Daniel 7

Daniel — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

Daniel 8:1 - 9:23

00:00

Daniel 7

DanielSteve Gregg

In this segment, Steve Gregg discusses the significance of Daniel chapter 7 as the apex and climax of the book. He notes that while the book may contain both prophetic and historical sections, there is a mysterious character introduced that Christians cannot identify. This character is referred to as the dreamer and is a beast with four heads that are given dominion. Gregg observes that the two poetic sections in this chapter are somewhat chronologically independent of the narrative.

Transcript

Turning now to Daniel chapter 7. As I said at the end of the last session, this is sort of the apex of the book, or the climax of the book in the minds of many people. It is a transitional chapter in an interesting way in that it is the last of the chapters written in Aramaic. Remember, we said that six of the chapters are written in Aramaic, but not the first chapter.

Chapters two through seven are written in Aramaic and the rest of the book is in Hebrew. So if we were to divide the book into the halves by language, half the book is in Aramaic and half is in Hebrew. But the half that's in Aramaic isn't like discreetly put at the beginning or the end, it's kind of jogged.

The first chapter is in Hebrew, then chapters two through seven are in Aramaic, and then after that, chapter 12, it's in Hebrew again. So chapter seven is the last chapter of the Hebrew section. At the same time, it's the first chapter of the section when we divide the book in another manner, when we divide it between the historical narrative and the prophetic sections.

Now that doesn't mean that the prophetic sections don't have any historical statements or that the historical sections don't have any prophecies. Of course, there are prophecies in the historical sections. In fact, the historical section often, not always, but in a number of cases, the story simply provides the milieu for a prophecy to be given, as in the case of chapter two with Nebuchadnezzar's dream or chapter four with Nebuchadnezzar's other dream, both of which Daniel interpreted.

But chapters one through six are primarily narrative about events, and they are stories. Chapters seven through 12 are really just visions and dreams related. We do have dates given.

They correspond with certain kings, reigns, and so forth, but we aren't really given any stories about those kings, reigns, not here. Now it is therefore the last of the Aramaic chapters in the first of the chapters in the historical section. It also is going to repeat some of the information in a different way that we encountered in chapter two.

That is the four kingdoms that would be from Babylon till the time of the Messiah's kingdom. And we're going to see the Messiah's kingdom characterized in this chapter as well. In addition to that, we're going to be introduced to another character, a mysterious one, and one that not all Christians are able to identify the same.

All Christians seem to recognize that the first of the four kingdoms is Babylon. And most believe the second one is media Persian, the third one Greece, and the fourth one Rome. This is fairly universally understood by evangelical scholars, but we're going to be introduced to another character called the Little Horn.

And his career is going to be sort of the centerpiece of this chapter. And who he is and what he does and when he lives and so forth is what is disputed among different schools. And so that's going to be one of the mysteries we have to discuss here.

We may not be able to solve it, but we can talk about options. Daniel 7.1 says, "'In the first year of Belshazzar the king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head while on his bed.'" Now, the previous dreams were Nebuchadnezzar's dreams in chapter two and chapter four. And Daniel still transformed those dreams into prophetic utterances by interpreting them.

Here, however, Daniel has the dream and no interpretation is offered except that which an angel gives a partial interpretation of later in the dream. But Daniel is the dreamer in this case. No second party comes in to interpret it, except an angel who's actually part of the dream himself.

"'Daniel spoke saying, I saw in my vision by night and behold the four winds of heaven were stirring on the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other. The first was like a lion and had eagle's wings.

I watched until its wings were plucked off and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man. And a man's heart was given to it. And suddenly another beast, a second, like a bear.

It was raised up on one side and had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. And they said thus to it, arise, devour much flesh. After this, I looked and there was another like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird.

The beast also had four heads and dominion was given to it. After this, I saw in the night visions and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong, it had huge iron teeth. It was devouring, breaking in pieces and trampling the residue with its feet.

It was different from all the beasts that were before it and it had 10 horns. I was considering the horns and there was another horn, a little one coming up among them before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there in the horn were eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouse speaking pompous words.

Now, we're not going to comment yet because the explanation isn't given until the end of the chapter, so I have to read on before we can make intelligent comments and use the information that's given later. But I want to say that at this point, it breaks off for two verses and we have a poetic segment. Up to this point, the chapter has been in prose.

It's set out like regular paragraphs, but verses nine and 10 are poetic. Likewise, verses 13 and 14 are poetic. These two poetic sections are just kind of stuck in in the midst of this narrative that is not generally poetry.

Now, I'd like to say also that these two poetic sections are parenthetical and they are describing events out of chronological sequence. That is to say the poetic sections are independent chronologically of the rest of the book. Why they are stuck in where they are can be theorized, but the point is they are not describing events that happen next.

For example, verse eight closes with the little horn speaking pompous words and verse 11 picks up on that. I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words, which the little horn was speaking. So we see that verse 11 picks up from verse eight and there's this parenthesis in verses nine and 10 that does not necessarily discuss that same chronological point in time.

And this is true also verses 13 and 14. The other poetic section likewise seems to be stuck in not necessarily with reference to its chronological relationship to the material before and after it. So we just should observe that.

These two poetic sections in the chapter are somewhat chronologically independent from the narrative. Why they are stuck in at the points they are, it might be anyone's guess or there might be a very reasonable suggestion that someone would have, but I don't have one. All I know is that we need to observe that you can be confused if you're trying to follow a chronological order and you don't notice these are talking about things that are really more transcendent and not necessarily related to the immediate events described before and after them.

Or they might be related to them in some sense, but they're not chronologically related to them. Now there's another section that in our Bible is set out in poetic verse and that's in verses 23 through 27, but not all scholars are agreed that that's a poetic section. So I don't know, not sure why there's disagreement about that.

I'm not a scholar. I don't know what the pros and cons are and I'm not sure it matters very much. All I can say is that that comes later after the narrative and it's part of the explanation of the narrative, but the two short poetic sections that are indisputable, we need to take into consideration that they may not be in their chronological place.

So verses nine and 10 say, I watched until thrones were put in place and the ancient of days was seated. His garment was as white as snow and the hair of his head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire.

A fiery stream issued from and came forth from before him. A thousand thousands ministered to him. 10,000 times 10,000 stood before him.

The court was seated and the books were open, which looks like the final judgment. And I'm going to suggest that that's what it is, but we'll talk about these verses presently. He picks up again from verse eight thought in verse 11.

I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words, which the horn was speaking. I watched till the beast was slain. That is the fourth beast, the one with the 10 horns from which the little horn grew and its body destroyed and given to the burning fire.

As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season at a time. And then we have this other poetic section in verse 13 and 14. I was watching in the night visions and behold, one like the son of man coming from the clouds of heaven, excuse me, with the clouds of heaven, he came to the ancient of days and they brought him near before him.

Then to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away and his kingdom, one which shall not be destroyed. Now we get the explanation or the interpretation of the vision.

I, Daniel was grieved in my spirit within my body and the visions of my head troubled me. I came near to the one of those who stood by and asked him of the truth of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things.

And he spoke saying, those great beasts, which are four, are four kings, we might say four empires, which arise out of the earth. Interestingly, they arose out of a sea in the vision, but the sea represents the whole planet, the Gentile world, I believe. And so he just uses the word, the earth here.

But the saints of the most high shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever. Now these two verses alone summarize the whole chapter. They summarize that there'll be four beasts.

There are four kingdoms. And in the end, the kingdom is given over to the saints of the most high. That's really how the whole thing ends up resolving at the end of the chapter.

So we've got this very brief summary in two verses of the whole vision and its meaning. But then Daniel was not satisfied to have no further information than that. He was curious, especially about the fourth beast and about the little horn, and he had not really received satisfying information about that, so he inquired further.

Then I wish to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured broken pieces and trampled the residue with its feet. And about the 10 horns that were on its head. And about the other horn, which came up before, which before which three fell, namely that horn, which had eyes and a mouth and which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows.

I was watching and the same horn was making war against the saints and prevailing against them. Now that feature was not mentioned earlier. This is something added.

The little horn was not only pompous and blasphemous, but also at war with the believers, with the saints. And this continued, verse 22, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom, which is, of course, how the vision ends, according to the summary in verse 18. The saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever and ever.

So here he says, well, before that happened, this little horn had a career of persecuting the saints until the time came, when the Ancient of Days came, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom. Thus he said, verse 23, and here it looks like this is poetry, although like I said, not all would see it as such, but it's set out that way in the New King James. The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth.

You asked about the fourth, let's talk about him first. He's the fourth kingdom coming up, which shall be different from all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces. The 10 horns are 10 kings who shall arise from this kingdom, and another shall rise after them, and shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings.

He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time. But the court shall be seated, and they shall take away his dominion to consume and destroy it forever.

Then the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. This is the end of the account.

As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly troubled me, and my countenance changed, and I kept the matter in my heart. Now we're going to find that the kingdoms represented by these four beasts are the same four kingdoms represented by the four metals in Nebuchadnezzar's dream in chapter two, where there was an image with a head of gold, a chest of silver, a belly of bronze, and legs of iron, feet of iron and clay. And then there was this stone, which struck the image in the feet and consumed it, toppled it, and grew itself into a kingdom to fill the whole earth.

Now we have the same sequence of events here. You've got four kingdoms. The head of gold corresponds to the lion here.

That was Babylon. The chest of silver corresponds to the bear here. That's the media Persian empire.

The belly of bronze corresponds to the leopard in this one, which is Alexander the Great and the Grecian empire. And then the iron and clay, the legs and feet of the image in chapter two correspond to this nondescript beast that can't be described in terms of any known animal. It's just fierce.

It has iron teeth, which of course may be a direct connection between it and the iron legs or not, but it is the same kingdom at least. His iron teeth are mentioned in verse seven here. And this is the Roman empire.

Now here we are introduced to 10 horns on this beast. In the image of Daniel two, some people would say the 10 toes on the feet would correspond to these 10 horns. And we are told later that these 10 horns are 10 kings in verse 24.

The 10 horns are 10 kings who shall arise from this kingdom that is from the fourth beast. So in both places, chapter two and chapter seven, which are the opening and the closing chapters of the Aramaic portion of the book, we have the same period of time, the same characters for the most part, but there's some new developments here. As in chapter two, the vision in chapter two or the dream resolved with the kingdom of God, the stone striking the image of the feet and growing to be a universal kingdom filling the whole earth.

Here also the kingdom of God is the final outcome. And I believe it is represented in verse 13 by I was watching in the night visions, behold one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He came to the ancient of days and they brought him near before him.

Then to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. So this is the no doubt the same kingdom we could deduce even if we didn't know for sure the kingdom of God, which in Daniel two 44 eventually consumes the whole world. Well, this is this son of man receives a kingdom and all peoples, nations and languages should serve him.

His dominions everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away. His kingdom is the one that shall not be destroyed. That was also said about the stone that grew into a great mountain.

It was a God would set up a kingdom that would never be destroyed. It would not pass to others. Very clearly we have the same sequence here.

We've got four pagan empires, Babylon, Media Persia, Greece and Rome followed by the kingdom of the Messiah. Now there are new features here because this vision tells us something that the other does not. It talks about the little horn and the little horn is a blasphemous entity and also persecutes the saints and apparently does so until the last judgment.

That's what it sounds like anyway, when it says in verse 22, that the persecution continues until the ancient of days came and judgment was made in favor of the saints of the most high and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom. My impression is that this is actually the end of the world. When the saints possess the kingdom, we come into the kingdom even now, but we inherit the kingdom and as rulers in it along with Christ at the second coming of Christ.

So I believe we have the final judgment in this vision. I'm going to argue also that verses 10 and 11 or nine and 10 also are a picture of that final judgment. But the new features here about the kingdom are that it brings an end to a period of persecution.

That period of persecution was not mentioned in the vision of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter two. That is a new feature here. The little horn and whatever it represents was not mentioned in the other vision.

And here, the kingdom of the Messiah is said to be really something given to the people of the Messiah, the people of God will reign. Now in chapter two, we read of the kingdom being established and covering the whole world, but we didn't read the detail that that means that the people of God will be reigning. And so we have that feature added here as well.

And then there's a lot of details to consider in the midst of that. Let's first of all, look at verses 13 through 14. Well, no, we'll hold off on that.

Just now let's do that. That's really the central high point, I think, where it says, I was watching in the night visions and behold one like the son of man. Now we know of the term, the son of man as a title for Christ, but we do so because Jesus used that title of himself.

I think 70 times or more in the gospels, Jesus called himself the son of man. Nobody else did, by the way, except Stephen, when he was being stoned, he said, I see the son of man standing at the right hand of God. But apart from Stephen making that comment, no other person in the New Testament calls Jesus the son of man, Jesus does.

Now, scholars sometimes say that Jesus used that term because it was an exalted term. The rabbis had come to speak from this passage in Daniel of a character called the son of man, who was a king and a Messiah, and therefore that when Jesus called himself the son of man, he was using the term as the rabbis used it, and it was like sort of an exalted title for himself. I'm not sure they're right about that.

I mean, it is true, the rabbis did come to use the term son of man as a title for the coming one, but I'm not sure Jesus had the rabbinical use in mind when he used it. I'll give you some reasons. One is that Jesus avoided saying publicly that he was the Messiah.

If the rabbis considered the son of man to be the Messiah in their parlance, it doesn't seem likely that he would be using son of man in their parlance because it'd be tantamount to be claiming to be the Messiah. And yet Jesus avoided telling people he was the Messiah. When the disciples confessed he was the Messiah, he said, don't tell anyone about this until after I've risen from the dead.

When the Jews in the Gospel of John said to Jesus, how long will you keep us in suspense? If you're the Messiah, tell us plainly. He just said, I've told you all I'm going to tell you about that. He was not overt in declaring himself to be the Messiah, though he frequently called himself the son of man.

Therefore, even though the rabbis may have considered son of man to be an exalted title equivalent to the Messiah, Jesus might not have been making that particular point in using the term. After all, the term son of man had a long Old Testament use before the rabbis used it that way. If the Old Testament ever refers to the Messiah as the son of man, it's in this verse, Daniel 7.13, because there's certainly no other place in the Old Testament where the son of man refers to the Messiah.

And the term son of man is used hundreds of times. Let's just say over a hundred times in the Old Testament. Generically, do you just mean a man, a mere man? For example, Ezekiel, I think 90 times or 70 times in his book is called son of man.

Actually, Daniel is going to be called son of man before the book is over. It just means a man, a mere man, a son of dust. In the poetic writings of the Old Testament, man is used in parallel with the word son of man.

Son of man and man are parallel concepts. They're just two ways of saying the same thing. A man is a son of man, a son of Adam.

And therefore, the term son of man in the Old Testament usually was a modest designation, just speaking of a mere man in contrast to God. When God called Ezekiel son of man, it was no doubt putting him in his place. I'm God speaking, and you're just a son of man.

You're just a human. And when Jesus called himself son of man, I believe it was a humble designation, which might be the reason that none of the other writers of scripture called him that. They called him son of God in other terms, which he didn't use as frequently because he spoke humbly about himself, but the church afterward didn't wish to use maybe demeaning labels and titles for Christ.

They wanted to emphasize him being the Messiah, him being the King of Kings, him being the Lord, him being the Messiah. I said the Messiah, the son of God. That is all the writings of the Christians focused on the glorious and prestigious aspects of Christ.

And that might be why they never used the term son of man, which was not such a title. Now, it is true that we do see the Messiah here in chapter seven in verse 13, referred to as the son of man, or in the Hebrew, it can be a son of man. And since the term son of man in Daniel's day had no precedent for being a messianic title, but it had an extensive precedent for just meaning a man, it's possible that when he says, I saw one like a son of man, might just mean I saw one like a human as opposed to the other ones that were like animals.

One was like a lion, one was like a bear, one was like a leopard, this one was like a man. This was a human figure as opposed to an animal figure. Now, we of course recognize this person as Jesus, and therefore this becomes indeed a title for Christ, but the term didn't have that meaning in Daniel's day, previous to him using it.

And the term son of man in our Bible is capitalized. Son and man are both capitalized because our translators recognize this as a reference to Jesus, but there's no capitalization in the Hebrew. And it's entirely possible that Daniel is simply contrasting this kingdom with the kingdoms mentioned before, they're animal-like, they're beasts, they're monsters, but this is human, this is a rational kingdom made in the image of God, not like the animals, and happens to correspond with Jesus himself who established this kingdom.

But looking at verse 13, we need to make sure we're not getting the wrong idea about it because he says, "'I was watching in the night, visions behold, "'one like the son of man, or a son of man, "'coming with the clouds of heaven.'" Now, in the New Testament, we have many references to Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven, generally associated with an eschatological event in the minds of most, that is the second coming of Christ. In some cases, preterists see it as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and that seems legitimate in some cases. In any case, neither of those events appears to be what is in view here, though the language is the same, coming in the clouds.

He's not coming to earth in the clouds. He's going away from the earth. He's going to the ancient of days, that's God in heaven.

The son of man is seen coming in the clouds of heaven from Daniel's standpoint, where he's in heaven, he's near the ancient of days, and he sees the son of man being brought to him. If Daniel's perspective was on earth, and someone was taken to God, they'd be taken to him, not brought to him, from the standpoint of the speaker. Daniel sees himself in the throne room of God, where God, who is referred to several times here as the ancient of days, is apparently enthroned, and the Messiah, or the son of man, comes to him through the clouds, and we know that Jesus, in Acts chapter one, ascended into heaven, and he passed through the clouds.

The disciples were watching, and they saw him disappear into the clouds, Acts chapter one says. Well, Daniel's on the other side of those clouds. He sees Jesus coming through the clouds, in the clouds, to heaven.

And it says, to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. That's what happened when Jesus went to heaven. When he sat down at the right hand of God, he received kingly authority.

He was enthroned. This is the formal enthronement of Jesus Christ as king, at his ascension. It says that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.

That is what they should do, and that's what, ultimately, they will do. But they should do so because he has been enthroned. That's why they should serve him, and why, ultimately, they will.

His dominion's an everlasting dominion. It's gonna last a long time. It may take a while to get all the nations to serve him, but they all should, and that is because he has ascended and God has made him king, and Lord, and Messiah, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.

So I believe, in verse 13 and 14, we see the establishment of the kingdom of God as the fifth kingdom. This is not at the end of the world, in the second coming. This is at the ascension of Christ, when he ascended up and sat at the right hand of God, enthroned there.

And that then corresponds with what we saw about the little stone in the previous vision on this subject. Four kingdoms and then the stone. The stone struck the image of the feet, and Daniel said, in the days of these kings, the last of which was the Roman Empire, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom.

Now, I point this out because, as I've made clear earlier when we were in chapter two, a very common and popular view of the kingdom of God is that it was not established at Jesus' first coming. This is the dispensational view. They hold that Jesus came, announcing that the kingdom was at hand, intending for the kingdom to be established, but thwarted by the Jews' rejection of him.

And therefore, the kingdom was not established, but was postponed. And when he returns, he will then establish the kingdom as a millennial reign on earth. Therefore, among dispensationalists, the establishment of the kingdom of the Messiah is still future.

It has not happened yet, and it awaits the second coming of Christ when he sets up his millennial kingdom. So this is obviously an alternative view of these things. I'm suggesting the kingdom of God was established at Christ's first coming.

The dispensational view says, no, it will be established at his second coming. All agree that Jesus announced when he was here that the kingdom was at hand. But the difference is the dispensationalist believes it was supposed to be at hand, but it actually got postponed.

And it'll be at hand someday in the future. Therefore, the dispensationalist view of Daniel 2 was different than that which I presented. Because in Daniel 2, the stone that struck the image in the feet was Christ coming and establishing his kingdom at the time of the Roman Empire, the historical Roman Empire.

The dispensational view, of course, is that stone is the second coming of Christ setting up a millennial kingdom. I'm not sure why they'd think it would be millennial since it specifically says the kingdom he establishes shall never end and will last forever and ever. That's not quite the same thing as saying it's a thousand-year reign.

But because the dispensational view equates the millennial reign with the kingdom of God in Daniel, they're willing to overlook that particular difficulty or maybe they resolve it in some way. The point is, though, they say it's not the first coming of Christ, it's the second. But since the stone in the image, or in the dream, hits the image in the feet, that would mean that the image has to be in existence at the time that the kingdom is established.

If the kingdom actually attacks the image and destroys it, then the image must be in existence when the kingdom comes. And if the kingdom is future, if the kingdom hasn't come yet, then that means the image has to extend somehow into the end of the world so it can be there for Jesus to strike in the feet. And as I said, when we're going through chapter two, the dispensational view is that, although they agree with everybody else, that the legs of iron in the image in chapter two are, in fact, the Roman empire of history, and that that empire did fall in the 5th century AD nonetheless, they believe there will be a reviving of the Roman empire comprised of 10 nations in the old Roman world, in Europe, in other words, Western Europe, and that'll be the revived Roman empire of the last days.

That will be where the Antichrist reigns, they believe. Now, everything I've just said is strictly dispensational verbiage. There is no reference in the Bible to a revived Roman empire.

There's no reference in the Bible to an end times confederacy of 10 nations in Europe. There is no reference, in fact, to an Antichrist in that sense in the Bible. The word Antichrist is used, but not in the sense that the dispensationalists use it.

The word Antichrist is never applied in the Bible to a particular tyrant, a particular world ruler. That's simply a dispensational application of the word. Now, if the dispensationalists then look at this present one they recognize as we do the same four kingdoms and the fourth beast is the Roman empire, but it has 10 horns.

And so the tendency of the dispensationalists is that although the beast itself is killed and the Roman empire falls in history, the 10 horns will live on into the end times. And among them a little horn, which they take to be the Antichrist, will arise. And he'll persecute the saints and the figure is given for time, times, and half a time, which generally speaking, we take to be three and a half years.

It's not explicit, but it seems to correspond, that expression seems to correspond in revelation with a period of 42 months, which is three and a half years. And so the dispensationalist says in the end times there'll be a revived Roman empire. These 10 horns are the 10 toes of the image in chapter two.

And from this 10 nation empire, there'll be a ruler arise who will be a tyrant, a world ruler, and he will persecute the church for three and a half years, or not the church. They believe the church will be gone, but the saints, they don't equate the saints with the church. And so this is how dispensationalism gets an Antichrist in these pictures.

But just as in the vision of chapter two, so also here, we don't really get any indicator of a gap in the life of the fourth beast. We did not find in chapter two a gap at the ankles of the image where the legs were the ancient Roman empire and the feet are a last days Roman empire that arises 1500 years later. In other words, the dispensationalists who are the people who say they take the Bible literally, remember that's their claim to fame is that they take the Bible, especially Bible prophecy literally.

That's their moral high ground over traditional Christianity which spiritualizes things. The reason dispensationalists say that their view is correct over what all Christians taught before 1830 is that those Christians before 1830 made the mistake of not taking things literally. And Darby and his system takes things literally.

So they come to Revelation chapter two and they take it literally when they find a 1500 year gap at the ankles of the image between the fall of ancient Rome and the rise of an alleged future Rome, there's no literalness in that interpretation. They also find a gap between the 69th and the 70th week of Daniel in chapter nine, which we'll talk about at a later date, a later lecture. But these gaps are not found in the text.

They are not literally taken. If you take the passage literally, you've got Jesus kingdom established in the Roman empire, the only Roman empire the Bible knows of. There's no reference to another in the future.

Likewise, this fourth beast is the Roman empire and the beast is slain and its body is given to the flames in verse 11, that would appear to be the fall of the Roman empire. Now we're told, as I pointed out in chapter 24, or verse 24, excuse me, that the 10 horns are 10 kings that arise from this kingdom, apparently upon its demise. The Roman empire dissolved into separate European states.

To make the number 10 literally has been attempted. Many older commentators listed some of the ethnic nations of Europe that arose and tried to group them into 10 total. The Huns were one, the Ostrogoths another, the Visigoths were another.

Then they combined the Swabes and the Alans as a fourth. The Vandals were another, the Franks were the sixth, the Burgundians the seventh, the Heruli the eighth. The ninth would be the combined Angles and Saxons in the British Isles and the 10th would be the Lombards.

Now to me, there's a little bit of, I don't know, a little bit of artificiality in that listing because there's really 12 nations there, but some of them are combined to make it 10 because they want it to be literally 10. I don't know that it has to be literally 10. I don't know that 10 has to be the literal number.

Maybe it does. And if so, maybe this listing, which was traditional before dispensationalism, the commentators generally said these are the 10 nations, the 10 ethnic nations of Europe into which the Roman empire dissolved. And of course, those nations eventually regrouped and reorganized into modern European nations.

But the point is the beast dies, the Roman empire falls, but elements of it continue on in separate ethnic groups that grow out of it. And among them, there arises a little horn who is very significant. Now to make this little horn a future Antichrist, of course, requires that we somehow extend the life of the fourth beast until the end times that are still future.

And that just has not happened. The beast is specifically said to have died and burned. And that did happen historically, assuming that the fourth beast is the Roman empire.

Therefore, the little horn we would presume would arise sometime in that general milieu of the fall of the Roman empire. It's one of the horns that survived the empire that the empire dissolved into, but it became more stout and greater and dominant over those. And it was different in nature from them.

We're told that the little horn was different from the first ones in verse 24. Another shall rise after the 10. He shall be different from the first ones and shall subdue three kings and so forth and speak pompous words against the most high and persecute the saints of the most high.

That's verse 25. And he'll intend to change times and laws and the saints will be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time. Again, the popular dispensational view is this is the future antichrist, but somehow to make that so you have to extend the vision thousands of years later than it appears to go.

And I don't think that's the, it certainly is not the only way to understand it. I don't think it's necessarily the most responsible way. So let's talk about these things a few more details.

Let's go back to the beginning and talk about how this all begins. In chapter seven, verse two, it says the four winds of heaven were striving on the great sea. This turbulence at sea is what caused these four beasts successively to come up out of the sea.

It's like they got stirred up by the storms on the sea. Now this imagery is rebirthed in the book of Revelation. First of all, in chapter seven, where an announcement is made to the four angels who are holding back the four winds and it is said that they should not hurt.

It says in verse one of Revelation seven, there were four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth that the wind should not blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree. So the turbulence that causes these to rise is held back. For a moment, until the servants of God are sealed.

And then later in Revelation chapter 13, it says in verse one, I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and 10 horns. So the 10 horns resemble the fourth beast in Daniel. But verse two says, now the beast which I saw was like a leopard.

Well, that's like the third beast of Daniel. Had the feet like a bear. That's like the second beast of Daniel and had a mouth like a lion, which is like the first beast of Daniel.

So the beast in Revelation 13 seems to be a composite of all the beasts of Daniel. As I said, when we were studying Revelation, I believe the beast in Revelation represents all kingdoms of all times that persecute the church, but we'll not worry about that now. Daniel is not using the imagery that way.

So we have four individual kingdoms coming one after another. In verse four, the first is like a lion had eagles wings. Actually lions with wings are a common decoration of the gates to the palaces of the Babylonian kings.

Some of these can be observed in the British Museum today. They're huge. I've seen them there.

These winged lions. They have the wings of eagles and yet they have the bodies and faces of lions. Actually, some scholars say this is the original image of the cherubim.

Remember the cherubim had a face like an eagle and it had wings and it had a face like a lion, but it also had a face like an ox and a face like a man. Some feel that the idea of cherubim developed from a simpler form of a winged, aligned with eagles wings to a creature that has wings and faces and so forth, that these different things. That's a theory.

I don't know that there's any value in it or that it has any, even if it turned out to be true, if it has any bearing on anything. In any case, a winged lion was a recognized image of Babylon and so it was. This shifts the image then to be a reference to Nebuchadnezzar apparently when it says its wings were plucked off.

It was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man and a man's heart was given to it. Almost certainly it's an allusion to what happened to Nebuchadnezzar when his hair grew out like feathers of an eagle and they were eventually when he came to his senses and stood up like a man, had a man's heart given back to him. He groomed himself and so forth and the feathers were removed as it were.

In any case, the first beast is clearly identifiable with Babylon. The second was like a bear. It said in verse five, it was raised up on one side.

That means one side was more prominent than the other and that would be the Persians of the Medo-Persian empire. The Persians were the more prominent of the two groups in that empire. Had three ribs in its mouth.

Most scholars agree that this refers to the three kingdoms that Persia conquered in order to gain ascendancy and replace Babylon as the ruling kingdom. Those three nations that had to be conquered, those three kingdoms, I should say, is Babylon first of all, but also Lydia, which is an ancient kingdom up in Asia minor and also Egypt. So by conquering these great kingdoms, the Medo-Persian empire came to power.

Verse six, after I looked, there was a leopard, one like a leopard. He had on its back four wings. Now again, winged leopards, winged lions, these were popular images in that period of time in statues and such that were made.

Four wings is pretty unnatural, of course. Even two wings on the leopard is unnatural, but winged beasts usually have, or birds have usually two wings. Four wings probably speaks of much more rapid flight because it is referring to Alexander the Great whose kingdom of Greece spread very rapidly.

He started when he was like 20 years old and he died 12 years later, having conquered the known world. And it was very rapid conquest he made. It says in verse six, this beast had four heads.

We'll have more to say about those heads later on when we come to chapter eight, because there we have Alexander's kingdom described as another kind of animal, in that case, a he-goat with a notable horn, which was said to be its first king. That's Alexander. Chapter eight, the he-goat with the notable horn in its head is the Grecian empire with its king, Alexander.

But in chapter eight, that horn will be broken and replaced by four horns. And these are the four generals of Alexander who divided up his empire after his death. And they are no doubt the four heads that are mentioned here, but nothing is more said about them here.

They will become more the focus of a closer look at Alexander's kingdom in chapter eight, but they're just alluded to here. In verse seven, and this I saw in the night visions, behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, incredibly strong, extremely strong. It had huge iron teeth, again, corresponding to the legs of iron in the image that Nebuchadnezzar saw.

And at the end of it says it had 10 horns. Now those are explained later and we've talked about them already, but it says these four kingdoms come and then they go rather rapidly so that the focus can shift to this little horn that grows out of the fourth beast. It says, I was considering the horns and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots.

And there in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking pompous words. So the little horn is pompous, we shall find he's blasphemous. And of course he continues his pompous words in verse 11 and following.

And it says, I watched until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. And then it says, verse 12, as for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season at a time. That means that when the Babylonian empire fell, its dominion was taken away, but the people of Babylon went on into the Persian empire.

And when Persia fell, its dominion was taken away, but its people came under, they survived as under part of the Grecian empire so that each of the succeeding empires brought into its fold the survivors and the people of the previous empire, though the dominion changed, but the empires, their populace still continued on. Now we jumped over verses nine and 10 without much comment. And here we have, as in verse 13, God referred to as the ancient of days.

He's also called that in verse 22. This is a term only Daniel uses for God in verse nine, in verse 13, and in verse 22. Yeah.

These three references to the God is the ancient of days. Ancient of days is a Hebraism, it means an ancient person, a person who's got a lot of days behind him. He's ancient of days.

He's not young of days. He's ancient, he's old. Now, ancient here does not at all express the imagery of feebleness.

We might think of old people as feeble. That's because our people get really old. People died younger in those days, and a man who's ancient was a man with gray hair, pretty much.

He might not live to be 60, but he was not that feeble unless he was an unusual man who lived to be an exceedingly old man. But this is referring to him being old and respectable. Old age was respected, and wisdom was usually attributed to him.

So this is more of an honorific picture of God. He's an old man, which in those days was a term of respect and honor, not very much like our own times. Now, he had a garment of white as snow, his hair and his head was pure wool.

That is, he's old and therefore wise. His throne was a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire. It's interesting to speak of his throne having wheels, and yet that's what Ezekiel saw too.

In Ezekiel chapter one, he saw the throne of God on a platform with four wheels, which I think we should understand to be a chariot throne, a portable throne. And the reason it was portable is because it was in Babylon. God usually lived in Jerusalem, but because his people were in Babylon, and Ezekiel was in Babylon, Ezekiel saw that God's throne was there too.

He had to make it portable because this is not where he usually rules from. But he's portable, he's mobile. He can be anywhere you need him to be.

If his people are in Babylon, that's where he goes. That's where his throne is. And so also Daniel's in Babylon, so he sees apparently the throne on wheels too.

And it says in verse 10, a fiery stream issued and came forth from before him. Now, this issuing of fiery stream before him sounds like the same thing as what 2 Thessalonians 1.8 says, when it's talking about the last judgment or talking about the second coming of Christ, which issues in the last judgment. In 2 Thessalonians 1, Paul says, as he refers to the coming of Christ, I guess we should read verse seven, that God will give you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, Paul says Christ will come in flaming fire, now in 2 Thessalonians 2, he introduces a character he calls the man of lawlessness or the son of perdition alternately. And in the first 12 verses, it's talking about his career, but it does say about him that he will be destroyed or consumed by the brightness of Christ's coming in 2 Thessalonians 2.8, when the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming. The glory of Christ at his coming apparently is so intense, he destroys this man of lawlessness.

Now, I'll just say this, the early Christian fathers believed that this man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians was the little horn that Daniel spoke of in chapter seven. We will find another little horn in Daniel chapter eight from a different animal, and it is not the same little horn as chapter seven. In chapter eight, the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes, and I think that's fairly universally understood, it's kind of hard to mistake.

The little horn in Daniel seven though is more difficult, but the church fathers, all of whom, well, all the ones at least who wrote about 2 Thessalonians in discussing this man of sin, this son of perdition, they believe that Paul was referring back to the little horn of Daniel chapter seven. Now, in 2 Thessalonians two, Paul says something very cryptic about this. In verses seven and eight, he says, for the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

And then that lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming. Now, it is true that the little horn is destroyed, or at least continues his career only until the last judgment. That's what Daniel seven says.

It says in Daniel 7, 25, that the saints should be given into his hand, the little horn for a time and times, but the court shall be seated and they shall take away his dominion. And consume and destroy forever. He'll be consumed by the brightness of Jesus coming and the last judgment will sit against him.

That'll be the end of the little horn's career. Paul said the man of sin will also be destroyed at the coming of Christ. And by the way, our verses in Daniel seven, verse nine and 10, where he sees the ancient of days seated, it is a courtroom setting.

And it says a fiery stream issued and came forth from before him, a thousand thousands ministered to him, 10,000 times 10,000 stood before him and the court was seated and the books were opened. The books being opened is a phrase that's used in Revelation 20 when it's time for the last judgment. Revelation 20 describes, I believe at the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of all the dead and the judgment before the great white throne.

Those who are condemned to that judgment are cast into the lake of fire, the chapter says. The others go into apparently a new heaven and new earth. But that final judgment is the time where it says in Revelation and the books were opened and people were judged from the things in the book.

It's quoting from Daniel seven, 10, the books were open. So I think we have new Testament warrant for seeing this part of Daniel seven's vision as the end of the world when Jesus comes back. The end of the little horns or the end of the man of sin's career.

But who is that little horn and who was the man of sin? Well, one of the explanatory clues is that Paul, when he's talking apparently about this passage and about this individual, says there, he tells his readers in Thessalonica, probably in the early 50s AD he's writing, he says that the man of sin, something is hindering him. He says, you know, he says his readers know. We don't necessarily, but he thinks his readers do.

He says, he says in verse six, actually, and now you know what is restraining that he may be revealed in his own time. That's second Thessalonians two, six. The readers know, but Paul's not saying who it is.

You know what is restraining. And then in verse seven, he says, only he who now restrains will do so until he's taken out of the way. So there's somebody or something, he calls it it and he calls it he, that is restraining the rise of the man of sin or the little horn if this is the correct identification.

What is it? Now, of course, the dispensational view, the popular view is that the little horn is the future antichrist and that the man of sin that Paul speaks about in second Thessalonians two is also the future antichrist. Therefore, they say the man of sin has not yet been revealed and there is something that continues to restrain. Even as we read this in the 21st century, there remains something restraining the rise of the antichrist.

And when that is removed, the antichrist will be revealed. Dispensationalists usually believe that the restraining force is the Holy Spirit resident in the church. In other words, the church itself as the temple of the Holy Spirit prevents the man of sin from rising.

That's why they believe the rapture must take place first. They believe the rapture will take place and then the antichrist will rise. So that's the pre-tribulational viewpoint of the dispensationalists.

But they're assuming, of course, this man of sin and this little horn is some character that will arise in the end times. And therefore, they have to think of something that is present today that is currently hindering him that has to be taken out of the way. But Paul didn't say that in the 21st century, there would still be this hindrance.

In his own day, there was something hindering and his readers knew what it was. If it was the church, why be so abstract about it? Why not just say so? At least half a dozen of the church fathers wrote about this passage and they all spoke unanimously. They all had the same opinion about it.

They believed that Paul was referring to the Roman Empire as that which was restraining the rise of the man of sin. Why? Well, in Daniel 7, the beast has to die. The fourth beast has to die and his body is given to the burning flames.

But the horns that grow out of the beast apparently have an ongoing life and one of them is the little horn. So they believed that Paul is saying that when the Roman Empire falls, then the little horn will begin to fill that vacuum and will persecute the saints and will rule others and so forth. And so this would seemingly fit the vision of Daniel 7 and the church fathers who spoke about this said that Paul was referring to that, that the thing that is hindering the rise of man of sin is the Roman Empire.

Now, why not speak plainly about it then? Why be so obscure? Oh, there's a very good reason to be obscure about that. Paul's writing to Thessalonica. He had recently, a few weeks earlier, been kicked out of that town because people there had thought he was undermining the Roman authority.

They had said, he's teaching us things that are contrary to our loyalty to Caesar. He's saying there's another king, one Jesus, and they got Paul kicked out of town because they were loyalists, they were patriots, they were loyal to Caesar. They claim that Paul was teaching things against the Roman Empire.

Now, suppose this letter fell into the wrong hands and he had said, well, when the Roman Empire falls, then this man of sin will rise. He'd be predicting the fall of the Roman Empire and that could only confirm the suspicions about him that he's an insurgent or he's undermining the authority and the permanence of the Roman Empire. So Paul might just allude to it.

His readers knew because he'd told them in person, but he hasn't committed it to writing. But of course, on this view, if this view is correct, then that means when the Roman Empire fell, that removed the hindrance and the man of sin then was able to rise. The church fathers who gave us this interpretation of Paul's words, of course, lived before the fall of the Roman Empire.

It didn't fall until after they'd written. So they didn't have any identification for the man of sin or for the little horn. The reformers, however, did.

The reformers lived after that. They lived a thousand years after that and they could look back on history and say, you know, it happened. Something that grew out of the Roman Empire took the place of the Roman Empire and ruled, blasphemed God, persecuted all dissenters, most of whom were saints, and did the things that the man of sin and the little horn are said to do.

And that entity, of course, they identified as the papacy. The Roman Empire fell in the successive invasions over the fifth and sixth centuries. And then around the year 600 is the time when Pope Gregory is regarded to have been the first pope.

And the institution of the papacy did all of the things that the man of sin is said to do. And continues to do some of them. Of course, the papacy can't persecute the Protestants anymore because of the political systems that have changed since that time.

Papacy doesn't own Europe anymore. But for a thousand years they did. That's a good long time to wear out the saints.

And so the reformers, all of them, and some Catholics too, for instance, the Franciscan order believed this way too. They believed that the papacy was the man of sin. The papacy was the little horn and that it will be destroyed when Jesus comes back.

That remains to be seen, but I think very possibly it will be when he comes back. Now, whether the papacy then is the little horn or not obviously could be challenged since we are not given a certain identification. But what is said at least seems to fit chronologically and geographically.

Something that grows out of the fourth beast, like a horn, something that grows out of the Roman empire, in other words, the Roman church. It then, after the fall of Rome, when the beast's body has been burned and disposed of, this little horn then seems to come to power and do his harm. So that is the way that this chapter has been understood by the church fathers and also by the reformers.

Now, there are a few items I haven't commented on. Most of them, though I have, kind of looking down here, I would just say that verses nine and 10, but also verses 26 and 27 are talking about the final judgment and when the books are opened. And at that time, it says the kingdom will be given over to the saints of the most high.

And it says that numerous times. It's in verses 13 and 14 that interjects that prior to that time, as a fifth kingdom, God establishes his kingdom. And this, of course, happened during the time of the Roman empire.

This happened before the time of the little horn, before the beast's body was given to be burned. There was this fifth kingdom, and that's made clear in Daniel two, of course, where it says during the reign of these kings. And there's no little horn in Daniel chapter two.

It was just the Roman empire is the last thing mentioned. During the reign of these kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom. So we know the timing of verses 13 and 14 is before the destruction of the fourth beast.

That's why it's out of chronological order here, because the destruction of the fourth beast was mentioned two verses earlier. But the language here is the language of the New Testament, of the enthronement of Christ. Christ therefore ascended to heaven, took his throne.

That was the little stone striking the image in the feet. That was the son of man. Coming to the ancient of days and being seated there and being given a dominion and an assignment that all the nations should be conquered by him.

But this will not be without a fight, because all the while that the Messiah's reign is being advanced, there's this little horn also, this opposition. And this apparently goes on until the ancient of days comes and has the judgment and opens the books and the final chapter is of course, verses 26 and 27, but the court shall be seated and they shall take away his, that is the little horn's dominion, to consume and destroy it forever. Then the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole of heaven shall be given to the people, the saints of the most high.

His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey him. Sounds very much like Revelation 11, 15. The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ and he shall reign forever.

I take that to be the second coming of Christ and the vindication of the saints. Comparable to David and his men being vindicated at the death of Saul. David was a king before that.

He was anointed king at his father's house. The Holy Spirit came upon him and left Saul, but Saul was still opposing David for a period of time. Eventually Saul came to his end and David and his men were the undisputed, recognized new kingdom.

And so also the church, Christ has been anointed by his father as the new king. There still is this opposition from the enemy, but the time will come when the enemy is removed and then the total dominion is given to the Messiah and his saints and they will reign with him forever. And that is the end of this chapter.

More could be said, but not in the time we have because we've already run over time. So we'll stop there.