The Future for God's People in a Conflict-Ravaged World: Daniel 7–12

By Michael Kenneth Wilson

A tragic world ravaged by conflict. A world in which powerful political states act ruthlessly, with millions upon millions of lives devastated. Across the globe, from continent to continent, in state after state, political power is wielded in ways that are inhumane and dehumanizing. Vast numbers of people are the victims of violent religious persecution. For many, living a godly life brings with it the prospect of considerable suffering and hardship. That's the reality painted in the book of Daniel. The Future for the Wise in a Conflict-Ravaged World provides us with the perspectives we need to face the future as we live in such a world and remain true to the God who rules over it.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Resource Publications
• Release date: Dec 27, 2023
• ISBN: 9798385206186

Michael Kenneth Wilson

Michael Kenneth Wilson, now retired, has taught at various theological colleges for over thirty years, lecturing on the Bible, cross-cultural ministry, and a Christian understanding of Buddhism. With his family, he served in Pakistan for seven years. He is the author of The Lives of the Wise in an Anti-God World: Daniel 1–6 and also Changing Lanes, Crossing Cultures.

Book preview

Daniel 7

Beast Master

Demonstration of God’s Sovereignty in the Universal Rule of his People: Immense Eschatological Suffering for God’s People

Date

This vision occurs many years before the fall of Babylon and Belshazzar’s demise. Hasel combines evidence from the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Verse Account of Nabonidus, in line with information provided by the Sippar Cylinder, to determine that it was in his sixth regnal year that Nabonidus moved to Tema and entrusted Belshazzar with kingship.¹ Thus, "the first year of King Belshazzar’s reign was 550/549 BC. Since Nabonidus remained king, this was effectively a co-regency. This assumes significance in Daniel 7 when we recognize, therefore, that this opening date-reference deliberately corresponds to verses 13–14 where, in effect, we see the establishment of the co-regency between the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man.² Eleven years after the Nabonidus-Belshazzar co-regency, Babylon is defeated by its enemies and Belshazzar perishes. By contrast, the outcome of the Ancient of Days and Son of Man co-regency is characterized by triumph over and destruction of the enemies of God’s people, and the establishment of an eternal kingdom.

In addition to the above, Daewoong Kim proposes that the introductory dating and Babylonian location in Daniel 7 is deliberately constructed to parallel Ezekiel 1.³

Structure

For those who prefer a simple structure, Longman’s breakdown is helpful:⁴

1.Horror by the sea (1–8)

2.Heavenly power (9–14)

3.Divine victory (15–28)

Ferch rightly challenges the common way of regarding chapter 7 as composed of a vision (2–14) and interpretation (15–27),⁵ an approach to the chapter which tends to be followed by those who argue for a collective identity of the Son of Man. Against this, Ferch points out that strictly speaking the interpretation is limited to verses 17–18 and 23–27, with other verses in the block between verse 15 and 27 describing the prophet’s reaction to, reflection upon, and elaboration of the vision. He observes that this understanding of the structure of the chapter has profound implications for understanding the relationship between the Son of Man and the saints of the Most High. He explains:

Instead of considering the saints as limited to the ‘interpretation’ and explanatory of the manlike figure of the vision, vss.

20–22

supplement the vision and envisage the saints as the object of the persecution by the little horn before the judgment.

Raabe’s detailed analysis of the structure of Daniel 7 leads him to identify verses 16b–18 as its middle pivot, confirmatory of the view that the chapter as a whole serves as a pivot or hinge in the book’s present structure, recalling the kingdoms of Daniel 2, concluding the Aramaic section of chapters 2–7, and also, with its stress on final judgment, anticipating Daniel 12.⁶

There are four movements in the chapter:⁷

1.The initial vision is presented in verses 2–14. This describes the origin of the four beasts as a perverted new creation. There is a description of each of the four beasts with particular stress on the fourth beast which is depicted as terrifying, destructive, and essentially different from the other beasts. The little horn is also given prominence. The vision switches to the judgment-throne of God, the Ancient of Days. Judgment is carried out and one like a son of man approaches the throne and is made universal ruler over an everlasting, indestructible kingdom.

2.A broad summary of the vision is presented in verses 17–18 which centers on identifying the four beasts as various earthly versions of human rule, but with the prospect of God’s people receiving the eternal kingdom.

3.In verses 19–22 Daniel requests an interpretation of particular aspects of the vision, namely concerning the fourth beast, the ten horns, and the little horn whom he sees persecuting God’s people. Features of these already introduced in the initial vision are reiterated.

4.This is followed by a further explanation in verses 23–27 which summarizes the nature of the fourth beast, the ten horns, and especially the little horn (another king) whose blasphemous behavior and oppression of God’s people is emphasized. However, divine judgment will culminate in the destruction of the little horn and the handing over of God’s eternal and universal kingdom to his people.

It is important to also observe the parallel between verses 15–16 and verse 28, which emphasizes how distressing Daniel found this vision, and the future prospects it presaged.

Importance

Heaton eloquently expresses the immense significance of Daniel 7 within the book of Daniel:

The part of the critical problem which scholars have found most teasing is the lack of coincidence between the division of the book suggested by language and that suggested by form. Hebrew is the language of the introductory and concluding chapters (

1

.

1

—

2

.

4

a and

8–12

), and Aramaic that of the rest (

2

.

4

b—

7

.

28

). While consideration of the language would naturally lead us to reckon Daniel’s vision in ch.

7

with the stories about Daniel in chs.

2–6

, its form suggests that it belongs rather with the visions of chs.

8–12

. It is not surprising, therefore, that ch.

7

has become a kind of disputed no-man’s-land among those who wish to divide the book into two parts.

Taking this as our clue, we may concentrate on ch.

7

as holding the key to the critical problem and make bold to identify it as the creative centre of the whole book. It binds together and interprets the stories that go before it, just as it introduces and inspires the more explicit chapters of commentary which follow. Here, if anywhere, we meet the writer who deserves to be called the author of the book.⁸

The ultimate triumph of God’s kingdom involves a glorious future for God’s people, and this is signalled at the close of Daniel 7. This corresponds with the exaltation of God’s people depicted in Daniel 12. Indeed, Daniel 7 coheres with one of the major themes of the entire book with its central emphasis on the ultimate sovereignty of God.⁹ Yet, there are points of contrast between Daniel 7 and the apocalypses which follow. As Newsom observes,

Like ch.

2

but unlike chs.

8–12

, here Dan

7

is focused on the expectation of an eternal dominion by the earthly representatives of the Most High God. The concerns and expectations of chs.

8–12

, by contrast, have to do with the fate of the temple and its sacrifices and the fate of ‘the wise’ (maśkîlîm). Political dominion by Israel as a representative of God’s sovereignty on earth is no longer a topic in chs.

8–12

.¹⁰

Linkage with Daniel 1–6

In Daniel 1–6 we are presented with a number of court scenes which involve Daniel and/or his three friends. A court scene also lies at the heart of Daniel 7. What is the relationship, if any, between these?

1.The court scene of Daniel 7 involves God giving to the Son of Man glory, authority, and power over all nations and the peoples of every language, an eternal kingdom which replaces beastly human rule. Similarly, major court scenes in Daniel 1–6 involve the climactic recognition that only God’s kingdom is eternal and all-encompassing and that he alone gives ultimate power and authority to a human being to exercise such rule (2:44; 4:3, 17, 25, 32, 34; 5:21; 6:26).

2.The court scene of Daniel 7 presupposes the need for God to deal in a decisive and conclusive manner with beastly and destructive human rule and especially insofar as it involves persecuting God’s people, as epitomized by the little horn.¹¹ In similar vein, Daniel 1–6 highlights potential and actual life-threatening events faced by Daniel and his friends because of the very nature of pagan rule (2:12–13; 3:6, 13–23), which, at times, is orchestrated by those who seek to destroy them (3:8–12; 6:4–15). Given the fire-imagery of the court scene in Daniel 7, the corresponding motif of fire in Daniel 3, together with a reworking of Deuteronomy 32:39 (no one can deliver from my hand), placed in the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar (what god will be able to rescue you from my hand), suggests a studied contrast between the Ancient of Days and blasphemous human rule as exemplified by Nebuchadnezzar.

3.The court scene of Daniel 7 demonstrates that via the one like a son of man, God’s people effectively have access to God’s presence. It had been the lament of the Chaldeans in Daniel 2, given their inability to divulge the details of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, that the gods do not live among humans (v. 11). But Daniel 1–6 is full of indications that Daniel and his friends do have access to God and, indeed, the presence of one who looks like a son of the gods in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (3:25) and of a God-sent angel in the lions’ den with Daniel (6:22), serves to highlight the immense difference between supposed pagan relationship with their gods and the real relationship God’s people have with the true and living God.¹²

However, as we move from Daniel 1–6 to 7–12 we are presented with a major change of emphasis concerning the relationship between pagan and divine sovereignty, which is in keeping with the much greater apocalyptic nature of these chapters. The bulk of those earlier chapters (1–5) is concerned with living under the rule of one pagan ruler, Nebuchadnezzar, and with God so acting as to make it possible for Daniel and his friends, as exemplars of the wise, to flourish under this rule, notwithstanding its blasphemous, idolatrous and dangerous nature. These earlier chapters, through the apocalyptic dream of Daniel 2, and the disaster with which Daniel 5 concludes, flag the readiness of God to deal with blasphemous human rule in a different manner, namely by causing it to be transferred from one rule to another (e.g., from Babylonian to Persian). This phenomenon becomes far more accentuated in chapters 7–12.¹³

In my earlier volume I drew attention to the following chiastic structure:¹⁴

2

A vision of four kingdoms and their end (Nebuchadnezzar)

3

Faithfulness and a miraculous rescue (the three friends)

4

Judgment presaged and experienced (Nebuchadnezzar)

5

Judgment presaged and experienced (Belshazzar)

6

Faithfulness and a miraculous rescue (Daniel)

7

A vision of four kingdoms and their end (Daniel)

Clearly, there is a close structural link between Daniel 2 and Daniel 7:

Points of Correspondence and Contrast

Walvoord notes the following points of contrast:

in chapter

2

, a wicked and heathen king is used as a vehicle of divine revelation which pictures world history as an imposing image in the form of a man. In chapter

7

, the vision is given through the godly prophet, Daniel, and world history is depicted as four horrible beasts, the last of which almost defies description. In chapter

2

, Daniel is the interpreter. In chapter

7

, an angel is the interpreter. Chapter

2

considers world history from man’s viewpoint as a glorious and imposing spectacle. Chapter

7

views world history from God’s standpoint in its immorality, brutality, and depravity.¹⁵

Similarly, Tanner, following Campbell, sees Daniel 2 as a human perspective on world history which presupposes each empire has intrinsic value, whereas Daniel 7 is a divine perspective revealing the true inner nature of human rule.¹⁶

Dumbrell, while seeing Daniel 2 as dealing with historical events which are in some sense within the field of vision of Nebuchadnezzar, views Daniel 7, given its distinctive mythical features, as stressing the a-historical character of the visionary element there.¹⁷ Ginsberg also stresses the differences.¹⁸ He maintains that while chapter 2 contains an apocalypse, it is not itself an apocalypse.¹⁹ By contrast, Daniel 7 is an apocalypse and nothing else. He claims that chapter 2 has no hard feelings against any Gentile kingdom or king, but that chapter 7 is bitter against the fourth kingdom and particularly against one of its kings. He further contends that chapter 2 contemplates a survival of the first three monarchies, after their respective turns at world dominion, right down to the moment when the fourth is due for annihilation. He sees Daniel 7 as presenting an entirely different picture with the first kingdom, Babylon, now completely removed from the scene.²⁰ He observes that while chapter 2 emphasizes the divided state of the fourth kingdom this note is missing altogether in Daniel 7. In particular, he argues that everything about ch. vii proclaims Antiochus; even as everything about ch. ii proclaims ‘before Antiochus.’²¹ Zevit observes the lack of any mention of the Jewish people in Daniel 2 while, by contrast, he notes stress on their role in Daniel 7.²² Gooding sees Daniel 7 as presenting different views of Gentile imperial power and of the Messianic kingdom from those set forth in Daniel 2.²³

The glory of gold and the strength of iron in chapter 2 and the humanizing of the first beast in chapter 7 (v. 4) indicates that Gentile power is not to be viewed as unrelievedly and consistently bad. Yet in both cases there is deterioration and ultimately an impossible mixture. In chapter 2 fatal weakness and instability result from attempting to mix two unmixables, iron and clay. In chapter 7 the mixing of animal strength and instinctive cruelty with hideous strength is disastrous; the former illustrating human rule’s own internal, self-ruining incoherence and the latter its destructiveness of the world around [it].²⁴

Similarly, Gooding finds differences in the way the establishment of the Messianic kingdom is portrayed, with the statue of chapter 2 replacing the polished image of a Man via supernatural power, but with chapter 7 seeing the giving of dominion to ideal humanity—the Son of Man and the saints of the Most High.²⁵

Thus, when aligned with each other, chapters 2 and 7 present contrasting yet complementary views of human rule: Gentile governments are from one point of view manlike, humane, majestic, but plagued with the weakness of incoherence, and at the same time to show from another point of view that Gentile governments are basically amoral, self-seeking, cruelly destructive, animal-like power-blocs.²⁶

It should also be noted that Daniel 7 follows on from Daniel 6 as indicated by the following shared features:

1.The threat posed by threatening, terrifying beasts.

2.Evil opposition to and persecution of God’s servant/saints.

3.Evil opposition which involves the changing of times and laws.

4.The deliverance of God’s servant/saints into the power of the evil opposing force.

5.The actions of a King-Judge destroying the enemies of God’s servant/saints.

6.The ultimate deliverance of God’s servant/saints from the power of the beasts and their exaltation, including that of the one like a son of man.

7.Emphasis on God’s kingdom being eternal and indestructible.

The Circumstances (v. 1)

Up to this point the book has observed a broadly chronological sequence: Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius. For the first time we have a flashback to an event which occurred during the reign of Belshazzar. As Kratz puts it so well, this is not without reason, for the beginning of the end of the Babylonian rule heralds the end of the kingdoms of the world.²⁷ Further, the blasphemous nature of Belshazzar’s own rule prepares for the climactic expression of human rule in Daniel 7 as epitomized by the blasphemous little horn. Daniel 8 will take us back to yet another event that took place in Belshazzar’s reign (v. 1). Then Daniel 9 to Darius’s reign (vv. 1–2). And Daniel 10 to Cyrus’s reign (v. 1).

Chronologically the sequence is:

Daniel

1–4

Daniel

7–8

Daniel

5

Daniel

6

/ Daniel

9

Daniel

10–12

Why has a chronological sequence not been observed in Daniel 7–12? Explanations include:

1.Daniel 7–12 is a later redactional addition to Daniel 1–6

This is problematic since we might fairly ask why a redactor did not modify the order of chapters as outlined above. Besides, the central Aramaic portion extends beyond Daniel 6.

2.Daniel 7–12 presents a set of visions, whereas Daniel 1–6 constitutes court narratives

But if dream interpretations can be incorporated within the historical framework of Daniel 1–6 then why not the visions as well? After all, does not the presentation of four beasts in Daniel 7 correspond with the four parts of the statue in Daniel 2?

3.In contrast to the dream interpretations of Daniel 1–6, the visions of Daniel 7–12 are not directly related to a particular historical context which is occurring at the time of the reception of the revelation concerned

This is difficult to sustain. If Daniel 7 parallels Daniel 2, then presumably the relationship with history of the two revelations concerned is of the same order. Further, the vision of Daniel 9:20–27 follows a narrative that emphasizes the painful historical situation being experienced by Daniel at that time. It is clear that the vision is intended to relate to that particular historical context.

4.Daniel chapters 7–12 are interconnected and distinguishable by their thematic content

It is integral to Daniel 1–6 that God’s kingship be set in conflict with the kingship of a particular ruler. Even in Daniel 2, as Daniel 3 goes on to show, while the interpretation takes in a broad sweep of history, nevertheless there is a very definite contextual stress on the contrast between God’s kingship and the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar himself. In Daniel 7–12 the visions do not relate directly to any one particular ruler contemporaneous with the reception of the revelation concerned. So, in Daniel 9 it is significant that the historical orientation provided by verses 1–21 at no point concerns actions taken by Darius, but relates only to Daniel’s reading of Jeremiah. In every single chapter of the section running from Daniel 1 to 6, God’s intervention through dreams and their interpretations, and through mighty acts of deliverance, is as a response to the expressed rule of the then reigning king.

As Daniel 9 indicates we cannot presuppose that Daniel 7–12 is distinguishable by virtue of not bearing a primary relationship to contemporaneous historical events. But what does make Daniel 7–12 distinctive as a unit is that the visions relate to broader historical vistas and are not an expression of the political significance of Belshazzar or Darius respectively. Belshazzar and Darius bear only an incidental relationship to these visions by sharp contrast to the integral relationship borne by Nebuchadnezzar to the dream interpretations of Daniel 2 and Daniel 4, and by Belshazzar to the deciphering of the cryptic writing on the wall of Daniel 5. Thus, to the historical vista of Daniel 7–12 the Chaldean empire has already ceased to have the central importance accorded to it in the Aramaic portion of the book. Daniel 7 persists with the Aramaic because it is the transitional chapter which leads the reader away from the lion-like beast, that is, the Chaldean empire, to other manifestations of human rule, so that immediately in Daniel 8 it is possible to restart with the second Medo-Persian empire and to ignore the Chaldean empire altogether.

The big picture painted in Daniel 7 involves the articulation of a theme that has already been implicit in the narratives of Daniel 1–6: the need for God’s people to endure and remain faithful as they suffer under unjust pagan rule. From Daniel 7 onwards this theme is developed and expressed in an explicit manner. God’s people, as represented by Daniel, long for restoration and a brighter future. But the message of Daniel is: Brace yourself. Extraction from Chaldean rule will not fundamentally change the situation. Indeed, the worst is yet to come. Therefore, God’s people must endure until ‘the end,’ and only at that time will they be delivered from their sufferings under oppressive human rule. Thus, Jesus was effectively summarizing the message of Daniel when he declared: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt 24:13).

The Vision Proper (vv. 2–14)

Structure

A chiastic structure informs verses 2–14²⁸:

A Four beasts appear (

2

b

–3

)

B The first three beasts (

4–6

)

C The fourth beast appears (

7

)

D A small horn makes great claims (

8

)

E A throne scene (

9–10

)

D` The small horn makes great claims (

11

a)

C` The fourth beast is destroyed (

11

b)

B` The fate of the first three beasts (

12

)

A` A human-like figure appears (

13–14

)

A Night Vision (v. 2)

From verses 1 and 2 we learn that Daniel was lying on his bed at nighttime when the dream with its attendant visions passed through his mind.²⁹ Is it significant to Daniel that this revelation occurred at night, or is this just simply a time reference that seeks to authenticate the essential historicity of the event described? Perhaps night recalls the darkness that accompanied chaos before God’s creative work (Gen 1:2). The frightening beasts described in the following verses are not merely so because they are creatures of chaos, but also because they are creatures of the night.

The Four Winds and the Great Sea (v. 2)

In the ancient world, it was rare for mariners to sail out into the wild blue yonder. Typically, they hugged the shorelines and even this was a highly dangerous enterprise, as depicted in Psalm 107:23–32. The sea was capricious, uncontrollable—the ultimate symbol of threatening chaos. In Daniel 7–12 there is stress upon how distressing and overwhelming Daniel found these apocalyptic visions (7:15, 28; 8:17–18, 27; 9:1–2; 10:7–9, 15–16).³⁰ This is because Daniel has so yearned for Israel’s return from exile, the rebuilding of the temple, and the restoration of Israel, only now to see that the future involves immense suffering for God’s holy people. Daniel 1–6, while also highlighting the bestiality of human rule via narrative, belongs to a pre-Cyrus time period when a simple fulfillment of Jeremiah’s seventy years of exile prophecy is awaited, as the beginning of Daniel 9 makes clear. But, as Daniel 7 graphically begins to make clear, even greater chaos under human rule lies in the future.³¹

The language used in verses 1–2 involves unmistakable interplay with Genesis 1:1–2. At that time the Wind of God (the Spirit) moved over the waters and creation ensued.³² In this case the "four winds of heaven—or even four spirits of heaven—effect a new creation—the generation of four great beasts. Is the implication of this that the creation of the beasts is brought about by heaven; that God himself created these four beasts?³³ Or when Daniel speaks of heaven is he simply thinking of the vault of the sky with the four winds indicating that winds blew upon the sea from every direction? Probably, as Anderson remarks, As the four corners of the earth denote universality, so ‘the four winds of heaven,’ in this context, betoken the summation of power (1 Enoch 18:2–5).³⁴ We should add to the above, given many points of correspondence between Ezekiel 1 and Daniel 7, that the four winds of heaven parallels the windstorm" which comes from the north in Ezekiel 1:4.³⁵

There may also be a polemical edge to Daniel’s depiction. For in Enuma Elish Anu creates the four winds of south, north, east, and west and evidently uses them to stir up the oceans and disturb Tiamat. Later Marduk stations the four winds to trap Tiamat and prevent her from escaping. Daniel’s description may imply that it is Yahweh, not Anu or Marduk, who controls the chaos waters.³⁶

Most biblical references concerning Yahweh’s power over the sea presuppose knowledge of ancient creation myths which all share the same common motif—the supreme god defeating a dragon-like monster, representing the chaos waters, whom he subdues by slaying him or tying him up or confining him. This monster is variously called Rahab (possibly Rager), Leviathan (Coiled One), Yam (Sir Sea), Nahar (Sir Stream, River), Tannin (Dragon), Evasive/Elusive Serpent (Isa 27:1), Tortuous Serpent (Isa 27:1) and Dragon-monster (Ps 68:22).³⁷ Daniel 7 uses no names but touches base with the same mythology, indicating that the chaos waters provide the source for all the monsters who wreak chaos on earth through anti-God, blasphemous human rule (see esp. vv. 2–3). The four beasts are the powers of chaos historicized as nations, not natural forces, in revolt against God’s rule.³⁸ So Dumbrell proposes: "the underlying imagery of the vision appears to lean heavily upon the old yet still widely current mythology of the triumph of the hero deity over the forces of chaos (the creatures from the sea in chap.7).³⁹

As Goswell observes, the strength of the mythic elements in Daniel 7 clearly indicates that we need to heed Cook’s warning against domesticating apocalyptic texts through historicized readings. It is a mistake to turn apocalyptic imagery into straightforward historical descriptions.⁴⁰

The churning up of the great sea connotes that the four winds of heaven do not relieve chaos but rather intensify it.⁴¹ Consequently, the beasts that will emerge from the sea are creatures of chaos. Verse 2 describes not a creation compatible with Genesis 1:1–2, but one which stands in sharp contrast to God’s initial creative act. Further to this, the image of these four winds stirring up the sea bears correspondence with the violent wind storm of Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek 1:4), especially as that vision also has four chariot-bearers associated with the four wind directions.⁴²

If the "four winds of heaven implies that God effects this work of creation what are we to make of it? That God is the author of evil? This would not accord with the character of God as acknowledged by Daniel in 9:4–19. However, there is considerable emphasis in Daniel upon God being sovereign over the kingdoms of men and determining whom he appoints to exercise rule (4:17–18, 25, 32; 5:18–19, 21). Perhaps then the essential idea conveyed by the imagery of verse 2 is that the kingdoms" represented by the beasts owe their origin to God; that whatever authority and power they have is ultimately derived from God. Indeed, as Gentry observes, the entire treatment of the beasts in Daniel 7 proclaims God’s sovereignty:⁴³

•The first beast is one humanized by higher power (v. 4)

•The bear is commanded to devour much meat (v. 5)

•Dominion is given to the four-headed leopard (v. 6)

•The fourth beast is slain and its body given to the burning of the fire (v. 11)

•The remaining three—dominion is taken away, but an extension is granted (v. 12)

The Four Beasts Emerge from the Sea (v. 3)

The number four is a sacred number all over the world, almost certainly deriving this significance from the four cardinal directions⁴⁴—north, south, east, and west—and from the four seasons.⁴⁵ Isaiah 11:12 refers to the four quarters or corners of the earth. So, in accord with ancient geography, there are four rivers in Eden that encircle the four quarters of the globe (Genesis 2:10). Dumbrell suggests: Probably the number four suggests the totality of the threat from the forces of chaos.⁴⁶

We can compare the language of Daniel 7:2 with that of Jeremiah 49:36: "I will bring against Elam the four winds from the four quarters of the heavens (cf. Zech 2:6). Just as the four winds imply winds blowing from every direction, so the image of four beasts seems to indicate that the vision concerns a comprehensive perspective on the kingdoms of men. Casey observes: In choosing beasts to symbolize all these foreign kingdoms, the author made use of the traditional Israelite idea that rebellion against God is beastlike rather than manly."⁴⁷ Indeed beasts are commonly used in the OT to symbolize Gentile nations, e.g., Jeremiah 4:7; 5:6; Ezekiel 29:3f.; Psalms 68:30 (= 68:31 MT); 80:13 (= 80:14 MT). Right from the start it is indicated that human kingship shares this characteristic in common—it is beastly, that is, anti-God. However, this is not to say that it is all of one kind. Human kingship, while consistently beastly, does express itself in different ways—the beasts all differ from each other.

The reference to the great sea is comparable to Isaiah’s reference to the great deep and almost certainly alludes to the primeval watery chaos, as referred to in Genesis 1:2. The association of the chaos waters with beasts cannot be tracked down to any one source and is a common motif in the ancient Near East.⁴⁸ To say the beasts come out of the sea is to say that they have their origins in chaos. However, it may also be the case, as Casey argues, that the sea involves a particular allusion to the Mediterranean Sea from which the beasts land on the shore of Israel where the judgment takes place.⁴⁹ Emergence from the sea evidently also represents a kingdom of human origin and nature,⁵⁰ and this is confirmed by the description in verse 17: The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth."

We have already indicated strong parallels between the visions of Daniel 7 and Ezekiel 1.⁵¹ This extends to the fact that the chariot-bearers of Ezekiel 1 are also referred to as beasts (v. 5) and, as in Daniel 7, are depicted as hybrid creatures.⁵² In both cases the description of such beasts presages a dramatic vision of God.⁵³

Description of the Four Beasts (vv. 4–7, 17)

Daewoong Kim proposes that the parallel descriptions of the living creatures of Ezekiel 1 and the four beasts of Daniel 7 serve to contrast the disunity among the four symbolic beasts in Daniel 7 with the unity among the four celestial beasts in Ezekiel 1.⁵⁴ In Ezekiel 1 all of the four living creatures share all the same features, whereas in Daniel 7 the accent is on difference and discrepancy between the four beasts.⁵⁵ This is even more strongly accentuated in the case of the fourth beast and the little horn (vv. 7, 19, 23, 24).⁵⁶ Also, the four living creatures of Ezekiel 1 are subject to divine control, going wherever the Spirit would go. By contrast, the four beasts of Daniel 7 are creatures that emanate from chaos and which bring chaos, and none more so than the fourth beast and little horn.⁵⁷ Additionally, all of the living creatures of Ezekiel 1 share lion, eagle, and human features, with all three of these characteristics applying to the first beast of Daniel 7.⁵⁸

It is explained in verse 17 that the four predatory beasts "are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth" (v. 17). As Noth recognized, iconography provides little precedent for the second beast, the bear, and the same is true with respect to the third beast, the panther or leopard.⁵⁹ Further, iconography does not account for the sequence of lion, bear, panther/leopard as found in Daniel 7.⁶⁰ Some, following Porter, suggest a similarity between the description of the beasts and descriptions of birth anomalies that occur in The Omen Series Summa Izbu.⁶¹ Such birth anomalies portend significant events.

Gardner,⁶² followed in the main by Lucas, argues against scholarly attempts to find a substantial source for the animal imagery in Daniel 7 in Enuma Elish (so Gunkel)⁶³ or Ugaritic texts (so Emerton, Bentzen, Collins), or mythological imagery from Egypt, Greece, and Iran, or Assyrian literature (VAT 10057—Vision of the Netherworld; Kvanvig) or Mesopotamian mantic wisdom traditions (The Omen Series Summa Izbu),⁶⁴ or Mesopotamian Birth Omens (Porter), or in astrological texts (Burkitt),⁶⁵ or in Treaty Curses (Wittstruck),⁶⁶ or ANE iconography.⁶⁷ S. B. Reid,⁶⁸ who takes the four beasts of verses 3–7 to be ad hoc creations of the author, likewise notes the failure of scholars to find a source for this imagery, though he himself favors a Persian provenance. He notes the unconvincing attempts of Bickermann to derive the animal images from astral geography, of Caquot to trace them back to the classical zodiac, and of Herder to locate them in a visionary recollection of the art of Persepolis. Walton states, There is no mythological tradition in the ancient Near East that clearly has a chaos monster emerging from the sea to do battle.⁶⁹

For ancient Mesopotamians, as Widder recognizes, the birth of an abnormal animal signaled a message from the gods—and not always a good one, with malformations being considered omens.⁷⁰ In the Mesopotamian world, as observed by Porter, hybrid beasts derive from the imagery of a shepherd king or shepherd warrior who protects his people from the flocks of threatening beasts and predators.⁷¹ Following Porter, it needs to be recognized that both in the exilic and post-exilic periods wild beasts came to represent Israel’s foreign overlords, with some psalms associating the judgment of the beasts with anticipation of Yahweh’s or Israel’s future sovereignty over the nations.⁷² Actually, all of these beasts are familiar in the OT, especially Hosea 13:7–8, and, therefore, this would seem to be the primary source for Daniel’s own use of animal imagery.⁷³

In this context of anti-creation it is perhaps significant that two of the beasts are mutants, the first a mixing of lion, eagle, and man, and the third a mixing of leopard and bird, for the clear separation of species is intrinsic to the order of creation, each being made according to their kinds (Gen 1:11–12, 21, 24, 25). These beasts transgress all creational boundaries, a characteristic that adds to their horrifying aspect.⁷⁴ The fact that these beasts also symbolize anti-God blasphemous human rule suggests, in the context of ancient Near Eastern mythology, that the composite descriptions of these beasts may well imply their association with demons of the underworld, even if such a source does not adequately account for the particular descriptions in Daniel 7.⁷⁵ In The Netherworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince, as cited by Hays,⁷⁶ we read:

I saw Namtar (NAM.TAR), the vizier of the underworld, who fashions the visceral omens; a man stood before him, while he held the hair of his head in his left hand, and wielded a dagger in the right [. . .]

Namtartu, his wife, had the head of a cherub, (her) hands and feet being human. Death had the head of a dragon, his hands were human, his feet [. . .]

The Evil Genie had a human head and hands, was crowned with a tiara and had the feet of an eagle. With his left foot he was trampling on a crocodile.

Alluhappu had a lion’s head, his four hands and feet (like) those of a human being.

The Upholder of Evil had the head of a bird, his wings (akappu) were spread out and he flew here and there; (his) hands and feet were human. Humut-tabal, the ferryman of the underworld had an Anzû head, his hands and feet [. . .]

The Ghost (GIDIM[= etemmu]) had an ox’s (GUD) head, his four hands and feet were (like) those of human beings. The Evil Spirit (utukku) had a lion’s head, (his) hands and feet were like those on Anzû. Sulak was a lion, standing constantly on his hind legs.

The Oath had a goat’s head, (his) hands and feet were human. Nedu, the porter of the underworld, had a lion’s head, and human hands, his feet were those of a bird. Total Evil had two heads, one was the head of a lion, the second was the head of [. . .].

[Muh]ra had three feet, the two front ones were those of a bird, the rear one was that of a bull (GUD.NITÁ). He had fearsome and luminous splendor. Of two gods I did not know the names—one had the head, hands and feet of Anzû, in his left hand [. . .]

The other had a man’s head, he was crowned with a tiara, carried in his right hand a mace, in his left hand, before him, . . . In all, fifteen gods were present.⁷⁷

The following links of the four beasts with historical kingdoms are suggested by Hartman and Di Lella:⁷⁸ Lion = Babylon; Bear = Media; Panther/Leopard = Persia; Terrifying Beast = Greek kingdom; Little horn = Antiochus IV Epiphanes.⁷⁹ However some would identify the bear with Medo-Persia, the panther/leopard with Greece, and the terrifying beast with Rome.⁸⁰ It seems likely (see below) that the bear-like beast corresponds to the ram of Daniel 8, and the leopard-like beast to the goat of Daniel 8. This leads many to conclude that the second beast symbolizes the Medo-Persian empire, and the third beast, the Greek empire, though this is far from being a necessary logical conclusion. It is perhaps more reasonable to see the ram and goat of Daniel 8 as particular historical manifestations of the open, undefined types symbolized by the second and third beasts in Daniel 7. Nevertheless, it does seem certain that the little horn, at least in the first instance, is to be identified with Antiochus IV Epiphanes.⁸¹

Many commentators would conclude from the interlocking of Daniel 7 and Daniel 8, and the symbolic description of four kingdoms in both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, that each of the four empires of Daniel 7 corresponds to one of the four reigns of Daniel 2. But other than the common use of a series of four, there is no attempt in Daniel to so describe these respective kingdoms as to force their identification with each other. Indeed, if anything, in the individual descriptions there are more points of discrepancy between Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 than there are of coalescence. For example, whereas in Daniel 2 the successive kingdoms represent a declining sequence there is no evidence in Daniel 7 of a similar pattern—especially note the lack of any indication, symbolic or real, that the third beast is worse than the second.⁸² Other disparities can be noted, e.g., the appendages of the first beast have no parallel in Daniel 2. It must also be significant that the movement is from generality to greater specificity so that it seems forced to reverse this deliberate literary pattern by insisting on a particular identity for each of the kingdoms of Daniel 2.⁸³

Therefore, I see no need to press the matter; rather, respecting the function of Daniel 2 at the point it appears in the book, I take it to be using the notion of four kingdoms to indicate the comprehensive nature of human rule with a particular reference, if any, to the Babylonian empire beginning with Nebuchadnezzar. In my opinion there is little to be gained from trying to force Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 to precisely accord with each other. This smacks of contrivance, rather than an open reading of the text as it stands.

Returning to Daniel 7, while more is said about the fourth beast the interpretation of the vision provides no more information concerning the first three beasts. In the description of the vision each of these first three beasts is only depicted in a very peremptory fashion. Still, there is a rough pattern, as observed by Newsom. On the one hand, we have two feline beasts with bird wings—the lion-eagle and the leopard-bird, associated with human mind and dominion. On the other hand, we have two beasts—the second and fourth—associated with mouth-emanating violence (from ribs or fangs between the teeth and iron teeth that devour).⁸⁴

In revealing this vision to Daniel God does not appear to have thought it important to identify the beasts with particular reigns, kingdoms, or empires. This lack of interest in specifics encourages us to think that even though, as Daniel 8 will indicate, particular kingdoms were very probably in view, nevertheless the total portrayal of the period encompassed by the four beasts is always applicable to God’s people regardless of the particular political situation which confronts them at a given point of time.

At any rate, in Revelation 13, John evidently feels the generality of the description of Daniel 7 gives him freedom not to restrict the images of lion, bear, panther/leopard, and the fourth beast to particular historical empires. Indeed, he represents these four as one great beast, while in Revelation 17 he portrays the beast as carrying the harlot Babylon. In short, John evidently sees all of these beasts as being used to promote the kind of blasphemous rule associated with Babylon—a kind of rule which, in Daniel 1–6, incorporates the Babylon-centered rule of even Darius the Mede. We should also note Zechariah 1:18–19 refers to "four horns which scattered Judah, Israel and Jerusalem, being a reference to all the kingdoms" which were involved in the destruction of Israel.⁸⁵ Indeed, consistent with John’s appropriation of the four beasts of Daniel 7, it is an interesting and relevant fact that in Scripture it is rare to use the number four to denote a time-period.

Obviously of intense relevance to the interpretation of Daniel 7, given its setting in Babylon, is the fact that in Babylonian mythology the four signs of the Zodiac, Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius, appear as powerful figures which support the firmament of heaven by its four corners, or as the four beasts of burden of the four-wheeled heavenly chariot.⁸⁶ Could it be that John in Revelation parodies this latter image when he portrays the composite beast as carrying the harlot Babylon?

Longman correctly argues that though the vision begins with the Babylonian empire, its multivalent imagery intends to prohibit definite historical identifications with the remaining three beasts. Rather, the fourfold pattern simply informs us that evil kingdoms will succeed one another (at least seemingly) until the end of time. The people of God must recognize that this is God’s plan and prepare for persecution.⁸⁷

From all the above, I conclude that the use of the number four is a deliberate device, indicating that in a more profound sense the concern is not so much with periods of world history, but with the global extent of the kinds of rule represented by the beasts.⁸⁸ A counterpart to this is provided by Zechariah 6:5 where the four chariots stand for the four spirits of heaven, going out from standing in the presence of the Lord of the whole world, chariots which go in each direction. The net effect is to imply that at any point in history and throughout the entire world, human rule can generally be expected to be antagonistic towards God’s people.⁸⁹

The Lion-like Beast (v. 4)

The representation below shows that the winged lion was used in Mesopotamian iconography to represent the chaos monster. Three gods are brought together which were often jointly invoked to avert calamity: Ea, Shamash, and Marduk. In this case the combined effect is to signify that Mesopotamian deities comprehensively control Chaos.

At the right hand side of this representation Ea is portrayed sitting on his throne in his underwater chamber that is encircled by water. His control over all that lives in the sea is also indicated by the three fish that are positioned above his shoulders. To his right is a kneeling servant who holds a gatepost, presumably representing the gate that seals off Chaos from the depths of the earth.

On the left hand side, just as southern Mesopotamians believed the sun rose each morning out of the eastern seas, so Shamash the sun god is cast as emerging from between the wings of the chaos monster. He carries a saw in his upraised hand, the saw with which he executes his verdicts. Thus, justice presupposes control of chaos. To his right and to the left of Ea is portrayed yet another god of sun and light, presumably Marduk, who greets Ea, his father.

A pectoral dated at 2500 BC, unearthed in Tel Hariri, Mari, shows the deity Anzu as an eagle with a lion’s head.⁹⁰ Ninth century Kalah reliefs show Anzu as a feathered creature. His feet and legs and face are leonine. His talons, wings, and torso are those of an eagle. He also has a horn on his head.⁹¹ It is possible that Daniel’s representation implies that Babylon will be treated in much the same manner as Anzu was dealt with in The Myth of Anzu.

Against this background the image of verse 4 presents a most disturbing vision of the future. Chaos will burst through all attempts to control and constrain it. In Daniel 7 a comparison of verses 3 and 4 with verse 17 indicates that the image of the chaos of the sea signifies the chaotic state of the nations—it is common in the Psalms for the turmoil of the nations and the threat they pose to be equated with the chaos waters, e.g., 18:3–4, 15–17; 24 (the implicit victory of the returning King of Glory over his enemies corresponds to the creation-oriented conquest of the chaos waters; cf. Ps 93); 46; 66:6–7; 68:21–23; 69:1–4; 74; 89:9–10 cf. vv. 23–27; 106:7–12; 124; 144:7.

But as used in Daniel the image of the lion may well have added significance. In the preceding chapter we read of Daniel being rescued from the lions’ den. The chapter even ends with Darius’s recognition that God "has rescued Daniel from the power of the lions" (6:27). Just as the statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2 is taken up in Daniel 3, so it would seem that Daniel 7 picks up its imagery of the lion from Daniel 6. If it is legitimate to trace such a connection then there is a double entendre in Darius’s declaration of 6:27. He says more than he realizes. He is effectively summarizing the way in which God has preserved his servant through all the reigns of the pagan kings. God delivered Daniel from Nebuchadnezzar’s power as well.

The interpretation of the dream will not throw any light on what the lion refers to. Many take the four segments of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-statue to correspond to the four beasts of Daniel 7. Does this mean that the lion corresponds to the head of gold? The head of gold was Nebuchadnezzar. Are we then to draw the conclusion that the lion also corresponds to Nebuchadnezzar? Yet if we were correct in reading "the power of the lions" (6:27) to be a double entendre, involving a reference not only to actual lions but also to the power of rulers, then given the immediate context of those words, lions includes Darius himself, so that rule by the Medes is also embraced. Indeed, in Daniel 6 the law that threatens Daniel’s destruction is explicitly "the law of the Medes and Persians and therefore it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the lion" of verse 4 represents the entirety of pagan rule commensurate with Daniel’s own life.

A lion is a ferocious, fearsome beast, as Daniel’s enemies discovered (6:24). The kingship contemporaneous with Daniel was like a terrifying beast for those who faced the king’s rage. Notwithstanding the validity of these observations, in Daniel 8, the Medo-Persian and Greek empires evidently represent historical expressions of the second and third beasts respectively. Casey identifies ten commentators in the first millennium, mostly Syrian Christian exegetes, who represent what he calls the Syrian Tradition of the interpretation of Daniel. All of these identify the first beast with Babylon.⁹² It is reasonable to take the lion-like beast as involving an allusion to Nebuchadnezzar and with him the Babylonian empire, thus standing in parallel with the head of gold of Daniel 2. Yet, given my remarks above, it is in my judgment an error to regard the first beast as a placeholder for Babylon. We are dealing with a multi-level symbol here, not a tight one-to-one relationship.

Jeremiah does liken Nebuchadnezzar to a lion (Jer 50:17) and elsewhere uses lion imagery to represent the Babylonian threat (Jer 4:7; 49:19; 50:44–46). However, it should be noted that in 50:17 Jeremiah views other kings, such as the king of Assyria (cf. 2:15), as also being like lions. Indeed, the Lord himself is compared to a mighty lion (25:38). It