reasonably literal interpretation of this prophecy. The 483 years that would then begin in 538 B.C., anticipated in the sixty-nine times seven years, would end in the middle of the first century B.C. when there was no significant event whatever to mark its close. This view makes any exact fulfillment impossible.

In verse 25, Daniel was introduced to two periods of time that are immediately consecutive: first a period of seven sevens, or forty-nine years, and then a period of sixty-two sevens, or 434 years. There is no clear indication as to why the two periods are distinguished, except that Gabriel added that Jerusalem “shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.” In making a hard division between these two time periods it seems the ESV translators have departed from their philosophy of producing an “essentially literal” translation. A better literal rendering would be “Know and understand. From the going forth of a word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, [will be] seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.” The two time periods are connected and precede the coming of the Messiah or anointed one.

The first forty-nine-year period (“seven weeks”) does not fit Young’s explanation, since the period between the decrees of Cyrus (538 B.C.) and of Darius (520 B.C.) obviously was not forty-nine years. The best explanation seems to be that beginning with Nehemiah’s decree and the building of the wall, it took a whole generation to clear out all the debris in Jerusalem and restore it as a thriving city. This might well be the fulfillment of the forty-nine years, since Nehemiah said the city’s streets were so filled with debris that they were impassible in places. That this was accomplished in “a troubled time” is fully documented by the book of Nehemiah itself. Although the precise fulfillment is not a major item and only the barest of details are given, the important point seems to be the question of when the sixty-nine sevens (“seven weeks … and sixty-two weeks”) actually end. If the prophecy begins in 444 B.C., the date of Nehemiah’s decree, what is the end point?

Anderson has made a detailed study of a possible chronology for this period, beginning with the assumed date of 445 B.C. when the decree to Nehemiah was issued and culminating in A.D. 32 on the very day of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem shortly before His crucifixion. Anderson specifies that the seventy sevens began on the first of Nisan (March 14) 445 B.C. and ended on the tenth of Nisan (April 6), A.D. 32. The complicated computation is based upon prophetic years of 360 days totaling 173,880 days. This would be exactly 483 years according to biblical chronology.[56]

That Sir Robert Anderson is right in building upon a 360-day year seems to be attested by the Scriptures (see accompanying chart and the excursis at the end of the chapter). It is customary for the Jews to have twelve months of 360 days each and then to insert a thirteenth month occasionally when necessary to correct the calendar. The use of the 360-day year is confirmed by the forty-two months of the great tribulation (Rev. 11:2; 13:5) being equated with 1,260 days (Rev. 11:3; 12:6). While the details of Anderson’s arguments may be debated, the plausibility of a literal interpretation, which begins the period in 445 B.C. and culminates just before the death of Christ, makes this view very attractive.

The principal difficulty is Anderson’s conclusion that the death of Christ occurred in A.D. 32. While there has been uncertainty as to the precise year of Christ’s death based upon present evidence, most New Testament chronologers move it one or two years earlier, and plausible attempts have been made to adjust Anderson’s chronology to A.D. 30.[57] But no one has been able dogmatically to declare that Anderson’s computations are impossible. Accordingly, the best end point for the sixty-nine sevens is shortly before Christ’s death anticipated in Daniel 9:26 as following the sixty-ninth seven. Practically all expositors agree that the crucifixion occurred after the sixty-ninth seven.

More recently, Dr. Harold Hoehner refined and updated the calculations of Anderson, based on additional historical information.[58] He validated the basic methodology employed by Anderson while resolving some issues in Anderson’s chronology that he saw as problematic. Based on his revision, he believes the dates for the sixty-nine weeks of Daniel 9:25 extended from the first of Nisan (March 5) 444 B.C. to the tenth of Nisan (March 30) A.D. 33. (See the following chart for specific details.)

PROPHESIED EVENTS AFTER THE SIXTY-NINTH WEEK (9:26)

9:26 “And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.”

As noted earlier, the “sixty-two weeks” is best understood as being connected chronologically with the “seven weeks,” with both identifying the length of the time period between the command to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the “anointed one.” The ESV translation is unfortunate in this regard because it interjects a note of interpretive confusion that implies the “anointed one” was to arise after just “seven weeks.”

Most conservative expositors have interpreted “the anointed one” as a reference to Jesus Christ, who was “cut off” by His death on the cross. The verb rendered “to cut off” has the meaning “to destroy, to kill,” for example, in Genesis 9:11; Deuteronomy 20:20; Jeremiah 11:19; and Psalm 37:9.[59]

The word “anointed” was used of priests (Lev. 4:3, 5); Saul (1 Sam. 12:1–3; 24:5–6); David (2 Sam. 22:51; 23:1); the kings of Israel in general (1 Sam. 2:10; Lam. 4:20); Cyrus (Isa. 45:1); and of the future Messiah who was to come from the line of David (Pss. 2:2; 132:17–18). It initially referred to the fact that oil was poured over the heads of the priests (Exod. 28:41) and the kings (1 Sam. 10:1; 16:12–13) to set them apart to their responsibility before God. Ultimately, the word came to refer to the future king from the line of David who would arise to fulfill all God’s promises to Israel, that is, Jesus Christ.[60] It seems best to understand Daniel using the word in this sense, especially since he identifies the Messiah as the future “leader,” a term used of Israel’s past kings like Saul (1 Sam. 9:16) and David (1 Sam. 13:14). Daniel’s audience would have understood “anointed leader” in a messianic context.

The prominence of the Messiah in Old Testament prophecy and the mention of Him in both verses 25 and 26 make the cutting off of the Messiah one of the important events in the prophetic unfolding of God’s plan for Israel and the world. How tragic that, when the promised King came, He was “cut off.” The adulation of the crowd at Christ’s triumphal entry and the devotion of those who had been touched by His previous ministry were all to no avail. Israel’s unbelief and the calloused indifference of her religious leaders when confronted with the claims of Christ combined with the hardness of heart of Gentile rulers to make this the greatest of tragedies.

Christ was indeed not only “cut off” from man and from life, but in His cry on the cross indicated that He was forsaken of God. The plaintive cry “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46) reveals not only the awfulness of separation from God, but points also to the answer—the redemptive purpose. The additional phrase in verse 26 “[he] shall have nothing” means that nothing which rightly belonged to Jesus as Messiah the Prince was given to Him at that time.[61] He had not come into His full reward or the exercise of His regal authority. He was the sacrificial Lamb of God sent to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Outwardly it appeared that evil had triumphed.

Although evangelical expositors have generally agreed that the reference is to Jesus Christ, a division has occurred as to whether the event here described comes in the seventieth seventh described in the next verse, or whether it occurs in an interim or parenthetical period between the sixty-ninth seventh and the seventieth seventh. Two theories have emerged: the “continuous fulfillment” theory posits that the seventieth seven immediately follows the sixty-ninth; and the “gap” or “parenthesis” theory argues that there is a period of time between the sixty-ninth seven and the seventieth seven. If the fulfillment is continuous, then the seventieth week is already history. If there is a gap, there is a possibility that the seventieth week is still future. On this point, a great deal of discussion has emerged.

Once again, the fulfillment of the prophecy comes to our rescue. The center part of verse 26 states, “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The destruction of Jerusalem occurred in A.D. 70, almost forty years after the death of Christ. Although some expositors, like Young,[62] hold that the sacrifices were caused to cease by Christ in His death, which they consider fulfilled in the middle of the last seven years, it is clear that this does not provide in any way for the fulfillment of an event thirty-eight years or more after the end of the sixty-ninth seven. Young and others who follow the continuous fulfillment theory are left without any explanation adequate for interposing an event as occurring after the sixty-ninth seven by some thirty-eight years—which, in their thinking, would actually occur after the seventieth week since the temple is still standing in the final seven (Dan. 9:27). In a word, their theory does not provide any normal or literal interpretation of the text and its chronology.

The intervention of two events—namely, the cutting off of Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem—after the sixty-ninth seven, which in their historic fulfillment occupied almost forty years, makes necessary a gap between the sixty-ninth seven and the beginning of the seventieth seven. Those referred to as “the people of the prince who is to come” are obviously the Romans and in no sense do they belong to Messiah the Prince. Hence it follows that there are two princes: (1) the Messiah of verses 25 and 26, and (2) “the prince who is to come,” who is related to the Romans. That a second prince is required who is Roman in character and destructive to the Jewish people is confirmed in verse 27 (see following exegesis), which the New Testament declares to be fulfilled in relation to the second coming of Christ (Matt. 24:15).

The closing portion of verse 26 is not entirely clear. But it seems to indicate that the destruction of Jerusalem will be like the destruction of a flood and that desolations are sovereignly determined along with war until the end. Because of the reference to “the end” twice in verse 26, it would be contextually possible to refer this to the end of the age and to a future destruction of Jerusalem. Revelation 11:2 says, “The nations … will trample the holy city for forty-two months,” a probable reference to the great tribulation just before the second advent. However, there is no complete destruction of Jerusalem at the end of the age, as Zechariah 14:1–3 indicates that the city is in existence although overtaken by war at the very moment that Christ comes back in power and glory. Accordingly, it is probably better to consider all of verse 26 fulfilled historically.[63]

The same expression of an overflowing flood is used to denote warlike hosts who annihilate their enemies in Daniel 11:10, 22, 26, 40 and in Isaiah 8:8. This seems to be a general reference to the fact that from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, trouble, war, and desolation will be the normal experience of the people of Israel and will end only at “the decreed end” mentioned in verse 27, that is, the end of the seventieth seven. History has certainly corroborated this prophecy, for not only was Jerusalem destroyed but the entire civilization of the Jews in the land of Judea ceased to exist soon after the end of the sixty-ninth seven, and that desolation continued until recent times.

The prophesied events of verse 26, like those of verse 25, already have been fulfilled and constitute clear evidence of the accuracy of the prophetic word. The prophecy of verse 25 gives the high points in Israel’s history and provides the key to understanding this difficult prophecy. In contrast to the rather clear fulfillment of verses 25–26, verse 27 is an enigma as far as history is concerned, and only futuristic interpretation allows any literal fulfillment.

THE SEVENTIETH WEEK (9:27)

9:27 “And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

The divergence of interpretation between the non-Christological and Christological views of Daniel 9:24–27, and between the amillennial and premillennial views of the Christological interpretation, comes to a head in verse 27. Here the choice is clearly between literal fulfillment, which requires a futuristic interpretation with a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks, or several other options that admittedly do not provide any clear fulfillment of verse 27.

At least four other views have been advanced in opposition to the futuristic interpretation: (1) the liberal view that the seventieth seven is fulfilled in events following the Maccabean persecution just as the preceding sixty-nine sevens were;[64] (2) the view of Jewish scholars that the seventieth week is fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; (3) the view that the seventieth week of Daniel is an indefinite period beginning with Christ but extending to the end, often held by amillenarians;[65] and (4) the view that the seventieth seven is seven literal years beginning with the public ministry of Christ and ending about three and a half years after His death.[66]

The views that claim fulfillment largely in the past have their supporting arguments. But they have one common failure in that none provides literal fulfillment of the prophecy. The first view, the Maccabean fulfillment, is built on the premise that Daniel is a forgery and prophecy is impossible. The second and third views explain away problems by spiritualization and have no specific chronology. The numerical system of the seventy sevens becomes merely symbolic. The fourth view finds literal fulfillment of the first sixty-nine and one-half sevens, but no fulfillment of the climax.

Even Leupold, an amillenarian who considers the seventy sevens as extending to the second coming of Christ (third view), objects to the historic fulfillment of the seventy sevens: “All they have left for the last week and the consummation of the seventy year-weeks is an unimportant date seven years after Christ’s death, when something so unimportant happened that the commentators are at a loss as to what they should point to. That interpretation runs out into sand. No one has yet advanced a halfway satisfactory answer as to why such a termination of glorious work should be selected to close at the computation.”[67]

Leupold comes close to the premillennial interpretation as he identifies “the prince who is to come” (v. 26) with the one who is related to the covenant in verse 27. He states, “The person under consideration as making the covenant is … the Antichrist.”[68] Keil, after a lengthy discussion, presents the same view as Leupold: that is, the one making the covenant is the Antichrist. Keil concludes, “Therefore the thought is this: That [an] ungodly prince shall impose on the mass of the people a strong covenant that they should follow him and give themselves to him as their God.”[69]

The determination of the antecedent of “he” in verse 27 is the key to the interpretation of the passage. If the normal rule be followed that the antecedent is the nearest preceding possibility, it would go back to the “prince who is to come.” This is the normal premillennial interpretation that postulates that the reference is to a future prince who may be identified with the Antichrist, who will appear at the end of the interadvent age just before the second coming of Christ. This interpretation is also followed by amillenarians such as Keil and Leupold, as well as by Zöckler.[70]

A number of other interpretations, however, have been advanced. Montgomery believes the reference is to Antiochus Epiphanes, in keeping with his interpretation that the prophecy was fulfilled in the second century B.C. He states, “The historical background of the sentence so interpreted is clear: the clever diplomacy whereby Ant. made his bargain with the worldly majority, at least of the aristocracy, in Jerusalem. It may be noted that the Jewish comm., Ra. [Rashi], Aez. [Aben Ezra], Jeph. [Jephet], do not hesitate to interpret the covenant as of the treaty between the Jews and the Romans.”[71]

A second view is that “he” refers to Christ. This is supported by Young[72] and Mauro, who states, “If we take the pronoun ‘He’ as relating to ‘the Messiah’ mentioned in the preceding verse, then we find in the New Testament Scriptures a perfect fulfillment of the passage, and a fulfillment, moreover, which is set forth in the most conspicuous way. That pronoun must, in our opinion, be taken as referring to Christ, because (a) the prophecy is all about Christ, and this is the climax of it; (b) Titus did not make any covenant with the Jews; (c) there is not a word in Scripture about any future ‘prince’ making a covenant with them.”[73]

But Mauro begs the question, for this is the only passage on the seventy sevens of Israel. The question being debated is whether or not verse 27 deals with Christ; and to state dogmatically that “the prophecy is all about Christ” is precisely the matter in question. Nor is it unthinkable that a future ruler would make a covenant with Israel.

A third view has been suggested by Keil, who worded the sentence to read, “he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week,”[74] and cites support in Theodotion, Havernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, C. von Lengerke, and Hitzig. Keil states, “But this poetic mode of expression is only admissible where the subject treated of in the statement of the speaker comes after the action…. The confirming of the covenant is not the work of time, but the deed of a definite person.”[75]

Again, the difficulty with all these interpretations is that there is no seven-year period marked off in any clear way in history that has fulfilled the last unit of seven of Daniel’s prophecy. Those who identify “he” as Christ differ as to whether Christ actually confirmed the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31–37 as Mauro explains it,[76] or as Young interprets it, reconfirmed a covenant already in existence: “He shall cause to prevail a covenant for the many.”[77]

Ultimately, the question facing every expositor is what interpretation gives the most natural and intelligent exposition of the text. If it is not necessary to consider this literal prophecy, and the time units are not literal, a variety of interpretations immediately become possible. If the expositor desires to follow the text meticulously, however, there is really no alternative but to declare the entire seventieth seven as yet future, for there has been no seven-year period fulfilling the events of the prophecy, however labored the interpretation. This is usually conceded by those who make the last seven years an indefinite period that allows for still future interpretation.

It may be concluded that Antiochus Epiphanes does not satisfy the passage for anyone who accepts it as prophetic Scripture. Christ does not satisfy the description of verse 27 because there is no seven-year period related to Christ that provides fulfillment for the entire passage. On the other hand, the normal antecedent of “he” is “the prince who is to come.” This person is not the Roman general Titus whose forces destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but rather a future enemy of the people of Israel who will bring them into the great tribulation. This tribulation was anticipated as still future in the book of Revelation, which was written at least sixty years after the death of Christ and twenty years after the destruction of Jerusalem.

The precise prophecy of verse 27 indicates that the personage in view enters into a covenant relationship “with many,” literally, “with the many” (cf. “with the many,” Dan. 11:39; 12:2). This seems to be a reference to unbelieving Jews who will enter into an alliance with the coming prince. That they are Jews is indicated by “your people” (v. 24). If the preceding chronology is understood to involve literal years, this should also be a seven-year period. In a word, the prophecy is that there will be a future compact or covenant between a political ruler and the representatives of the Jewish people. This alliance will ultimately be to the detriment of the people of Israel, however promising it may seem to be at its inception.

The prophecy says that in the middle of the seven-year period the one who confirms the covenant “shall put an end to sacrifice and offering,” that is, all the bloody and non-bloody sacrifices. This could not refer to Christ at His death because, as a matter of fact, the sacrifices did not cease until A.D. 70, some forty years later. The sacrifices were not stopped by Christ, but by the Roman soldiers who destroyed the temple. This prophecy contemplates a yet future event similar in nature to the desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 165 B.C. But the desecration here in Daniel will be the beginning of the great tribulation of which Christ spoke in Matthew 24:15–26, obviously future from Christ’s point of view, and, therefore, not the desecration by Antiochus.

According to Christ, there will be a clear-cut event referred to as the abomination of desolation, similar to the language of 9:27, which will occur in the period just preceding His second advent. Christ said, “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (Matt. 24:15–16). The fulfillment of this prophecy necessarily requires the reactivation of the Mosaic sacrificial system in a rebuilt temple in Judea. The apostle Paul told the Thessalonians about a future time when a “man of lawlessness … takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thess. 2:3–4); and the apostle John, writing after the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, was told to measure a rebuilt “temple of God and the altar” that will apparently be reconstructed in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1–2). The present occupation of Jerusalem by Israel may be a preparatory step to the reestablishment of the Mosaic system of sacrifices. Obviously, sacrifices cannot be stopped and a temple cannot be desecrated unless both are in operation.

The last part of verse 27 seems to describe the temple’s desecration: “On the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate.” The Hebrew is rendered “abomination of desolation” in 1 Maccabees 1:54, Matthew 24:15, and Mark 13:14, and is supported by the most ancient translations including the Septuagint, Theodotion, and the Vulgate. identifying this expression in Daniel 9:27 with these other references as well as Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 makes the meaning here clear.

Many fantastic explanations have been given of the word “wing.” Keil, following Kliefoth, takes the wing as a reference “‘to idolatry with its abominations, because that shall be the power which lifts upward the destroyer and desolator, carries him, and moves with him over the earth to lay waste’ (Klief.).”[78] Young gives a more preferable view: “The word apparently refers to the pinnacle of the temple which has become so desecrated that it no longer can be regarded as the temple of the Lord, but as an idol temple…. The wing of the temple (Matt. 4:5; Luke 4:8) is the summit of the temple itself.”[79] Wood suggests translating the phrase “even unto the overspreading of” and suggests that it refers to the Antichrist “causing an overspreading influence, desolating in nature, for the whole Temple complex and probably beyond.”[80]

The word “abomination” used by Christ in Matthew 24:15 may be the same word used as an allusion to Antiochus in Daniel 11:31, but in Daniel 12:11 it clearly refers to the future stopping of the daily sacrifices, forty-two months before Christ’s second advent. In 12:11 the 1,290 days, actually one additional month beyond the forty-two months of persecution, seem to extend beyond the second advent to the beginning of the millennial kingdom and the resumption of sacrifices. That which Antiochus did in a small way will become a worldwide persecution of Israel and will include another stopping of their sacrifices in the future great tribulation.

According to Revelation 13, the future world ruler at the time of the great tribulation will not only take to himself absolute political power, but will demand the worship of the entire world, blaspheme the true God, and persecute the saints (Rev. 13:4–7). His period of great power will terminate at Christ’s return. Like the desolation of Daniel 9:27, which is going to continue until the end, the desolation according to this passage will continue until the end pictured dramatically in Revelation 19 when the beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire. This will be the completion of Daniel’s seventy sevens and coincides with Jesus Christ’s second advent.

In summary, Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy sevens includes the total history of Israel from the time of Nehemiah in 444 B.C. until the second coming of Jesus Christ. In the first period of seven sevens, the city and the streets are rebuilt, and after the end of the second period of sixty-two sevens that follow, the Messiah will appear. Then, in the parenthesis between the sixty-ninth seven and the seventieth seven, at least two major events take place: the cutting off of the Messiah (the death of Christ) and the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in A.D. 70. Actually, the whole present age intervenes.

The final period of seven years begins with the introduction of a covenant relationship between the future “prince who is to come” and “the many,” the people of Israel. This covenant is observed for the first half of the future seven-year period. Then the special liberties and protections granted Israel are taken away, and Israel suffers persecution in their time of great tribulation. The beginning of the last three and one-half years of Daniel’s seventieth seven is marked by the desecration of the future temple, the cessation of the sacrifices, and the desolation of the Jewish religion. Christ refers to this period as the great tribulation in Matthew 24:15–26.

The culmination of the entire prophecy of the seventy weeks is the second advent of Jesus Christ that closes the seventieth seven of Israel as well as the times of the Gentiles pictured in Daniel’s prophecies of the four great world empires. For most of the period, the two great lines of prophecy relating to the Gentiles and Israel run concurrently. And both end with the same major event—the second advent of Jesus Christ, when oppressed Israel is delivered and the oppressor, the Gentiles, are judged. With Israel today back in the land, the fulfillment of these prophecies may not be too distant.

Excursis: The Prophecy of the “Seventy Weeks”

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The historical context of Daniel 9 argues strongly for Daniel understanding the seventy “weeks” to refer to weeks of years—a total of 490 years. First, Daniel was studying the prophecies of Jeremiah that stated that Jerusalem’s desolation would last seventy years (Jer. 25:11–12; 29:10). The compiler of Chronicles explained that Israel’s captivity had to last seventy years “to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years” (2 Chron. 36:21). The “Sabbaths” being kept were the previously disregarded Sabbatical years that God had commanded so that the land would remain fallow (Lev. 25:1–5).

In the covenant curses God announced that the ultimate curse would be expulsion from the land. “Then the land shall enjoy its Sabbaths as long as it lies desolate, while you are in your enemies’ land; then the land shall rest, and enjoy its Sabbaths” (Lev. 26:34). It seems likely that Daniel understood that the seventy-year captivity was the fulfillment of the seventy Sabbatical years that Israel had failed to keep while in the land. In response to his prayer, God decreed that another “seventy sevens” must occur before God’s final restoration would be completed. In context, Daniel would have assumed the “weeks” also referred to Sabbatical years. Thus God was announcing an additional time period of 490 years (70 × 7).

Before any attempt can be made to match the prophecy to history, one must first understand the Jewish calendar.

UNDERSTANDING THE HEBREW CALENDAR

The Jewish calendar was based on three astronomical actions: the rotation of the earth on its axis, which produced days and weeks (cf. Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; Lev. 23:3); the revolution of the moon around the earth, which produced a month (Num. 28:11–15); and the revolution of the earth around the sun, which produced a year (Exod. 12:2; 40:17). But harmonizing these three was problematic since a lunar month is slightly longer than four seven-day weeks, and a solar year is slightly longer than 12 lunar months.

The concept of a calendar for measuring the passage of time is as Old as creation. In Genesis 1:14, on the fourth day of creation, God prepared the “lights” to serve as the localized holders of light (which He had created on the first day). These lights are identified as the sun, moon, and stars, and their purpose in creation was to “separate the day from the night” and to be for “signs and for seasons, and for days and years.” The cyclical pattern of nature divided time into day and night, and grouped days into longer periods that served to identify the seasons and the years.

While the rising and setting of the sun could track individual days, phases of the moon were used to track longer periods of time. A priest would watch the sky and announce when the first visible crescent of the moon appeared. This signified the beginning of the new month. A lunar calendar would produce months that alternated between 29 and 30 days. While this worked well for keeping track of events on a short-term basis, the lunar calendar would eventually conflict with the solar calendar because 12 lunar months (354 days) does not correspond exactly with one solar year. As a result, events on a 12-month lunar calendar “migrate” forward 11 days each year on a solar calendar.

Attaching fixed dates to a lunar calendar would cause severe problems in an agrarian society where worship was tied to specific times and events. For example, the Feast of Firstfruits was to begin in the first month of the year “on the day after the Sabbath” that signaled the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:4–14). But 12 lunar months later the feast would begin 11 days earlier in the solar year. Within a few years the Feast of Firstfruits would be held before the firstfruits of grain had even begun to ripen. (And after 16 years the Feast would be celebrated about the time the seed was being planted!)

To balance the lunar calendar with the solar year, those using the calendar needed to add an extra lunar month approximately seven times every 19 years. This additional month was referred to as an “intercalary month” and was inserted after the twelfth month in the calendar. (in Hebrew this was the month Adar.) Adding an intercalary month at somewhat regular intervals brought the lunar year back into alignment with the solar year.

The practice of adding an extra month every few years might seem strange in a Western culture using a solar calendar. However, those using the modern calendar do something similar when we add an extra day to our calendar every four years. The “normal” calendar year is modified on a regular basis to have it conform to the actual length of a solar year.

RECONCILING INTERCALARY MONTHS WITH FUTURE DATES

How would the practice of inserting an intercalary month impact one’s future reckoning of time? When looking forward, would individuals also think to add such months at irregular intervals, or would they assume a “normal” year with twelve 30-day months? This is important because it bears on how Daniel would have understood the message being delivered to him by Gabriel.

Herodotus, who lived about a century after Daniel, provides a somewhat contemporary illustration that offers some insight into the matter. He recorded a conversation between Solon the Athenian and Croesus of Sardis during the time of King Cyrus. Though the historicity of the conversation might be questioned, the description of how years and days are calculated is instructive.

“The limit of life for a man I lay down at seventy years. These seventy years give twenty-five thousand and two hundred days, not reckoning for any intercalated month. Then if every other one of these years shall be made longer by one month, that the seasons may be caused to come round at the due time of the year, the intercalated months will be in number five-and-thirty besides the seventy years; and of these months the days will be one thousand and fifty.”[81]

In this passage Solon reports that seventy years will extend for 25,200 days. But this is true only if one assumes each year is 360 days in length. Whether these words were actually spoken by Solon or placed into his mouth by Herodotus, they reflect the common understanding of a “normal” year being composed of twelve months, each of which has thirty days. Solon then addressed the reality that additional months must be added at regular intervals to harmonize the lunar calendar with the solar calendar—“that the seasons may be caused to come round at the due time.” But each of these additional months is assumed to have thirty days, so that thirty-five additional intercalated months resulted in 1,050 additional days.

HARMONIZING OTHER BIBLICAL REFERENCES

It seems reasonable to assume Daniel, and all subsequent readers, would have understood the time element in this prophecy to be referring to 490 “normal” years containing twelve 30-day months. But is there any support for such an interpretation in other prophetic passages? The books of Daniel and Revelation seem to provide that support.

In Daniel 7:25 the prophet announced that a little horn, referring to a future evil leader, would exert his authority “for a time, times, and half a time.” The best understanding of the passage is that it is referring to a time period three and a half years in length.[82] This same period of time is repeated in Daniel 12:7. The “time of trouble” (12:1) described there will continue until “the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end.” Daniel then added two additional time elements. First, the temple sacrifices will again be taken away for a period of “1,290 days” (12:11). Second, the persecuted saint “who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days” will be blessed (v. 12). These dates are examined in more detail later, but the point to note here is that both time periods are somehow related to the “time, times, and half a time.” They only make sense if “time” refers to a year—though at this point the exact length of that year remains undetermined.

In the book of Revelation the apostle John provides additional information that helps identify the length of a year more precisely. In 12:14 the nation Israel (pictured as “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” [12:1], from Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37:9–11) flees into the wilderness for “a time, and times, and half a time.” The passage is one of several in which John describes the persecution of Jewish people. The time element for the persecution is the same as that given by Daniel. But a few verses earlier John said the woman will be protected in the wilderness by God “for 1,260 days” (v. 6). For these verses to harmonize, the three-and-a-half-year period must be composed of 360-day years.

In Revelation 13:5 John makes the time element more specific. An evil leader, called the beast, “was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months.” During this time he is “allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them” (v. 7). The three-and-a-half-year persecution is said to be forty-two months in length. This assumes each year contains a total of twelve months.

Finally, in Revelation 11:2 John announces that the nations will “trample the holy city for forty-two months.” He then identified two prophets raised up by God during that period. “And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth” (v. 3). The three-and-a-half-year period is again said to be composed of forty-two months, each of which must have thirty days (42 × 30 = 1,260).

CONCLUSION

The prophecy of Daniel 9 forces interpreters to choose how they will approach the book. is the message prophecy or “pseudo-prophecy”? Should the numbers be taken literally or symbolically? Does the entire message find its fulfillment in the past, or do seven years of prophetic history still remain to be fulfilled?

Those who seek to interpret prophecy in its normal sense find in Daniel 9 a solid chronological bridge connecting God’s past covenant promises to Israel with His future fulfillment of those promises. They see a consistency between the timing of the events provided by Daniel and the first coming of the Messiah. And they see a clear link between the last half of the final week of years predicted by Daniel 9:27 and the 42 months and 1,260 days prophesied in the book of Revelation.

While some disparage “literalistic interpreters” who “purport to be able to draw charts of the entire sweep of human history,”[83] such gross mischaracterizations miss the point. Those who take a normal approach to interpreting Daniel 9 simply assume the chapter is doing what it is claiming to do—announcing God’s 490-year future plan for the Jewish people and Jerusalem. And by taking the text at face value they arrive at an interpretation that harmonizes with both the timing of Christ’s first advent and the additional revelation given by the apostle John regarding His second advent. Those who choose not to accept this interpretation offer a variety of reasons for doing so. But in the end Towner seems to share the real reason behind their rejection, when he writes, “Many, however, have rejected the notion that human history can disclose a meaningful divine plan. Human history belongs to humans, and it resonates with the clash of the human will for the preservation and enhancement of the species with the human will for self-destruction.”[84]

Ultimately, the crux of the struggle over interpreting prophetic passages like Daniel 9 begins with our presupposition about who is in control of human destiny—man or God.

NOTES

[1] Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 232.

[2] Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, 14th ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1954), iii.

[3] Cited by Wilbur M. Smith, “Jerusalem,” in The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Merrill C. Tenney, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 421.

[4] Cf. D. F. Payne, “Jerusalem,” The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 616.

[5] Harold W. Hoehner, “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Part 6: Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132, no. 1 (January–March 1975), 47–65.

[6] As Goldingay notes, “Because the prayer stands out from its context in its language, its use of the name Yahweh, its overtly Palestinian perspective, and its emphasis on the sin of Israel as a cause of their troubles, a number of scholars have followed von Gill in seeing the prayer as a later addition to chap 9 …” (John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. [Dallas: Word, 1989], 236–37).

[7] Stephen Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 242.

[8] Nelson Glueck, Hesedin the Bible, Alfred Gottscholk, ed., Gerald A. Larue, trans. (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1967); see also R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 305–7.

[9] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Daniel, 2 vols., Thomas Myers, trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852), 2:150.

[10] Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1850), 258.

[11] Wood, Daniel, 236.

[12] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 384.

[13] Frederick A. Tatford, The Climax of the Ages (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1953), 150.

[14] G. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Biblical Colloquium, 1955). For a more recent examination of the importance of these parallels to the dating of the Mosaic covenant, see K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 298–99.

[15] Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 138.

[16] James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 366–68; Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 188–89; Leupold, Daniel, 390ff.

[17] Montgomery, Daniel, 369.

[18] Young, Daniel, 188.

[19] Montgomery, Daniel, 361.

[20] Ibid., 362–63.

[21] Leupold, Daniel, 400.

[22] Wood, Daniel, 245.

[23] Leupold, Daniel, 105.

[24] Montgomery, Daniel, 358–59.

[25] Ibid., 390–401.

[26] Ibid., 400–1.

[27] Goldingay, Daniel, 257.

[28] Young, Daniel, 220–21.

[29] Ibid., 195.

[30] So Goldingay writes, “‘Seventy sevens’ presumably denotes ‘seventy times seven years,’ as the original ‘seventy’ of Jeremiah was explicitly a period of years (v. 2)” (Goldingay, Daniel, 257).

[31] Young, Daniel, 196.

[32] Leupold, Daniel, 409.

[33] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 988.

[34] Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, 334.

[35] Goldingay, Daniel, 257.

[36] Young, Daniel, 198–99; Cf. Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 342.

[37] Keil, Daniel, 342.

[38] Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 112.

[39] S. R. Driver, “Propitiation,” in A Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings, ed., vol. 4 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 131.

[40] George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 455–56.

[41] Wood, Daniel, 249–50.

[42] Young, Daniel, 200.

[43] Ibid., 200–1.

[44] Ibid., 201.

[45] Keil, Daniel, 349; Leupold, Daniel, 414–16.

[46] A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel (New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911), 133.

[47] Young, Daniel, 201.

[48] Ibid. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, however, allow dābār the meaning “word of command,” and translate it “edict” (A Hebrew and English Lexicon, 182).

[49] For more detailed information on these decrees, see Hoehner, “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks,” 52–59, and Archer, “Daniel,” 113–14.

[50] James B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 316.

[51] Some conservative scholars seek to make this connection. See, for example, Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 380; J. B. Payne, “Daniel,” The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Merrill C. Tenney, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 198; J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 521.

[52] Some date this event to 445 B.C. For a detailed discussion on the reason for taking a 444 B.C. date, see Hoehner, “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks,” 56–59.

[53] Young, Daniel, 203.

[54] Merrill F. Unger, New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, R. K. Harrison, ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 109.

[55] Hoehner, “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks,” 56–59.

[56] Anderson, The Coming Prince, 128.

[57] Leslie P. Madison, “Problems of Chronology in the Life of Christ” (unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1963).

[58] Hoehner, “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks,” 47–65.

[59] Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, 456–57.

[60] Ibid., 520–31.

[61] Wood, Daniel, 25.

[62] Young, Daniel, 208ff.

[63] See also Wood, Daniel, 256–57.

[64] Porteous, Daniel, 143.

[65] Young, Daniel, 208ff.; Leupold, Daniel, 431–40.

[66] Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (Boston: Scripture Truth Depot, 1923), 70ff.

[67] Leupold, Daniel, 436–37.

[68] Ibid., 431.

[69] Keil, Daniel, 367.

[70] Ibid., 373; Leupold, Daniel, 431; Otto Zöckler, “The Book of the Prophet Daniel,” in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, John Peter Lange, ed. (repr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 202.

[71] Montgomery, Daniel, 385.

[72] Young, Daniel, 209.

[73] Mauro, The Seventy Weeks, 81.

[74] Keil, Daniel, 365.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Mauro, The Seventy Weeks, 81–83.

[77] Young, Daniel, 208. Orig. In italics.

[78] Keil, Daniel, 372.

[79] Young, Daniel, 218.

[80] Wood, Daniel, 262–63.

[81] Herodotus, Histories 1.32.2–4.

[82] Wood, Daniel, 201–2.

[83] W. Sibley Towner, Daniel, Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Preaching and Teaching (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984), 145.

[84] Ibid.

10

Daniel’s Vision of the Glory of God

The final three chapters of the book of Daniel record an extensive revelation of the prophetic future that is without parallel in Scripture. This final vision is a grand prophetic panorama of events from the time of Cyrus to the final establishment of God’s kingdom. The entire panorama begins with an introduction (10:1–11:1), indicating the expansive character of the prophecy to follow. The next section, 11:2–12:4, is divided into two major divisions. The first, 11:2–35, deals with the immediate future, from Darius to Antiochus; and the second, 11:36–12:4, with the far future, the end times just before the second advent of Christ. A final message and revelation is given to Daniel in 12:5–13.

These last three chapters constitute Daniel’s fourth vision, gathering together the significant threads of prophecy, especially as they relate to the Holy Land and to the people of Israel.

THE SETTING OF DANIEL’S FOURTH VISION (10:1)

10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar. And the word was true, and it was a great conflict. And he understood the word and had understanding of the vision.

Almost every detail of this verse has been subject to debate. The date of the vision (536 B.C.) has been attacked as a discrepancy when compared with Daniel 1:21 where Daniel is said to have continued “until the first year of King Cyrus.” As was noted in the exposition of chapter 1, Daniel 1:21 does not say that Daniel died or terminated his career in Cyrus’s first year, but that he continued until this important event that introduced the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians. Although the Septuagint changes Daniel 10:1 to “the first year,” this is a needless harmonization.[1]

Critical objection has also been leveled at the expression “Cyrus king of Persia.” Montgomery says, “The designation of Cyrus as ‘king of Persia’ was not contemporary usage; the Pers. king was entitled ‘the king,’ ‘the great king,’ ‘king of kings,’ or after his conquest of the Babylonian empire ‘king of Babel,’ ‘king of the lands’; Dr. [Driver], Int., 345f. Cyrus was ‘the Persian king’ only later [according] to Hellenistic use.”[2] Although scholars agree that Cyrus was not normally called “king of Persia” under ordinary circumstances until later, at least one contemporary usage of the term has been found.[3] And, after all, why should not Cyrus be called “king of Persia” even if it was not the ordinary way of referring to him? Young states flatly, “This designation of Cyrus was contemporary usage (despite M [Montgomery]).”[4] Why should the scriptural designation have to conform precisely to ancient usage? The statement is clear and pinpoints the time of the vision.

It was in this third year of Cyrus, late in Daniel’s career (about seventy-two years after he had been carried away as a youth to Babylon), that this revelation came to him. By way of identification, his Babylonian name Belteshazzar was given to make clear that he was the same Daniel who was so named by Nebuchadnezzar many decades before.

The general nature of the revelation is described in the verses that follow. Daniel first affirmed that the message was true, as would be expected of a revelation from God. The second fact concerning the prophecy is that it involved “a great conflict.” This is a very difficult expression; the Hebrew, sābā’ gādôl, has been variously translated “great warfare,”[5] “a great task,”[6] or, more freely, “involved great suffering.”[7] The implication is that this period involves great conflict and trouble for the people of God.

In contrast to the previous visions, Daniel stated that he understood what was revealed to him. The previous visions recorded in the book of Daniel had left questions in his mind that were not fully resolved, although he had faithfully recorded what he had seen and heard. It is doubtful whether Daniel completely understood all of the vision that followed, but at least he comprehended its general characteristics and was not left in a state of perplexity, as he was in 8:27 where he was physically sick as a result of the extensive vision given to him. The introductory statement is sufficient, however, to alert the reader that a tremendous revelation is about to be presented.

DANIEL’S PREPARATION FOR THE VISION (10:2–3)

10:2–3 In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks.

Daniel’s self-inflicted preparation to receive this vision was extensive. During these three weeks, he did not eat the dainties of the king’s table, abstained from meat and wine, and did not anoint himself at all. “Delicacies” are literally “bread of pleasures, of desires,” in contrast to “bread of affliction” (Deut. 16:3), that is, the unleavened bread that was eaten during the Passover. During this period, Daniel apparently limited himself to basic nourishment, but followed a meager diet.

The duration of the period is obviously three weeks composed of days in contrast to the seventy “weeks” of Daniel 9:24–27. Although Leupold resists the idea that the Hebrew expression here, literally, “three weeks of days,” is used in contrast to Daniel 9, that may be precisely the point; that is, Daniel wanted to make clear that normal days were in view in this prophecy.[8] Practically everyone agrees that twenty-one days is the resulting sense.[9] In any case, the three weeks included the normal week for the Passover season, as can be learned by comparison with Daniel 10:4. Passover occurred on the fourteenth day of the first month, and was followed by seven days in which unleavened bread was eaten.

The reason for Daniel’s fasting probably was his concern for the pilgrims who had returned to Jerusalem two years before, anticipated in his prayer in Daniel 9. As the book of Ezra makes plain, the Israelites had encountered great difficulty in getting settled in the land. Although the altar had been set up and the foundation of the temple laid (Ezra 3), the work had been suspended because of opposition by the people of the land (Ezra 4:1–5, 24). All of this was a great concern to Daniel, for his primary purpose in encouraging the expedition had been the restoration of the temple as well as the city of Jerusalem.

Humanly speaking, there was ground for anxiety. But Daniel did not understand that the seventy years of the captivity that expired with the return of the exiles in Ezra 1 did not fulfill the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple. This required an additional twenty years (the difference between 605 B.C., the first deportation of the Jews, and 586 B.C., the date of the destruction of Jerusalem). From God’s point of view, things were moving exactly on schedule. In a sense, the vision that followed was a reply to Daniel’s questions concerning God’s purposes for the future of Israel in relation to the Gentiles.

These purposes involved a far more extensive program than that fulfilled in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. While the saints of God may justly be concerned over what seems to be a defeat of God’s purpose, the suffering saint should never forget the majesty of the sovereignty of God, which ultimately proves that “for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). From the divine viewpoint, while we should pray, we should be delivered from anxiety—as Paul stated (Phil. 4:6–7). This period of fasting was, for Daniel, a divine preparation for the revelation. No doubt abstinence from all but absolutely necessary food and drink, and the omission of anointing oil—indicative of his grief for Israel’s affliction (Amos 6:6; 2 Sam. 14:2)—helped prepare Daniel for his great experience.

DANIEL’S GLORIOUS VISION (10:4–6)

10:4–6 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river (that is, the Tigris) I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude.

The time of this vision was the twenty-fourth of Abib, the first month on the Jewish calendar (Exod. 23:15). This month was later renamed Nisan (Neh. 2:1). Scripture does not reveal when Daniel’s three weeks of mourning began, but it seems clear that they had concluded by the twenty-fourth day of the month. The new year was normally begun with a festival of two days celebrating the advent of the new moon (1 Sam. 20:18–19, 34),[10] and it was unsuitable for him to fast while that joyous festival continued. Daniel probably had observed the Passover on the fourteenth day of Abib and the Feast of Unleavened Bread that followed from the fifteenth to the twenty-first. If the vision came to Daniel immediately after his days of mourning, his fast must have begun immediately after the new moon celebration, concluding just before the vision was given to him.[11]

The place of the vision was “on the bank of the great river (that is, the Tigris).” Here we learn for the first time that Daniel did not accompany the pilgrims who returned to Jerusalem. Liberal scholars attempt to turn this into an argument against the historicity of Daniel, assuming that he would automatically return to his native land as soon as permitted. Young points out, however, that if Daniel was merely a fictitious character, an ideal created by a writer in the Maccabean period, it would have been far more natural to have him return triumphantly to his native land. Young concludes, “The fact that Dan. does not return to Palestine is a strong argument against the view that the book is a product of the Maccabean age.”[12] The obvious explanation of Daniel’s failure to return is that he was quite old, probably eighty-five years of age, and, according to chapter 6, had been given a prominent place in the government and was not free to leave as were the others. Probably he could do Israel more good by remaining at his post than by accompanying them in the limitations of his age back to the land of Israel.

The statement that the vision occurred by the Tigris River has been subject to criticism on two counts. First, the question has been raised whether this should be considered a literal, geographic statement or part of the vision. In Daniel 8:2, Daniel’s vision occurred at “the Ulai canal,” but the context makes plain that he was only there in vision and not in reality. In chapter 10, however, the context and narrative make plain that he was actually by the Tigris, as the following verses relate how the men who were with him, but who did not see the vision, fled. Liberal scholars like Montgomery, however, consider the identification of the Tigris as “the great river” to be a contradiction since the Euphrates is normally called “the great river.”[13]

Montgomery regards this “as an early gloss” in the text, with the only alternative that “otherwise we must attribute a solecism or gross error to the writer.”[14] The Syriac version substitutes “Euphrates,” for “Tigris.” All of this, however, is quite arbitrary as there is no reason why the Tigris should not also be called a great river; and if that expression uniformly referred to the Euphrates, it would be all the more strange for a copyist to insert “Tigris.” Conservative scholars generally agree that the river is the Tigris.[15] The probability is that Daniel had come to this area in connection with his duties as a chief government administrator. No great amount of travel need be assumed because just above Babylon the Euphrates and Tigris are only about thirty-five miles apart.

There Daniel had a vision of a glorious man, who is described in verse 5. All commentators agree that the personage was not a man, but either a glorious angel or a theophany, that is, an appearance of God Himself. Leupold concludes that the personage is a mighty angel on the fact that he requires the help of Michael, mentioned in verse 13, which would not be true of deity. If an angel, it may have been Gabriel, who appeared to Daniel in chapter 8. However, Leupold prefers to identify him with an unknown angel of equal stature with Michael.[16] Young notes that Hengstenberg identified him as Michael and that the Jews considered the figure an angel.[17]

Although there is room for debate, there is at least some evidence for considering this to be a theophany. If it is, the man of 10:5–6 would need to be distinguished from the angel of 10:10–14 as well as from Michael, mentioned in 10:13. Although mighty angels are frequently difficult to distinguish from God Himself, as in other visions such as those in Ezekiel and Revelation, the similarity between the man described in 10:5–6 and the glorified Christ (Rev. 1:13–15) has led some conservative expositors to consider the man a genuine theophany or an appearance of Christ as the Angel of Yahweh.[18] Others, however, believe that only an angel is in view in these verses.[19]

The linen of the personage in the vision was probably the fine white linen which characterized the priests’ garments (cf. Exod. 28:39–43). In other instances, linen formed the clothing of heavenly visitors (cf. Ezek. 9:2–3, 11; 10:2, 6–7). The angels at the tomb of Christ are said to have had long white garments of brilliant character without specifying that they are linen (Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4; John 20:12; cf. Acts 1:10). The belt girdle was probably also linen embroidered with fine gold. The reference to the “fine gold from Uphaz” has only one other similar reference in the Bible (Jer. 10:9), and it is not clear whether Uphaz is geographic or poetic. No clear identification has ever been made, although some have equated Uphaz with Ophir (Isa. 13:12) on the basis that this word is substituted for Uphaz in a Syriac version of Jeremiah 10:9.[20] It is sufficient to consider the belt as being embroidered with fine gold of unusual quality.[21]

The appearance of the body as a jewel called “beryl” is from the Hebrew tarshish, translated “chrysolite” in the Septuagint, and considered by Driver as a topaz. He characterizes it as “the topaz of the moderns—a flashing stone, described by Pliny as ‘a transparent stone with a refulgence like that of gold.’”[22] The same stone seems to be mentioned in Exodus 28:20 and Ezekiel 1:16; 10:9. It is called tarshish as if originating in Spain.[23] Porteous identifies it as the yellow jasper.[24] The impression given to Daniel was that the man’s entire body was like a gigantic transparent jewel reflecting the glory of the rest of the vision.

The description of the face illumined as it were by lightning, with eyes like flaming torches, is quite similar to the reference to Christ in Revelation 1:14–16. The burnished bronze of the arms and feet is similar to the “were like burnished bronze” of Christ (Rev. 1:15). And the lightning compares to Christ’s countenance likened to the sun in brilliance (Rev. 1:16), and to similar references in Ezekiel 1:13–14. Accompanying the visual image of glory was the mighty sound of the voice of a multitude, apparently not words which could be understood, but giving the impression of great power (cf. Rev. 1:15). As Driver expresses it, “An impressive, but inarticulate, sound seems to be what the comparison is intended to suggest.”[25] The total impression upon Daniel, described in the verses that follow, must have been tremendous and similar to that of John the apostle when he saw the glorified Christ (Rev. 1:17).

EFFECT OF THE VISION ON DANIEL (10:7–9)

10:7–9 And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves. So I was left alone and saw this great vision, and no strength was left in me. My radiant appearance was fearfully changed, and I retained no strength. Then I heard the sound of his words, and as I heard the sound of his words, I fell on my face in deep sleep with my face to the ground.

The situation with Daniel’s vision was somewhat similar to that of the men who accompanied Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:7; 22:9), except that here the men saw and heard nothing, but apparently sensed something that gave them great fear. Certainly they saw Daniel’s reaction and realized he saw something they couldn’t see. Daniel’s companions ran away, leaving him alone. Clearly, the choice of Daniel and no one else to see this vision was made by divine will. Those who accompanied Daniel were not allowed to see the vision because it was intended for him only. This incident makes it clear that this was an actual event that occurred near the Tigris River and that Daniel is not there merely in vision.

The sight of the vision affected Daniel physically, robbing him of physical strength; and his normal appearance of health was affected in a way similar to the appearance of Christ in Isaiah 52:14. The Hebrew of “fearfully changed” (Dan. 10:8) and “marred” (Isa. 52:14) are from the same root.

Although apparently rendered immobile by his lack of strength, Daniel was still able to hear “the sound of his words”; but this only increased his incapacity, and he fell in a swoon with his face toward the ground (cf. Exod. 19:16–22). Daniel’s experience illustrates the difficulty that mortal, sinful creatures, even a prophet like Daniel, have when encountering the glory of God, or even one of His heavenly messengers, in relation to which the holiest of people come short (Rom. 3:23). It was in this posture of weakness and semiconsciousness that Daniel was to be strengthened to receive additional revelation.

DANIEL’S STRENGTH RESTORED BY AN ANGEL (10:10–11)

10:10–11 And behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. And he said to me, “O Daniel, man greatly loved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright, for now I have been sent to you.” And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood up trembling.

If the original person who appeared was a theophany, then this has to be another personage, probably an angel. However, it appears that the person who touches Daniel is the same as the one who first appeared to him in the vision. If so, then what follows would indicate it was an angel rather than a theophany. Daniel’s reaction here was much like arousing one from sleep.

The angel addressed Daniel with the title a “man greatly loved.” Although God loves the entire world so much that He provided His Son as its Savior, certain individuals, because of their special relationship to God, are the objects of unusual divine love. David, in spite of his sins, was sought by the Lord as “a man after his own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14; cf. Acts 13:22); and John the apostle was “one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23). As a parent loves all of his children but may love one or more in a special way, so the heart of God responds to those who love Him most.

The angel exhorted Daniel to understand his message and to stand upright to receive it, for this was the purpose of the angel’s coming. Daniel was then able to stand upright, although trembling. The angel’s message naturally tended to reassure Daniel that God’s purpose in giving him the vision was gracious and loving, and that Daniel had nothing to fear.

THE PURPOSE OF THE ANGEL’S VISIT (10:12–14)

10:12–14 Then he said to me, “Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come.”

To further quiet Daniel’s fears, the angel informed him that from the very beginning of his intercession, three weeks before, God had undertaken to answer his prayers and send the angelic messenger to him. What a reassurance it is that when we come to God as Daniel did, setting our hearts to understand and chastening ourselves before God, we may expect Daniel’s experience. God will hear our words and answer. The delay is explained in verse 13 as being occasioned by the opposition of “the prince of the kingdom of Persia.” This prince is not the human king of Persia, but rather the angelic leader of Persia, a fallen angel under the direction of Satan, in contrast to the angelic prince Michael who leads and protects Israel. That the angel described as “the prince” of Persia is a wicked angel is clear from the fact that his opposition to the angelic messenger to Daniel was given as the reason for the twenty-one-day delay in the answer.

All during the period of Daniel’s fasting and prayer, a spiritual conflict was under way. This was resolved by the coming of Michael described as “one of the chief princes” (cf. Dan. 10:21; 12:1; Jude 9; Rev. 12:7). Michael seems to be th emost powerful of the holy angels, and with his assistance the messenger to Daniel was released to fulfill his mission. The statement “I was left there with the kings of Persia” means that having been delivered from the prince of Persia, the angelic messenger was permitted to go on his way unattended.

Driver suggests that the phrase “I was left there” actually means “I was superfluous there,” inasmuch as Michael, who was more powerful, had relieved him. The Hebrew word translated “I was left there” (nôtarti, from yātar) does not properly signify “to remain behind” but “to remain over, to be superfluous.” Driver renders Daniel 10:13, “I was left over there beside the kings (i.e., I had nothing more to do).”[26]

Zöckler refutes Calvin and others who understand the angel’s conflict as being with an earthly king rather than an angelic being. Calvin says, “If we weigh these words too judiciously, we shall readily conclude, that the angel fought rather against the king of the Persians than for him.”[27] Zöckler supports the idea that this is angelic warfare on the basis of the following considerations:

(1) in chap xi.5, where [sar] is unquestionably employed in the latter sense, the connection is entirely different from the character of the present passage, where the hassārîm [“chief princes”] which immediately follows obviously denotes angelic princes; (2) the Persian kings, on the other hand, are termed [malkê pārās] at the end of the verse; (3) the idea of an angel’s conflict with a human king seems very inappropriate; (4) the angel Michael was Israel’s ‘prince,’ i.e., guardian angel, according to 5:21; chap, 12:1; and corresponding to this, the prince of Persia who is here noticed, and the prince of Graecia mentioned in 5:20, were, without doubt, the angels of Persia and Javan respectively; (5) the idea of guardian angels over entire realms, whether friendly or hostile in their disposition toward the theocracy, is attested by various Old-Test parallels, particularly by Isa. 24:21 …; Isa. 46:2; Jer. 46:25; 49:3 (where the gods of the pagan nations take the place of the guardian angels); Deut. 32:8; and Psa. 96:4, 70; also Bar. 4:7 and Ecclus. 17:17 …—to say nothing of New Test passages such as 1 Cor. 8:5; 10:20 et seq.[28]

The subject of the unseen struggle between the holy angels and the fallen angels is not fully revealed in the Scriptures. But from the rare glimpses which are afforded, as in this instance, it is plain that behind the political and social conditions of the world is angelic influence—good on the part of the holy angels, evil on the part of the angels under satanic control. Ezekiel described the human ruler of Tyre (called the “prince” in Ezek. 28:1–10) and the Satanic “king” who was the true power behind the throne (28:11–19). The struggle experienced by this angel is the same struggle to which Paul referred in Ephesians 6:10–18.

Keil interprets the expression “I was left there with the kings of Persia” as meaning that a victory of major character was won against the demonic forces that had previously controlled the kingdom of Persia, with the result that Persia now would become the object of divine direction through angelic ministry. He understands the plural of “kings of Persia” to indicate all the kings of Persia who followed. Keil states, “The plural denotes, that by the subjugation of the demon of the Persian kingdom, his influence not merely over Cyrus, but over all the following kings of Persia, was brought to an end, so that the whole of the Persian kings became accessible to the influence of the spirit proceeding from God and in advancing the welfare of Israel.”[29]

Leupold summarizes the correct interpretation in these words,

Bad angels, called demons in the New Testament, are, without a doubt, referred to here. In the course of time, these demonic powers gained a very strong influence over certain nations and the government of these nations. They became the controlling power. They used whatever resources they could muster to hamper God’s work and to thwart His purposes…. We get a rare glimpse behind the scene of world history. There are spiritual forces at work that are far in excess of what men who disregard revelation would suppose. They struggle behind the struggles that are written on the pages of history.[30]

The fact that the angelic messenger needed Michael’s help refutes Young’s interpretation that the one speaking with Daniel was the Angel of Yahweh or the Lord Himself.[31] While even an important angel might need the help of Michael, it is hardly acceptable that Christ in the Old Testament, prior to the incarnation, would need angelic help to gain a victory over a fallen angel. The circumstances seem to indicate that this must be an angel, not a theophany.

The angelic messenger explained to Daniel that his purpose in coming was to make Daniel understand what would befall “your people,” that is, Israel, “in the latter days.” The angel explained that the vision’s fulfillment was still future.

The expression “in the latter days” is an important chronological term in the prophetic program that is unfolded in the book of Daniel. As previously noted in the exposition of Daniel 2:28, this phrase is seen to refer to the entire history of Israel, beginning as early as the predictions of Jacob, who declared to his sons “what shall happen to you in days to come” (Gen. 49:1), and climaxing in the second coming of Christ to the earth. The latter days view the entire history of Israel as culminating in the climax of the second advent and the establishment of the earthly kingdom.

Daniel’s concern for his people, which probably occasioned his three weeks’ fast and prayer, is now to be somewhat relieved by a specific revelation in addition to that already given in Daniel 9:24–27. The particulars of the vision include the experiences of Israel in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and culminate in the great tribulation just before the second advent. Although Daniel probably did not understand the details, he could be reassured that God had a plan that ended in the ultimate victory of divine power. Although the prophecies made clear that there were powerful forces at work against Israel that would inflict upon them much suffering and loss, in the end the power of God would triumph and Israel would be exalted as a nation.

DANIEL AGAIN STRENGTHENED BY THE ANGEL (10:15–17)

10:15–17 When he had spoken to me according to these words, I turned my face toward the ground and was mute. And behold, one in the likeness of the children of man touched my lips. Then I opened my mouth and spoke. I said to him who stood before me, “O my lord, by reason of the vision pains have come upon me, and I retain no strength. How can my lord’s servant talk with my lord? For now no strength remains in me, and no breath is left in me.”

Daniel’s weakness once again overwhelmed him. Calvin, opposing the notion that Daniel was falling on his face in repentance, states, “By becoming prostrate on the ground, he manifested his reverence, and by becoming dumb, displayed his astonishment.”[32] Whether Daniel actually fell to the ground is not clearly stated, but the effect may well be what Calvin intimates.

And once again, Daniel experienced strengthening from God. As noted above, whether the personage here—“one in the likeness of the children of man”—was a theophany, that is, Christ as the Angel of Yahweh, or another angel is not clear. Probably it was another angelic messenger. Once Daniel’s strength and speech were restored, he again confessed his weakness and lack of strength. His pains, as well as his weakness, had returned with the additional vision. Daniel’s lack of breath made it difficult for him to speak. As Charles interprets it, “The sense then is ‘How can so mean a servant of my lord talk with so great a one as my lord?’”[33] Daniel had great difficulty carrying on normal conversation with the angelic messenger.

DANIEL STRENGTHENED FOR THE THIRD TIME (10:18–19)

10:18–19 Again one having the appearance of a man touched me and strengthened me. And he said, “O man greatly loved, fear not, peace be with you; be strong and of good courage.” And as he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, “Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.”

For the third time in this chapter, Daniel was supernaturally strengthened. Leupold believes that the same angel mentioned in verse 10 and following is the one who strengthened Daniel in each instance.[34] However, in view of the plurality of angelic ministry, there is no special reason Daniel should not have had the ministry of more than one angel. The context of verses 18 and 19, however, seems to link this angel to the one who addressed Daniel in verses 11–12.

The detail given to this experience leaves the impression that the revelation to follow must be of tremendous character, as indeed it is. The triple strengthening of Daniel in this agonizing experience has sometimes been compared to that of the Lord’s temptation in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:39–44; Mark 14:35–41; Luke 22:39–44).[35] In both cases, an angel was the source of strength (Luke 22:43). This is the last time in this vision Daniel required additional strength to be administered by the angel.

THE ANGELIC REVELATION INTRODUCED (10:20–21)

10:20–21 Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince.”

Critics have found fault with these concluding verses as needlessly repetitious and confusing.[36] Montgomery is sure that the text here is faulty. Such criticism, however, does not take into consideration Daniel’s weak and confused state. It would be quite natural after his experience of swooning and being unable to speak, now to consider the purpose of the angelic message. The angel revealed that he was obligated to return to “fight against the prince of Persia,” and by implication, later with “the prince of Greece.” Goldingay actually finds strong structural harmony in these verses.[37]

This also has been assailed as unnecessary due to the previous victory. But the implication is that constant warfare is required for spiritual victory, and this would require the angel’s further attention. The mention of both Persia and Greece also directs our attention to the second and third major empires that are involved in the prophecies of Daniel 11:1–35. From this we can learn that, behind the many details of prophecy relating to the history of this period, there was an unseen struggle between angelic forces that the will of God might be accomplished.

An unusual phrase is found in verse 21, “the book of truth.” This term is literally “the writing of truth” (ketāb ‘emĕt), a reference to God’s record of truth in general, of which the Bible is one expression. The facts to be revealed are already in God’s record and are now to become part of the Holy Scriptures. The plan of God is obviously greater than that which is revealed in the Bible itself.

Verse 21 is introduced by “But” (‘ăbāl), a strong adversative particle that serves to introduce the antidote to the fears surrounding the warfare cited in verse 20. The angelic conflict, great though it is, is subject to “the book of truth.” Zöckler describes the book as “a Divine document upon which ‘the yet unrevealed (Deut. 32:34) fortunes of nations (Rev. 5:1) as well as of individuals (Psa. 139:60) in the future are entered’ (Hitzig). Cf. the books of judgment in chap. 7:10 and also the term [‘emĕt] in chap. 11:2, which briefly comprehends the contents of the book of truth.”[38]

Concerning the “book of truth,” Jeffery notes, “in the Talmud (Rosh-ha-Shana 16b) we read how on New Year’s Day the books were opened and fates recorded. These tablets in the book are frequently mentioned in Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and in the Prayer of Joseph preserved in Origen, Philocalia 23, 15 we read, ‘For I have read in the tablets of heaven all that shall befall you and your sons.’”[39] The sovereignty of God reflected in His plan revealed in the Scriptures was Daniel’s assurance in this hour of uncertainty and need.

In regard to the coming revelation and the spiritual struggle it records, the angelic messenger was given unusual responsibility that is exceeded only by Michael. Daniel in this way was reminded of the special angelic ministry that God had provided him all through life, and especially in this present period of detailed divine revelation. The entire experience of Daniel in this chapter is on the one hand a reminder of human weakness and insufficiency, and on the other, of divine enablement that strengthened Daniel for his task of recording this great revelation. The fact that an entire chapter is devoted to this preparation makes clear that the revelation to follow is important in the consummation of God’s purposes in the world.

NOTES

[1] For discussion from the liberal point of view, see J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 137–39; 404–5.

[2] Ibid., 405.

[3] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 442.

[4] Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 223. Young cites in support several articles by Robert Dick Wilson, such as “The Title ‘king of Persia’ in the Scriptures,” Princeton Theological Review, 15:90–145, and “Royal Titles in Antiquity: An Essay in Criticism,” Princeton Theological Review, 2:257–82; 465–97; 618–64; 3:55–80; 238–67; 422–40; 558–72. In the first of these articles Wilson does a masterful job of demonstrating the fallacy of those arguing against the historicity of the title. He concludes by noting, “The term ‘X king of Persia’ alone is used of the Persian kings in documents purporting to be from the times preceding Alexander. (1) Outside the Scriptures, of Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I, Xerxes, and Darius II; (2) inside the Scriptures, of Cyrus, Darius I, Artaxerxes I, and Darius II” (117–18).

[5] Cf. Young, Daniel, 223; Leupold, Daniel, 443.

[6] Montgomery, Daniel, 404.

[7] Leupold, Daniel, 443.

[8] Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 266.

[9] Leupold, Daniel, 446.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Stephen Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 279.

[12] Young, Daniel, 223.

[13] See Genesis 15:18; Deuteronomy 1:7; and Joshua 1:4 for this designation of the Euphrates.

[14] Montgomery, Daniel, 407.

[15] C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 409; Leupold, Daniel, 447; Young, Daniel, 224. Contrast Montgomery, Daniel, 407.

[16] Leupold, Daniel, 447–48.

[17] Young, Daniel, 225.

[18] Keil, Daniel, 409; Young, Daniel, 225.

[19] Wood, Daniel, 267–68; and Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 123.

[20] Montgomery, Daniel, 408.

[21] Archer describes it as gold “in the form of chain-links, hinged panels, or gold thread embroidery” (Archer, “Daniel,” 123).

[22] Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Daniel, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), 154.

[23] Ibid.; Leupold, Daniel, 449.

[24] Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 152.

[25] Driver, Daniel, 155.

[26] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 451.

[27] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Daniel, 2 vols., Thomas Myers, trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852), 2:252.

[28] Otto Zöckler, “The Book of the Prophet Daniel,” in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, John Peter Lange, ed. (repr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 228.

[29] Keil, Daniel, 419.

[30] Leupold, Daniel, 457–58.

[31] Young, Daniel, 227.

[32] Calvin, Daniel, 2:257.

[33] Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 116.

[34] Leupold, Daniel, 463.

[35] Ibid., 464.

[36] Cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 416–18.

[37] “Three comments about the messenger’s purpose in coming and his intention with regard to the message … are interwoven with two sayings about his conflicts … In an a–b–a–b–a arrangement…. The effect is to tie the delivering of the earthly message and the reality of the heavenly conflicts closely together, and to underline in yet another way the importance of the message, if its delivery was worth the turning of the messenger’s attention away from such crucial conflicts” (John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. [Dallas: Word, 1989], 292).

[38] Zöckler, “Daniel,” 231.

[39] A. Arthur Jeffery, “The Book of Daniel,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 6, George A. Buttrick, ed. (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951), 510.

11

World History from Darius to the Time of the End

The long introduction of chapter 10 is followed by the fourth and final vision given to Daniel. These important events begin with Darius the Mede (539 B.C.) and extend to the last Gentile ruler in the time of the end. chapter 11 naturally divides into two major sections. The first, verses 1–35, describes the major rulers of the Persian Empire and then provides in great detail some of the significant events of the third empire following Alexander the Great, concluding with Antiochus Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.). Much like chapter 8, this section highlights the Gentile rulers whose actions impacted the Jewish people. The entire period from the death of Antiochus Epiphanes to the time of the end is skipped over with no reference to events of the present church age. The second section, verses 36–45, deals with the last Gentile ruler who will be in power when Christ comes at His second advent.

The events of chapter 11 are followed in chapter 12 by additional revelation concerning the last 1,335 days leading up to and coinciding with Christ’s return, a period including the great tribulation, the second advent itself, and the beginning of the millennial kingdom. Probably no other portion of Scripture presents more minute prophecy than Daniel 11:1–35 (see accompanying chart of the rulers mentioned in this chapter), and this has prompted the sharpest attack of critics seeking to discredit this prophetic portion.

Interestingly enough, it was Daniel 11 with its detailed prophecy of about two hundred years of history that prompted the pagan philosopher Porphyry (third century A.D.) to attack the book of Daniel as a forgery. Porphyry established the fact that history corresponded closely to the prophetic revelation of Daniel 11:1–35, and the correspondence was so precise that he was persuaded no one could have prophesied these events in the future. Accordingly, Porphyry took the position that Daniel was written after the events occurred, that is, in the second century B.C. This attack prompted Jerome to defend the book of Daniel and to issue his own commentary, which for over one thousand years was considered the standard commentary on Daniel. Smith said, “The most important single work produced by the Church Fathers on any of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, commenting upon the original Hebrew text, and showing a complete mastery of all the literature of the Church on the subjects touched upon to the time of composition, is without question St. Jerome’s Commentary on the Book of Daniel.”[1]

The controversy between Jerome and Porphyry has characterized discussion of Daniel ever since, as noted earlier. Here the lines are clearly drawn as the prophecy is detailed and specific, and fulfillment has already occurred. Daniel 11:1–35 is either one of the most precise and accurate prophecies of the future, fully demonstrating its divine inspiration, or as Porphyry claimed, it is a dishonest attempt to present history as if it were prophesied centuries earlier. Modern critics of Daniel have not gone much beyond the premise that such detailed prophecy is impossible, and, therefore, absurd and incredible.[2]

The critic Farrar introduces his chapter on Daniel 11 with this summary:

If this chapter were indeed the utterance of a prophet in the Babylonian Exile, nearly four hundred years before the events—events of which many are of small comparative importance in the world’s history—which are here so enigmatically and yet so minutely depicted, the revelation would be the most unique and perplexing in the whole Scriptures. It would represent a sudden and total departure from every method of God’s providence and of God’s manifestations of His will to the mind of the prophets. It would stand absolutely and abnormally alone as an abandonment of the limitations of all else which has ever been foretold.[3]

Leupold observes that Farrar’s criticism was answered long before he made it by Hengstenberg and others who cite numerous passages in the Bible of detailed prophecy that at least support the idea that prophecy can be detailed and specific.[4]

A case in point is the subject of messianic prophecy that predicted the coming of Christ with hundreds of details.[5] Ezekiel 12:13 predicted King Zedekiah would be taken captive to Babylon and die there “yet he shall not see it,” which was fulfilled when he was blinded before being taken into captivity as a prisoner (2 Kings 25:7). Other illustrations include Isaiah’s prediction of the specific cities to be captured by the Assyrians on their way to Jerusalem, only to have God halt their advance before they could attack it (Isa. 10:28–32). In a similar way, prophecies concerning Syria, Phoenicia, Tyre, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and the Philistines are given in Zechariah 9:1–8. However, proof texts are not needed, as the issue is a clear-cut question of whether God is omniscient about the future. If He is, revelation may be just as detailed as God elects to make it; and detailed prophecy becomes no more difficult or incredible than broad predictions.

Keil attempts to mediate between the skeptic and the position that this is detailed prophecy by distinguishing between prediction of details and prophecy in general. Accordingly, he considers it unimportant whether the details of the prophecy precisely correspond to history. To Keil, the general fact that world kingdoms will not endure and in the end God’s people will be delivered constitutes the burden of this passage:

Accordingly, the revelation has this as its object, to show how the heathen world-kingdoms shall not attain to an enduring stability, and by their persecution of the people of God shall only accomplish their purification, and bring on the end, in which, through their destruction, the people of God shall be delivered from all oppression and be transfigured. In order to reveal this to him (that it must be carried forward to completion by severe tribulation), it was not necessary that he should receive a complete account of the different events which would take place in the heathen world-power in the course of time, nor have it especially made prominent that their enmity shall first come to a completed manifestation under the last king who should arise out of the fourth world-kingdom.[6]

But Keil concedes to the critics far more than the record requires. If the text is properly interpreted, the alleged historical errors fade, and Daniel’s record stands accurate and complete—although not without problems of interpretation such as are true in any prophetic utterance. The expositor has no convenient compromise between the two diverse views. Either this is genuine prophecy or it is not. The fact that it corresponds so closely to history should be, instead of a basis for criticism, a marvelous confirmation that prophecy properly understood is just as accurate as history. As has been previously pointed out, attacks on the prophecies of Daniel always fall short. The fulfillment of the complete revelation anticipates a situation yet future, and could not be considered history even from the point of view of an alleged second-century Daniel.

In attempting the difficult exegesis of this portion, the general principle should be observed that prophecy, as far as it goes, is accurate, but that prophecy is selective. The revelation does not contain all the history of the period or name all the rulers. It is not always possible to determine why some facts are included and others excluded. But the total picture of struggle and turmoil that characterized the period of the third empire is portrayed by special reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, who is given more space than any other ruler in this chapter because of the relevance of his activities to the people of Israel and the similarities between his actions and those of the future Antichrist.

FOUR IMPORTANT KINGS OF MEDO-PERSIA (11:1–2)

11:1–2 “And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him. And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.”

The opening verse of chapter 11 is often considered the closing verse of chapter 10. In it, the angel, seen in 10:18, declared his support to confirm and strengthen Darius the Mede from the very beginning of his reign in Babylon. The statement that the angel “stood” in verse 1 is probably used in sensu bellico s. militari, that is, standing as in a military conflict against the enemy, as in 10:13. The ESV understands the angel’s stand as in support of Darius, but it is possible that “him” refers not to Darius—for the angel must fight against the prince of Persia (10:13)—but to Michael, the prince of Israel, on whose side he contends (10:21). In this view the verse would mean that in Darius’s first year, when the world power passed from the Babylonian kingdom to Medo-Persia, the angel stood by Michael, the guardian of Israel, until he succeeded in turning the new kingdom from hostility to favor toward Israel.[7]

The story of chapter 6 demonstrates that efforts were made in the first year of Darius to make him hostile toward Israel. But God sent His angel and shut the lions’ mouths (Dan. 6:22). The miraculous deliverance by the angel caused Darius to reverse his policies to favor Israel (6:24–27). The beginning of the second great empire with the fall of Babylon in chapter 5 was, then, more than a military conquest or triumph of the armies of the Medes and Persians. It was a new chapter in the divine drama of angelic warfare behind the scenes, and the change was by divine appointment.

The survey of history provided in the opening verses of chapter 11 fixes the prophecy as dealing with a period later than Nebuchadnezzar’s dream but coinciding with the prophecy of chapter 8 of the ram and the male goat. Porteous expresses it this way:

The survey of history begins at a slightly later point than in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (ch. 2) and in Daniel’s vision of the beasts (ch. 7), but at the same point as in Daniel’s vision of the ram and the he-goat (ch. 8). In fact, we are now given the amplification in detail of that vision, the various kings appearing in propria persona and no longer disguised as horns of heraldic beasts. Like Macbeth in the witches’ cave, Daniel is supposedly permitted to see king after king appearing on the stage of history, strutting out his part and making way for his successor.[8]

With the passing of Babylon, the natural question arose concerning the future of the Medo-Persian Empire. So the angel announced, “Now I will show you the truth,” that is, the truth of what would come to pass in the future (cf. “the book of truth,” 10:21). Daniel was informed that there would be three kings in Persia, followed by a fourth and greater king who would use his riches and strength to “stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.” The identity of these four kings has been disputed, and Montgomery uses the many different explanations as an evidence of the incredibility of this prophecy.[9]

The most natural explanation, however, is that the “three more kings” refer to the next three Persian rulers who followed Cyrus to the throne (cf. 10:1). The three kings would then be Cambyses (529–522 B.C., not mentioned in the Old Testament); Pseudo-Smerdis (522–521 B.C.); and Darius I Hystaspes (521–486 B.C., Ezra 5–6). These three kings would be followed by “a fourth … far richer than all of them,” which must refer to Xerxes I (486–465 B.C., Ezra 4:6). This identification has the advantage of taking the Persian kings in order, climaxing with Xerxes I who led the great expedition against Greece.

Xerxes I used his great riches and a period of some four years to gather a great army amounting to hundreds of thousands, one of the largest armies in the ancient world. The expedition that he launched in 480 B.C. against Greece was disastrous, however, and Xerxes never recovered. The Ahasuerus of Esther 1 may be identified with Xerxes I,[10] and the ill-fated expedition against Greece may have occurred between chapters 1 and 2 of Esther.[11] Details on the Persian Empire are not given here because these are covered adequately in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, insofar as they related to the people of Israel and the plan of God, and these records are supplemented by the prophetic books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Having mentioned “Greece,” Daniel’s revelation turned immediately to details of this third empire not given elsewhere in the Word of God.

THE RISE AND FALL OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT (11:3–4)

11:3–4 “Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and do as he wills. And as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the authority with which he ruled, for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these.”

One of the by-products of the attack on Greece by Xerxes I is that he incurred the undying hatred of Greece. Montgomery and other critics believe this is the ultimate meaning of “he shall stir up all” in verse 2. Montgomery translates it, “‘and he will stir up all, namely the kingdom of Greece,’” and comments, “But the point is not that he made war against Greece (as far as Asia was concerned, Persia remained mistress, n.b., the Peace of Callias 449 B.C.), but rather that the world was aroused against the king.”[12] Although there may be question whether this translation is justified,[13] the facts are that Alexander the Great in conquering the Persian Empire was repaying Persia for the attack by Xerxes I. Alexander was indeed “a mighty king” and the remaining description fits him perfectly. He had great dominion and was absolute ruler who did as he wished.

As previously revealed (Dan. 8:8), Alexander died prematurely. The expression in verse 4, “as soon as he has arisen,” may be translated “while he was growing strong,” that is, while still ascending in power. Another rendering, perhaps more normal Hebrew, is “as soon as he shall have stood up,” indicating the brief duration of Alexander’s reign. The word “arisen” has the same military connotation as in the preceding verses.

The angel predicted that Alexander’s kingdom would be broken and divided “toward the four winds of heaven.” This was fulfilled literally in that his kingdom was shattered after his death and divided among his four generals instead of given to his posterity. His half brother Philip Arrhidaeus was not mentally competent and was murdered in 317 B.C. His oldest son Hercules, born to Barsina, was illegitimate and therefore not accepted as heir to the throne; and his youngest son, Alexander, born posthumously to Roxana, was murdered in 310 B.C. The empire of Alexander the Great eventually fell into the hands of his four generals and did not preserve the glory and power it had in his day. The strong central rule that had characterized it passed with his death. This event, recorded in Daniel’s prophecy written about 539 B.C., was fulfilled between the time Alexander died in 323 B.C. and 301 B.C.[14]

PTOLEMY I SOTER AND SELEUCUS I NICATOR (11:5)

11:5 “Then the king of the south shall be strong, but one of his princes shall be stronger than he and shall rule, and his authority shall be a great authority.”

Beginning in verse 5, the struggle between the various kings of the south, namely Egypt, and the kings of the north, namely Syria, began and was traced by Daniel in this prophecy to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.), a period of about 150 years. In verse 8, the king of the south is identified as Egypt, and the Septuagint translates “south” as “Egypt” throughout this passage. Syria is not mentioned by name, as at the time of Daniel’s writing no such nation existed and such a reference would be confusing. In tracing the struggles between Egypt and Syria, the prophecy is selective and not all the rulers are mentioned, but usually the identification is clear.[15]

The king of the south in verse 5 was probably Ptolemy I Soter (323–285 B.C.). The one referred to as “stronger than he” is the king of Syria, Seleucus I Nicator (312–281 B.C.). These rulers took the title of king in 306 B.C. Seleucus had fled from Antigonus of Babylon and was temporarily associated with Ptolemy I. They combined their strength and defeated Antigonus, thus paving the way for Seleucus to gain control of the entire area from Asia Minor to India; and in time, he became stronger than Ptolemy who ruled Egypt.

Hence the Scripture says that Seleucus “shall be stronger than he [Ptolemy] and shall rule, and his authority shall be a great authority.” This is qualified by the statement in the preceding verse, “nor according to the authority with which he ruled.” The emergence of Ptolemy as ruler of Egypt and Seleucus as ruler of Syria and surrounding territory laid the basis for these two lines of rulers in their respective countries, and also set up a situation where they became rivals. The king of the south was also strong, as verse 5 indicates. “One of his princes” probably refers to Seleucus, described in the clause that follows. A possible translation is “and one of his princes shall be stronger than he.”[16]

MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER OF EGYPT TO THE KING OF SYRIA (11:6)

11:6 “After some years they shall make an alliance, and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement. But she shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he and his arm shall not endure, but she shall be given up, and her attendants, he who fathered her, and he who supported her in those times.”

The expression “after some years” means “after a lapse of several years” (cf. 2 Chron. 18:2; Dan. 11:8, 13). In the passage of time, it was natural that there would be intermarriage for political reasons between Egypt and Syria, and such is pictured in verse 6. The participants were the king of the south, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 B.C.) and his daughter, Berenice, who was married to Antiochus II Theos (261–246 B.C.) about 252 B.C. Passed over without mention is Antiochus I Soter (281–261 B.C.). The marriage was consummated at the demand of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who required Antiochus to divorce his own wife, Laodiceia (or Laodice), in order to facilitate this marriage.

Ptolemy Philadelphus’s intent was to provide a basis of agreement between the two nations. As verse 6 indicates, however, the union was not successful in that “she shall not retain the strength of her arm,” that is, physical or political power, and neither of the male participants prospered. “He who supported her in those times,” means “he who obtained her in marriage.” Within a few years of the marriage, Ptolemy died, and Antiochus then took back his wife, Laodiceia. To gain revenge, however, Laodiceia murdered her husband as well as his Egyptian wife, Berenice, and the infant son of Antiochus and Berenice. The reference to “he who fathered her” is, of course, to Ptolemy II whose death precipitated the murders that followed.

PTOLEMY EUERGETES AND SELEUCUS CALLINICUS (11:7–9)

11:7–9 “And from a branch from her roots one shall arise in his place. He shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north, and he shall deal with them and shall prevail. He shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their metal images and their precious vessels of silver and gold, and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north. Then the latter shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return to his own land.”

Subsequent to the events of verse 6, a new king of Egypt known as Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–221 B.C.) prevailed militarily over the king of the north, Seleucus Callinicus (246–226 B.C.) and, as the prophecy indicates, he entered “the fortress of the king of the north,” and carried into Egypt princes as hostages, some of their idols, and their precious vessels of silver and gold. The expression “from a branch from her roots,” literally, “the sprouting of her roots,” signifies lineage, the immediate ancestry of Berenice. The person referred to is her own brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes, the successor of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

The Hebrew word translated “gods” (11:8) can be rendered “molten images,” and the transportation of the idols indicates the total subjugation of the northern kingdom (cf. Isa. 46:1–2; Jer. 48:7; 49:3; Hos. 10:5).[17] In commemoration of his deed, Ptolemy Euergetes erected the monument Marmor Adulitanum, which boasts that he subjugated Mesopotamia, Persia, Susiana, Media, and all the countries as far as Bactria.[18] The actor in verse 9 was the king of the north, just mentioned in the previous verse, rather than the king of the south. Jerome provides this description of the conquest by Ptolemy Euergetes:

He came up with a great army and advanced into the province of the king of the North, that is Seleucus Callinicus, who together with his mother Laodice was ruling in Syria, and abused them, and not only did he seize Syria, but also took Cilicia and the remoter regions beyond the Euphrates and nearly all of Asia as well. And then, when he heard that a rebellion was afoot in Egypt, he ravaged the kingdom of Seleucus and carried off as booty forty thousand talents of silver, and also precious vessels and images of the gods to the amount of two and a half thousand. Among them were the same images which Cambyses had brought to Persia at the time when he conquered Egypt. The Egyptian people were indeed devoted to idolatry, for when he had brought back their gods to them after so many years, they called him Euergetes (Benefactor). And he himself retained possession of Syria, but he handed over Cilicia to his friend, Antiochus, that he might govern it, and the provinces beyond the Euphrates he handed over to Xanthippus, another general.[19]

The precise accuracy of the prophecy written by Daniel three hundred years before it happened has occasioned the attack of the critics, but actually its detailed fulfillment is a support for the accuracy of scriptural prophecy as a whole.

Verse 9 seems to imply that the king of the south returned to his own land. A better translation, however, would indicate that he, Seleucus Callinicus, is the subject of the phrase “shall come into the realm of the king of the south.” This could refer to the fact that several years after the Egyptian invasion, Seleucus sought to mount a return attack on Egypt, possibly about 240 B.C., but was soundly defeated and forced to “return into his own land.”[20] This was the beginning of the seesaw battle between the two nations. The inclusion of this background material leads up to the important point, the burden of the prophecy in verses 10–19, which is the ascendancy of Syria over Egypt and the return of the Holy Land to Syrian control. This set the stage for the persecutions of Israel under Antiochus Epiphanes, which is the major concern of verses 21–35 of this prophecy.

THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN SELEUCUS AND ANTIOCHUS III THE GREAT AGAINST PTOLEMY PHILOPATOR (11:10–19)

11:10–12 “His sons shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall keep coming and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress. Then the king of the south, moved with rage, shall come out and fight with the king of the north. And he shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his hand. And when the multitude is taken away, his heart shall be exalted, and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail.”

Although Seleucus II Callinicus was unsuccessful in his attack on Egypt, his successors described as “his sons” proved to be more successful. Seleucus III (226–223 B.C.) came to an untimely end, having perished in battle in Asia Minor, but the task was ably carried on by Antiochus III the Great (223–187 B.C.). Because of the passing of Seleucus, the plural of the first part of verse 10 is changed to the singular. Antiochus the Great was able to mount several campaigns against Egypt, and largely because of the indolence of the Egyptian ruler, Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–204 B.C.), Antiochus restored to Syria the territory as far south as Gaza.

The approach of the armies so close to Egypt proper aroused the Egyptian ruler, who assembled a large army to combat Antiochus (11:11). In 217 B.C., Antiochus met the Egyptian army at Raphia. The Egyptian army was directed by Ptolemy IV, accompanied by his sister-wife, Arsinoe.[21] Each army possessed about 70,000 soldiers. The battle resulted in a complete victory for Egypt (11:11–12), and as Jerome comments, “Antiochus lost his entire army and was almost captured as he fled to the desert.”[22] The prophecy was fulfilled that the multitude of the Syrians was given into the hand of the Egyptians. However, a peace had to be arranged because Antiochus had managed to escape. As verse 12 indicates, the Egyptian monarch was too indolent to pursue his advantage; and although the battle was disastrous for the Syrians, it tended to bring peace between the two nations, at least temporarily.[23]

Meanwhile, Antiochus turned his attention to conquests in the east, in which he was quite successful, gathering strength and wealth. In the period 212–204 B.C. he advanced east to the borders of India and as far north as the Caspian. Ptolemy IV Philopator and his queen died mysteriously in 203 B.C. and were succeeded by their infant son, Ptolemy V Epiphanes.

11:13–17 “For the king of the north shall again raise a multitude, greater than the first. And after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies. In those times many shall rise against the king of the south, and the violent among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision, but they shall fail. Then the king of the north shall come and throw up siegeworks and take a well-fortified city. And the forces of the south shall not stand, or even his best troops, for there shall be no strength to stand. But he who comes against him shall do as he wills, and none shall stand before him. And he shall stand in the glorious land, with destruction in his hand. He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of an agreement and perform them. He shall give him the daughter of women to destroy the kingdom, but it shall not stand or be to his advantage.”

In 201 B.C., Antiochus managed to assemble another great army and again began a series of attacks on Egypt, as described in verses 13–16. The expression “the violent among your own people” (v. 14) refers to persons who violated law and justice; hence, they were “robbers,” or “men of violence” (RSV). As Zöckler says, “The oracle refers to the league against Egypt, into which a large number of Jews entered with Antiochus the Great, and to their participation in his warlike operations against that country, e.g., in his attacks on the garrison which the Egyptian general Scopas had left in the citadel of Jerusalem.”[24] Zöckler further comments: “The theocratic writer sternly condemns this partial revolt to the Syrians as a criminal course or as common robbery, because of the many benefits conferred on the Jewish state by the earlier Ptolemies.”[25]

The reference “to fulfill the vision” is probably a prophecy of the afflictions the Jews suffered under Antiochus Epiphanes, recorded in Daniel 8. These troubles appropriately could be regarded as a consequence of the retaliation of the Egyptians against Syria; encouraged by the rising power of Rome that threatened Syria, Egypt fought back. The Egyptian armies led by Scopas were defeated at Paneas, near the headwaters of the Jordan River. Antiochus III subsequently forced Scopas to surrender at Sidon, referred to as “a well-fortified city,” which the Seleucid king captured in 198 B.C.[26]

This victory resulted in the Syrian occupation of all the land of Israel as far south as Gaza. The allusion to “the forces of the south shall not stand” is to the unsuccessful attempt by three Egyptian leaders, Eropas, Menacles, and Damoyenus, to rescue the besieged Scopas from Sidon. Threatened by Rome, however, Antiochus effected a diplomatic settlement with Egypt by marrying his daughter Cleopatra to the young king, Ptolemy V Epiphanes, in 197 B.C. In so doing, he fulfilled the prophecy of verse 17. The expression “to destroy the kingdom” may mean “to ruin the land,”[27] that is, Antiochus the Great purposed by this betrothal of his young daughter to the seven-year-old Ptolemy to ruin his former opponent and present ally. As Young states, “In this stratagem, however, Antiochus fails, because Cleopatra constantly sides with her husband over against her father.”[28]

11:18–19 “Afterward he shall turn his face to the coastlands and shall capture many of them, but a commander shall put an end to his insolence. Indeed, he shall turn his insolence back upon him. Then he shall turn his face back toward the fortresses of his own land, but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found.”

In this series of events, Antiochus the Great began to suffer reverses. The “commander” refers to the Roman consul Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, who, as Young expresses it, “brought about the defeat of Antiochus.”[29] The reference to “his insolence” refers to Antiochus’s scornful treatment of the Roman ambassadors at a meeting in Lysimachia, when he said contemptuously, “Asia did not concern them, the Romans, and he was not subject to their orders.”[30]

Antiochus’s defeat came about in the following manner. Having successfully sustained his conquest against Egypt by defeating Scopas, Antiochus then turned his attention to the threat from the west and attempted to equal the conquests of Alexander the Great by conquering Greece. But he was notably unsuccessful, being defeated in 191 B.C. at Thermopylae north of Athens and again in 189 B.C. at Magnesia on the Maeander River southeast of Ephesus by soldiers of Rome and Pergamum under the leadership of the Roman general Scipio. This fulfilled the prophecies of verses 18–19, and from a historic viewpoint, was important in removing from Europe the control by Asiatic governments. This paved the way for Rome’s later expansion.[31]

Antiochus the Great, who could have gone down in history as one of the great conquerors of the ancient world if he had been content to leave Greece alone, instead fulfilled the prophecy of verse 19 in that he had to return to his own land, defeated and broken. He was killed trying to plunder the temple of Bel in Elam.[32] From the standpoint of the history of Israel, this was important because Antiochus the Great was followed by Seleucus IV Philopator (187–175 B.C.), who in turn was succeeded by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.), the notorious persecutor of the Jews described in detail in Daniel 11:21–35. In these prophecies, properly interpreted, is an accurate prophetic picture of this period, which would be remarkable even if it was history. As prophecy, it bears the unmistakable imprint of divine inspiration.

SELEUCUS PHILOPATOR, THE RAISER OF TAXES (11:20)

11:20 “Then shall arise in his place one who shall send an exactor of tribute for the glory of the kingdom. But within a few days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle.”

The Seleucid king ruling between the times of Antiochus the Great and Antiochus Epiphanes, Seleucus IV Philopator, is mentioned here for his oppression by taxation of the people of Israel. Because of the rising power of Rome, he was forced to pay the Romans a tribute of a thousand talents annually.[33] In order to raise this large amount of money, Seleucus had to tax all the lands under his domain, including special taxes from the Jews secured by a tax collector named Heliodorus (2 Macc. 3:7) who took treasures from the temple at Jerusalem.[34] As Zöckler points out, “Soon after Heliodorus was dispatched to plunder the temple, Seleucus Philopator was suddenly and mysteriously removed. This explains the statement, ‘within a few days he shall be broken’ (11:20), possibly by poison administered to him by the same Heliodorus.”[35] This set the stage for the terrible persecutions by Antiochus Epiphanes that followed.

THE RISE OF ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES (11:21–23)

11:21–23 “In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given. He shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, even the prince of the covenant. And from the time that an alliance is made with him he shall act deceitfully, and he shall become strong with a small people.”

Beginning with verse 21, a major section of this chapter is devoted to a comparatively obscure Syrian ruler who was on the throne from 175 to 164 B.C., previously alluded to as the “little horn” (Dan. 8:9–14, 23–25). He reigned in the days of the decline of the Syrian power and the rise of Rome to the west, and only his death in 164 B.C. prevented his humiliation by Rome. From the standpoint of Scripture and the revelation by the angel to Daniel, this was the most important feature of the entire third empire. The reasons for the prominence of Antiochus IV Epiphanes were his desecration of the Jewish temple and altar, and his bitter persecution of the Jewish people. As is true of the entire section beginning with chapter 8, Gentile dominion is viewed primarily from its relationship to the progress of the Jewish nation. By comparison with Seleucus IV Philopator, his predecessor, Antiochus was “a contemptible person.” He gave himself the title Epiphanes, meaning “glorious,” in keeping with his desire to be regarded as a god. The description here is God’s viewpoint of him because of his immoral life, persecution, and hatred of God’s people. His life was characterized by intrigue, expediency, and lust for power in which honor was always secondary.

The expression “to whom royal majesty has not been given” has reference to the fact that Antiochus seized the throne rather than obtaining it honorably. At the time his predecessor died, there were several possible candidates for the throne. Probably the most legitimate ruler would have been Demetrius, the young son of his brother Seleucus IV, who at the time was being held in Rome as a hostage. There was also a younger son of Seleucus IV, also by name of Antiochus, who was still a baby in Syria. Antiochus IV, the brother of Seleucus IV, was in Athens at the time of his brother’s death. There he received word that his brother Seleucus had been murdered by Heliodorus, as prophesied in Daniel 11:20. Montgomery describes this as dying “‘with his boots on,’ a disgrace to a king; cf. Saul’s death.”[36]

Posing as the guardian of young Antiochus who was in Syria, Antiochus IV Epiphanes proceeded to Antioch where by various intrigues, described as “he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries,” he secured the throne. Meanwhile, young Antiochus was murdered by Andronicus, whom Antiochus IV then put to death, although it is possible that Antiochus IV himself had laid the whole plot. Heliodorus, who had murdered Seleucus IV, was not able to secure the throne and disappeared. Antiochus IV was therefore secure on his throne and began an active life of military conquest and intrigue in his struggle for power against both Egypt and Rome.

Verse 22 speaks of military activity, including several campaigns against Egypt. The prophecy does not attempt to be specific, but describes in general how armies on various occasions were destroyed as by a flood and “utterly swept away.” The forces that Antiochus overwhelmed include, as Zöckler states, “in part the troops of Heliodorus, whom Antiochus routed with the assistance of his Pergamenian allies, and in part the Egyptian forces which sought to deprive him of Coele-Syria soon after his accession to the throne.”[37] When Antiochus learned that the Egyptians were about to attack him, he invaded Egypt in 170 B.C. and defeated the Egyptians in a battle that occurred between Mt. Casius and Pelusium, an area on the southeast sea coast of the Mediterranean Sea halfway between Gaza and the Nile delta.[38]

The reference to the “prince of the covenant” prophesied the deposing and eventual murder of the high priest Onias, which was ordered by Antiochus in 172 B.C., and indicates the troublesome times of his reign.[39] The high priest bore the title “prince of the covenant” because he was de facto the head of the theocracy at that time. In 11:28 and 11:32 the term “covenant” is used for the Jewish state. Antiochus sold the office of high priest to Onias’s brother, Jason, who sought to Hellenize the Jewish state.[40]

Verse 23 describes Antiochus’s various alliances with other nations, especially with Egypt, which involved considerable intrigue and deceit. At the time, there was a contest for power between two of Antiochus’s nephews, Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy Euergetes, for control of Egypt. Antiochus supported Ptolemy VI Philometor, but only for his own gain. Out of it, Antiochus became stronger himself.

ANTIOCHUS’S GROWTH IN POWER (11:24–26)

11:24–26 “Without warning he shall come into the richest parts of the province, and he shall do what neither his fathers nor his fathers’ fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods. He shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time. And he shall stir up his power and his heart against the king of the south with a great army. And the king of the south shall wage war with an exceedingly great and mighty army, but he shall not stand, for plots shall be devised against him. Even those who eat his food shall break him. His army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain.”

Always seeking to enlarge his kingdom either through military devices or intrigue, Antiochus, like his fathers, robbed the richest places of the country under his control (v. 24). He attacked his enemies “without warning” in a time of security or peace when the enemy did not expect him. Unlike his father, Antiochus IV did not use his wealth secured in this way for personal advantage so much as to buy favor with others and to secure their cooperation. The expression “scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods” indicates this distribution of the wealth he had secured. According to 1 Maccabees 3:30, “He feared that he might not have such funds as he had before for his expenses and for the gifts which he used to give more lavishly than preceding kings” (RSV).

Among his military maneuvers were several expeditions against Egypt, which are indicated in verse 25. Which of the several expeditions this represents is of no importance, as this prophecy simply described in general the characteristics of Antiochus’s reign. The king of Egypt was defeated as indicated in the statement “but only for a time,” referring to the king of the south. Even those who should have supported him conspired against him as revealed in verse 26. The result was that, generally speaking, Antiochus was victorious over the Egyptians.

THE EVIL OF ANTIOCHUS (11:27–28)

11:27–28 “And as for the two kings, their hearts shall be bent on doing evil. They shall speak lies at the same table, but to no avail, for the end is yet to be at the time appointed. And he shall return to his land with great wealth, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will and return to his own land.”

The struggle between Syria and Egypt led to various agreements that did not prosper. Neither the rulers of Egypt nor Syria were honorable in their agreements. As the last part of verse 27 makes clear, in spite of all his intrigue, Antiochus was fulfilling prophecy on God’s timetable. Returning from Egypt with great riches, he began to manifest his hatred against the people of Israel and his covetousness in relation to the wealth of the temple. This is indicated in the statement, “his heart shall be set against the holy covenant.”[41]

ANTIOCHUS PERSECUTES THE JEWS (11:29–31)

11:29–31 “At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south, but it shall not be this time as it was before. For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and pay attention to those who forsake the holy covenant. Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.”

In his final expedition against Egypt, “at the time appointed”—that is, by God—Antiochus’s success was not as great as in former expeditions. This seems to be what is meant by “but it shall not be this time as it was before.” The invasion ground to a halt when Antiochus was met near Alexandria by Roman consul Gaius Popillius Laenas, who summarily demanded that Antiochus leave Egypt at the pain of being attacked by Rome. The Roman consul is reported by Polybius to have drawn a circle about the king and told him that his decision had to be reached before he stepped out of the circle.[42]

Rather than risk a war with Rome, Antiochus, although greatly displeased, withdrew from Egypt immediately and conceded Egypt to Roman power. Prophetically, this is indicated in verse 30 by the statement “For ships of Kittim shall come against him,” usually taken as a symbolic representation of Roman power that came from the west past Kittim, the island of Cyprus, which was to the west of his kingdom. The fleet of Laenas sailed to Egypt after the Roman victory over Perseus of Macedon near Pydna south of Thessalonica (June 22, 168 B.C.). In the Septuagint, the expression “ships of Kittim” is translated “the Romans,” giving the meaning, if not the exact translation, of the prediction.

Disgruntled by his defeat in Egypt at the hands of Rome, Antiochus Epiphanes seems to have vented his wrath upon the Jewish people. The history of the period is given in 1 and 2 Maccabees. The added statement “shall turn back and pay attention to those who forsake the holy covenant” indicates Antiochus’s affiliation with those who sided with him, who became his favorites and protégés (cf. 1 Macc. 2:18; 2 Macc. 6:1).

In the process of his opposition to the Jews, Antiochus polluted the holy altar in the temple by offering a sow upon the altar and forbidding the continuance of the daily sacrifices (cf. 1 Macc. 1:44–54). He also issued orders that the Jews should cease their worship and erected in the holy place an idol, probably the image of Zeus Olympius. This represents placing “the abomination that makes desolate” (v. 31), which Christ referred to in Matthew 24:15. The parallel prophecy in Daniel 8:23–25 covers the same series of incidents.

This desecration of the temple, in opposition to the Jewish faith, precipitated the Maccabean revolt that was cruelly suppressed by Antiochus with tens of thousands of Israelites perishing. The entire series of incidents, however—including the persecution of Israel, the desecration of their temple, and the stopping of the daily sacrifice—although fulfilled historically in Antiochus’s persecution of Israel, is also prophetic of the future persecution of Israel that will result during the great tribulation. In Matthew 24:15, where Christ described the beginning of this tribulation, He linked that still-future event to the desecration of the temple, indicating it is similar in kind to the past desecration of Antiochus. Antiochus thus became a type of the future man of sin (2 Thess. 2:3–4), and his activities foreshadow the final blasphemous persecution of Israel and desecration of their temple.

THE RESULTING PERSECUTIONS OF ISRAEL (11:32–35)

11:32–35 “He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. And the wise among the people shall make many understand, though for some days they shall stumble by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder. When they stumble, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery, and some of the wise shall stumble, so that they may be refined, purified, and made white, until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time.”

The continued opposition of Antiochus to the Jewish faith is prophesied in verse 32, indicating how he would attempt to corrupt them; but the Jews’ strong reaction is shown in the expression “the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action.” The resulting conflict, however, brought much harm on the people of Israel, and though it ultimately brought about a spiritual revival, many were killed. Some of the Jews succumbed to the flattery of the king and sided with Antiochus against their fellow Jews. It was a time of purging and separation of the true from the false, of the courageous from the fainthearted.

In verse 35 the purging process is said to continue “until the time of the end.” It is clear that the persecutions of Antiochus were not the time of the end, even though they foreshadowed it. The mention of “the end,” however, serves as a transition. From verse 36 on, the prophecy leaps the intervening centuries to predict events related to the last generation prior to God’s judgment of Gentile power and its rulers—prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled.

The amazingly detailed prophecies of Daniel 11:1–35 contain approximately 135 prophetic statements that have all now been fulfilled. These verses serve as an impressive introduction to the events that are yet future. Those critics who assail this chapter as being so accurate that it could not possibly be written before the events, and yet also attempt to find discrepancies that support their contention that this “pseudo-Daniel” is a poor historian, are actually arguing on both sides of the question at the same time. The fact is that there is no supported evidence that can contradict any statement made in these verses. The contention that it cannot be prophetic because of its accuracy involves assumptions that would undermine the entire prophetic Scriptures. The accuracy of this prophetic word is one more bit of supporting evidence that prophecy yet unfulfilled will have the same precise fulfillment in the future.

THE KING OF THE END TIME (11:36)

11:36 “And the king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is decreed shall be done.”

Beginning in verse 36, Daniel described events that have never been fulfilled historically. Neither Antiochus Epiphanes nor Herod the Great ever sought to “exalt himself and magnify himself above every god.” The individual in view is the still-future Antichrist first described in Daniel 7.

The expression “the time of the end” (v. 35) marks the sharp break in this prophecy. Up to this point, the prophecy dealing with the Persian and Grecian Empires has been fulfilled minutely and with amazing precision. Now, however, we are in an entirely different situation. No commentator claims to find precise fulfillment in the remainder of this chapter. Although Zöckler and others attempt to relate Daniel 11:36–45 to Antiochus,[43] many students of Scripture have recognized from antiquity that another king must be in view. Ibn-Ezra, for example, identified this king with Constantine the Great; Rashi and Calvin referred him to the Roman Empire as a whole; and Jerome, Theodoret, and Luther, among others, identified him with the New Testament Antichrist.[44] In contrast to the preceding section, there is no specific correspondence to history. Accordingly, scholars who regard this as genuine Scripture usually regard this section as future and unfulfilled.

As Pusey has noted, “Even the Jews in S. Jerome’s time looked upon this prophecy as having still to receive its fulfillment.”[45] In reference to Daniel 11:36, Jerome comments,

The Jews believe that this passage has reference to the Antichrist, alleging that after the small help of Julian a king is going to rise up who shall do according to his own will and shall lift himself up against all that is called god, and shall speak arrogant words against the God of gods. He shall act in such a way as to sit in the Temple of God and shall make himself out to be God, and his will shall be prospered until the wrath of God is fulfilled, for in him the consummation will take place. We, too, understand this to refer to the Antichrist.[46]

Earlier Jerome had pointed out that Antiochus was merely a foreshadowing of the Antichrist: “Just as the Savior had Solomon and the other saints as types of His advent, so also we should believe that the Antichrist very properly had as a type of himself the utterly wicked king, Antiochus, who persecuted the saints and defiled the Temple.”[47]

Although many variations exist, in general, interpretations of Daniel 11:36–45 fall into three major categories: (1) that it is a further historic or prophetic account fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes; (2) that it is fiction, that is, the wishful thinking of the author and does not correspond to history precisely; (3) that it is genuine prophecy as yet unfulfilled.

Liberal critics, following the thesis that Daniel was written by a second-century B.C. writer, almost uniformly argue that this section was fulfilled in the life and death of Antiochus Epiphanes.[48] Even they, however, agree that this section is not nearly as accurate as the earlier portion. Although finding it an accurate forecast of Antiochus’s death—in regarding the passage as a prophecy of the king’s catastrophic end, as Montgomery holds—liberals also admit as Montgomery does, “but it cannot, with those conservative theologians, be taken in any way as an exact prophecy of the actual events of his ruin. The alleged final victorious war with Egypt, including the conquest of Cyrenaica and Ethiopia, in the face of the power of Rome and the silence of secular history, is absolutely imaginary.”[49] Even liberal scholars, who find the earlier section so remarkably accurate that they say it must be history rather than prophecy, admit a sharp difference beginning in verse 36 as not corresponding to history.[50]

This is the reason conservative scholars have rejected the historical interpretation and, with due regard to the inspiration of Scripture, expect a future fulfillment.

The second possibility, that the passage is fiction, does not seem to have seriously attracted even the liberal scholar, preferring as he does to identify it with Antiochus Epiphanes. Other competing interpretations, such as those that compare the passage to Constantine the Great, Omar ibn El-Khattab, the Roman Empire (Calvin), the Pope of Rome, the Papal system, or Herod the Great (Mauro), all cited by Young, are not generally considered live options today.[51]

Because the historical fulfillment of verses 36–45 is unsatisfactory to conservative expositors, they relate this passage to the climax of history culminating in the second advent of Christ. This is in keeping with the total tenor of Daniel’s prophecies, which characteristically have their climax in the end of the interadvent age and the triumph of the kingdom of heaven which the Son of Man will accomplish when He returns. This passage, therefore, is to be considered as contemporaneous with the climax of chapter 2, the destruction of the image, and the destruction of the little horn of Daniel 7, a period described in Revelation 6–19. The king described in Daniel 11:36–39, and the events of the subsequent verses, therefore have nothing to do with the second century B.C., and are entirely future and unfulfilled.

Among conservative scholars, however, two differing views of the king of verse 36 are given. The common view is that of J. N. Darby that the king of Daniel 11:36 is none other than the Antichrist, an unregenerate Jew living in the land of Israel at the end time who is in league with the Roman world ruler. Darby, although not emphasizing the racial background of this king, identifies him with the man of sin (2 Thess. 2:3–10) and the false prophet of Revelation 13:11–18.[52] Gaebelein offers the same interpretation with specific emphasis on the Jewish character of this ruler as a false messiah acceptable to the Jewish people.[53] The principal support for this is found in the expression of verse 37, “He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers,” who these interpreters believe must be identified as the God of Israel. Further, it is assumed that Jewish people will not accept even a false messiah unless he is Jewish in background. As an apostate, he disregards his fathers’ God and the hope of the Messiah and instead honors the Roman world dictator as god.

A better identification of this king, however, is to relate him to the Roman world ruler, the same individual as the little horn of Daniel 7, and the beast out of the sea of Revelation 13:1–10. Upon careful consideration, the evidence in support of Darby’s identification is seen to be insufficient, and the second view is preferred.

According to verse 36, the king is an absolute ruler who “shall do as he wills.” If this is the great tribulation, as intimated in Daniel 12:1, when the Roman ruler is a world ruler, it is difficult to contemplate any other ruler who could be absolute in authority, especially in an area so close to the center of Roman power as the land of Israel. There can be only one king who does absolutely according to his will in this period, and this must be the world ruler who “shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces” (Dan. 7:23). Although other rulers will be associated with him, such as the ten horns (Rev. 17:12) and the false prophet (Rev. 13:11–18), none of these can be described as absolute rulers.

Further evidence is found in the fact that he not only assumes complete political rule, but also the role of God. In his claim to deity, which he demands that all recognize on pain of death (Rev. 13:15), he clearly asserts his supremacy over all others. To describe a ruler in Israel during this time under these extravagant terms would be incongruous with the total situation. This king shall also blaspheme against the true God and prosper for a time until he comes to his end.

Liberal interpreters cite this verse as evidence that this passage refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. It is well established that Antiochus claimed qualities belonging to God as revealed in the coins of his realm and in the title of Epiphanes itself, which he considered as stating that he manifested the powers of God. Montgomery relates, for instance, “Epiphanes took his godhead very seriously. He was the first to assume ‘Theos’ on his coins, and the addition of ‘Manifest’ (practically ‘incarnate’) indicated his self-identification with Deity [and that] he was not merely a god like his forebears. The ever-increasing obsession of godhead appears from the sequence of his coins.”[54] The identification of this passage with Antiochus, however, breaks down as the prophecy unfolds. For example, rather than magnifying himself “above every god,” Antiochus tried to force the Jews to worship the typical Hellenistic pantheon of gods.[55] If this is indeed the end time, just before the second advent of Christ, the description of the king fits only one person, namely, the Roman who will prosper until his blasphemous course is fulfilled.

THE FINAL WORLD RELIGION (11:37–39)

11:37–39 “He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these. A god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. He shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god. Those who acknowledge him he shall load with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price.”

One of the main arguments used to support the conclusion that this king is a Jew is the statement that he will not regard “the God of his fathers” (KJV). As Gaebelein states, “The King, Antichrist, shall not regard the God of his fathers. Here his Jewish descent becomes evident. It is a Jewish phrase ‘the God of his fathers’ and beside this, to establish his fraudulent claim to be the King Messiah, he must be a Jew.”[56] Gaebelein and others upholding this view, however, overlook a most decisive fact that the word for “God” here is Elohim, a name for God in general, applying both to the true God and to false gods. If the expression had used the name Yahweh in referring to the God of Israel, the identification would be unmistakable. Very frequently in Scripture the God of Israel is described as Yahweh, “the LORD God” of their fathers (cf. Exod. 3:15–16; 4:5; Deut. 1:11, 21; 4:1; 6:3; 12:1; 26:7; 29:25; Josh. 18:3; Judg. 2:12; 2 Kings 21:22; 1 Chron. 29:20; 2 Chron. 7:22; 11:16; 13:18; 15:12; 19:4; 20:6; 21:10; 24:24; 28:9; 29:5; 30:7, 19; 34:33; 36:15; Ezra 7:27; 8:28). Although Daniel used “God (Elohim) of my fathers” in 2:23, in view of the more common usage elsewhere in Scripture, for Daniel to omit the word Yahweh or LORD in a passage where a specific name for God would be necessary, is significant. The expression should be rendered “the gods of his fathers”—that is, any god, as the ESV translates it.

In keeping with the blasphemous character of this king who magnifies himself above every god, he disregards whatever deities his fathers worshiped. And in keeping with his disregard for former deities, he does not pay respect to what is called “the one beloved by women.” This expression has been regarded as a reference to a specific pagan goddess such as Ewald’s identification with Tammuz-Adonis, which Montgomery states has “come to be generally adopted” since Bevan.[57] Bevan states,

“the one beloved by women” must, to judge by the context, be some object of women. Most modern interpreters, following Ephraim Syrus, explain this as a reference to the goddess Nanaia, whose temple in Elymais the king endeavoured to plunder shortly before his death. But to this view there are two objections. Firstly, the attack upon the temple of Nanaia cannot have been heard of in Judaea till the year 164 B.C. Secondly, there is no reason why Nanaia should be designated as the Desire of women. Even if her worship was, as has been supposed, of a voluptuous character, this would scarcely give rise to such an appellation. It appears, therefore, much more probable that Ewald is right in explaining the one beloved by women as Tammuz (Adonis), whose cult had been popular in Syria from time immemorial, especially amongst women (Ezek. 8:14).[58]

Others, like Young after Keil,[59] consider it the normal male love or desire for women, meaning that this king is inhuman in his disregard of women.

A plausible explanation of this passage, in the light of Daniel’s Jewish background, is that this expression is the natural desire of Jewish women to become the mother of the promised Messiah, the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15. The expression then becomes a symbol of the messianic hope in general. As Gaebelein expresses it, “Still more interesting is the statement ‘he shall not regard the one beloved by women.’ The Lord Jesus Christ is here in view. The word ‘beloved’ is in the same construct form in Hebrew (hemdat) as in Haggai 2:7 and 1 Samuel 9:20, indicating that the noun following ‘beloved’ is subjective not objective; hence it means ‘beloved by women,’ not a desire for women. Pious Jewish women in Pre-messianic times had one great desire, they wanted to be mothers, with a view to Him, who is the promised seed of the woman. His birth was beloved by these godly mothers of Israel. This King then hates God and hates His blessed Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.”[60]

Although none of the explanations can be proved beyond question, as Daniel is not specific, it is quite clear that this king would be opposed to the messianic hope; and from Daniel’s point of view, this would be important. In other words, he would disregard the gods of the past as well as the promised Son of God who is to come from heaven.

The prophecy continues that this king shall “magnify himself above all [gods].” His blasphemy is twofold: he rejects both the true God and all false gods, and assumes deity for himself. Although Antiochus Epiphanes had some aspirations of being recognized as having divine qualities, even the liberal scholars who attempt historic fulfillment in him in relation to this passage are embarrassed by the sweeping statement that is made. There is no proof that Antiochus went this far, and the futuristic interpretation makes far more sense.

The characteristics of this king’s “theology” are explained in verse 38. In the place that God occupies in other people’s thinking, he is stated to “honor the god of fortresses.” This god is peculiarly different from the gods that his fathers knew, and the revelation continues, “A god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts.” Here again, the liberal scholar is embarrassed by this extensive claim, which far exceeds anything true of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Those who identify this king as an apostate Jew at the end of the age are likewise embarrassed, as “the god of fortresses” then has to be identified with the Roman world ruler. Gaebelein states, “The one whom he will honour is none other than the first beast, the little horn.”[61] If this is intended as an identification, however, it is a strange one and quite different from any other identification of the Roman ruler in Scripture.

Although all expositors must use their judgment in determining the identification of this king, what will be completely different about the world religion at the end time will be (1) the total subjugation of all previous religions; and (2) the worship of the world ruler without reference to any other divine power except that of Satan. For this world ruler to acknowledge something as supreme while already claiming to be God clearly indicates that “the god of fortresses” is not a person but the power to make war, symbolized by the term fortress.

Examining all other passages relating to the end time, it becomes evident that the final world ruler’s sole confidence is in military power, personified as “the god of fortresses.” In other words, he is a complete materialist in contrast to all previous religions and all previous men who claimed divine qualities. This is blasphemy to the ultimate, the exaltation of human power and attainment. He is Satan’s masterpiece, a human being who is Satan’s substitute for Jesus Christ, hence properly identified as the Antichrist. In keeping with his complete materialism, his activities are characterized by warfare and honoring those who honor him. Those cooperating are given subsidiary rule expressed in the statement, “He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price”—that is, he will reapportion territories in keeping with his desire for conquest. There is no record that Antiochus divided lands among those who defected to him, and nothing of this sort is indicated in the passages that report his briberies (1 Macc. 2:18; 3:30ff.). This would be an important omission if Antiochus Epiphanes is the subject of this prophecy. Taking Daniel 11:36–39 as a whole, it is apparent that the revelation provides an incisive analysis of the combination of materialism, militarism, and religion that will characterize the final world ruler.

This portion of Daniel, in the light of contemporary trends, becomes an illuminating prophetic commentary on the ultimate end of these present forces in the world that will unite the political, religious, and materialistic philosophies of our day in one man who is Satan’s nomination for king of kings and lords of lords. The apex of this development will be reached in the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week, the three and a half years of the great tribulation, immediately preceding the second advent of Jesus Christ. However, his world government will be assailed by the catastrophic judgments from God portrayed in Revelation 6–18, and the inherent difficulties of ruling the entire globe come to their fruition in a final world war of which the closing portion of Daniel 11 furnishes a description.

THE FINAL WORLD WAR ERUPTS (11:40–43)

11:40–43 “At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack him, but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Cushites shall follow in his train.”

The “time of the end” introduced in verse 35 is again mentioned to make clear that the military struggle here is that which will characterize the end of the age. The general nature and location of the warfare is also specified. The king mentioned in verses 36–39 is now attacked by kings from the south and the north. Earlier in this chapter, the king of the south uniformly referred to Egypt and to the warfare of the third and second centuries B.C. that has already been fulfilled. Here the king of the south is clearly the leader of a political and military force that comes from south of the Holy Land, but the probability is that it involves much more than only Egypt and can be identified as an African army. There is no mention whatever of such campaigns in the Maccabean books or by Livy, Polybius, and Appian. No such warfare is described in history.

The king of the north, identified as Syria in the prophecies fulfilled in the second and third centuries B.C., is obviously more than the small territory possessed by Syria at that time and probably includes all the political and military force of the lands to the north of the Holy Land.[62]

A natural question is the relation of this struggle to the battle described in Ezekiel 38–39, where a great military force coming from the north attacks the land of Israel. The context in Ezekiel describes the time as a period of peace for Israel (Ezek. 38:8, 11, 14), which is probably best identified as the first half of Daniel’s seventieth week when Israel is in covenant relationship with the Roman ruler and protected from attack. This period of peace is broken at the midpoint of the seventieth week when the Roman ruler becomes a world ruler, and the great tribulation begins with its persecution of Israel.

The chronology of Daniel 11:36–39 refers to this latter period of world rule, and, therefore, must occur after Ezekiel 38–39. So it may be concluded that the battle described in Daniel is a later development, possibly several years after the battle described in Ezekiel. In light of the previous context, where the king is pictured as an absolute ruler, coinciding with other Scriptures picturing a world government at this time (Dan. 7:23; Rev. 13:7), the war in Daniel is a rebellion against his leadership and signifies the breaking up of the world government that previously had been in power. The initial nature of the battle is quite clear.

A major exegetical problem, however, is the reference in verse 40: “And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through.” The question is whether “he” refers to the king of the south, the king of the north, or the former world ruler who is defending his empire. Based on what follows, it is preferable to take the “he” as referring to the king of 11:36, the world ruler.

Identifying the subject of these verses as the king of 11:36 seems to be most in keeping with the entire tenor of this passage, which presents the last world ruler. Other suggestions have been made, which would greatly alter the meaning of the passage. Among the views, several may be mentioned. The liberal interpretation is that this refers to the historic struggles of Antiochus Epiphanes with Egypt; but any comparison of the predictions here with the actual events of the closing of the reign of Antiochus presents serious difficulties, and even the liberals have to accuse their pseudo-Daniel of being guilty of historical inaccuracies.[63] Actually, there is no correspondence to history here.

If the futuristic interpretation is accepted, a number of options are possible. If the ruler of 11:36 is only a minor character and not a world ruler, it would open the way for regarding this war to be merely an intersectional conflict, as Ironside interprets it.[64] In this case, this entire passage does not refer to the world ruler. Another view is to identify the king of the north as the Antichrist and the future world ruler. This is the position of Young, who states, “The two opponents are the Anti-christ and the king of the South, who begins the battle by pushing or butting (cf. 8:4) against his enemy.”[65]

The best interpretation, however, is that the main actor, the king of 11:36, is the final great world ruler. Leupold supports this view and considers the entire section to indicate a defeat of the invading armies and the triumph of the king until the end. He writes, “The variety of the resources that are to be employed against the Antichrist indicate how great his power must be at the latter end—‘chariots, horsemen, and many ships.’ But the Antichrist will not be slow to repel the attack. He himself shall ‘come into these lands,’ that is, the lands of those who have assailed him, and ‘shall sweep along and pass through.’”[66] The major revelation here, therefore, is that the king of 11:36, although engaged in bitter struggle, continues to dominate the situation until he comes to his end at the second coming of Jesus Christ.

His counterattack on those who have assailed him results in his entering into their countries and occupying “the glorious land”—referring to the Holy Land and many other countries, including Egypt. It appears, however, that he does not completely restore the situation, as it is stated that Edom and Moab and most of the Ammonites escape. His victory is such that he is able to increase greatly his treasures of gold and silver and obtain precious things from Egypt. From this point on, however, his authority is supported only insofar as his military campaigns are able to occupy various countries. His world empire, apparently originating in a decree that at that time was not contested, no longer remains intact. What is pictured in these verses is an extended military campaign that begins with the Antichrist’s forces invading Israel and then moving south into Egypt and northern Africa.

THE FINAL BATTLES (11:44–45)

11:44–45 “But news from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction. And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.”

To add to this king’s difficulties his invasion of Africa seems to be cut short by disturbing news “from the east and the north.” One question is whether this refers to the invasion described in Revelation 16:12 where the Euphrates river dries up “to prepare the way for the kings from the east.” Whatever the disturbing news is, it forces the Antichrist to “go out with great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction.” It is possible that the final destruction of Babylon takes place during this part of the Antichrist’s final campaign.[67]

At the end of the king’s final campaign he succeeds in establishing his tent-palace “between the sea and the glorious holy mountain,” best understood as a reference to Jerusalem situated between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea. Actually, the struggle goes on without cessation right up to the day of Christ’s second advent, as brought out in Zechariah 14:1–4. Daniel does not dwell upon details in the climax of this struggle.

In spite of his military victories, the last world ruler “shall come to his end, with none to help him.” The liberal interpretation relating this to Antiochus simply does not fit the passage, as Antiochus died in battle in Media, and nothing significant immediately followed his death. If this is indeed the time of the end and this is the final world ruler of the times of the Gentiles, the best identification is to refer his doom to Christ’s return and the destruction of the beast and the armies (Rev. 19:17–21). According to Revelation 19:17–21, the king and the false prophet associated with him are cast alive into the lake of fire. The armies that are united in opposition to Christ and attacking Jerusalem are destroyed. That the second advent is in view is brought out clearly in Revelation 20 where the time of the end is made definitely to include the great tribulation and the resurrection of the dead (cf. 20:4–6).

Taken as a whole, Daniel 11:36–45 is a description of the closing days of the times of the Gentiles, specifically, the great tribulation with its world ruler, world religion, and materialistic philosophy. In spite of its satanic support, the world government fragments into sectional disputes and a great world war that climaxes with the second advent of Christ. This brings the times of the Gentiles to a close with the destruction of the wicked rulers who led it. Further details are added in the next chapter.

NOTES

[1] Wilbur M. Smith, “Introduction to Jerome,” Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 5.

[2] For an interesting study of Porphyry, see W. A. Criswell, Expository Sermons on the Book of Daniel, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968), 19ff.

[3] F. W. Farrar, The Book of Daniel, The Expositor’s Bible, W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. (Cincinnati: Jennings & Graham, n.d.), 299.

[4] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 471–73.

[5] Josh McDowell, Daniel in the Critics’ Den (San Bernardino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1979), 112–13.

[6] Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 429.

[7] Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 278–79.

[8] Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 156.

[9] James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 423.

[10] For a more detailed explanation, see Frederic W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 2002), 345.

[11] Breneman notes that the events of Esther 1 took place “years before his famous expedition against the Greek mainland” (Mervin Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001], 304).

[12] Montgomery, Daniel, 424.

[13] Wood argues that it refers to Xerxes stirring up his own troops, not Greece (Wood, Daniel, 281).

[14] H. W. Hoehner, “Between the Testaments,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 181–82.

[15] For an excellent discussion of this passage and the historical background it is describing, see Walter K. Price, In the Final Days (Chicago: Moody, 1977), 33–163.

[16] See discussion of this point by Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 234.

[17] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 651.

[18] Farrar, The Book of Daniel, 304–5.

[19] Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, Gleason L. Archer Jr., ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 123.

[20] Otto Zöckler, “The Book of the Prophet Daniel,” in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, John Peter Lange, ed. (repr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 242.

[21] Montgomery, Daniel, 433.

[22] Jerome, Daniel, 124.

[23] Young, Daniel, 238.

[24] Zöckler, “Daniel,” 244.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Wood, Daniel, 290.

[27] Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 1008.

[28] Young, Daniel, 240.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Cf. Polybius 18.34; and Livy, 33.19, 38, 40, as cited by Zöckler, “Daniel,” 246.

[31] Cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 434–35.

[32] Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 134.

[33] Leupold, Daniel, 492.

[34] Ibid., 493.

[35] Zöckler, “Daniel,” 246, citing Appian, Syr. C. 45.

[36] Montgomery, Daniel, 445.

[37] In support of this Zöckler quotes Hitzig as follows, “For after the death of Cleopatra (v. 17), Eulaus and Lenaeus, the guardians of her son, Ptolemy Philometor, demanded the cession of Coele-Syria, the dowry which had hitherto been refused (Polyb. 28:1; Diodor., Leg. 18, 624 Wess.; Livy, 42:49). Antiochus, on the other hand, would not acknowledge that his father hadpromised such a dowry (Polyb., 28:17), and therefore refused to grant it” (F. Hitzig, Kuragefasstes exeget. Handbuch zum A. T.; 10th pamphlet, Das Buch Daniel [Leipsig, 1850]). Zöckler, “Daniel,” 247.

[38] Cf. Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The MacMillan Bible Atlas (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 117.

[39] Joyce C. Baldwin, Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978), 192.

[40] Price, In the Final Days, 76–80.

[41] A detailed description of the violent atrocities and murder of thousands of Jews by Antiochus while marching through Judea is found in 1 Maccabees 1:20–28 and 2 Maccabees 5:11–17.

[42] Polybius, Histories 29.27.4.

[43] For a recent attempt to do so, see John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 304–5.

[44] Zöckler, “Daniel,” 251.

[45] Edward B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885), 139.

[46] Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 136.

[47] Ibid., 130.

[48] Montgomery, Daniel, 464ff.

[49] Ibid., 465.

[50] Porteous writes, “Attempts to reconcile this passage in Daniel with the well-attested facts of history are a waste of time” (Porteous, Daniel, 170).

[51] Young, Daniel, 246–47.

[52] John N. Darby, Studies on the Book of Daniel (London: G. Morrish, n.d.), 107–14.

[53] A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel (New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911), 180–95.

[54] Montgomery, Daniel, 461.

[55] Josephus says that Antiochus ordered the Jews to “forsake the worship which they paid to their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods” (Josephus, Antiquities 12.5.4).

[56] Gaebelein, Daniel, 188.

[57] Montgomery, Daniel, 461–62.

[58] Anthony A. Bevan, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Cambridge: University Press, 1892), 196–97.

[59] Keil, Daniel, 464–65; Young, Daniel, 249. Leupold holds a similar view, Daniel, 515–16.

[60] Gaebelein, Daniel, 188.

[61] Ibid.

[62] Wood, Daniel, 308–9.

[63] Cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 464–67.

[64] H. A. Ironside, Lectures on Daniel the Prophet (New York: Loizeaux, 1920), 222–23.

[65] Young, Daniel, 251.

[66] Leupold, Daniel, 521.

[67] For information on the possible role Babylon plays in end-time events see Charles H. Dyer, “The identity of Babylon in Revelation 17–18: Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 no. 3 (July-September 1987), 304–16; and “The identification of Babylon in Revelation 17–18: Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 no. 4 (October–December 1987), 433–49.

12

The Time of the End

The fourth vision of Daniel that began in chapter 10 has its climax in the great tribulation and the resurrection that follows, mentioned in the early verses of chapter 12. This is also the high point in the book of Daniel itself and the goal of Daniel’s prophecies relating both to the Gentiles and to Israel. It is comparable to Revelation 19, the high point of the last book of the Bible.

All commentators agree that the chapter division at this point is unfortunate. As Porteous expresses it,

The first four verses of chapter 12 are the completion of the long section which began with chapter 10. They give in remarkably brief compass and restrained language the writer’s expectation of what the divinely appointed end would be like. It would be a climax of which Israel would be the centre, as is shown by the fact that Michael, the patron angel of Israel, is to play the decisive part on God’s behalf. The great tribulation will come to a head but Israel will escape, all those in Israel, that is to say, whose names are written in the book of life (Ps. 69:29; Ex. 32:32; cf. the later passages Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5). God already knows His own.[1]

Added to the previous revelation are the important disclosures that (1) the time of the end has a special relationship to “your people,” that is, Israel; (2) those in Israel who worship God will experience a special deliverance; and (3) the doctrine of resurrection that climaxes the time of the end is the special hope of those who are martyred.

The entire section (11:36–12:3) reveals the major factors of the end times, which may be summarized as follows: (1) a world ruler, (2) a world religion, (3) a world war, (4) a time of great tribulation for Israel, (5) deliverance for the people of God at the end of the tribulation, (6) resurrection and judgment, and (7) reward of the righteous. Other Scriptures add the facts that this time of the end begins with the breaking of the covenant by “the prince who is to come” (Dan. 9:26–27); that the “time of the end” will last for three and one half years (Dan. 7:25; 12:7; Rev. 13:5); that the time of the end is the same as the time of Jacob’s trouble and the great tribulation (Jer. 30:7; Matt. 24:21). Many additional details are supplied in Revelation 6–19.

The fact that the opening section of chapter 12 is obviously eschatologically future is a major embarrassment to liberals who attempt to find Antiochus Epiphanes in 11:36–45. chapter 12, which is naturally connected to the preceding section, clearly does not refer to Antiochus but to the consummation of the ages and the resurrection and reward of the saints. Nowhere does the attempt to make Daniel entirely history fail more miserably than here, as the detailed exegesis of these verses demonstrates.[2]

THE GREAT TRIBULATION (12:1)

12:1 “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.”

The opening phrase of chapter 12 makes it clear that this passage is talking about the same period of time as the previous context, that is, “the time of the end” (11:40). The action here is not subsequent to the preceding events, but coincides with them chronologically. chapter 11 dealt primarily with the political and religious aspects of the end times. chapter 12 relates this time period specifically to the people of Israel. Here is stated in clear terms that this is the time of unprecedented trouble for the people of Israel. To take the expression “your people” in any other sense than the nation of Israel is to ignore the uniform meaning of this designation in the book of Daniel (cf. 9:15–16, 19, 24; 10:14; 11:14).

The time of great trouble mentioned here is a major theme of both the Old and New Testaments. As early as Deuteronomy 4:30, it was predicted that Israel would be “in tribulation … In the latter days.” Jeremiah referred to it in his lament: “Alas! That day is so great there is none like it; it is a time of distress for Jacob; yet he shall be saved out of it” (Jer. 30:7).

Christ described the great tribulation as beginning with “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” (Matt. 24:15), a reference to the breaking of the covenant and desecration of the temple (Dan. 9:27). Christ’s warning to the people of Israel at that time was that they should “flee to the mountains,” not taking time to secure clothes or food. Christ graphically described the period in these words: “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short” (Matt. 24:21–22).

This description confirms Daniel’s revelation that the time of the end will be a period of trouble such as the world has never known, of such character that it would result in the extermination of the human race if it were not cut short by the consummation, the second coming of Jesus Christ. This is made clear from a further study of Revelation 6–19, where the great catastrophes that overtake the world in the breaking of the seals, the blowing of the trumpets, and the emptying of the bowls of divine judgment decimate the world’s population. All of these Scriptures agree that there is no precedent to this end-time trouble. Even liberal expositors find it impossible to harmonize Daniel 12:1 with the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century B.C. As Keil has observed,

… the contents of ver. 1 do not agree with the period of persecution under Antiochus. That which is said regarding the greatness of the persecution is much too strong for it…. Though the oppression which Antiochus brought upon Israel may have been most severe, yet it could not be said of it without exaggeration, that it was such a tribulation as never had been from the beginning of the world. Antiochus, it is true, sought to outroot Judaism root and branch, but Pharaoh also wished to do the same by his command to destroy all the Hebrew male children at their birth; and as Antiochus wished to make the worship of the Grecian Zeus, so also Jezebel the worship of the Phoenician Hercules, in the place of the worship of Jehovah, the national religion in Israel.[3]

Numerous other allusions in Scripture to this period indicate that it is indeed a time of supreme trial for Israel. Zechariah 13:8 declares of this period, “In the whole land, declares the LORD, two thirds shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left alive.” Zechariah goes on to picture the refining process until the people of Israel acknowledge the Lord as their God. The very next verses describe the final struggle for Jerusalem and the second advent of Christ that delivers Israel. This time of trouble is parallel to the warfare described in Daniel 11:40–45.

In their distress, the people of Israel are especially aided by Michael, the archangel (cf. Jude 9; Rev. 12:7). As the head of the holy angels, Michael is given the special responsibility of protecting the people of Israel. Earlier mention was made of Michael (Dan. 10:13–21), where he participated in the angelic warfare that had prevented the messenger from reaching Daniel promptly. Michael is a “great prince” among the angels whose activity is especially directed to Israel in her time of great trouble.

Because of God’s purpose and Michael’s ministry, it is revealed to Daniel that “at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.” This obviously refers to the end of the tribulation when some of the people of Israel, who by miraculous divine protection have been preserved, will be delivered from their persecutors (Dan. 7:18, 27). The repeated reference to “your people,” twice in one verse, seems to limit this to the people of Israel, rather than to all the saints as Young and Leupold interpret it, after Calvin.[4] This is in keeping with the whole tenor of Daniel, which deals with Israel as Daniel’s people. The deliverance will not extend to all Israel since it is limited in the context to “everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.” Evidently, unbelieving or apostate Israelites will be excluded. The verse seems specifically to apply to those still alive at the time of Christ’s return, as many others may already have been martyred. The prophecy assures, however, that in spite of satanic efforts to exterminate Israel, a godly remnant will be ready to greet their Messiah when He returns (Zech. 12:10; 13:8–9). The people of Israel who have endured the times of the Gentiles ever since the days of Nebuchadnezzar will be delivered “at that time.”

The reference to “everyone whose name shall be found written in the book” suggests that those delivered have their names inscribed in the book of life (Exod. 32:32, 33; Ps. 69:28; Rev. 13:8; 17:8; 20:15; 21:27). Not every individual Israelite is spiritually prepared for Christ’s return. Ezekiel 20:33–38 makes this clear, describing the purging out of the rebels in Israel at the time of the second advent. Although Israel as a nation will be delivered from her persecutors (Rom. 11:26), individual Israelites will still face the searching judgment of Christ as to their spiritual preparation to enter the kingdom. For Jew as well as Gentile, the issue will be whether they have eternal life.

THE TWO RESURRECTIONS (12:2)

12:2 “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

As a climax to the time of tribulation described in verse 1, verse 2 reveals that there will be a resurrection from the dead. Both liberal and conservative expositors consider the main thrust of this passage the promise of ultimate bliss for the righteous who suffer in the preceding period of tribulation. Montgomery says, “The end of the godless tyrant must have its positive foil in the bliss of the righteous; so the elder apocalypses concluded, e.g., Eze. 38:39, Joel 4 (3).”[5]

Bevan, who labors to connect this passage with Antiochus, nevertheless states,

Verse 2 introduces the resurrection of the dead. To what extent this belief existed among the Jews in pre-Maccabean times, cannot here be discussed, but this is in any case the earliest passage where the belief is unambiguously set forth. Here, however, the resurrection is far from being universal; it includes “many,” not all, of the dead. That only Israelites are raised is not expressly stated, but appears probable from the context…. Those who awake are divided into two classes, corresponding to the division in chap. 11:32.[6]

Bevan is wrong that this is the earliest passage where this belief is revealed clearly. Abraham certainly had confidence in resurrection from the dead in offering Isaac (Gen. 22:5; Heb. 11:19). Job, who probably lived before Moses, stated his faith in the well-known passage: “For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God” (Job 19:25–26). Isaiah, who lived more than a century before Daniel, predicted that the dead would live again and that their bodies would rise (Isa. 26:19). Hosea, a contemporary of Isaiah, predicted, “Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion is hidden from my eyes” (Hos. 13:14). Even the resurrection of Christ is predicted in the words, “Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure. For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption” (Ps. 16:9–10). Daniel was not revealing something new, but what has always been the hope of the saints. This, of course, is enlarged in the New Testament with the added truth of the rapture of living saints.

Although both liberal and conservative scholars generally agree that resurrection is in view in this passage, because of the wording of the prophecy, questions have risen concerning (1) the character of the event, (2) the time of the event, and (3) the inclusion of the event. Interpretation of the passage has been affected by the general eschatological position of the interpreter; premillenarians normally interpret the passage somewhat differently from amillenarians.

Strange to say, some premillenarians, although conservative in their general interpretation, have questioned whether this passage actually teaches resurrection. Gaebelein states flatly, “Physical resurrection is not taught in the second verse of this chapter…. We repeat, the passage has nothing to do with physical resurrection. Physical resurrection is however used as a figure of the national revival of Israel in that day.”[7] Kelly takes the same position: “The verse is constantly applied to the resurrection of the body; and it is true that the Spirit founds the figure, which is here used to foreshadow the revival of Israel, upon that resurrection. But it can be shewn that it has not the least reference to a bodily resurrection, either of us or of Israel.”[8] Even Ironside concurs with this teaching: “The second verse does not, I believe, speak of an actual physical resurrection, but rather of a moral and national one…. It is the same kind of language that is used both in Isaiah 26:12–19 and Ezekiel 37….”[9]

The motivation behind this interpretation is their zeal to support the general premillennial interpretation of Scripture and the restoration of the nation Israel at Christ’s second coming—and especially to harmonize this passage with their teaching that Old Testament saints are raised at the rapture of the church before the tribulation and hence would not be raised here at a later time. Most contemporary premillenarians, who are also pretribulationists, believe that this approach is unnecessary and actually misinterprets the passage.[10]

Culver, for instance, in commenting on Gaebelein states, “The thing so utterly unacceptable about this is that Gaebelein adopts the very ‘spiritualizing’ or ‘symbolizing’ principle of interpretation which our opponents adopt—and that in the midst of a passage where everything else is esteemed (by Gaebelein and all Premillennialists) to be literal, not figurative. He does with this passage precisely what the Postmillennialists and Amillennialists do with reference to a first resurrection in Revelation 20.”[11]

It is significant that expositors who spiritualize the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 interpret the first part of the verse as applying to Israel’s restoration. But they pass over the last part of the verse referring to those who awake to judgment. Certainly the evil are literally raised from the dead for their final judgment (Rev. 20:12–13), and the same verb must mean resurrection for the righteous as well. It is not necessary to press this passage out of its natural meaning in order to support premillennialism, and there is nothing in this passage that contradicts pretribulationism either if understood normally. Nor does a proper understanding of this passage contradict a national restoration of Israel at the second coming of Christ. This is taught in many other prophetic passages also.[12]

What is presented here is that those who have died will be raised to join those living in this period of restoration. Israelites who survive the tribulation and who are the objects of the divine deliverance prophesied in Romans 11:26 will be joined by the Old Testament saints who are raised from the dead. This will occur after the great tribulation, at Christ’s return. There is no passage in Scripture that teaches that the Old Testament saints will be raised at the time the church is raptured, that is, before the final tribulation. It is preferable, therefore, to consider their resurrection as occurring at the same time as the restoration of the living nation, with the result that both resurrected Israel and those still in their natural bodies who are delivered at Christ’s return will join hands and ministries in establishing Israel in the land in the millennial kingdom that follows. Accordingly, the exegesis of this passage that interprets it as revealing an actual resurrection at the time of Christ’s second coming is preferable.[13] At the same time, those who have died in the great tribulation just preceding will also be raised (Rev. 20:4–6).

If this is a genuine resurrection, what is the timing of the event? Here the distinction in interpretation arises from the differing points of view of the amillennial and postmillennial interpretations. Amillenarians like Leupold and Edward Young, with some qualification, consider this a general resurrection preceding the eternal state.[14] However, some scholars not committed to premillennialism conclude that this is not a general resurrection. Fuller considers this “not the last and general resurrection, but a partial one which precedes that, and is confined to Daniel’s nation.”[15] Young, while holding that the ultimate meaning is a general resurrection by implication, says, “… the Scripture at this point is not speaking of a general resurrection….”[16]

Premillenarians, however, believe that the hope of a thousand-year kingdom on earth after the second coming of Christ is clearly taught in many Old and New Testament passages, and that the resurrection of the wicked is placed at the close of the millennium. How can the premillennial point of view be harmonized with this verse?

Some help is afforded in understanding Daniel 12:2 by appealing to more accurate translations. Actually the Hebrew seems to separate sharply the two classes of resurrection. Tregelles, following earlier Jewish commentators, translated verse 2, “And many from among the sleepers of the dust of the earth shall awake; these shall be unto everlasting life; but those the rest of the sleepers, those who do not awake at this time, shall be unto shame and everlasting contempt.”[17] Culver defends this translation by finding support in commentaries by Seiss and West.[18]

There is obviously no problem in the resurrection of the righteous at the second coming of Jesus Christ; premillenarians and amillenarians generally agree on this point. By the beginning of the millennial kingdom, all the righteous dead already have been raised. Pretribulationists believe that the church, the saints of the present age, are raised before the tribulation; and if Old Testament saints are not raised before the tribulation, they will be raised after the tribulation, prior to the millennial kingdom. Hence, there is no conflict with the statement of the righteous being raised at this time.

The problem arises, however, in that Daniel said the resurrection will extend to those who will arise “to shame and everlasting contempt.” Here, premillenarians appeal to the clear distinction provided in Revelation 20:5 that states, after revealing the resurrection of the righteous, “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.” The resurrection of the wicked, the second resurrection, is revealed in Revelation 20:12–13. If the resurrections of Revelation 20:5 and Revelation 20:12–13 are actual resurrections, fulfilling the prophecy of the resurrection of Daniel 12, these state clearly that there will be more than one resurrection. The confident assertion of amillenarians such as Leupold that a “dual resurrection is taught nowhere in the Scriptures”[19] is a judgment that ignores obvious distinctions in the Bible.

First of all, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, as even amillenarians agree. His resurrection is unquestionably separated in time from the final resurrection. At the time of Christ’s resurrection, a token resurrection of saints occurred (Matt. 27:52–53). This also appears to have been a genuine resurrection. If the pretribulational position is correct, there is also a resurrection of the church prior to the great tribulation. In any event, a natural and normal interpretation of Revelation 20 would indicate that the resurrection of the righteous occurs at the beginning of the thousand years and the resurrection of the wicked at the end of that period (Rev. 20:12–14). Only by spiritualizing this passage and making the first resurrection the new birth of the believer—rather ridiculous in the context of Revelation 20:4, which speaks of martyred dead—can a genuine separation of the resurrection of the righteous and the evil be denied.

Accordingly, premillenarians consider this revelation to Daniel to be a statement of fact. After the great tribulation and Christ’s second coming, both the righteous and the evil will be raised. And though both might appear to occur at the same time, subsequent revelation lets us know that there is a time gap between these two resurrections (Rev. 20:4–5). It is not at all unusual for Old Testament prophecy to describe events separated by a considerable span of time as if they occurred in immediate relation to each other. The passing over of the entire present age—the period between the first and second advents of Christ—in such passages as Isaiah 61:1–2 is familiar to all expositors. Daniel 12:2 is another illustration. The righteous will be raised according to this interpretation as a reward for their faith and faithfulness, but the wicked who die are warned concerning their final judgment. The setting off of those who are resurrected into two classes certainly allows for two resurrections with different destinies. Although this passage does not teach premillennialism expressly, it is not out of harmony with the premillennial interpretation.

Attempts to understand Daniel 12:2 encounter difficulty in interpreting his use of the term many. Expositors are divided as to whether the word means precisely what it indicates, that is, “many, but not all,” or whether it is used here in the sense that all will be raised.[20] Leupold argues that many in this passage means “all.” He states, “There are also other instances where ‘many’ and ‘all’ are used interchangeably, the one emphasizing the fact that there are numerically many, the other the fact that all are involved.”[21] Leupold goes on to cite Matthew 20:28; 26:28; and Romans 5:15–16 as cases in point.[22]

The fact is, however, that while in some cases all may also be “many,” it is also true that in some cases many is not “all.” Here, the precise expositor would prefer to let the text stand for itself, and the text does not say “all.” Although interpreting many as “all” would be natural exegesis for amillenarians, it is of interest that Edward Young, also an amillenarian, does not take this position:

We should expect the text to say all. In order to escape the difficulty, some expositors have taken the word many in the sense of all. However, this is forced and unnatural. The correct solution appears to be found in the fact that the Scripture at this point is not speaking of a general resurrection, but rather is setting forth a thought that the salvation which is to occur at this time will not be limited to those who are alive, but will extend also to those who lost their lives…. The words, of course, do not exclude the general resurrection, but rather imply it. Their emphasis, however, is upon the resurrection of those who died during the period of great distress.[23]

Even Bevan states, as previously quoted, “Here, however, the resurrection is far from being universal; it includes ‘many,’ not all, of the dead. That only Israelites are raised is not expressly stated, but appears probable from the context.”[24]

From the standpoint of the pretribulational interpretation of prophecy, which holds to a resurrection of the church before the tribulation and therefore as preceding this resurrection, this passage can be taken quite literally. As a matter of fact, if the pretribulationists are correct, there will be an extensive resurrection of the righteous at this point when Christ returns to reign. Although it would be too much to say that this confirms pretribulationism, it harmonizes with this interpretation precisely. At the same time, Young is probably correct that the hope of resurrection is especially extended to the martyred dead of the tribulation who are given special mention in Revelation 20:4.

This verse serves as a fitting counterpoint to the words of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in Daniel 3:17–18. When threatened with death for remaining faithful to God they responded by saying, “Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us.” Some believers during the tribulation period will, like Daniel and his three friends, be delivered from death. But all who remain faithful will eventually be delivered through death by means of God’s promised resurrection.

THE REWARD OF THE RIGHTEOUS (12:3)

12:3 “And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.”

Following the resurrection of the righteous, their faithfulness in witness will be rewarded. It is significant that no mention is made of the punishment of unbelievers. Their resurrection will not occur until a thousand years later (Rev. 20:5), and the final judgment at the great white throne will include the judgment of those who wickedly opposed Christ at His second advent and who will be destroyed (Rev. 19:17–21). The main point of Revelation 20 is that the saints, whether living or dead, may look forward to a glorious reward at the conclusion of the great tribulation when Christ returns.

Daniel 12:2 also says that the righteous will receive everlasting life. As Young states, “This is the first occurrence of this expression in the OT.”[25] In addition to receiving eternal life itself, those who are among this resurrection will be rewarded by glorification. They are described as “wise” in verse 3, in that they were able to see through the unbelief and evil of their generation and put their confidence in the unseen eternal values of their faith. They behaved themselves wisely; they were obedient to God. Because of this, their reward is that they will shine with the same glory as the heavens and fulfill the same function—to “declare the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1). In a natural Hebrew parallelism, they are also described as having turned “many to righteousness.” The lot of those who have influenced others to faith will also be to shine as the stars forever. In the background are the particular references to the fact that “the wise among the people shall make many understand” (Dan. 11:33), fulfilled in the second century B.C. during the Maccabean Revolt, and reference to “the wise” (11:35), living in the same period.

Keil has summarized the teaching of this passage in these words: “The salvation of the people, which the end shall bring in, consists accordingly in the consummation of the people of God by the resurrection of the dead and the judgment dividing the pious from the godless, according to which the pious shall be raised to eternal life, and the godless shall be given up to everlasting shame and contempt. But the leaders of the people who, amid the wars and conflicts of this life, have turned many to righteousness, shall shine in the imperishable glory of heaven.”[26]

THE CONCLUSION OF THE REVELATION (12:4)

12:4 “But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”

Daniel experienced an incredible expanse of revelation—beginning with the kings of Persia, extending through the Maccabean period, then leaping to the end of the age and the great tribulation, and including the resurrections and reward of the righteous. Then he was instructed to close and seal the book. This statement can be interpreted in two ways. It can refer to the idea that the text was being sealed or preserved in a way that would prevent it from being “tampered with or changed.”[27] Or it can be understood in the sense that the interpretation of the revelation would not be fully revealed until a time closer to its fulfillment.[28]

In light of the whole of the verse, perhaps both ideas are intended. That is, God promised to “seal” the prophecy so as to preserve it “until the time of the end.” “Once the document was thus sealed, it became the official and unchangeable text.”[29] But God also seems to imply that the prophecy itself would be understood more fully (“knowledge shall increase”) as the time for its fulfillment drew near. “As to time in mind, reference may be especially to last days, when perhaps a marked increase in such a search for knowledge will exist, but not exclusively.”[30]

The prophecies thus revealed were to have primary application to those living in “the time of the end.” In fact, the entire revelation, even the portions already fulfilled through Daniel 11:35, are designed to help those seeking to trust in the Lord in their affliction at the climax of the age. It is significant that even though twenty-six hundred years have elapsed since the writing of Daniel, his prophecies have never been more relevant to understanding the course of history and impending future events.

The statement that “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase” is difficult to translate, and commentators have not agreed as to its precise meaning. In the context, the search for knowledge seems to be the main idea. Montgomery interprets it in the light of Amos 8:12: “They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the LORD, but they shall not find it.”[31] Calvin translated it, “Many shall investigate, and knowledge shall increase.”[32] Leupold says, “Many shall diligently peruse it, and knowledge shall be increased.”[33] The Hebrew word for “word” is hadda’ta, literally, “the knowledge,” that is, understanding of this long prophecy. Some consider the sentence as referring to the eyes of a reader running “to and fro” in reading the Word of God (cf. 2 Chron. 16:9). The implication is that attempts to understand the truth will require considerable effort.

Young agrees with Montgomery that the key is Amos 8:12 and says, “The verb appears to describe a vain travelling about in order to discover knowledge.”[34] As Young explains, the angel is telling Daniel that for the immediate future, attempts to understand these prophecies will be in vain, but in the time of the end, when these prophecies will become especially pertinent, additional understanding will be given. Accordingly, it is not too much to say that a modern interpreter of Daniel may understand these prophecies with greater clarity and be able to relate them to history in a way that was impossible in the sixth century B.C. There is also the intimation that the ceaseless search for knowledge will often go unrewarded, either because the searchers do not look in the right place for it, or because their time and circumstance do not justify their understanding of prophecy that does not immediately concern them. No doubt those living in the end times will have far greater understanding of these things than is possible today.

HOW LONG UNTIL THE TIME OF THE END (12:5–8)

12:5–8 Then I, Daniel, looked, and behold, two others stood, one on this bank of the stream and one on that bank of the stream. And someone said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, “How long shall it be till the end of these wonders?” And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream; he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished. I heard, but I did not understand. Then I said, “O my lord, what shall be the outcome of these things?”

Daniel was still observing the scene by the side of the river, as in chapter 10, when he saw two individuals on its banks. It may be assumed that the river is the Tigris (cf. 10:4). These individuals were probably angelic creatures, in keeping with Daniel’s experiences in chapter 10. One of them asked the important question of how long it would be until these things were fulfilled. In verse 7, reference is made to “the man clothed in linen,” apparently the same one described in 10:5–6.

This man held up his hands and swore “by him who lives forever,” no doubt a reference to God, that the time factor involved will be “for a time, times, and half a time.” Although the second angel did not participate in this revelation, it may be in keeping with the concept of requiring two witnesses to establish a point (Deut. 19:15; 31:28; 2 Cor. 13:1). The fact that the angel raised both hands indicates the solemnity of the oath. Ordinarily, only one hand was raised (Gen. 14:22; Deut. 32:40). The message was delivered on behalf of God and, to some extent, parallels the thought of Deuteronomy 32:40.[35]

Interestingly, the word translated “stream” is the word ordinarily used for the Nile River.[36] As Young states, “There must be a reason for the choice of the word translated stream. As already indicated, it is the common designation for the Nile River. Possibly, it is deliberately employed here to remind Dan. that just as the Lord had once stood over Egypt, the world-nation which was hostile to God’s people, so now does He stand over the world kingdom, represented symbolically by the Nile stream, actually the Tigris, ready again to deliver His people.”[37]

What is the meaning of the phrase “a time, times, and half a time”? This expression, also occurring in Daniel 7:25, apparently refers to the last period preceding the second coming of Christ that brings conclusion to the time of the end. Montgomery correctly stated the meaning when he wrote, “Here, v. 7, it is in the terms of 7:25, with the Heb. equivalent of the Aram, there; i.e., three and a half years.”[38] In other words, it is the last half of the seven-year period of Daniel 9:27 that culminates in the second advent. These three and a half years will be a period of terrible persecution of the people of Israel. The verb translated “shattering” has the idea of breaking something in pieces.[39] The phrase can be translated “when (they) finish shattering the hand (fig. for power) of the holy people.”[40] When the persecution has run its course in God’s time, and “all these things would be finished,” the time of the end will be concluded.

Although Daniel heard the prophecy, he did not understand it. So he rephrased the question asked by the angel in verse 6: “O my lord, what shall be the outcome of these things?” Daniel was bewildered in his effort to understand the revelations given concerning the consummation of the time of the end.

THE ANGEL’S CONCLUDING EXPLANATION (12:9–13)

12:9–13 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand. And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days. Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days. But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.”

In response to his question, Daniel was told once again that the revelation given to him was official and unchangeable and would remain so until the time of the end. The primary purpose of the revelation was to inform those who would live in that time. The confirming interpretation of history and prophecy fulfilled would be necessary before the final prophecies could be understood.

However, in partial answer to Daniel’s question, he was told that the time of the end will result both in the purification of the saints and the manifestation of the evil in the human heart. Likewise, understanding the events of the end times will be possible for “the wise,” but “none of the wicked shall understand.” The understanding of prophecy especially requires spiritual insight and the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Even though the Scriptures describe in great detail the time of the end, it is obvious that the wicked will not avail themselves of this divine revelation. But it will be a source of comfort and direction to true believers in God. Divine revelation is often given in such a way that its meaning is hidden to the unregenerate even though it is understandable by those who are spiritually minded.

In verses 11 and 12, two important details are given to help clarify the duration of the end times. A period of 1,290 days will elapse from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away until the time of the end is consummated. The time that the daily sacrifice is taken away is equated with the setting up of “the abomination that makes desolate.” This expression originated in Daniel 9:27 and has reference to the stopping of sacrifices in the middle of the seven-year period. The predicted event had its corresponding anticipation in the temple’s desolation by Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century B.C. (Dan. 8:11–14). That this event is future and not the desecration by Antiochus is apparent from the prophecy of Christ in Matthew 24:15 where “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” is given as a sign of the great tribulation. From these passages, it is obvious that the last three and a half years of the time of the end are in view.

Seiss summarizes this interpretation as follows:

Nor shall this state of things be only for a few days, weeks or months, but for full three and a half years. In not less than six different places, and in almost as many different ways, is this declared in the prophecies, including both Testaments. It is for “a time, times, and half a time” (Dan. 7:25)—“a time, times, and half a time” (12:7)—“they will trample the holy city for forty-two months” (Rev. 11:2)—“and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days”—for “she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time” (12:6, 14)—“and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months” (13:5). All these passages refer to one and the same period of oppression and trouble under the Antichrist, and in each instance the measure is three and a half years, dating from the breaking of the league and the suspension of the daily offering to the destruction of the monster by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Our Lord ministered on earth three and a half years, and the Antichrist shall enact his Satanic ministry for the same length of time.[41]

The “time, times, and half a time” of Daniel 7:25 are normally taken to be three and a half years or forty-two months of thirty days each, following the custom of the Jews. This would be only 1,260 days. The duration of the great tribulation as forty-two months is confirmed by Revelation 11:2 and 13:5, which is considered equivalent to the “time, times, and half a time” of Daniel 7:25 and 12:7. Why then were thirty days added to the 1,260 days? The numbering of these days is to begin when “the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up.” If that is the inception that marks the beginning of the period, perhaps the end point is the future cleansing and rededication of the temple area, and resumption of sacrifices, that will occur at the beginning of the millennial kingdom (cf. Ezek. 43:18).[42]

This question of the meaning of the number of days is further complicated by verse 12 that states that there is a special blessing for the one “who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days.” This is still another forty-five days beyond the limit of verse 11.

Although Daniel did not explain this duration, it is obvious that the second coming of Christ and the establishment of His millennial kingdom requires time. The 1,260-day period—or precisely forty-two months of thirty days each—can be regarded as culminating with the second advent itself. This is followed by several divine judgments such as the judgment of the nations (Matt. 25:31–46) and the regathering and judgment of Israel (Ezek. 20:34–38). These great judgments beginning with the living on earth and the purging out of unbelievers who have worshiped the beast, although handled quickly, will require time. By the end of the 1,335 days, or seventy-five days after the second advent, these great judgments will have been accomplished and the millennial kingdom formally launched. Those who attain to this period are obviously those who have been judged worthy to enter the kingdom because they are called “blessed.”

In any case, there is no justification for the attempts to link this with Antiochus Epiphanes. Even Zöckler admits, “The troubled events of the Maccabean period, which might deserve notice as the points of the beginning and the end of the historical equivalent of the three and a half years, do not present a satisfactory reason for such vacillating predictions; for the exact period required cannot be found in that epoch, however its limits may be fixed.”[43] Here, as throughout the book of Daniel, the expression “the time of the end” is the end of Gentile power, which extends beyond the present age to the second advent as anticipated in Christ’s prophecy (Matt. 24:15–31). The whole approach of the liberal scholar attempting to treat Daniel as history and not prophecy breaks down when the comprehensive nature of Daniel’s prophetic foreview is understood. The explanation of the additional time required to complete the transfer from the time of the end to the time of the fifth kingdom no doubt did not help Daniel much. But in the light of New Testament revelation, it provides the background for the transition from the great tribulation to the kingdom of peace and righteousness on earth.

Anticipating that Daniel would not completely understand these revelations, the angel told him, “Go your way till the end.” The angel predicted that Daniel would “rest,” that is, die, but “at the end of the days” would “stand” in his “allotted place.” This was a prediction that Daniel would be resurrected (12:2) and participate in the glorious triumph of Christ as the millennial kingdom is inaugurated. Since resurrected saints are declared to reign with Christ (e.g., Rev. 5:10), it is conceivable that Daniel, who reigned under Nebuchadnezzar and Darius the Mede, will be given a future executive responsibility in Christ’s earthly kingdom for which his earthly experience was a preparation.

This concluding revelation of Daniel’s prophecy, acting as a capstone to all the tremendous preceding revelations, establishes the book of Daniel as the greatest and most comprehensive prophetic revelation of the Old Testament. Its counterpart in the New Testament, in the book of Revelation, provides the final word of God concerning the prophetic program of the ages. In the light of world conditions today, which would seem to anticipate the fulfillment of Daniel’s time of the end, it is possible to understand Daniel today as never before in history. The hour may not be far distant when faithful tribulation saints will turn to these pages of Scripture and find in them the strength and courage to remain true even though it may mean a martyr’s death.

For Christians living in the age of grace and searching for understanding of these difficult days that may be bringing to a close God’s purpose in His church, the book of Daniel casts a broad light on contemporary events foreshadowing the consummation. If God is reviving His people Israel politically, allowing the church to drift into indifference and apostasy, and permitting the nations to move toward centralization of political power, it may not be long before the time of the end will overtake the world. Many who look for the coming of the Lord anticipate their removal from the earth’s scene before the final days of the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

When the plan of God has run its full course, it will be evident then with even more clarity than at present that God has not allowed a word to go unfulfilled. As Christ said, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18).

NOTES

[1] Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 170.

[2] So Towner must conclude that “we are at the point at which the seer actually begins to look into the future because, historically speaking at least, he gets it all muddled” (W. Sibley Towner, Daniel, Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Preaching and Teaching [Atlanta: John Knox, 1984], 165). Towner must reach this conclusion because of his attempt to force these verses into his second-century B.C. mold.

[3] Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 477–78.

[4] Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 255; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949), 528–29; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Daniel, 2 vols., Thomas Myers, trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852), 2:371–72.

[5] James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 471.

[6] Anthony A. Bevan, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Cambridge: University Press, 1892), 201.

[7] A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel (New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911), 200.

[8] William Kelly, Lectures on the Book of Daniel, 2nd ed. (London: G. Morrish, 1881), 225–26.

[9] H. A. Ironside, Lectures on Daniel the Prophet (New York: Loizeaux, 1920), 231–32.

[10] Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 317–18.

[11] R. D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody, n.d.), 172.

[12] For example, God announced through Ezekiel that He would “take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land” (Ezek. 36:24). God illustrated this promised regathering using the vision of the valley of dry bones (37:1–14). Amos described it as a time when God would raise up “the booth of David that is fallen” (Amos 9:11). And in the New Testament, Paul announced that God had not rejected His people and that a time was coming “when all Israel will be saved”; this will take place when the “Deliverer will come from Zion” (Rom. 11:26).

[13] In John 11, Martha understood Daniel 12 in this way when she said about her brother Lazarus, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day” (v. 24).

[14] Leupold, Daniel, 529–32; Young, Daniel, 256.

[15] John M. Fuller, An Essay on the Authenticity of the Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co, 1864), 339.

[16] Young, Daniel, 256.

[17] S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel, 7th ed. (London: Sovereign Grace, 1965), 162. This is also the reading adopted by translators of the New American Standard Bible.

[18] Culver, Daniel, 175.

[19] Leupold, Daniel, 530.

[20] Miller suggests using the NIV translation “multitudes” as a way to solve the problem, but this leaves the main theological question unanswered (Stephen Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001], 318–19).

[21] Leupold, Daniel, 530.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Young, Daniel, 256.

[24] Bevan, Daniel, 201.

[25] Young, Daniel, 256.

[26] Keil, Daniel, 484.

[27] Miller, Daniel, 320.

[28] J. Dwight Pentecost, “Daniel,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1,373.

[29] Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 154.

[30] Wood, Daniel, 321.

[31] Montgomery, Daniel, 473–74.

[32] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Daniel, 2 vols., Thomas Myers, trans. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852), 2:379. Orig. In italics.

[33] Leupold, Daniel, 534.

[34] Young, Daniel, 258.

[35] Cf. Young, Daniel, 259.

[36] R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 357–58.

[37] Young, Daniel, 259.

[38] Montgomery, Daniel, 475.

[39] Harris, Archer, Waltke, Theological Wordbook, 587.

[40] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 658.

[41] Joseph A. Seiss, Voices from Babylon: Or the Records of Daniel the Prophet (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1879), 310–11.

[42] For a historical parallel from the time of the Maccabees, see 1 Maccabees 4:37–39.

[43] Otto Zöckler, “The Book of the Prophet Daniel,” in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, John Peter Lange, ed. (repr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 13:267.

Bibliography

BOOKS

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. New York: Macmillan, 1968.

Albright, William F. From the Stone Age to Christianity. 2d ed. New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1957.

Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Anderson, Robert. The Coming Prince. 14th ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1954.

__________. Signs and Wonders: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Andrews, Samuel J. Christianity and Anti-Christianity. Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1937.

Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Revised Standard Version. New York: Nelson, 1957.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. “Daniel.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 7. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.

__________. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised and expanded ed. Chicago: Moody, 2007.

Arthur, Alexander. A Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Edinburgh: Norman MacLeod, 1893.

Athenaeus. “The Deipnosophists.” In Athenaeus. Trans. Charles Burton Gulick. Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann, 1927–41.

Auberlen, Carl August. The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations of St. John. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1857.

Auchincloss, William Stuart. The Book of Daniel Unlocked. New York: Van Nostrand, 1905.

__________. The Only Key to Daniel’s Prophecies. New York: Van Nostrand, 1904.

Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978.

Barnes, Albert. Daniel. Vol. 2. Notes on the Old Testament. Ed. Robert Few. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950.

__________. Notes, Critical, Illustrative, and Practical, on the Book of Daniel. New York: Leavitt & Allen, 1861.

Barton, George A. Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1916.

Beavan, E. R. “Syria and the Jews.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Eds. S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth. Vol. 8. Cambridge: University Press, 1930.

Bevan, Anthony Ashley. A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Cambridge: University Press, 1892.

Blach, Matthew, and Rowley, H. H., eds. Peale’s Commentary on the Bible. London: Nelson, 1961.

Blaiklock, E. M., and R. K. Harrison, eds. The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

Block, Isaac. Ezekiel-Daniel. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Gen. ed. R. K. Harrison. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Boutflower, Charles. In and Around the Book of Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963.

Breneman, Mervin. “Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.” The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955.

Brownlee, William H. The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. New York: Oxford, 1964.

Buber, Martin. Daniel: Dialogues on Realization. Trans. Maurice Fredman. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1964.

Bullinger, Ethelbert William. The Companion Bible. 6 vols. London: Oxford, 1910.

Bullock, C. Hassell. An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books. Chicago: Moody, 1986.

Burrows, Millar. More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking, 1958.

Burton, Alfred H. Hints on the Book of Daniel. London: Holness, 1903.

Bush, Frederic W. Ruth, Esther. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 2002.

Cachemaille, E. P. The Seventy Weeks and the Messiah. London: Thynne, 1918.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 2 vols. Trans. Thomas Myers. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852.

Carroll, Benajah Harvey. Daniel and the Inter-Biblical Period. An Interpretation of the English Bible. Ed. J. B. Cranfill. Vol. 11. New York: Revell, 1915.

Charles, Robert Henry. Apocrypha and Pseudipigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.

__________. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1929.

Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. Ann Arbor, MI: Scholars Press, 1977.

__________. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia Series. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

__________. Daniel, with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature. The Forms of Old Testament Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Colton, T. G. The Jewish Persecutor; or, A Sketch of the Life and Character of Antiochus Epiphanes. Boston: Massachusetts Sabbath School Society, 1860.

Cooper, David L. The 70 Weeks of Daniel. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1941.

Criswell, Wallie Amos. Expository Sermons on the Book of Daniel. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968.

Cross, Frank Moore. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1958.

Culver, Robert D. Daniel and the Latter Days. Chicago: Moody, n.d.

__________. “Daniel.” In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Eds. Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody, 1962.

Darby, John Nelson. Studies on the Book of Daniel. London: G. Morrish, n.d.

Davies, Philip R. Daniel. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Deane, H. The Book of Daniel. The Layman’s Handy Commentary Series. Ed. Charles John Ellicott. Vol. 22. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959.

__________. Daniel: His Life and Times. New York: A. Randolph, 1888.

Dehaan, Martin Ralph. Daniel the Prophet. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1947.

Desprez, Philip F. Daniel and John. London: C. K. Paul, 1878.

De Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions. Trans. John McHugh. New York: McGraw Hill, 1961.

Dougherty, Raymond Philip. Nabonidus and Belshazzar. Yale Oriental Series. Vol. 15. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929.

Driver, Samuel Rolles. The Book of Daniel. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900.

__________. “Hebrew Authority.” In Authority and Archaeology—Sacred and Profane. Ed. David G. Hogarth. London: Murray, 1899.

__________. “Propitiation.” In A Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. James Hastings. Vol. 4. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Ewald, Georg Heinrich August. Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament. Trans. J. Frederick Smith. Vol. 5. London: Williams & Norgate, 1881.

Farrar, Frederic William. The Book of Daniel, The Expositor’s Bible. Ed. W. Robertson Nicoll. Cincinnati: Jennings & Graham, n.d.

Ferguson, Sinclair B. Daniel. Mastering the Old Testament. The Communicator’s Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1988.

Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

Freeman, Hobart E. An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets. Chicago: Moody, 1968.

Frost, Stanley B. Old Testament Apocalyptic. London: Epworth, 1952.

Fuller, John M. An Essay on the Authenticity of the Book of Daniel. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co, 1864.

Gaebelein, Arno Clemens. The Prophet Daniel. New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911.

Gangel, Kenneth O. Daniel. Holman Old Testament Commentary. Gen ed. Max E. Anders. Nashville: Broadman, 2001.

Gaster, T. H. The Dead Sea Scriptures. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956.

Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York: Peter Fenelon Collier & Son, 1901.

Ginsberg, H. Louis. Studies in Daniel. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1948.

Glueck, Nelson. Hesed in the Bible. Trans. Alfred Gottscholk. Ed. Gerald A. Larue. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1967.

Goldingay, John. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary. Eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Goldwurm, Rabbi Hersh. Daniel; A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources. 2d ed. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1980.

Gowan, Donald E. Ezekiel-Daniel. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Gen. ed. Patrick D. Miller. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001.

Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Reprint ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.

Green, Joel B. How to Read Prophecy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984.

Harrison, Raymond K. “Babylon.” In The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Ed. Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963.

__________. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1978.

Heath, Alban. The Prophecies of Daniel in the Light of History. London: Covenant Publishing, 1941.

Heaton, Eric William. The Book of Daniel. Torch Bible Commentaries. Eds. John Marsh, Alan Richardson, and R. Gregor Smith. London: SCM, 1956.

Herodotus. Histories. Vol. 1. Trans. Henry Carey. New York: Harper, 1889.

Hinkley, Willard H. The Book of Daniel. Boston: New-Church Union, 1894.

Hoehner, Harold W. “Between the Testaments.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.

Hoffmann, Johannes Friedrich. Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Leipzig: Ackermann & Glaser, 1873.

Horn, Siegfried H. Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Dictionary. Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald, 1960.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. Interpreting Prophecy: An Essay in Biblical Perspectives. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Ironside, Henry Allen. Lectures on Daniel the Prophet. New York: Loizeaux, 1920.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary: Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments. 6 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945.

Jeffery, Arthur. The Book of Daniel, Introduction and Exegesis. In The interpreter’s Bible. Ed. George A. Buttrick. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951.

Jerome. Commentary on Daniel. Trans. Gleason L. Archer, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958.

Johnson, Philip C. The Book of Daniel. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1964.

Jones, Alexander, ed. The Jerusalem Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.

Joüon, P. Paul. Grammaire de l’Hebreu Biblique. Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1947.

Keil, Carl Friedrich. Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Trans. M. G. Easton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Book of Daniel. 2d ed. London: G. Morrish, 1881.

Kennedy, Gerald. “Daniel.” In The Interpreter’s Bible. Ed. George A. Buttrick. Vol. 6. New York: Abingdon, 1956.

Kepler, Thomas S. Dreams of the Future. Bible Guides, Eds. William Barclay and F. F. Bruce. No. 22. Nashville: Abingdon, 1963.

King, Geoffrey R. Daniel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1966.

Kirk, Thomas. Daniel the Prophet. Edinburgh: A. Elliot, 1906.

Kitchen, Kenneth Anderson. Ancient Orient and the Old Testament. Chicago: InterVarsity, 1966.

__________. “The Aramaic of Daniel.” In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. Eds. D. J. Wiseman et al. London: Tyndale, 1965.

__________. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2003.

Kittel, R. Biblia Hebraica. Vol. 2. Stuttgartiae: Priv. Wurtt. Bibelanstalt, 1945.

Koldewey, Robert. The Excavations at Babylon. Trans. Agnes S. Johns. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Library, January 1, 1914.

Kraeling, Emil Gottlieb. Rand McNally Bible Atlas. New York: Rand McNally, 1966.

Lacocque, André. The Book of Daniel. Trans. David Pellauer. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979.

Lang, George Henry. The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1973.

Larkin, Clarence. The Book of Daniel. Philadelphia: Rev. Clarence Larkin, Est., 1929.

Leupold, Herbert Carl. Exposition of Daniel. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1949.

Longman III, Tremper. Daniel. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Lucas, Ernest C. Daniel. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Eds. David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002.

Luck, G. Coleman. Daniel. Chicago: Moody, 1958.

Luthi, Walter. Daniel Speaks to the Church. Trans. John M. Jensen. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1947.

MacArthur, John. Daniel: God’s Control over Rulers and Nations. Nashville: Word, 2000.

Mallowan, E. L. “Nimrud.” In Archaeology and Old Testament Study. Ed. D. Winton Thomas. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967.

Martin, W. J. “Language of the Old Testament.” In The New Bible Dictionary. Ed. J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Mauro, Philip. The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. Boston: Scripture Truth Depot, 1923.

McClain, Alva J. Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1940.

McDowell, Josh. Daniel in the Critics’ Den. San Bernardino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1979.

__________. Prophecy, Fact or Fiction? Historical Evidence for the Authenticity of the Book of Daniel. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, 1981.

Mendenhall, G. E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955.

Michelson, A. Berkley. Daniel & Revelation: Riddles or Realities? Nashville: Nelson, 1984.

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. New American Commentary. Ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: Broadman, 1994.

Mitchell, T. C., and R. Joyce. “The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar’s Orchestra.” In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. Eds. D. J. Wiseman et al. London: Tyndale, 1965.

Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927.

Myers, Jacob B. I Chronicles. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.

Newell, Philip R. Daniel: The Man Greatly Beloved and His Prophecies. Chicago: Moody, 1962.

Newsome, James D., Jr. The Hebrew Prophets. Atlanta: John Knox, 1984.

Newton, Isaac. Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel. Ed. P. Berthwick. London: James Nisbet, 1831.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. “Belshazzar.” In The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. George A. Buttrick. Vol. 1. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1962.

Parker, R. A., and Waldo H. Duberstein. Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 45. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1942.

Payne, D. F. “Jerusalem.” In The New Bible Dictionary. Ed. J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Payne, J. Barton. “Book of Daniel.” In Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Ed. Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963.

__________. The Theology of the Older Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.

Pember, George Hawkins. The Great Prophecies of the Centuries Concerning Israel and the Gentiles. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Prophecy for Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961.

__________. Things to Come. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965.

Péter-Contesse, René, and John Ellington. A Handbook on Daniel. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Peters, George Nathaniel Henry. The Theocratic Kingdom. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952.

Petrie, Arthur. The Message of Daniel. Harrisburg: Christian Publications, 1947.

Pettingill, William L. Simple Studies in Daniel. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1920.

Pinches, T. G. “Babel, Babylon.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Ed. James Orr. Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1930.

Porteous, Norman W. Daniel: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965.

Price, Walter K. In the Final Days. Chicago: Moody, 1977.

Prince, J. Dymeley. A Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. London: Williams & Norgate, 1899.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3d. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Pusey, Edward B. Daniel the Prophet. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885.

Rad, Gerhardt von. Genesis: A Commentary. Revised ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972.

Redditt, Paul L. Daniel. New Century Bible Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1961.

Rowley, Harold Henry. Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel. Cardiff: University of Wales, 1959.

__________. The Relevance of the Apocalyptic. 2d ed. London: Lutterworth, 1952.

__________. The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. London: Lutterworth, 1952.

Saggs, H. W. F. “Babylon.” In Archaeology And Old Testament Study. Ed. D. Winton Thomas. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967.

__________. The Greatness That Was Babylon. New York: Hawthorne, 1962.

Scofield, Cyrus I., ed. New Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

__________. Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1917.

Seiss, Joseph A. Voices from Babylon: Or the Records of Daniel the Prophet. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1879.

Shepherd, Michael B. Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible. New York: Peter Lang, 2009.

Showers, Renald. The Most High God: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. West Collingswood, NJ: Friends of Israel, 1982.

Smith, R. Payne. Daniel: An Exposition of the Historical Portion of the Writings of the Prophet Daniel. Cincinnati: Crouston & Curts, n.d.

Smith, Uriah. Daniel and the Revelation: The Response of History to the Voice of Prophecy. Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald, 1897.

__________. The Sanctuary and the Twenty-three Hundred Days of Daniel 8:14. Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press, 1877.

__________. Thoughts Critical and Practical on the Books of Daniel and the Revelation. Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press, 1885.

Smith, Wilbur M. Introduction to Commentary on Daniel, by Jerome. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958.

__________. “Jerusalem.” In The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Ed. Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963.

Stevens, William C. The Book of Daniel. Rev. ed. Los Angeles: Bible House of L.A., 1949.

Stortz, Rodney. Daniel: The Triumph of God’s Kingdom. Gen. ed. R. Kent Hughes. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.

Stuart, Moses. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1850.

Talbot, Louis T. The Prophecies of Daniel. 3d ed. Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen, 1954.

Tarn, William Woodthrope. Alexander the Great. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948.

Tatford, Frederick A. The Climax of the Ages. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1953.

__________. God’s Program of the Ages. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1967.

Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Trans. F. Applebaum. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961.

Terry, Milton S. The Prophecies of Daniel. New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1893.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. New revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

Thomas, David Winton, ed. Archaeology and Old Testament Study. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967.

Towner, W. Sibley. Daniel. Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Preaching and Teaching. Atlanta: John Knox, 1984.

Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel. 7th ed. London: Sovereign Grace, 1965.

Unger, Merrill F. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957.

__________. Introductory Guide to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1951.

__________. New Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Ed. R. K. Harrison. Chicago: Moody, 1988.

Vine, William Edwyn. The Roman Empire in the Light of Prophecy. Glasgow: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.

Wallace, Ronald S. The Message of Daniel. The Bible Speaks Today. Ed. J. A. Motyer. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979.

Walvoord, John F. The Final Drama: 14 Keys to Understanding the Prophetic Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997.

__________. Israel in Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962.

__________. Major Bible Prophecies. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

__________. Millennial Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Dunham, 1959.

__________. The Nations in Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967.

__________. “Prophecy and the Deterioration of the Nations.” In The Sure Word of Prophecy. Ed. John W. Bradbury. New York: Revell, 1943.

__________. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990.

__________. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody, 1966.

__________. “The Times of the Gentiles.” In Understanding the Times. Eds. William Culbertson and Herman B. Centz. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956.

Ward, James M. The Prophets. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1982.

West, Nathaniel. Daniel’s Great Prophecy. New York: Hope of Israel, 1898.

Wheaton, D. H. “Antiochus.” In The New Bible Dictionary. Ed. J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Whiston, William. Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980.

Whitcomb, John C. Jr. Darius the Mede. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Willmington, Harold L. Willmington’s Bible Handbook. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1997.

Wilson, Robert Dick. “The Aramaic of Daniel.” In Biblical and Theological Studies. New York: Scribner, 1912.

__________. “Book of Daniel.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Ed. James Orr. Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1930.

__________. Studies in the Book of Daniel. New York: Putnam, 1917.

Wiseman, Donald J. “Babylon.” In The New Bible Dictionary. Ed. J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

__________. “Belshazzar.” In The New Bible Dictionary. Ed. J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

__________. Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (626–556 B.C.). London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1961.

__________. “Some Historical Problems in the Book Of Daniel.” In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. Eds. D. J. Wiseman et al. London: Tyndale, 1965.

Wolff, Hans Walter. Confrontations with Prophets. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Wood, Leon J. A Commentary on Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

Wright, Charles H. H. Daniel and His Prophecies. London: Williams & Norgate, 1906.

__________. Daniel and Its Critics. London: William & Norgate, 1906.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. Greece and Babylon. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967.

Young, Edward J. My Servants the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.

__________. The Prophecy of Daniel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.

Zöckler, Otto. “The Book of the Prophet Daniel.” In Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Ed. John Peter Lange. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960.

JOURNAL ARTICLES AND OTHER SOURCES

Aalders, G. Ch. “The Book of Daniel: Its Historical Trustworthiness and Prophetic Character.” Evangelical Quarterly 2 (1930):242–54.

Alexander, John B. “New Light on the Fiery Furnace.” Journal of Biblical Literature 69 (1950):375–76.

Alexander, Ralph. Abstract of “Hermeneutics of Old Testament Apocalyptic Literature.” Doctoral dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968.

Archer, Gleason L. “Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (April-June 1979):129–47.

Armerding, Carl E. “Prophecy in the Old Testament.” Crux 12 (1974–75):20–25.

Avraamides, Achilles. “The Historicity of Daniel’s Record Regarding Belshazzar.” Master’s thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1961.

Baldwin, Joyce G. “Some Literary Affinities of the Book of Daniel.” Tyndale Bulletin 30 (1979):77–99.

Barker, Kenneth L. “Premillennialism in the Book of Daniel.” Master’s Seminary Journal 4 (Spring 1993):25–43.

Beckwith, Roger T. “Daniel 9 and the Date of Messiah’s Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation.” Revue de Qumran 10 (December 1981):521–42.

Bennett, T. Miles. “Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 16 (Spring 1974):69–80.

Brinkman, J. A. “Neo-Babylonian Texts in the Archaeological Museum at Florence.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25 (July 1966):202–9.

Bruce, Les P. “Discourse Theme and the Narratives of Daniel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (April-June 2003):174–86.

Bulman, James M. “The Identification of Darius the Mede.” Westminster Theological Journal 35 (Spring 1973):247–67.

Colless, Brian E. “Cyrus the Persian as Darius the Mede in the Book of Daniel.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 56 (December 1992):113–26.

Cumont, F. “La Plus Ancienne geographie astrologique,” Klio 9 (1909):263–73.

Custer, Stewart. “Annotated Bibliography on Daniel.” Biblical Viewpoint 8 (November 1974):154–65.

Davies, Philip R. “Eschatology in the Book of Daniel.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 17 (June 1980):33–53.

Dyer, Charles H. “The Musical Instruments in Daniel 3.” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (October-December 1990):426–36.

Ferch, Arthur J. “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis.’” Andrews University Seminary Studies 21 (Summer 1983):129–41.

Finley, Thomas J. “The Book of Daniel in the Canon of Scripture.” Bibliotheca Sacra 165 (April-June 2008):195–208.

Fox, Douglas E. “Ben Sira on OT Canon Again: The Date of Daniel.” Westminster Theological Journal 49 (Fall 1987):335–50.

Freedman, David N. “The Prayer of Nabonidus.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 145 (February 1957):31–32.

Gooding, David W. “The Literary Structure of the Book of Daniel and Its implications.” Tyndale Bulletin 32 (1981):43–79.

Goss, Glenn R. “The Chronological Problems of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel.” Doctoral dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966.

Gurney, Robert J. M. “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24–27.” Evangelical Quarterly 53 (January–March 1981):29–36.

Harmon, David A. “Problem of the Sixty-nine Weeks of Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks.” Master’s thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1957.

Harton, George M. “An Interpretation of Daniel 11:35–45.” Grace Theological Journal 4 (Fall 1983):205–31.

Hasel, Gerhard F. “The Book of Daniel and Matters of Language: Evidences Relating to Names, Words, and the Aramaic Language.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 19 (Autumn 1981):211–25.

__________. “The Book of Daniel: Evidences Relating to Persons and Chronology.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 19 (Spring 1981):37–49.

__________.“The First and Third Years of Belshazzar.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 15 (Autumn 1977):153–68.

Herodotus. Histories.

Hoehner, Harold W. “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Part 6: Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology.” Bibliotheca Sacra 132 (January-March 1975):47–65.

Holm, Tawny L. “The Fiery Furnace in the Book of Daniel and the Ancient Near East.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128 (January-March 2008):85–104.

Knowles, Louis E. “The Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel in the Early Fathers.” Westminster Theological Journal 7 (May 1945):136–60.

Kraeling, Emil Gottlieb. “The Handwriting on the Wall.” Journal of Biblical Literature 63 (1944):11–18.

Lancaster, Jerry R., and R. Larry Overstreet. “Jesus’ Celebration of Hanukkah in John 10.” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (July–September 1995):318–33.

Madison, Leslie P. “Problems of Chronology in the Life of Christ.” Doctoral dissertation, Dallas Theolological Seminary, 1963.

Makiello, Phoebe. “Daniel as Mediator of Divine Knowledge in the Book of Daniel.” Journal of Jewish Studies 60 (Spring 2009):18–31.

McComiskey, Thomas Edward. “The Seventy ‘Weeks’ of Daniel against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern Literature.” Westminster Theological Journal 47 (Spring 1985):18–45.

Mercer, Mark. “The Benefactions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Dan. 11:37–38: An Exegetical Note.” Master’s Seminary Journal 12 (Spring 2001):89–93.

Milik, J. T. “‘Priere de Nabonide’et autres ecrits d’un cycle de Daniel.” Revue Biblique 63 (July 1956):407–15.

Millard, Alan. R. “Daniel 1–6 and History.” Evangelical Quarterly 49 (April–June 1977):67–73.

__________. “Daniel and Belshazzar in History.” Biblical Archaeology Review 11 (May/June 1985):72–78.

Newman, Robert C. “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the Old Testament Sabbath-Year Cycle.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 16 (Fall 1973):229–34.

Panos, Nicholas. “The Chiastic Structure of the Book of Daniel, Part I.” Conservative Theological Journal 8 (December 2004):327–42.

______. “The Chiastic Structure of the Book of Daniel, Part II.” Conservative Theological Journal 9 (March 2005):43–62.

Patterson, Richard D. “The Key Role of Daniel 7.” Grace Theological Journal 12 (Fall 1991):245–61.

Paul, André. “Concept de prophétie biblique Flavius Josiphe et Daniel.” Recherches de science religieuse 63 (juillet–septembre 1975):267–84.

Payne, J. Barton. “The Goal of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (June 1978):97–115.

Pierce, Ronald W. “Spiritual Failure, Postponement, and Daniel 9.” Trinity Journal 10 (Fall 1989):211–22.

Poythress, Vern Sheridan. “Hermeneutical Factors in Determining the Beginning of the Seventy Weeks (Daniel 9:25).” Trinity Journal 6 (Fall 1985):131–49.

__________. “Holy Ones of the Most High in Daniel 7.” Vetus Testamentum 26 (April 1976):208–13.

Rowley, Harold Henry. “The Historicity of the Fifth Chapter of Daniel.” Journal of Theological Studies 32 (October 1930):12–31.

__________. “The Unity of the Book of Daniel.” Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1951):233–73.

Shea, William H. “Daniel 3: Extra-biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Spring 1982):29–52.

__________. “Darius the Mede: An Update.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Autumn 1982):229–47.

__________. “A Further Note on Daniel 6: Daniel as ‘Governor.’” Andrews University Seminary Studies 21 (Summer 1983):169–71.

__________. “Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and the Book of Daniel: An Update.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Summer 1982):133–49.

Shepherd, Michael B. “Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man.” Westminster Theological Journal 68 (Spring 2006):99–111.

Shunk, George Wesley. “The Seventieth Week of Daniel.” Doctoral dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1953.

Steinmann, Andrew E. “Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11?” Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (April-June 2005):195–209.

Stevens, David E. “Daniel 10 and the Notion of Territorial Spirits.” Bibliotheca Sacra 157 (October–December 2000):410–31.

Tadmor, Hayim. “Chronicle of the Last Kings of Judah.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15 (October 1956):227.

Tanner, J. Paul. “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1.” Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (April-June 2009):181–200.

__________. “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2.” Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (July-September 2009):319–35.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 125 (July–September 1968):253–62.

Vasholz, Robert I. “Qumran and the Dating of Daniel.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (December 1978):315–21.

Vermìs, Géza. “Josephus’ Treatment of the Book of Daniel.” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (Autumn 1991):149–66.

Waltke, Bruce K. “The Date of the Book of Daniel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (October-December 1976):319–29.

Walton, John H. “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29 (March 1986):25–36.

Walvoord, John F. “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament.” Bibliotheca Sacra 139 (April–June 1982):111–28.

__________. “The Theological Context of Premillennialism.” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (October-December 1993):387–96.

Whitcomb, John C. “Daniel’s Great Seventy-Weeks Prophecy: An Exegetical Insight.” Grace Theological Journal 2 (Fall 1981):259–63.

Wilson, Robert Dick. “Royal Titles in Antiquity: An Essay in Criticism.” Princeton Theological Review 2 (1904):257–82; 465–97; 618–64; 3 (1905):55–80; 238–67; 422–40; 558–72.

__________. “The Title ‘King of Persia’ in the Scriptures.” Princeton Theological Review 15 (1917):90–145.

Woodard, Branson L., Jr. “Literary Strategies and Authorship in the Book of Daniel.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37 (March 1994):39–53.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. “The Archaeological Background of Daniel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (January–March 1980):3–16.

__________.“Daniel and Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East before Alexander.” Evangelical Quarterly 53 (January–March 1981):37–47.

__________. “Hermeneutical issues in the Book of Daniel.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (March 1980):13–21.

Subject Index

Boxes and figures are indicated by b and f following the page numbers.

Abednego (Azariah)

Abimelech

Abiram

Abomination of desolation

Adonai

Ahasuerus

Akkad

Alexander the Great

as four heads and wings

as leopard

as male goat

Ancient of Days

angels

conflicts and

demonic powers and

Nebuchadnezzar and

strengthening Daniel

theophany and

Antichrist

as final world ruler

making the covenant

materialism of

prophesied

Antigonus

Antiochus Epiphanes

Israel and

as little horn

persecutions by

reign of

temple desecration of

apocalyptic works

apocrypha

Aramaic

Arioch

Artaxerxes

Ashpenaz

Ashurbanipal

astrologers

Azariah (Abednego)

Baal worship

Babylon

fall of

God’s sovereignty and

Idolatry and

magnificence of

musical instruments of

Susa and

Babylonian Chronicle

Babylonian Empire

See also Babylon

Babylonian New Year Festival

Battle of Carchemish

bear, symbolism of

beast, destruction of

Bel and the Dragon

Belshazzar

Daniel’s rebuke of

death

feast of

handwriting on the wall for

Nabonidus and

temple vessel abuse by

Belteshazzar (Daniel)

See also Daniel

blessings and cursings

brick kilns

calendars

Cambyses

canonicity, of Daniel

Carchemish, Battle of

Cassander

Chaldeans

learning of

Nebuchadnezzar and

as wise men

Christian Church

church age

compassion

conscience

Cyrus

capture of Babylon

Darius the Mede and

as king of Persia

Jerusalem rebuilding and

Daniel

In lions’ den

prayers of

confession in

during accusations

preparation for

for wisdom

promotions of

training/education of

Daniel, book of

alleged inaccuracies in

apocalyptic character

apocryphal additions

authorship

canonicity

genuineness

higher criticism and

languages in

place in Scripture

as prophecy

purpose

textual problems

themes

theology

Darius

Cyrus and

Daniel and

decree of

lion’s den and

temple rebuilding and

Darius the Mede

Dathan

Decrees

of Cyrus

of Darius

of Nebuchadnezzar

deity

demonic powers

deportations

desolation of sanctuary

diaspora (dispersion after exile)

diet

discernment

divided kingdom

divine justice

doctrines

dreams and visions. See Visions and

dreams

dual resurrection

edicts. See decrees

Egypt

destruction of

kings of

Syria and

at time of the end

Elohim

enchanters

Epic of Creation

Essardhaddon

Eunuchs

Euphrates River

Eusebius (Bishop of Caesarea)

everlasting kingdom

Ezekiel

Ezra

fiery furnace

final world religion

fire

first beast

food and drink

four winds

four kingdoms

four world empires

See also Babylon; Greece; Medo–Persia; Rome

Gabriel

general resurrection

gifts/rewards

goat

God

judgment and

sovereignty of

In Daniel’s hymn

the god of fortresses

gold as Babylon

great horn

great image

Daniel’s revelation of

empires represented by

Josephus on

See also four world empires

great tribulation

Christ on

Israel’s persecution in

world religion of

the great sea

Greece

See also Alexander the Great; Antiochus Epiphanes

Gubaru

Hagiographa (the Writings)

Haman

Hamath

Hananiah, (Shadrach)

handwriting on the wall

Hebrew calendar

Hebrew language

Herald

Herodotus

Idolatry

Image. See great image

In the latter days

Inscriptions

Iraq brick kiln

Iron as Roman Empire

Israel

Jehoiakim

Jeremiah

Jerome

Jerusalem

capture

destruction

restoration

seventy years desolations

Jesus Christ

on book of Daniel

as “he” in Daniel

second coming of

Jewish calendar

Judah, captivity of

judgment

king of kings

kingdom of God

kingdoms

See also four world empires

kings of north (Syria)

kings of south (Egypt)

Korah

lake of fire

latter end

leopard

lex talionis

lion, relief of

lion representations

lions’ den

little horn

Antichrist and

As Antiochus Epiphanes

ten horns and

Lysimachus

Macedonia

Magicians

male goat

mankind, doctrine of

Marduk

Median Empire

Medo-Persia

Alexander and

In four great empires

as ram with two horns

as second beast

as second kingdom

mene

Meshach (Mishael)

miracles

Morocco lions’ dens

Moses

the most High God

musical instruments

Nabonidus

Belshazzar and

reign of

Nabonidus Chronicle

Nabopolasser

names, Daniel and companions

Nebuchadnezzar

Battle of Carchemish and

Chaldeans and

coup attempt on

decree of

dream of great tree

dream of image

Insanity of

pride and

temple vessels and

wise men and

Nebuchadnezzar II

Necho

Nehemiah

palace throne room

Parmenion

parsin

Persian Empire

See also Medo-Persia

Pharaoh

Pharaoh Necho

Philip (king)

Porphyry

postmillennial interpretation

prayer. See Daniel: prayers of

The Prayer of Azarias

premillenial interpretation

of resurrection

of time of the end

of great image

proclamations. See decrees

pseudepigraphic works

Ptolemy

Qumran manuscripts

Rabshakeh

ram with two horns

Ras Shamra (Ugarit)

Resurrection

in Daniel’s last vision

from the dead

doctrine of

dual

general

of the righteous

rewards/gifts

righteousness

Rome

Christian church and

destruction of

leg stage of image and

as fourth kingdom

as iron in image

Sabbaths

sacred temple vessels

sacrifices

saints

sanctuary desolated

Satan

Satraps

second coming

Seleucus

Seventy weeks of Israel

Christological interpretation

critical interpretation

Hebrew calendar and

historical context

non-Christological interpretation

seventy year desolations of Jerusalem

Shalmaneser III

signs and wonders

silver as Medo–Persia

sin

sixty-nine weeks

Solomon

Son of Man from heaven

The Song of the Three Holy Children

sorcerers

the stone

Sumer

Susa

Susanna

symbolism

of bear

of great image metals

of numbers

of political sovereignty

in Scripture interpretation

of trees

Tower of Babel

Trees

Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra)

Ugbaru

UIai canal

Valentinian I (Emperor)

vegetable diet

visions and dreams

watchers

winds

wine

wise men

Belshazzar and

helplessness of

Nebuchadnezzar and

world empires. See four world empires

world leaders

Xenophon

Xerxes

Yahweh

zodiacal signs

Scripture Index and Ancient Sources

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis

1:5

1:14

1:26

1:31

3:15

4

6:3

7:4

7:12

8:1

9:11

10:10

11

11:2

11:28

12:3

14:22

15:5

17:5

20:3

22:5

22:17

24:7

28

29:27

31:47

37:9–11

40:2

41:1–8

41:10

41:45

49:1

Exodus

3:2

3:15–16

10:13–19

12:2

13:21–22

14:21

15:10

19:9

19:16

19:16–22

20:4–6

20:12

23:15

24:18

28:20

28:29–43

29:38

32:32

32:33

37:25–26

39:38

40:17

Leviticus

4:3, 5

23:3

23:4–14

25:1–5

25:8

26:14–39

26:33–35

26:34

Numbers

11:31

24:14

28:3

28:11–15

Deuteronomy

1:11

4:24

4:26

4:30

6:22

7:19

13:1

13:2

16:3

19:15

19:16–21

20:20

26:8

27

28

28:63–67

30:1–3

30:1–5

31:28

31:29

32:8

32:34

32:40

Joshua

18:3

1 Samuel

2:7–8

2:10

9:16

9:20

10:1

12:1–3

13:14

16:12–13

17:34

20:18–19

20:34

24:5–6

2 Samuel

12:24–25

14:2

22:51

23:1

1 Kings

1:31

2:13–20

3:9–10

4:29

8:10–11

10:20

11:5

12:1–15

12:28

16:31

18:19

18:45

19:8

19:11

19:18

2 Kings

2:24

14:9

21:3–5

23:34

24:12–15

24:17

25:7

1 Chronicles

3:1

29:11–12

36:22–23

1 Chronicles

6:34–39

7:22

9:19

16:9

18:2

28:2–3

30:5

30:10

36:18

36:21

36:22–23

Ezra

1

1:1

1:1–4

1:2

3

4:1–5

4:1–24

4:5

4:6

4:8–6:18

4:12

4:21

4:24

5–6

5:1–6:15

6:7

6:10

7:2

7:11–26

7:12

7:12–26

7:13–26

7:14

7:19

7:21

7:27

8:2

9

11:1

21:29

35:5

Nehemiah

1:1

1:3

1:5

1:9

2:1–6

2:1ff

2:3

2:4

2:5

2:12–15

2:17

9:10

9:28

10:6

11:1

Esther

1:2

1:5

1:19

2:3

2:5

2:7

7:9–10

8:8

Job

1:19

5:11

9:7

12:12–13

12:16–22

12:18

12:22

13:15

19:25–26

27:3

37:7

Psalms

1:3

2

2:2

2:6–9

16:3

16:9–10

19:1

31:15

34:9

37:9

37:35

52:8

55:16–17

69:28

69:29

72:11

74:10

75:6–7

92:12

96:4

97:2

97:3

103:1–2

113:1–2

113:7–8

118:10

132–17–18

136:26

139:60

145:13

148

Proverbs

18:10

Isaiah

1:2

1:10–31

1:10ff

2:2

8:6–8

8:8

8:18

10:5

10:25

10:28–32

11

11:2–5

13

13.1–22

13:12

13:17–18

13:17–22

14

17:12–13

21

21:1–10

21:4–5

24:21

26:12–19

26:19

36:13–20

39:6

39:6–7

42:25

44:28

45:13

46:1–2

46:2

47:7

51:3

52:9

52:14

53:11

57:1

57:11

57:20

61:1–2

63:7, 15

65:6–7

Jeremiah

1:3

1:12

3:19

4:13

5:6

6:23

7:24–8:3

10:3–9

10:9

10:11

11:19

16:14–15

17:12

23:5–6

23:20

25:1–12

25:11

25:11–12

25:11–14

29:1

29:10

29:10–14

29:12

29:17–19

29:22–23

30:7

30:24

31:28

31:31–37

33:15–18

44:20–23

44:27

46:7–8

46:25

47:2

48:7

48:47

49:3

49:39

51:33–58

51:57–58

Lamentations

4:20

Ezekiel

1:13–14

1:13–21

1:16

1:18

1:28–2:2

8:1–3

8:14

9:2–3

9:11

10:2

10:4

10:6–7

10:9

12:13

14:14

14:20

17

17:12–24

20:6

20:15

20:33–38

20:34–38

21:25

26:7

28:1–10

28:3

28:11–19

29:18–20

30:10–25

31

32:1–32

37

38–39

38:8

38:11

38:14

38:16

38:39

40:48

43:1–5

43:18

Daniel

1

1–3

1–6

1–7

1:1–2

1:1–16

1:2

1:3

1:3–7

1:4

1:5

1:6

1:7

1:9

1:11–14

1:12–13

1:15–16

1:17–21

1:19

1:20

1:21

2

2–7

2:1

2:2

2:2–3

2:4

2:4–6

2:4–7:28

2:5

2:7–9

2:10

2:10–13

2:12

2:13

2:14

2:14–16

2:17–18

2:18

2:19–23

2:21

2:22

2:24

2:24–28

2:27

2:28

2:29

2:29–30

2:30

2:31–35

2:36–38

2:37–38

2:38

2:39

2:39a

2:39b

2:40–43

2:40–45

2:43

2:44

2:44–45

2:46–49

2:47

2:48

2:49

3

3:1

3:1–7

3:8

3:8–12

3:9

3:12

3:13–18

3:15

3:17

3:17–18

3:19–23

3:24–27

3:25

3:28

3:28–30

3:29

4

4:1–3

4:3

4:4–7

4:5

4:6

4:7

4:8–9

4:8–18

4:10

4:10–12

4:13–15a

4:15b-18

4:17

4:18

4:19

4:19–27

4:24

4:24–27

4:25

4:28–33

4:33

4:34

4:34–35

4:34–37

4:35

4:37

5

5:1

5:1–4

5:2

5:3

5:4a

5:5–9

5:7

5:8

5:10

5:10–12

5:11

5:13

5:13–16

5:15

5:16

5:17

5:17–23

5:18

5:19

5:20

5:21

5:22

5:23

5:24–28

5:26

5:27

5:28

5:29–31

5:30–31

5:31

6

6:1

6:4–5

6:6

6:6–9

6:8

6:9

6:10

6:10–11

6:12

6:12–15

6:15

6:16–17

6:18

6:18–20

6:21

6:21–23

6:22

6:24

6:24–27

6:25

6:25–28

6:26–27

6:28

7

7–12

7:1–3

7:2

7:3

7:4

7:5

7:6

7:7

7:7–8

7:9

7:9–10

7:9–14

7:10

7:11

7:11–12

7:12

7:13

7:13–14

7:14

7:15

7:15–18

7:16

7:17–18

7:18

7:19

7:19–22

7:20

7:21

7:22

7:23

7:23–25

7:23–27

7:24

7:25

7:26–28

7:27

7:28

7–11

8

8–12

8:1

8:1–2

8:1–14

8:2

8:3–4

8:4

8:5–7

8:8

8:9–10

8:9–14

8:10–12

8:11–14

8:12

8:14

8:15

8:15–16

8:15–17

8:15–19

8:17

8:19

8:20

8:20–21

8:20–22

8:20–26

8:21

8:23

8:23–25

8:23–26

8:23–27

8:24

8:24–25

8:25

8:26

8:27

9:1

9:1–2

9:2

9:2–19

9:3–4

9:3–19

9:4

9:5–6

9:5–8

9:6

9:7–8

9:7–9

9:9

9:10

9:10–11

9:10–14

9:12–14

9:13

9:14

9:15–16

9:15–19

9:16

9:16–19

9:17

9:18–19

9:19

9:20

9:20–21

9:20–23

9:21

9:22

9:22–27

9:23

9:24

9:24–27

9:25

9:26

9:26–27

9:27

10–12

10:1

10:1–11:1

10:2

10:2–3

10:4

10:4–6

10:5–6

10:7

10:7–9

10:8

10:10–11

10:11–14

10:11

10:12

10:12–14

10:13

10:13–21

10:14

10:15–17

10:18

10:18–19

10:19

10:20–21

10:21

11

11–36–12:4

11:1–2

11:1–35

11:2

11:2–12:4

11:2–35

11:2a

11:3

11:3–4

11:5a

11:5b

11:6

11:6–15

11:6a

11:6b

11:7–8a

11:7–9

11:8

11:8b

11:9

11:10

11:10–12

11:10–19

11:11

11:11–12

11:12

11:13

11:13–16

11:13–17

11:14

11:15

11:16

11:17

11:18

11:18–19

11:19

11:20

11:21

11:21–23

11:21–35

11:22

11:23

11:24

11:24–26

11:25–27

11:26

11:27

11:27–28

11:28

11:29–30

11:29–31

11:30

11:31

11:32

11:32–35

11:33

11:35

11:35ff

11:36

11:36–12:3

11:36–12:13

11:36–39

11:36–45

11:37–39

11:38

11:39

11:40

11:40–43

11:40–45

11:41

11:44–45

11:45

11:55

12

12:1

12:2

12:3

12:4

12:5

12:5–8

12:5–13

12:6

12:7

12:8

12:9

12:9–13

12:11

12:12

12:13

12:14

Hosea

3:5

10:5

13:7

13:8

13:14

Joel

2:28–32

4

Amos

5:19

6:6

8:2

8:12

9:11–15

Obadiah

15

Jonah

2:1

Micah

3

4:1

5:5–6

Habakkuk

1:8

2:3

Haggai

1:2–4

2:7

Zechariah

1–6

1:16

4:10

5:11

7:9

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew

4:5

5:18

8:20

9:6

10:23

11:19

12:8

12:32

12:40

13:37

13:41

13:43

13:47

16:13

16:27

17:9

17:12

17:22

20:28

24

24:15

24:15–16

24:15–26

24:15–31

9:1–8

12:10

13:8

13:8–9

14:1–3

14:1–4

Malachi

2:2

3:12

24:21

24:21–22

24:30

25:31–46

26:28

26:39–44

26:64

27:46

Mark

13:14

13:26

14:35–41

16:5

27:52–53

28:19

Luke

4:8

4:17–19

4:18–19

4:29–30

21:24

22:39–44

22:43

24:4

John

1:9

3:8

4:20–24

5:22

5:43

8:12

17:26

20:12

Acts

1:7

1:9–11

1:10

2:17–21

2:29–30

7:22

9:7

12:5–11

13:22

22:9

Romans

3:23

5:15

8:28

11:26

1 Corinthians

2:10

8:5

10:20

10:31

2 Corinthians

5:19

13:1

Ephesians

1:19–20

6:10–18

Philippians

2:10

4:3

4:6–7

1 Thessalonians

4:17

5:1–3

2 Thessalonians

2:3–4

2:3–10

1 Timothy

6:16

2 Timothy

3:1

Hebrews

1:2

9:14

11:19

12:29

James

1:5

5:3

5:16

1 Peter

1:5

1:20

2 Peter

3:3

1 John

2:18

Jude

9

14

18

Revelation

1:12–14

1:13–15

1:14–15

1:14–16

1:15

1:16

1:17

3:5

4–5

5:1

5:10

6–18

6–19

7:15

11:1–2

11:2

11:3

11:7

12:6

12:7

13:1

13:1–10

13:2

13:4

13:4–7

13:5

13:7

13:8

13:11–18

13:15

13:18

16:12

17–18

17:1

17:12

19:11–21

19:15

19:15–16

19:17–21

19:19–20

19:20

20

20:1–15

20:4

20:4–5

20:4–6

20:5

20:12–13

20:12–14

20:15

21

21:1–3

21:1–27

21:9

21:27

22

APOCRYPHA AND SEPTUAGINT

2 Esdras

12:11–12

1 Maccabees

1:10

1:11–15

1:16–51

1:20

1:44–49

1:44–50

1:44–54

1:54

2:18

3:30

3:30ff

4:42

4:52–56

6:16

2 Maccabees

6:1

Tobit

1:10–11 RSV

GREEK AND LATIN WORKS

Jewish Antiquities (Josephus)

10.10.6

10.11.2

10.11.7

Histories (Herodotus)

1.77

1.130

1.191

Philocalia (Origen)

23, 15

TALMUD

Rosh HaShanah

16b

DIG DEEP INTO THE WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT!

MACARTHUR NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY SERIES

This 29-volume series provides reliable, New Testament interpretation and practical Bible study lessons. Trusted pastor and teacher John MacArthur provides verse-by-verse exposition and a clear, in-depth discussion that bring the text’s meaning to light.

moodypublishers.com