Notes on the Book of Daniel: Chapter 11, part 1

Chapter Introduction

This chapter is stunning in the accuracy and detail of its prophecies.  In fact, it is so accurate and detailed that skeptics feel compelled to believe that it must have been written after the events it describes.  As a result of this detailed accuracy, there is very little disagreement about how to interpret the chapter itself but only about whether or not to call it genuine prophecy or history masquerading as prophecy.

The skeptic’s argument runs as follows: 11:2-35^[1] describes history so well that this section must have been written after the events it describes, whereas 11:36-45 is so inaccurate by contrast that it must represent the author’s failed attempt to predict (in a purely natural way according to human reason) the future.  The chapter, therefore, must have been composed before the events of vs. 36-45 (i.e., those leading to and surrounding the death of Antiochus IV in 164 B.C.) took place.  According to this argument, the author intended to inspire the Jews of his day to resist the persecution of Antiochus IV by giving them the false hope of believing that the ancient prophet Daniel had predicted the ultimate demise of Antiochus.  Thus, J.C. Dancy writes, “It is indeed difficult to see what would be the relevance or object of the book if published when the persecution was over” (23).

I disagree with this argument and believe that the chapter was written before the events it describes.  It seems to claim very earnestly that these are prophecies and that they should be attributed to the man, Daniel.  (I outline my general objections to this skeptical argument in the Introduction to these notes.)

In this specific chapter, the skeptical argument turns on the seemingly false prediction that Antiochus IV would die “between the seas and the glorious holy mountain,” in other words, in the Holy Land. He actually died on the boarders of Persia and Babylon in the year 164 B.C.  By contrasting this inaccuracy with the author’s earlier accuracy, proponents of this skeptical argument claim that one should be able do deduce that the author wrote these last verses before the death of Antiochus.

I can think of three possible answers to the skeptical argument as it applies to this chapter.  I favor the first one of these three.

First, the reference in vs. 36-45 may not be to Antiochus IV.  Sometimes pronoun references are not clear in prophecy, even in this one that is so unusual in its clarity.  Notice, for instance, how obscure the pronoun references in vs. 22-23 are (see notes there).  Vs. 22-23 are in the very midst of the section which nearly everyone, skeptic and believer alike, interprets as clearly referring to known historical events, and yet these verses are obscure.  Vs. 36-45 are similarly obscure, and may, therefore, refer to some future “king of the north,” not Antiochus.  In support of this view, see also notes on vs. 36-39.

Second, the reference may be to Antiochus, but the last sentence, which says, “Yet he shall come to his end with no one to help him,” may simply express the inevitability of Antiochus’s doom without reference to where that doom will take place.  The sentence does not say, after all, that he will die “between the sea and the beautiful holy mountain,” only that he will pitch his tents there.  These terse, prophetic verses often compress events of time in such a way that one could easily imagine some significant space of time elapsing between Antiochus’s stay in the Holy Land and his later, inevitable death (on the boarders of Persia and Babylon, as it turns out).

Third, Barnes, citing Porphory, believes that these verses do fit Antiochus, contrary to what most commentators (believers and skeptics alike) claim.  See notes on vs. 40-45

As a supplement to the notes in this chapter, see the Kings of the North and Kings of the South Appendix.

Notes on the Book of Daniel: Chapter 10

v. 1: I think this must be near the end of Daniel’s life.  The captivity of Israel is drawing to a close, so it has been about seventy years since Daniel left Israel as a youth.  This seems like a climactic, rewarding vision, given to him in his old age to explain these future events that concern him and his people.  There are two things mentioned in this verse.

1.  A message, i.e., the revelation itself

2.  A vision, i.e., the explanation of the message.  It is the vision that occupies the rest of the book.  (See 10:7.)

I wonder if the “message” is given in the book of Daniel as one of the earlier visions.  Chapter eight, for instance, has several parallels.  Perhaps the “message” (before the understanding imparted by the “vision”) is what has upset Daniel to the point of fasting and praying as he does here.  Note that at the end of chapter eight, Daniel is confused and upset about the dream of the ram and the goat.  Still, he had that dream over 18 years ago, and it seems odd that it would still bother him.  On the other hand, if the “message” has not upset him, what has?  The children of Israel have been granted permission by Cyrus to go home over two years ago.

I have a theory as to why so much emphasis is placed on Antiochus Epiphanes in this book.  Perhaps it is because Antiochus is the next big crisis that Israel will have to face.    At any rate, I suppose the great war mentioned is between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.

v. 3: I do not think that Daniel specifically planned to pray for three weeks.  I believe he simply set himself to pray in this way until his prayers were answered; the fact that Gabriel was detained for three weeks seems like the most logical explanation for the length of Daniel’s prayer.

v. 9: Note the parallel phrasing of 8:18.

v. 11: “You are highly esteemed.” Note 9:23.  Daniel has more fear and trembling in this vision.  It makes me wonder if the figure he sees in vs. 5-9 is Christ rather than Gabriel.  In Revelation, John has a vision of Christ that combines the imagery of these verses with the imagery of the Ancient One and the Son of Man in Daniel 7:9-14.  Also, the occasions where someone touches Daniel and gives him strength seem to suggest at least one other presence besides Gabriel’s.  (The same thing happens in Revelation; John sees an overwhelming vision of Christ, swoons, and then Christ revives and encourages him by touching him.)  However, it may be that Gabriel took this awesome appearance at first to emphasize the weight of what he was about to say, and then took the appearance of a man afterward, no longer needing such splendor to impress upon Daniel the significance of his words.

v. 13: The prince of Persia must be an angel.  How else could he have the power to fight successfully with Gabriel for twenty-one days? According to Gabriel, he could not have overcome this prince of Persia without the angel Michael’s help^[1], and yet Gabriel could turn Daniel to jelly simply by appearing to him, so I think it is unreasonable to suppose that this prince of Persia is anything less than a creature of the same order as Gabriel.  Furthermore, since the prince is opposing the work of God, he must be evil.  I wonder if all nations and groups of people have such patron/guardian angels over them.^[2] And if the patron angel of a group is evil, what does that say about the collective spirit of the group he presides over?

---

^[1] Michael, like this prince of Persia, is also called a prince in 12:1.

^[2] See note on Revelation 1:4.

Notes on the Book of Daniel: Chapter 9, Part 3

Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem

by Francesco Hayez

v. 26: This talks about the final period of the 70 x 7.  It is one 7 (a week of years).  Notice how nicely the numbers work here, assuming that Jesus Christ is the Messiah who comes at the end of the second period and who “after the 62 weeks…shall be cut off, but not for himself.” The end of the second period, 62 weeks (62×7) of years from the time of the completion of the walls of Jerusalem is 434 years after 408 B.C.  This comes to the year 26 A.D.  If one were to interpret Jesus as the Messiah, who appears at the end of the second period, there would be two logical dates for his appearance: the date of his birth, or that of his baptism.  Of these two, the date of his baptism seems the most compelling to me since it is at his baptism that he is literally “anointed” by the Holy Spirit (in the form of a dove) and by John the Baptist for his work as the Messiah. (Messiah^[3] means, “anointed one” and refers to one who has been anointed for some office, either as king or priest.)  Jesus was baptized at about the age of 30 (Luke 3:23).  If in fact Christ was born on the year “zero” of our current timeline, then this date of 26 A.D. is only four years off.  If, on the other hand, one accepts that Jesus was actually born in 4 B.C. (as some people suggest) the date marks the year of Jesus’s baptism.

If, however, one does not accept that the counting of the second period should begin with the completion of the walls of Jerusalem (since this is only implied as the end of the first period, not overtly stated in the text), then let the counting begin with the first period: 69 weeks (sevens) of years after the command to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem is issued is 483 years after 444 B.C., which comes to the year 39 A.D. This is only a few years off the mark.  In addition to this, while 444 B.C. seems to be the commonly accepted date, Barnes cites some scholars (Hengstenberg and Usher) who claim that the command to rebuild Jerusalem came in 454 B.C. (162), which would bring the end of the second period to 29 A.D.

I can see how some people would be inclined to interpret this second ruler, “the prince who is to come,” whose people “shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” as the little horn of chapter 8 (i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes) because of similar descriptions such as 8:11: “it took away the daily sacrifice” and 9:27: “he will put an end to sacrifice,” but I believe this second ruler should be viewed as a Roman (a representative of the fourth beast in Daniel’s dream of the four beasts) for the following reasons…

1) Interpreting him as a Roman fits well in the timeline.  Both skeptics and believers seem to agree on the notion that the 70 weeks should be interpreted as 490 years.  Likewise, they agree on the date of the command to rebuild Jerusalem (444 B.C.).  Thus, if one believes that the counting of the dream’s years should begin with the command to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (which seems the most honest conclusion to me), one should look for the end of the second period around the year 39 A.D., which is roughly 10 years off the mark if one considers Jesus to be the Messiah.  The second ruler, then, would be a contemporary of Christ’s.  However, if one interprets the 2^nd ruler as Antiochus Epiphanes, who came to power in 175 B.C., then the date of 39 A.D. is off the mark by 214 years. Which requires a greater leap of faith, to believe the interpretation that is off by 10 years or the one that is off by 214 years?  Even if one accepts the conclusion of the Oxford commentary, that the counting of the dream’s years should begin with the edict of Cyrus to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem in 538 B.C., then the date for the end of the second period (483 years after 538 B.C. is 55 B.C.) is 120 years past the time of Antiochus.  It seems much more reasonable to believe that the Messiah referred to here is Jesus (and that the second ruler is a Roman in the time of Jesus) than that the Messiah referred to is Joshua the High Priest in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (who would be the second ruler), as the Oxford commentary suggests.

The Oxford commentary also suggests that the author of the book of Daniel was contemporary with Antiochus IV and intended to inspire the Jews of his day to resist the persecution of Antiochus by giving them the false hope of believing that the ancient prophet Daniel had predicted the ultimate demise of Antiochus.  Those who read Daniel in this way must consider it a given premise that Daniel could not truly foresee the future.  The force of their argument lies in the close match between all these dreams and the historical events they refer to.  “How else could chapters such as 8 and 11 so closely match the events of history unless they were written after historical events?” they ask.

But there is another question that those who hold this view must answer:  why is the timeline so inaccurate when other details are so compellingly accurate?  To believe that Antiochus Epiphanes is the second ruler here, and that the book was written at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, is to believe that the writer, whose narrative details match history so well in every other area (and who had the perspective of time) miscounted the years between Antiochus Epiphanes and the beginning of the dream by at least 120 years and by at most 214 years.

2) The city and the sanctuary are said to be destroyed by the people of the second ruler.  Romans destroyed the actual temple in 70 A.D., and they destroyed Christ’s body, a type of the temple (John 2:19), four decades earlier under Pontius Pilate, whereas in the previous vision (chapter 8), the sanctuary was only defiled, which more accurately reflects the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes. (In 8:14 the sanctuary is cleansed, not rebuilt.)

3) Christ, I believe, cites this passage in reference to times that were to come after the time he spoke (Matthew 24:15).  Now, admittedly, Matthew 24 is a difficult chapter to understand, and Christ may mean that the desolation caused by Antiochus Epiphanes was a kind of foreshadowing of his own crucifixion and/or the desolation which the Romans would cause in 70 A.D. when they destroyed the temple, but I believe it makes more sense to claim that Christ believed this passage of Daniel refers directly to the Romans rather than to the Greeks under Antiochus Epiphanes.

v. 27: It seems to me that this “he” should refer to the second ruler since the second ruler is the last one talked about.  That would mean that the covenant spoken of would be his; thus, it would be an evil covenant.  This one week, which measures the time in which he will “confirm a covenant with many,” should be the last period in the dream, the 1 week  left in the 70 weeks.  I am the least certain about this period of the dream, but here is my best interpretation.

Each period directly follows the preceding one, so, according to the timeline one chooses, the events of this final week should play out between the years 26 A.D. and 46 A.D. (The “week” would then be from 26-33 A.D., or from 29-36 A.D., or from 39-46 A.D.) I’m not sure who this second prince is, but it should be a Roman who, within the designated dates, had considerable influence over the Jews, and whom pious Jews would have considered an evil man.  To me, the surest contender for this role would be Pontius Pilate.  He served as procurator of Judea from 26-36 A.D. and was ordered by Caligula to commit ritual suicide in 38 A.D.  He was considered in every record of his administration (except the gospels) to have been a cruel and severe ruler.  I don’t know enough of his historical circumstances (there do not seem to be many detailed records of him) to know exactly how his career might fit the events associated with the second ruler in this dream.  For instance, what would the seven year covenant be?  What were the political details of his rise to power?

Assuming Pilate is the second ruler, here is how one might match up his role with that of Jesus as the Messiah in the dream: the second period ends soon after the coming of the Messiah.  The third period begins with the making of Pilate’s “covenant,” whatever that might be.  three and one half years into the time of this covenant, Pilate “puts an end to sacrifice” by condemning Jesus (the last blood sacrifice) to death and unintentionally completing the old law of Judaism. (See Hebrews 10:1-4, 12.)  In killing Jesus, he also destroys the temple, in a sense (John 2:19).

Barnes believes that the “he” does not refer to the second ruler but rather to the Messiah because of the religious terminology such as covenant, sacrifice, and offering, associated with the actions of “he.”   Assuming that this is true, here is how the events would match up with the dream: the second period ends with the coming of the Messiah (26 A.D. or 30 A.D.) and begins with a covenant he will establish with the people; this covenant will last for seven years. (I don’t know what would mark the end of this seven year period.)  In the middle of this covenant (three and one half years into it) he will “put an end to sacrifice” through his own death on the cross, which brings about the completion of the old law of Judaism. (Again, see Hebrews 10:1-4, 12.)

Regardless of how one interprets this whole dream, it is only fair to say that the end of the time designated (70 x7 years) is marked by joy and blessedness, in which “everlasting righteousness” will be brought in, as v. 24 indicates.  Therefore, one must conclude that the destruction of the city and sanctuary does not mark the end of the third period.  It may mark the middle, but if the temple to which this dream refers is the actual building that was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., then the timeline seems off by three or four decades.  If the temple is Christ’s body (John 2:19), then the timeline is very accurate and the time of righteousness is the Christian era.  If destroying the city and sanctuary refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D., perhaps the dream alludes to this event parenthetically as something beyond the scope of the dream’s timeline but associated, nevertheless, with the second ruler. (They are his people who will destroy the city and sanctuary.)  This would allow one to account for the destruction of the temple and city in 70 A.D., decades past the end of the timeline.  In other words, since it is not a part of the dream’s timeline, it would not need to happen around the time of Jesus.^[4] As for the “then” in the beginning of the NKJ translation of Daniel 9:27 (which could indicate a basic chronological ordering of the narrative) I do not know how the original Hebrew looks^[5] I do know that the RSV does not have “then” there.

But in looking at all of the verses after v. 24, one will be hard pressed to find a moment depicting the establishment of eternal bliss and righteousness.  I believe this is because Daniel assumes that the establishment of eternal righteousness will naturally take place after the destruction spoken of here in v. 27.  According my best interpretation, Christ’s sacrifice is the destruction spoken of; it should fall in the middle of the week and put and “end to sacrifice and offering.”  The establishment of Christianity, then, is synonymous with the establishment of eternal righteousness.  As I say, this last verse is confusing to me and nearly every explanation of it seems stretched a bit. Nevertheless, it is still amazing that the timeline indicates that the establishment of eternal righteousness should fall between the years 26 A.D. and 46 A.D., and that these dates encompass the time of Christ’s work and the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ (i.e. Christianity).  For comments on this period of half a week, or 3 ½ days, or “time, times, and half a time,” see notes on 8:14.

---

^[1] Jeremiah, although much older, was a contemporary of Daniel and had been warning Judah about its sin years before the first wave of captives, including the young boy Daniel, was taken to Babylon as punishment for Judah’s sin.  Having been called to be a prophet in the thirteenth year of Josiah, King of Judah (Jeremiah 1:2), which was the year 627 B.C., Jeremiah has probably been dead for some time by this point in Daniel’s life.

^[2] Such events might be the taking of the Roman census, or Roman accounts of the dates that certain governing officials took office.

^[3] “Christ” comes from the Greek and also means “anointed one.”

^[4] There are other examples in the Old Testament of similar parenthetical insertions like what I am suggesting here.  Consider 2 Samuel 21.  In v. 15 there is an insertion that says that God commanded the angel to stop destroying Jerusalem, but in v. 16 we find the angel still attacking.  The parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24 says that the angel was still striking the people. So the statement in v. 15 actually would belong around v. 27 if the events of the narrative were to be arranged purely chronologically.

^[5] Daniel 2:4-chapter 7 is in Aramaic.  The rest of the book is Hebrew.

Notes on the Book of Daniel: Chapter 9, Part 2

Nehemiah Views the Ruins of Jerusalem’s Walls

Gustave Doré

v. 25: Here he starts to break down the 70 x 7.  I think the time must begin with the restoration of the walls under Nehemiah rather than with the return of the captives and the building of the temple, which mark the end of Jeremiah’s “70 years” prophecy.  Note that the text says, specifically, “walls” of Jerusalem and mentions the troublesome times in which they were built, which fits the account of Nehemiah’s time.  See Nehemiah 4:1-3, 16-23.  As Barnes points out, these were two very separate events.  In Ezra 1:2-3, Cyrus commands only that the Hebrew temple be restored.  In Ezra 4:12, the enemies of Israel report to a subsequent Persian king (Artaxerxes I) that work on the walls of Jerusalem has begun, but this is a lie designed to make the Jews look rebellious and dangerous. (I cannot find any point in Ezra where any trustworthy voice, i.e., a faithful Jew within the narrative, or the narrator himself, says that work on the walls had actually begun.) Artaxerxes then issues a specific command for all building to stop.  Later, after Darius Hystaspis takes the throne, a new decree is issued wherein the initial decree of Cyrus to build the temple is honored.  However, it is only in the time of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:2-8) that the command to rebuild the city and walls is given.  Therefore the counting of these weeks should begin on the date that this command “to restore and build Jerusalem” goes forth: 444 B.C.

So the time of the dream is broken into three periods: “7 weeks” and “62 weeks” and “1 week.”  The beginning of the first period is marked by the command to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, and the end of the second period is marked by the arrival of the Messiah. I think one could assume that the end of the first period and the beginning of the second period would be marked by the completion of work on the city of Jerusalem and its walls (Nehemiah 12:27) which was in 408 B.C. (Nehemiah 6:15 states that work on the walls was completed in 52 days, but I think the final dedication would work just as well to denote the official end of the project.  After all, that is what a dedication symbolizes, in part.) According to the dates I have given, then, the actual time between the command to restore Jerusalem and the completion of the work is 36 years (as opposed to “7 weeks” of years or 7×7=49 years).  Still, this is remarkably close when one considers that such ancient dates are almost always disputed due to the carelessly chronicled, or revisionist-style histories which some ancient courts kept; even where ancient chroniclers were consistent and careful, modern attempts to match ancient chronicles with our present timeline can be foiled by the scant availability of ancient timelines and the difficulty of deciding how any ancient timeline should correspond to our own method of counting time.  I think this is convincingly demonstrated in the dispute concerning the date of Christ’s birth.  There are arguments, based on events^[2] measured by the Roman timeline, that place the birth of Christ before the year “zero” of our present timeline.  And yet we still say that the battle of Hastings took place 1,066 years after the birth of Christ, when in fact it may have taken place 1,070 years after the birth of Christ.  Now, should some later civilization attempt to calculate the actual time of the battle of Hastings, relative to whatever subjective method of counting time they may have, they may be off by four years if they begin counting at our officially marked year “zero.”  Thus, here in Daniel, I think we can expect there to be some reasonable mismatch of dates.  When the scope of the dream is nearly 500 years, I don’t think being ten or even twenty years off the mark is significant enough to discount any given interpretation.

One also has to consider the significance of the numerology.  Often our methods of keeping time are slightly different, depending upon what we mean to communicate.  For instance, it may be honestly said that Jesus Christ was dead for three days; this is in spite of the fact that, if three days is exactly 72 hours, Jesus was not dead for exactly three days since he actually died Friday afternoon and was resurrected Sunday morning.  Still, from a certain perspective, one could honestly say that Jesus was dead three days, and, in so saying, attach the significance of the number three to Jesus Christ and his death.

Notes on the Book of Daniel: Chapter 9, Part 1

Chapter 9:

All the visions of Daniel seem to concern the coming of the Messiah and his eternal kingdom, the times that set the stage for his coming, or the times wherein the establishment of his eternal kingdom will take place.  Daniel is personally concerned, however, about when Jerusalem and the temple will be restored.  As a sign of this concern, note his custom of facing Jerusalem during prayer (Daniel 6).  Daniel understands from the book of Jeremiah^[1] (Jeremiah 25:8-12) that the desolation of Jerusalem would last 70 years, and that time is approaching completion.  (If one begins counting the captivity from the first deportation of Jews to Babylon in 605 B.C., then the Jews have been captive now for 67 years.)

As it turns out, the Jews were restored to Jerusalem and the work on the temple did begin after 70 years, just as Jeremiah said, but this answer that Gabriel gives to Daniel is much more significant than simply to say that.  It is as if Daniel’s mind can only see and pray for his present circumstances, but God’s answer to his prayer, while acknowledging Daniel’s humble request, reveals events of far greater importance than even the restoration of Jerusalem: it reveals the establishment of the Eternal Kingdom (v. 24) under the Messiah and distinguishes between this kingdom and the physical kingdom of Judah by pointing out that, although Jerusalem will indeed be rebuilt (v.25), it will be destroyed again (v. 27) and thus cannot be the Eternal Kingdom referred to in previous dreams such as Daniel’s dream of the four beasts, and Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue.

v. 23: This saying by Gabriel that Daniel is greatly loved and favored by God sounds remarkably similar to the words which Gabriel says to Mary when he tells her that she will give birth to Christ.

v. 24: I wonder if Christ was thinking of this part of Daniel when he said we should forgive 70 x 7 times (Matthew 18:22), especially in light of the fact that this verse seems to concern his life’s work: forgiveness of sin.  As for the interpretation of the number here, I believe most people agree that it refers to 70 weeks, or 490 days, and that each day represents a year.  The number continues the theme of “70” from Jeremiah’s prophecy, and the Oxford Bible commentary believes that it may also allude to the 49 years leading up to Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8-10).

Notes on the Book of Daniel: Chapter 8, Part 1

ZURICH BIBLE VISION OF THE RAM AND GOAT

If this is a waking vision, I suppose it is a sort of dream-like trance because Daniel says he sees “in the vision” that he is by the river Ulai.  In other words, he might not actually have been there.

v. 3: I have no doubt that this is the Medo-Persian Empire since Gabriel says so (v. 20).  I also believe that interpreting the figure in this way requires that one consider Media and Persia as a single kingdom as far as the book of Daniel is concerned.  Thus, one should reject interpretations that see the second and third kingdoms in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and in Daniel’s dream of the previous chapter as being Media and Persia, two distinct and successive kingdoms.  Other evidence that Media and Persia are considered a single kingdom in Daniel is in verses like 6:8 which talks about “the law of the Medes and Persians,” as if they were one kingdom.  Even outside the book of Daniel, the ancient writers seemed to treat these kingdoms as a unit.  Plutarch, in his Life of Theseus, calls The Battle of Marathon part of the “Median” war, as if the term were interchangeable with “Persian.”  In his Life of Pericles, he says, “Thargelia was a great beauty, extremely charming, and at the same time sagacious; she had numerous suitors among the Greeks, and brought all who had to do with her over to the Persian interest, and by their means, being men of the greatest power and station, sowed the seeds of the Median faction up and down in several cities.”

v. 5: I have no doubt that this is Greece/Macedonia since Gabriel testifies to this fact (v. 21).  I believe the fact that the goat does not touch the earth is an indicator of the speed of Alexander’s conquests.

v. 8: Concerning the phrase, “toward the four winds of heaven,” see two things: 7:6 (wings) and 7:2 (winds).

v. 11: Since I believe that the statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (2:31-45) and the four beasts of Daniel’s previous vision (7:2-27) symbolize the same things, I will use them interchangeably as a means of interpreting this dream.  For the following reasons, I believe that the period described here in v. 11 corresponds to that of the third beast in Daniel’s previous vision and that of the third section (bronze) of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue:

1) It succeeds the Medo-Persian Empire directly as the third kingdom does in the other two dreams.

2) The four horns of the goat can easily be paralleled with the four wings and heads of the leopard.

3) I believe that interpreting the single figure of the goat as Greece/Macedonia means that one should consider the rule of Alexander, as well as the four kingdoms into which his empire broke, as a single kingdom so far as the book of Daniel is concerned.  Thus, I believe one should reject interpretations that see the third kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s dream of the previous chapter as being that of Alexander and the fourth kingdom as being, collectively, that ruled over by the four generals who succeeded Alexander.  Along these same lines, I don’t believe that the one horn (v.9) which grew out of the other four should be interpreted as the fourth kingdom referred to in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s dream of the previous chapter.  The one horn grew out of the other four, and so should be interpreted as being Greek, not a separate kingdom. (In the other two confirmable transitions of world power, Babylon to Medo-Persia and Medo-Persia to Greece, the supplanting kingdom has been an outside force, not an internal one as this horn is.) Besides this, the fourth kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s dream of the previous chapter is remarkable for its brutal power, and yet v. 22 here says that these four Greek kingdoms that succeed Alexander’s united empire did not have the power of the empire under Alexander.  If one were to accept that this horn of v. 9 should be the fourth kingdom of Nebuchandnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s dream of the previous chapter, then one would have to believe that the Seleucid Greek kingdom under Antiochus Epiphanes (which is clearly what the horn represents) was more powerful than the united empire under Alexander had been (just as the fourth kingdom was more powerful than the third kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s dream of the previous chapter), and this would be a ridiculous conclusion to make.  It would make sense, however, to say that the kingdom of Rome was more powerful than the united empire of Alexander.

Nevertheless, consider the following arguments, which, while they do not convince me that this horn of v. 9 is the fourth beast, do deserve a hearing.

The nature of the horn of v. 9 is peculiar.  It starts small and then becomes great, and it oppresses the people of God.   Both of these qualities mark the horn with eyes in the fourth beast.

Also the fact that it concerns “the time of the end” could imply that this is the fourth (or last) beast.

Note too that this goat (unlike the ram) is said to “be destroyed but not by human power” just as the fourth kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is destroyed by a rock not made with hands.

However, I believe these similarities are the result of Daniel’s drawing upon a common set of symbols.  Horns represent kings; small things that grow large (like the rock which strikes the feet of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue) represent people or kingdoms that seem weak at first but grow strong. Besides, there are significant differences in the little horns of each dream.  Consider, for instance, the number of the other horns in both dreams and the relationship of the little horns to these other horns.  As for “the time of the end,” that may mean anything.  The dream here in chapter 8 seems to imply that life will continue after this “end” (hence, the rededication of the sanctuary) so this is not the end, i.e., it is not Judgment Day.  It refers to the abominations of Antiochus Epiphanes and the end of his reign of tyranny over the Jews.  See notes on 11:21 and following.

Notes on the Book of Daniel: chapter 7

Chapter 7:

Daniel’s vision of the four beasts from the sea and the Ancient of Days – Silos Apocalypse (1109)

v. 1: At this time Daniel may not be in any recognizable or significant position of power in Belshazzar’s court. (See 5:11-13.)

v. 2: The four winds of heaven are North, South, East, and West, I suppose.  I don’t know what to make of the symbol of the Great Sea.  I can accept that it is the “nations of humanity,” as Barnes says, but I would still lean towards a slightly different interpretation, given John’s use of the sea in Revelation as the abyss.  (John must have drawn from the apocalyptic imagery of Old Testament books like Ezekiel and Daniel, and his imagery may be a kind of clue to interpreting some of these Old Testament books.) Note too the parallel between Genesis 1 and here; the four winds parallel the Spirit of God hovering over the waters.

v. 4: I don’t know how majestic the lion was to Daniel, but if it filled the role of King of Beasts, then it would very easily parallel the gold head of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.  I think it is pretty arguable, given the parallels between the two dreams, that they describe the same events.  This first beast must be Babylon.  I do not believe that his being stood on two feet and given the heart of a man emphasizes the weakening of his bestial power (as Barnes suggests).  Almost certainly it refers to the humbling of Nebuchadnezzar, but I believe the emphasis is on Nebuchadnezzar’s subsequent glorification by God after he had the humility to honor God in his letter of chapter 4.  The voice is passive (“it was lifted” not “it lifted itself”) and reflects God’s action in bringing Nebuchadnezzar out of the madness of being a beast.

v.5: I believe this beast represents the Medo-Persian Empire since it follows the lion, which is Babylon.  One interesting point about the symbol itself is this report that “it was raised up on one of its sides.”  I’m not sure what Daniel is trying to express here.  I assume, perhaps wrongly, that these beasts walk up out of the sea, but the action here (since it is noteworthy) seems like it should be different from that of ordinary walking.  Yet, if this noteworthy action is the swiping of the bear’s paw in a ferocious manner, it seems odd that Daniel would describe the action thus.  A straightforward reading could suggest that the bear is showing its side for some reason.  That makes me want to connect this action to the three ribs in its mouth (since ribs come from a creature’s side).  It also makes me suspect that this and the three ribs allude to the silver area (the chest and arms) of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue.

v. 6: The number four occurs four times in this dream: four beasts, four winds of heaven, four wings on the leopard, and four heads on the leopard.

I believe this leopard to be the Greek/Macedonian kingdom founded by Alexander.  Three things support this interpretation.  First, the leopard comes in the right order: Alexander’s kingdom is the immediate successor to the Medo-Persian Empire.  Second, the four heads of the leopard could easily reference the fact that Alexander’s kingdom split into four parts (with four separate heads) after his death.  And lastly, there is some similarity here in the words describing this third beast, which “was given authority to rule,” and those describing the bronze kingdom (the Greek/Macedonian kingdom) of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue; it “will rule over the whole earth.”

v. 7: Notice that the fourth beast is not said to be like a beast already known on Earth.  This fact makes it more frightening to me.  It has much in common with the legs and feet of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.  The iron is common to both, as is the fact that both are said to be brutal.  Also, although it may be a stretch, I’d like to point out that the ten horns here and the ten toes of the feet may correspond.  And, of course, the chronology fits.  Also, judgment falls on this kingdom as it does on the fourth kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom immediately follows the judgment in both dreams.

The eternal kingdom is obviously that of the Messiah (Christ) who is the “one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven.”  (Compare with Matthew 26:63-64 and Acts 1:9-11.)  Note the parallels with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream:

1) Both dreams describe an eternal kingdom.

2) In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, the rock signifying this eternal kingdom is “not cut by human hands,” and the kingdom in Daniel’s dream is established by God.

3) The destruction of the fourth kingdom as well as that of the previous three kingdoms in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is a prelude to the establishment of the eternal kingdom, and in Daniel’s dream the fourth beast is slain and the other three beasts have their dominion taken away as a prelude to the establishment of the eternal kingdom.

4) In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, the rock signifying the eternal kingdom fills the whole earth, and the eternal kingdom of Daniel’s dream is given authority over all people.

If the kingdom was established after Christ’s resurrection, on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 1-2) and is here established after the destruction of the fourth kingdom as it is in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, then the end of the fourth kingdom (Rome) should come before the establishment of the eternal kingdom.  (In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, the actual coming of the eternal kingdom is what destroys the fourth kingdom, and perhaps that could be implied in this dream as well.)  Therefore, one could conclude that, in the mind of God, the Roman Empire was destroyed in the first half of the first century A.D.  Since its actual physical destruction came centuries later and was a matter of stages, this destruction was conceptual and spiritual.^[1]

v. 24: The ten kings might have been contemporary with each other.

v. 25: For comments on this period of time “time, times, and half a time,” see notes on 8:14.

The underlying theme of the book of Daniel is the coming of the eternal kingdom.  This is one reason that Jesus so often referenced the book and applied it to himself.  I wonder if the Jews of the first century believed this fourth kingdom to be that of Rome.

---

^[1] See notes on Nebuchadnezzar’s statue (2:27).

Notes on the Book of Daniel: chapter 6

Chapter 6:

v. 1: I think that these events took place at the capital of the Medo-Persians (not at Babylon) since the satraps and administrators appear to have easy physical access to the king.

v. 8: Contrast this decree, which he issues because of his pride, with the one he humbly issues at the end (v. 26).

v. 10: Daniel the exile is facing toward his home, Jerusalem, in spite of the fact that Solomon’s temple has been destroyed.  Note Solomon’s words in I Kings 8:30.

v. 16: Darius says, “Your God, whom you serve continually, He will deliver you.”  I believe he says this both to honor Daniel and to let him know that this action goes against the king’s heart.

v. 26: Darius’s understanding of the kingdom of God is essentially the same as Nebuchadnezzar’s.^[1] It is impressive to me that Nebuchadnezzar (who carried the Jews into captivity) and Darius (who ruled the Jews as an absolute monarch) should have spoken about the kingdom of the God of the Jews in this way.  They must have recognized his kingdom as something very different from that of Judah, which they dominated.  Perhaps Daniel told Darius of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (2:44).

---

^[1] See 4:3.

Notes on the Book of Daniel: Chapter 5

Chapter 5:

v. 8: This says that they could not read, much less interpret, the message, which makes me wonder what language it was written in.  The English versions transliterate the message later on in the chapter from what I assume is the normal Aramaic of chapters 2-7.  Since Aramaic is what Daniel might have translated the message into, I doubt the original message on the wall was Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin (in whatever characters Aramaic uses).  My thoughts are that

1) it was something like the “tongues of angels” of I Corinthians 13:1 (i.e., not any earthly language) or that

2) it was in an earthly language with which Daniel was familiar but which the wise men did not know, or that

3) it was an earthly language that the wise men might ordinarily have recognized but that God made obscure to their        minds on this occasion.

Whatever the language was, Daniel seemed to understand the message as soon as he saw it; he did not even have to pray for the knowledge (as he did with Nebuchadnezzer’s Statue Dream).

v. 11: I think the repetition “your father, the king” was designed to emphasize Daniel’s worthiness by stressing that the great Nebuchadnezzer (in reality, Belshazzar’s grandfather) had held this Jew in high honor.

v. 17: As further proof of the genuine affection which Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar had for one another, compare 4:14 with this unemotional interpretation which Daniel gives to Belshazzar.

Notes on the Book of Daniel: Chapter 4

Chapter 4:

v. 15: Note that the object receiving punishment is referred to as “it” in the first part of the verse, but as “him” in the second.  I believe this is because vs. 15b-16 are the angel’s interpretation of the symbolism of the tree.  “Him” (the one drenched in dew) refers to Nebuchadnezzar, as Daniel points out later.  Given his fear (v. 5), Nebuchadnezzar must have suspected that it referred to him.

William Blake Nebuchadnezzar

Tate Collection, The William Blake Archive.  Used with permission. 

v. 17: Some may interpret this “lowliest of men” to refer to some lowly man who was placed on the throne of Nebuchadnezzar during the king’s absence, but I think the term “lowliest of men” describes Nebuchadnezzar after the madness settles on him.  I could be wrong, of course.  It may refer to Daniel.  Having come to Babylon as a captive slave, he could be described as the lowliest of men, and I suspect that Daniel acted as steward of the throne during Nebuchadnezzar’s madness.  In fact, Daniel’s honest stewardship may be the only reason Nebuchadnezzar had a throne to return to after his recovery.

v. 19: There is a change here from the first person (“I”) to the third person (“he”).  The whole chapter is an epistle written by Nebuchadnezzar; the shift in person, therefore, seems strange to me since I would have expected it to stay in the first person.  I suppose the person could shift as a matter of style.  The explanation I prefer, however, is that the shift to third person reflects Nebuchadnezzar’s reliance on other people to write the letter at that point.  Perhaps Daniel or some other narrator supplemented the epistle’s contents in order to describe the time when Nebuchadnezzar was mad; Nebuchadnezzar himself may not have had a clear memory of that period.  If this is the case, then the third person picks up a bit early here, since Nebuchadnezzar is not mad yet.  Nevertheless, it would fit nicely with v. 34, where Nebuchadnezzar’s sanity returns and the first person voice picks up again.

I think this verse displays the genuine friendship and respect that Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel had for one another.  Daniel is distressed that such things have been decreed for the king to experience, and the king has compassion on Daniel’s distress.

v. 29: Given what has been shown of Nebuchadnezzar’s personality,^[1] I think he may have heeded Daniel’s warning at first but then slipped back into his accustomed habits by this time.  He certainly does not seem worried about the dream anymore.

v. 33: Both of these descriptions use bird imagery.  I wonder how that is significant.

---

^[1] See note on 3:19.