Message Library

Daniel Chapter 7

Modern commentators are generally agreed that chapter 7 is the single most important chapter of the Book of Daniel. Its position is pivotal, both in terms of the makeup of the book as a whole and in terms of the brilliance of the vision which it contains.

A noticeable shift in point of view now takes place. Daniel 1–6 consisted of tales about the hero, his external history, so to speak. This same Daniel turns now from public demonstrations of the power of the God of Israel in a strange land to the private reception of visions of the future destiny of God’s chosen ones.

From “Daniel said” (7:2) forward, the account is always in the first person—as it were, the internal and hidden experience of the saint, to be stored up for disclosure at the time of the end.

Daniel 7 is a dream-vision report which can be further subdivided. After the setting is given (7:1), the dream-vision itself follows.

• It consists of an animal allegory on history (vv. 1–8)
• a heavenly scene featuring the judgment of the earthly kingdoms by the Ancient of Days (vv. 9–12)
• and the vesting of all earthly dominion in “one like a son of man” (vv. 13–14).

Then follow a report of the visionary’s fear and the introduction of a heavenly interpreter, together with a prose interpretation of the judgment scene (vv. 15–22), and a detailed poetic interpretation of the fourth beast and the judgment scene which looks almost like an expansion or midrash upon the preceding prose interpretation (vv. 23–27).

Verse 28is simply a concluding formula or “aftermath.”

We hear of messages brought directly to human beings by angels without the dream element appearing. This phenomenon is particularly associated with call narratives, as with Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1–6), Gideon (Judg. 6:11–24), and the annunciation to Mary (Luke 1:26–38).

The Animal Allegory and the Meaning of Myth

That the animal allegory dream of 7:1–8 is parallel to the dream of the colossus in chapter 2 is self-evident. Like the metals of chapter 2, the four beasts represent four kings or kingdoms (7:17). Relative essential worth plays a less important role here than in chapter 2—all four of the beasts are strong and fearsome—but the historical order remains the same.

The lion (7:4) equals the golden head which equals the neo-Babylonian empire (2:32, 34–38). Some commentators point out the appropriateness of the lion-eagle symbol for Babylon, since the lion was beloved of the Babylonians and can be seen to this day gracing the walls of the famed “Procession Street” in the remains of their city. However, too much emphasis should not be given to this kind of animal/history correlation, for one is hard pressed to find any corresponding link for the three remaining beasts.

The bear (7:5) must be equated with the statue’s silver chest and arms (2:32, 39); it should be the Median kingdom.

The leopard (7:6) equals the bronze belly of the statue (2:32, 39) and stands for Persia, as is commonly if not universally held.

The fourth, terrible beast with the iron teeth and the ten horns (7:7) equals the legs and feet of iron and clay (2:33, 40) which stood for the Greek empire introduced into the Middle East, 332–331 b.c. Like chapter 2, with its discussion of the weakness of the feet (2:41–43), the dream also acknowledges divergency and strife within the fourth beast, represented by conflict among the ten horns (7:8) and the ultimate superiority of an eleventh one equipped with “a mouth which uttered enormities”.

By means of this animal allegory the historical framework is established with which the apocalyptic visions of Daniel 7–12 will take place.

The beasts of this allegory may have had their origin in the myths of the ancient Near East. Here, however, they no longer possess mythic character but have become more arbitrary symbols for a succession of historical kingdoms. Commentators may agree among themselves on the presence of myth or at least of mythic images in Daniel 7:1–8 and other passages. How should such agreement affect the way in which such texts are heard in the synagogue and the church?

THE FOUR WILD BEASTS (chapter 7)

(There are differences between chapter 1–6 and chapters 7–12:

The language used in chapter 7 is still Aramaic. When we come to chapter 8, the language will change to Hebrew.)

THE TIME OF THE VISION (7:1)

This vision of the four wild beasts was given to Daniel during the first year of Belshazzar’s reign, 553 bc. (this was the year that Nabonidus made his son, Belshazzar, his co-ruler).

THE RECIPIENT OF THE VISION (7:1)

God now reveals the Gentiles’ future, not through a heathen king as He did in chapter 2, but through His servant Daniel.

THE RECORDING OF THE VISION (7:1)

Daniel, possibly the morning after he had his vision, recorded it in its essence.

THE CONTENT OF THEVISION (7:2–14)

Daniel saw four great beasts come up out of the sea, the one after the other and each diverse from the other. The first beast was like a lion and it had eagle’s wings. The second beast was like a bear and it had three ribs in its mouth. The third beast was like a leopard and it had four wings and four heads. The fourth beast was dreadful and terrible and it had great iron teeth and ten horns, with a little horn coming up among the ten horns, this little horn having eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great things. Daniel beheld until the Ancient of Days set up a judgment, destroyed the fourth beast and the lives of the other beasts and set up a universal and eternal kingdom under the Son of Man.

THE COMPARISON OF THE VISION (with the dream of chapter two)

1.     The similarities between the dream and the vision

a.     Both deal with “The Times of the Gentiles” (that period of time between the close of “the Old Testament Historical Kingdom” and the setting up of “the Old Testament Prophetical Kingdom”)

b.     Both reveal four successive Gentile world kingdoms which exist during “The Times of the Gentiles”

c.     Both reveal a final end-time form of the fourth kingdom

d.     Both reveal a fifth heavenly kingdom which will destroy and replace the other four kingdoms

e.     Both emphasize the final form of the fourth kingdom and its final destruction by the fifth kingdom

f.     Both reveal a divine philosophy of history (as does Romans, chapter eleven, and the book of Revelation)

2.     The differences between the dream and the vision

a.     The dream views the four Gentile world kingdoms from man’s viewpoint (as strong and glittering) but the vision views them from God’s viewpoint (as fierce and beastly)

b.     The dream does not reveal the end-time Anti-Christ as does the vision—Daniel, chapter 7, gives the Bible’s first revelation of the Antichrist

c.     The dream does not reveal the kingdom of the Antichrist as being in conflict with the nation of Israel at the end-time as does the vision—Israel is mentioned at the close of chapter 7 as the Gentile section of Daniel, chapters 2–7, shades off into the Jewish section, chapters 8–12.

THE INTERPRETER OF THE VISION (7:15, 16)

At Daniel’s request, one of those who stood by interpreted the vision to Daniel. Probably this interpreter was the angel Gabriel, 8:16, 9:21.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE VISION (7:17–27)

(1) “The four winds of the heaven”—In Rev. 7:1, these winds are called “the four winds of the earth.” These “winds” are earthly forces which stir up trouble and strife among the nations, these forces being controlled either directly or indirectly from heaven;

(2) “The great sea”—The nations of the world, always in a state of turmoil;

(3) “four beasts”—The term “beasts” refers to this world’s fierce, cruel, and selfish civil governments;

(4) “up from the sea,” 7:3, and “out of the earth,” 7:17—These are synonymous terms with differing emphases, the one referring to the fact that the four kingdoms are of men and not of God, the other referring to the fact that these kingdoms are of the earth and not of heaven. See Rev. 13:1, 11; (5) “king”—In both Daniel and Revelation, the word “king” often refers not to an individual king but to a kingdom, 7:17; Rev. 17:10; and (6) “horn”—This term has reference to a ruler and it emphasizes his power.)

1.     The Beast like a lion—The Babylonian empire, 605–538 b.c., the empire pictured by “the head of gold” in chapter two.

a.     It “had eagle’s wings”—Nebuchadnezzar’s power and rapid conquests, Jer. 4:7, 13.

b.     “The wings thereof were plucked”—Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity. See 4:33.

c.     “It was lifted up from the earth and a man’s heart was given unto it”—This speaks of Nebuchadnezzar’s restoration to sanity and to his throne. See 4:34.

2.     The Beast like a bear—The Medo-Persian Empire, 538–331 bc., the empire pictured by “the breast and arms of silver” in chapter two. Also, see 8:3–7 and 11:2.

a.     “It raised up itself on one side”—This predicts the eventual supremacy of the Persians over the Medes.

b.     “It had three ribs in the mouth of it”—The Medo-Persian conquest of the remnants of the three former world empires, the Egyptian, the Assyrian, and the Babylonian.

3.     The Beast like a leopard—This refers to the Grecian empire, 331–63 bc., the empire referred to in chapter two by “the belly and the sides of brass.” Also, see 8:5–8 and 11:3, 4.

a.     It had “four wings of a fowl”—This has reference to Alexander’s speed of conquest.

b.     It had “four heads”—Alexander’s empire after his death was divided by his generals into four parts, Greece and Macedonia, Thrace and Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt.

4.     The Beast of iron and of brass—The Roman empire, 63 bc. to the Second Advent of Christ, the empire symbolized in chapter two by the “legs of iron, and the feet of iron and of clay.”

The Roman Empire is Biblically presented as having 3 forms:

(1) Its healthy form;

(2) its wounded form;

(3) its healed form, Rev. 12:3.

These 3 forms may also be called: (1) Its “was” form; (2) its “is not” form; and (3) its “yet is” form, Rev. 17:8)

a.     The fourth beast in its well (historical) form—The Roman empire from 63 bc. to ad. 476

This empire, the historical Roman empire, crushed the former world empires and established “the Pax Romana” (the Roman peace) for over 200 years.

b.     The fourth beast in its wounded (non-existent) form (Rev. 13:3)—The Roman empire from ad. 476 to the beginning of the Seventieth Week of Daniel.

The western part of the Roman empire came to an end in ad. 476 but in men’s minds the idea of a one-world empire lived on. During the past 1500 years, 6 major attempts have been made, with varying degrees of success, to politically revive the historical Roman empire.

c.     The fourth beast in its healed (eschatological) form (Rev. 13:3)—The Roman empire during the Seventieth Week of Daniel.

Possibilities

(1)     Its future

This revived kingdom and its ruler will come on the scene after the rapture of the church, 2 Thess. 2:6–8.

(2)     Its form

This healed (revived) empire will be a confederation of ten nations or kingdoms. Ten kings and their kingdoms will unite. See Daniel 2:41–44; 7:7, 24; Rev. 17:11–17.

(3)     Its alliances

During the first half of Daniel’s Seventieth Week, this revived empire and its ruler will be in alliance with the false (Laodicean) church, Rev. 17:1–3, and during the last half of this week, it will be in alliance with “the beast out of the earth,” Rev. 13:11–18 (“the false prophet,” Rev. 16:13).

(4)     Its continuity

It is a continuation of the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the historical Roman empires. That is, the territory, the people, and the culture of each of these empires were incorporated into each of the succeeding empires and they therefore will be found in the final Gentile world power, Dan. 2:35; 7:12, Rev. 13:2.

(5)     Its energizer

This kingdom and its leader will be empowered by Satan, Rev. 12:3; 13:2, 4.

(6)     Its location

It will be made up of ten nations whose territories will probably lie within the geographical boundaries of the old Roman empire.

(7)     Its duration

It will rise to power during the first three and one half years of Daniel’s Seventieth week, and then it will be a world empire during the last three and one half years of this Seventieth week, Dan. 7:25: Rev. 13:5.

(8)     Its ruler or head (the “Little horn”)

(a)     His unveiling

He will be unveiled to the world at the beginning of the Day of the Lord, 2 Thes. 2:3.

(b)     His nationality

He will be a Roman, Dan. 9:26.

(c)     His names- the little horn 7:8, the coming prince 9:26, the desolator 9:27, the wilful king 11:36,the man of sin 2 Thess 2:3, the son of perdition 2 Thess 2:3,the wicked one 2 Thess 2:8, AntiChrist 1Jn 2:18,the beast out of the sea Rev 13:1, the first beast Rev 13:13.

(d)     His career (during the Seventieth Week of Daniel)

“Like a Son of Man”

As the fourth great beast is destroyed by fire and the other three are deprived of all power and hegemony there comes one “like a son of man,” who receives from the Ancient of Days all the dominion formerly possessed by the other kingdoms. To him is given the promise of the service of all the other “peoples, nations, and languages”; unlike the kingdoms before him, this son of man will rule in a kingdom that shall never be destroyed.

This is the first appearance in the Old Testament of the son of man as an independent future figure.

The term son of man, is well-known from the prophet Ezekiel, whose angel guide persists in addressing him in this way: “And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog …” (39:1). This usage must simply be understood as a title of address: one could call a prophet “son of man” and mean simply “Mister”!

This semantic value is confirmed by Psalm 8:4:…what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him?

The parallelism of the poetry, in which the terms of verse 4a are re-expressed in synonyms in verse 4b, proves that “man” and “son of man” in this instance mean the same thing.

Now, however, we have pictured before us a special figure called “son of man.”

Is he to be understood as a single individual or the embodiment of a collective entity of some kind? Is he one of the persons known by the Old Testament writers to be in heaven already because they were translated, such as Enoch (Gen. 5:24) or Elijah (II Kings 2:12)?

Is he one of those persons exceptional for having known God intimately (Adam, Abraham, Moses, or David)?

Is he one of those pre-existent figures already known in Judaism (the personified figure of Wisdom, Prov. 8:22–31; the suffering servant, Isa. 52:13–53:12; or the Messiah, the anointed one of David, Ezek. 37:24–28)?

Or is he some hitherto unknown entity, now making his totally unexpected appearance? Only on the basis of the evidence given in this text can we answer the question of what the writer had in mind in introducing the figure of the son of man.

About the son of man we learn first of all that he comes into the scene “with the clouds of heaven.” The phrase seems simple enough, but the preposition “with” is susceptible of several nuances, including “together with,” “by means of,” or “on.” If the one like a son of man is riding on the clouds (LXX-Dan), perhaps he is descending from heaven with them as if borne on a heavenly chariot. On the other hand, if he is coming together with clouds, the reasonable implication would be that the son of man is riding up from earth, rising as clouds do on the horizon.

The issue between these two understandings of the simple preposition “with” is the issue between theophany (the son of man as a divine figure being brought down on clouds at the appropriate moment of disclosure) and apotheosis (the son of man as an earthly figure being lifted to heavenly heights in order to be awarded the dominion).

If the former is the case, the son of man is a representative of the angels (cf. Dan. 10:16, 18) and is a divine figure who simply looks like a human being; if the latter is correct, he is a representative of human beings and a forerunner and type of ultimate human destiny.

While the clouds are normally associated in eschatological texts with heavenly figures, the fact that the son of man succeeds a series of human rulers and is given the earthly dominion in their place suggests that here he is a figure for a fifth human monarchy. This judgment is supported by the similarity between the son of man and the “stone not cut by human hands” of Daniel 2:34, 45—which seems also to be a human rule that, by God’s decree, supplants all existing dominion on earth.

Is he a king or is he a cipher for an entire kingdom? That is, is the son of man an individual or a collective entity? The phrase “that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (v. 14b) is stereotyped language drawn from the realm of royal ideology and points in the direction of an understanding of the figure as an individual king. But Old Testament imagery is never static. The individual and the collective never stay put; the two often blend and merge.

The Gospels and the Son of Man

H. E. Tödt was able to organize all the uses of the image of the son of man in the first three Gospels under three headings:

(a) sayings referring to the coming son of man, viewed as a heavenly judge and saviour, and spoken of in the third person (e.g., Matt. 10:23; 16:27–28 || Mark 8:38; Mark 13:26 || Luke 21:27; Matt. 26:64 ||Mark 14:62, and many others);

(b) sayings referring to the son of man presently at work on earth, often in contexts in which Jesus is speaking about himself (e.g., Matt. 8:20 || Luke 9:6, 58 || Mark 2:10 || Luke 5:24; Mark 2:28 || Matt. 12:8 || Luke 6:5, and many others);

(c) sayings referring to the suffering, death, and resurrection of the son of man (e.g., Matt. 12:40; 17:9, 12 || Mark 9:9–13, and many others) (cf. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition).

The term is used only by Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and never of Jesus, it should be noted that types (b) and (c) never refer to the future coming and judging roles of the son of man but are intended to describe the work of Jesus himself. Type (a) does not identify Jesus with the son of man, although obviously the church came in time to make that identification.

The term son of man is used in the Gospel of John (3:13–14; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 12:23, 34; 13:31) where the threefold distinction of the Synoptics breaks down and the pre-existent heavenly figure is simply identified with Jesus (6:62). The only other New Testament use of the term as a title is in Steven’s speech in Acts 7:56, where the coming eschatological judge is identified with Jesus.