Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 7:1-7
7 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. 2 Daniel declared, “I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. 3 And four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another. 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. 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.’ 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. 7 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.
___________________________________
If you’re paying close attention, you’ll notice that chapter 7 “takes place” prior to the fall of Babylon. This is just a recording of the vision Daniel had during the latter years of the empire.
This vision is among the most famous in the Bible, predicting the fall of Babylon and the rise of three subsequent empires. This is the portion of the text during which the dating of the text is most relevant. If this is from the 6th century BC, then Daniel prophecies with accuracy the next few centuries. If it was written in the 2nd century BC, then Daniel is using recent history to make a point about the present. But I think most would agree that accurately predicting the future is a strong indicator that the God Daniel serves is real.
So let’s jump right in to what these verses might mean, starting with a note for verse one from Ellicott’s Bible Commentary:
Verse 1
VII.
(1) The date of this and of the following chapter comes in chronological order after the fourth chapter. As St. Jerome has observed, “In superioribus ordo sequitur historiœ quid sub Nebuchadonosor et Balthasar, et Dario sive Cyro mirabilium signorum acciderit. In kis vero narrantur somnia quœ singulis sint visa ternporibus: quorum solus propheta conscius est, et nullam habent apud barbaras nationes signi vel revelationis magnitudinem, sed tantum scribuntur, ut apud posteros eorum quœ visa sunt memoria perseveret.”
Visions.—From this, and from the phrase “sum of the matters,” it appears that Daniel had other visions at this time. By “sum” is meant the principal parts of the vision.
Daniel does not purport to give a full account of everything he saw. He writes to provide a summary. Continuing on to verse 2, from The Pulpit Commentaries this time:
Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. The Septuagint omits the introductory clause, and renders, “On my couch I saw in my night-sleep, and, behold, the four winds of heaven fell upon the great sea.” Theodotion, like the LXX; omits the introductory clause, and renders, “I Daniel beheld, and, lo, the four winds of the heaven rushed upon (προσέβαλον) the great sea.” The Peshitta seems as if transferred from the Massoretic text, the resemblance is so close. The variations in the Greek Version may be due to condensation of a fuller narrative. The verb translated “strove” in our Authorized Version is better rendered, as in the Revised, “brake forth upon.” Luther’s version is, “sturmeten wider einander.” This, like the Authorized Version, seems to be the result of the Vulgate pugnabant. The only objection to this is that it ought to be followed by a preposition (Bevan). The translation suggested by Levy, “stirred up,” appears still better. The sea referred to is naturally to be taken as the Mediterranean; it is “the great sea” of the prophets (Ezekiel 47:10). Jerusalem is not so far from the sea but that Daniel might have seen it in his boyhood. The symbolic meaning of the sea is the mass of heathen nations (Psalms 65:7). The “four winds of heaven” usually stand for the points of the compass (Jeremiah 49:34). Here, however, the winds are pictured as actual forces dashing down upon the sea, and stirring it up to its depths. It may be objected that this is an impossible picture. It might be replied that Virgil, in the first book of the ‘AEneid,’ 84-86, and Milton, in ‘Paradise Regained,’ has the same thing. Daniel has more freedom, for he narrates a vision, and, further, to him the winds (rucheen) were under the guidance of angels. Hitzig denies that the winds can be angelicae potestates, as Jerome maintains; and, when Jerome supports his position by a quotation from the Septuagint Version of Deuteronomy 32:8, gives as answer a mark of exclamation. The passage, “He set the nations according to the number of the angels of God,” represents a phase of thought in regard to angelology, which Daniel elsewhere obviously has. The double meaning of the word ruach made the transition easy. We see the same double meaning in Zechariah 6:5. The sea, then, is to be regarded as the great mass of Gentile nations, and the winds are, therefore, the spiritual agencies by which God carries on the history of the world. As there are four winds, there are also four empires. There are angelic princes of at least two of these empires referred to later. May we not argue that these empires had, according to the thought of Daniel, each an angelic head? It may be doubted whether the most advanced critics know more of angelology than Daniel, or can be certain that his view was a mistaken one. Moreover, the Mediterranean Sea was the centre round which the epic of history, as revealed to Daniel, unfolded itself. Nebuchadnezzar marched along the eastern shores of that midland sea; the Persian monarchs essayed to command it by their fleets; across a branch of that sea came Alexander; and from yet further across its blue waters came the Romans. The Mediterranean saw most of the history transacted that took place between the time of Daniel and that of our Lord.
Ellicott adds the following, with respect to identifying the meaning of “the great sea.”
(2) The great sea.—In general (e.g., Joshua 15:47), these words imply the Mediterranean. Such cannot be the meaning here, so that according to Daniel 7:17 we are justified in explaining the “sea” to mean the nations of the world, which are compared to the sea (Isaiah 27:1; Psalms 46:3). The raging of the winds from the four quarters of the sky points to the various political and social agitations which disturb the world’s history, and lead to the changes and revolutions which mark its progress as it tends towards the end.
Relying upon this, we might interpret Daniel’s language to mean that he had a vision of how the nations of the world would be stirred up and moved. Continuing on, in TPC:
And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The Septuagint rendering omits “great;” otherwise it is a closely accurate representation of the Massoretic text, save that the translator seems to have had, not דא מן־דּא, but as in the Syriac, חדא מן־חדא, as he renders ἓν παρὰ τὸ ἕν. Theodotion has μεγάλα, but does not so slavishly follow the Aramaic construction at the end. The Peshitta is very close to the Massoretic, save that in the last clause it agrees with the LXX. The number four is, in apocalyptic writings, significant of the world; “the four winds” mean the whole world. Here it is human history that is summed up in the four beasts. So in Zechariah we have “four horns” that symbolize the oppressors of the people of God (Daniel 1:18; Daniel 2:1). We have “four” chariots in the sixth chapter of Zechariah, which seem to be symbols of the same thing. Beasts. Animals of one sort or another are used of nations in the prophets; thus Egypt is symbolized in Isaiah 27:1-13, as “leviathan,” presumably a crocodile (Isaiah 51:7), as “a dragon” in Ezekiel 29:3 Babylonia is figured as an eagle (Ezekiel 17:3). Composite beings are used as symbols also, as Tyro is addressed as a ‘”covering cherub.” In the Book of Revelation Rome is figured as a beast with seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 13:1). In the Book of Enoch (85.—90.) we find this figurative use of animals carried much further. Assyria and Babylonia and, following them, Persia made great use of composite, monstrous animal forms as symbols, not so much, however, of political as of spiritual powers. This distinction is the less important, that political events were regarded as the production of spiritual activity.
The general consensus is that four great beasts refers to four powerful nations or empires. The animal is in some way reflective of that empire – whether that be politically or spiritually or both. Continuing on to verse 4, still in TPC:
The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wing. thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. The LXX. and Theodotion render “lioness,” but otherwise agree with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta does not differ from the received text. The word אריה is epicene. It is, however, to be noted that in later Aramaic the terminal letter was ,א not .ה The word gappeen, “wings,” is worthy of note; in this form it appears in the Peshitta, i.e. in Eastern Aramaic; genappeen is the Targumie form. No modern commentator has doubted, with, I think, the single exception of Dr. Bonnar (‘Great Interregnum’), that the first beast here is the Babylonian Empire (Hitzig, Zöckler, Kliefoth, etc.). Nebuchadnezzar is compared (Jeremiah 49:19) to a lion and to an eagle (Jeremiah 4:7; also Ezekiel 17:3), and suitable to this are the winged human-headed figures found in the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. If we assume that the empire of Babylon is represented by this first beast, then we have to note, in the first place, the avoidance of any reference to numbers. It may be objected that the “eagle’s wings,” גַפִּין (gappeen), are in the dual. Yet the number two is not mentioned. That the word was in the dual in the pre-Massoretic text does not appear from the versions, so the correctness of the dual pointing may be doubted. Unity was the mark of the Babylonian Empire in the vision of Nebuchadnezzar, and unity still remains its numerical sign. As swiftness and aggressiveness are symbolized by wings, especially “eagle’s wings,” when we read, “I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked,” we learn that before the fall of Babylon a period set in, during which Babylonia ceased to be the aggressive conquering power it had been. A man‘s heart was given to it. J.D. Michaelis thinks the reference here is to the fact that when they first broke from their original seats, the Chaldeans were barbarians, but they became civilized in Babylonia. We know more now of the early history of Babylon and of the Chaldeans, and know that at one time the latter were divided into many cantons, each under its separate king, and that on and after the conquest of Babylon by Merodach-Baladan, they became more able to act in concert. The circumstances connected with the accession of Nabopolassar are wrapped in mystery. However, it is clear this cannot be the reference here. The giving of the man’s heart is brought into close relationship with the plucking of the wings. This fact also decides us against the view so generally maintained, that there is here a reference to the madness of Nebuchadnezzar. In his case the heart of a beast was given to a man; in the case before us the heart of a man is given to a beast. To us the contrast seems more obvious than the resemblance. Much superior is Calvin’s interpretation. Speaking of the phrases, “set upon his feet,” and “the heart of a man was given to him,” Calvin says, “By these modes of speech one understands that the Assyrians and Chaldeans were reduced in rank—that now they were not like lions, but like men”. This is the view of Behrmann. There is no reference, then, to any supposed humanizing influences which manifested themselves in Babylonian methods of government after Nebuchadnezzar was restored to his reason. From being an empire that spread its wings over the earth, it became limited very much to Babylonia, if not at times to little more than the territory surrounding the city of Babylon. We find that Nabunahid felt himself ready to be overwhelmed by the encroaching Manda. He manifests nothing of lion-like courage or eagle-like swiftness of assault. This was the state of things when Daniel had this vision. Nabunahid was in Tema, while his son did his best to defend the frontier against the threatening encroachments of Cyrus. Hitzig and Havernick maintain that the attitude suggested by the phrase, “set upon its feet,” is what, in heraldic language, is called “rampant;” it is possible, but it rather militates against the natural meaning of the words. Before leaving this, it must be noted that, as in the vision Nebuchadnezzar had of the statue, the symbol of the Babylonian Empire is the noblest metal—the head of gold. Here the noblest animal is the symbol of Babylon—”the lion.” The same reason may be assigned here for this, as in the passage in the second chapter for that—that the Babylonian Empire had more in it of the symbol of Divine government. No monarch was more like a god to his subjects; his power was unchecked, unlimited, uncontrolled.
The note points out the existence of human-headed winged animals from the Babylonian Empire – however most of the archaeology of which most of us are familiar with a human-headed winged bull, rather than a winged lion.
There are examples of human-headed winged lions, too, though. It may be that the lion image was more synonymous with Babylon at the time of Daniel:
Ellicott adds the following, re: verse 4:
(4) The first was like a lion.—The lion and the eagle are chosen as being emblems of strength and swiftness respectively. They characterise the empire of Nebuchadnezzar, and correspond to the golden head of the Colossus (Daniel 2:0).
The wings . . . plucked.—The eagle, deprived of its wings, loses its power of swiftness and unrestrained motion.
From the earth.—The beast was raised from being on its four feet into the position of a man, as is indicated by the words “a man’s heart.” We have not sufficient historical details respecting the last years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign to enable us to point to the reference. It has been suggested by St. Jerome that the words refer to the madness of the king and to his subsequent recovery; but it must be borne in mind that it is the kingdom rather than the king of Babylon which is the subject of the vision.
The consensus is that the 1st beast refers to the Babylonian Empire, though not all of the text has a clear meaning (particularly the big about standing up and having a man’s heart.) Ellicott also reminds us that this vision corresponds with the vision of the statue from chapter 2. Daniel tells us explicitly in chapter 2 that the first kingdom is Babylon.
Continuing to verse 5, in TPC:
And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. The Septuagint rendering here differs but slightly. “A second” is omitted, and instead of “they said”, it is “one said” or “he said.” Theodotion agrees with the Septuagint in omitting the word “second,” but agrees with the Massoretic in having “they said.” The Peshitta begins more abruptly than the others, “And the second beast [was] like to a bear,” etc. In regard to the Aramaic text, the use of the haphel form must be observed. The presence of the שׂ instead of the סis an indication of antiquity in the word בְּשַׂר (besar), which becomes in the Targums בְּסַד. It has been supposed that the reading should be בִשֵׁר (bishayr) with שׁ, which would mean” dominion”—a phrase that would give a sense out of harmony with the context. It is in regard to the meaning of this symbol that interpreters begin to be divided. The most common view is that this refers to the Median Empire. There is nothing to support the assumption that the author of Daniel distinguished between the Median and the Persian empires; everything, indeed, which, fairly interpreted, proves that, while he regarded the races as different, he looked upon the empire as one. It is the laws of “the Medes and the Persians” that are appealed to before Darius the Mede. The united empire is symbolized as a ram with two horns. Dr. Davidson, in his review of Professor Bevan’s Commentary (Critical Review) on Daniel, shows the duality indicated by the animal raising one of its two sides. That one race was stronger than the other had to be symbolized, and this was done by making the symbolic animal raise one side. The attitude at first sight may be difficult to comprehend. There is a figure in Rawlinson’s ‘Five Great Monarchies,’ vol. 1. p. 332, in which a pair of winged bulls are kneeling with one leg; the side opposite to the kneeling leg is thus the higher. Kliefoth denounces this interpretation as mistaken, without assigning any reason against it. The interpretation by which he would supersede it is that it means “to one side of Babylonia.” There is no reference to locality at all. Moreover, as all the animals come out of the sea, their relationship to Babylonia would be remote. It had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it. What is meant by these three ribs has been much debated. In the first place, Havernick thinks that it is a mistake to translate עלעין (‛il‛een) “ribs;” he maintains the true rendering to be “tusks.” He identifies עלע with צלע (Hebrew); but even if we grant this identification, we do not find any justification for this rendering. The word for “tusks” seems rather to be ניבי, which occurs in the Targum of Joel 1:6 and Job 29:17, and the same word occurs in the Peshitta. At the same time, the symmetry of the figure would fit some such view. In none of the other beasts is there any reference to what they are devouring. Still, one cannot lay stress on this. When we come to consider what is meant by the “three ribs,” we have great diversity of opinion. On the supposition that the ribs are in the mouth of the bear, and being gnawed by it, it must mean that at the time when by the conquest of Babylon it came into the apocalyptic succession, the bear-empire had laid waste three territories. Ewald agrees that three countries must be meant, but assumes these countries to be Babylonia, Assyria, Syria. There is no evidence, Biblical or other, that the Median Empire ever extended to Syria. If we grant that the author of Daniel lived in the time of Epiphanes, then no authority open to him, so tar as we know, brought the Medes into Syria before the day of the Persian rule. We need not assume a blunder for our author, and then build further assumptions on that assumed blunder. Moreover, by the conquest of Babylonia and Assyria, the bear came into the apocalyptic succession, whereas he had already devoured those provinces represented by ribs when he appears. Hitzig, following Ben Ezra, takes the ribs as three cities—Nineveh and two others. There seems nothing to identify “ribs” with “cities;” we can imagine it to mean “provinces.” Thus we are led to Kraniehfeld’s opinion, that it represents constituent portions of an older confederation broken up. The view of Kliefoth, that the conquests of the Medo-Persian Empire are intended—Babylonia, Lydia, and Egypt—sins again st the symbol, which implies that the ribs are already in the bear’s teeth when he enters into the sphere of apocalyptic history. Jephet-ibn-Ali maintains the “three fibs” to refer to the three quarters of the world over which the Persian Empire ruled; and this is the view of Keil. It seems better, with Von Lengerke, to regard the number three as not important, but a general term for a few, though, at the same time, we can make approximation to the number when we look not at the Medea, but at Cyrus. Moreover, had we a better knowledge of early apocalyptic, it is at least a possible thing that we might find that “three” was the designating number of Lydia or Armenia, as “two” was of Medo-Persia, “four” of Greece, “five” of Egypt, and “ten” of Rome. It seems to us that the position of Cyrus—at the time we assume the vision to have been given to Daniel—suits admirably with the picture of the bear. Like the bear, he came from the mountains, in contradistinction from the lion of the plains. He united under his rule his hereditary kingdom Ansan, Elam, and Media. Thus we might have the three ribs if we might lay aside the notion of these being devoured. He overthrew the Manda and Croesus before he conquered Babylon, and it is probable that Armenia had also to be conquered before he could encounter Croesus. It is singular that writers who are determined to maintain that Daniel drew all his information as to Babylonian history from Jeremiah and other early writers, should also, by implication, maintain that, in defiance of the continual mention by these writers of kings of the Medes, as if they were a numerous confederacy (Jeremiah 51:11), Daniel held that there was a united empire of the Medes separate from the Persian Empire. The second empire is not, as maintained by Ewald, represented by a bear, “because its empire was less extensive than that of Babylon,” but because it was a falling off from the theocratic monarch—the monarch who ruled as God. They said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. The speakers here may be “the watchers,” or it may be used impersonally. On the assumption that the bear is the shadowy Median Empire, what meaning can this command have? The Medes, as distinct from the Persians, by the time that Epiphanes ascended the throne, had become very shadowy. The scriptural account of them does not represent them as pre-eminently cruel. Isaiah (Isaiah 13:17) foretells they will conquer Babylon, with all the concomitants of a city taken by assault. Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:25) places the Medes with other nations under the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon, and (Jeremiah 51:11, Jeremiah 51:28) he too asserts that the Modes will assail Babylon. There is nothing here to indicate the expectation that Media should be a pre-eminently destructive power. This applied correctly enough to Persia. Even on the assumption that the author of Daniel was a Jew of the time of Epiphanes, it seems very improbable that he should have placed Media as an empire coordinate with Babylonia, Persia, and the Greek Empire of Alexander and his successors. Still more improbable that he should attribute pre-eminent cruelty to it, when all the cruelty ascribed to the Medes by the prophets was exercised against Babylon, and even that was not beyond the ordinary measure exercised by a conqueror in a city taken by assault,
This rather lengthy note summarizes the debate regarding the bear with the three ribs. There is near universal agreement that this refers to the Media-Persian Empire, and that the three ribs represent three conquered peoples/nations, but beyond that, the specifics are contested.
Ellicott’s note says the following, re: verse 5:
(5) And behold another beast.—We are not told what became of the first beast. (Comp. Daniel 7:12.) The word “behold” implies that this was the next object which arrested the seer’s attention. The second beast corresponds to the silver portion of the Colossus (Daniel 2:0).
One side.—In explaining this very difficult phrase, it must be remembered that the two sides of the bear are parallel in meaning to the two breasts and two arms of the Colossus. It is implied, therefore, that the second kingdom consists of two parts, and the raising up of one side implies that one part of the kingdom would come into greater prominence than the other. Such was the case with the Medo-Persian Empire (comp. Daniel 8:3), in which the Persian element surpassed the Median.
Three ribs.—These cannot signify the people who constitute the second empire, but rather some kingdoms which had already been subdued by it; and by the command, “Arise and devour,” the second empire is permitted to make further conquests before its disappearance. The three ribs have been understood from the time of St. Hippolytus to mean three nations: the Babylonians, the Lydians, and the Egyptians.
Ellicott argues with more assurance as to the identities of the three nations. Continuing in Ellicott at verse 6:
(6) A leopard.—More correctly, a panther. On the great vigilance and swiftness of the panther, comp. Jeremiah 5:6; Hosea 13:7; Habakkuk 1:8. The third beast corresponds to the copper belly and thighs of the image (Daniel 2:0). It should be noticed that as unity characterises the first beast, and duality the second, so quadruplicity marks the third. It has four wings—wings as of a bird, not of an eagle—by which a degree of swiftness is implied inferior to that of the first beast. It has four heads, indicating four kingdoms, into which the third kingdom should develop itself. (Comp. Daniel 8:8, where the same predominance of the number “four” is to be observed.)
There is again universal agreement that this refers to the kingdom founded by Alexander the Great. The Macedonian/Greek Empire was marked by its swift conquest, and then its division into four parts after the death of Alexander. The four wings on its back / four heads refers to the division into four parts.
Finally, the fourth and final beats – perhaps also the most confusing – comes up in verse 7. TPC has the following to say:
After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. The version of the LXX. differs considerably, though not essentially, “After these things I beheld in a night vision a fourth terrible beast, and the fear of it excelled in strength; it had great iron teeth, it devoured and pounded down; it trode round about with its feet; it differed from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns, and many counsels were in its horns.” The sense of this does not really differ, save in the last clause, which seems to belong to the next verse. Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta differs only by having” after these things,” following the LXX; instead of “after this.” The identification of the empire intended by this beast has been the crux of interpreters. Practically all ancient authorities—Josephus, and the author of the Apocalypse of Baruch being among the number—maintain the Roman Empire to be meant. On the other hand, a very large number of modern critics, not merely of the exclusively critical school, have held that it refers either to the Greek Empire as a whole, or to the Seleucid portion of it. As we shall discuss this subject in a separate excursus, we shall at present look at the principles to be adopted in dealing with such a question. The important point is the numerical note of this “beast.” It is “ten”—the same it may be remarked, as in the feet of the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. When we turn from the Apocalypse of the Old Testament to the Apocalypse of the New, we find “ten” the note of Rome. Even though we should put this to the one side, as merely the opinion of an apostle, and therefore not to be considered at all in comparison with that of Hitzig or Von Lengerke, yet he was writing little more than a couple of centuries from the time when, according to critics, Daniel was written; moreover, he was in the direct line of apocalyptic tradition. The Apocalypse of Baruch, written in all probability b.c. 60, has the same view, and it is separated by little more than a century from the time of the Maccabees. The Fourth Book of Esdras, written about a.d. 80, has the same view. All three books imply that it is the universally received opinion. This view is really the only one that fairly meets the case. The view which separates the Seleucid Empire from that of Alexander may be laid aside, although the first three empires are correctly interpreted, because it is directly controverted by the statement that this fourth empire is to be diverse from all that had gone before. The empire of the Seleucids was in no sense diverse from that of Alexander. This fourth empire was to be stronger than all that had gone before. The Seleucid Empire was notoriously and obviously less powerful than the empire of Alexander had been, and was merely a match for the empire of the Ptolemies. Further, the next chapter shows that the writer of Daniel regarded the empire of the Diadochi as really a continuation of that of Alexander the Great. The other view rests on a division between the Median and the Persian empires, which is contradicted by any fair interpretation of this book. The next chapter shows clearly that the writer regarded the Medo-Persian power as one, but as having two dominant races. The” great iron teeth” of the beast have a reference to the iron legs of the dream-image which appeared to Nebuchadnezzar. This beast “is diverse from all the beasts that were before it.” In all the previous empires, the constitution was avowedly monarchical. With the Roman, the republican constitution appeared, and even under the emperors the forms of that constitution were preserved. In this sense it was diverse from all the preceding empires. Mr. Bevan thinks “the actrocious massacres at Tyro and elsewhere, by which Alexander endeavoured to strike terror into the conquered races,” is symbolized by the monster “devouring, crushing,” etc. Mr. Bevan must never have read the accounts of the conquests of Asshur-bani-pal. He seems to have forgotten the treatment meted out to Samos and Miletus by the Persians.
By far the most popular interpretation of the fourth beast is that it is the Roman Empire. However, as the note relates, this is the most contested view, too. This beast is more difficult than the previous three to clearly match-up with the Romans.
Ellicott says the following about the 4th beast:
(7) A fourth beast.—This is so different from the preceding three, and so terrible in appearance, that Daniel can hardly find words to describe it. The distinguishing feature of it is the power which it possesses of breaking and stamping out all that it meets. In this way it corresponds to “iron that breaketh in pieces, and subdueth all things.” (Comp. Daniel 2:40.) The description of the destructive might of this beast is heightened by the mention of “iron teeth” and “brazen claws.” It should be noticed that the horns imply strength, while the ten horns correspond to the ten toes of the image.
The residue—i.e., what it did not destroy with its teeth it trampled upon and annihilated with its feet.
We are reminded that the ten horns corresponds with the ten toes mentions in Chapter 2, as part of the statue.
Obviously, there is a lot of interest in this today, with people actively hoping to interpret the prophecy and be prepared for whatever might be coming. The following video gives a summary of the primary interpretations of Daniel 7 and the New Testament Book of Revelations (which borrows the same imagery Daniel uses to convey the same story.)
The video is short, and it notes the 7 hills upon which Rome is famously seated. Rome is not the only historically significant city known for being seated upon 7 hills. Two other very prominent “7 hills” cities are Jerusalem and Washington D.C.
The world has lived in a very “End Times” centric state since the reformation of the nation of Israel in 1948. The people who rule the world have not exactly worked to tamp down any anxiety.
For a while, the above statue – which seems to resemble most the third beast from Daniel’s vision – was on display at the U.N. It caused enough controversy that it was subsequently removed. Surely – surely! – our world leaders wouldn’t be encouraging some End Times conspiracies about themselves. (Just kidding, of course they would.)
We shall continue on with the vision in our next set of verses.
