Expository Reading Guide To Daniel 7

Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 7
Loren Lineberry, 2015

Introduction
There are several purposes shaping the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 7. Pride of place goes
to facilitating expository preaching and teaching of Daniel 7. The reader will soon note the exceptional
amount of detail offered in the verse-by-verse analysis of Daniel 7. The detail offered in the Expository
Reading Guide to Daniel 7 is intended to aid the preacher/teacher in making up his or her own mind on the
meaning of a passage. While some reflection is offered at certain points in the Guide, the verse-by-verse
detail is presented with the expectation that specifics will aid the reader in making up her or his own mind
on the text.
Another purpose is to help the reader possessing acquaintance with the original languages of
Daniel, Hebrew and Aramaic in this case, to derive maximum benefit from the original languages. To this
end, the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 7 offers lexical data from the major Hebrew and Aramaic
lexicons, including Kohler-Baumgartner, Brown-Driver-Briggs, William Holladay, and David Clines.
Moreover, the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 7 cites relevant lexical data from the New International
Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis [NIDOTTE], the Theological Lexicon of the Old
Testament [TLOT], and the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament [TDOT]. The citations from the
lexical tools are often verse specific in the Guide.
Readers who know Hebrew and Aramaic should benefit from the Expository Reading Guides
attention to the grammar and syntax of the text. To this end, the Guide will cite relevant information from
the Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [IBHS] by Waltke and OConnor, from Davidsons Introductory
Hebrew Grammar-Syntax by Gibson, from the standard Hebrew syntax of Wilhelm Gesenius [GKC], from
A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar by Van der Merwe, from Hebrew Syntax by Ronald Williams, from
the Introduction to Biblical Hebrew by T. O. Lambdin, from Drivers Hebrew Tenses, from An Introduction
to Biblical Hebrew by Allen Ross, and from A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew [J-M] by Paul Joon. Four
Aramaic guides to grammar and syntax are utilized: Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, and
the more comprehensive German grammar of Bauer and Leander, the Grammatik Des BiblischAramischen, as well as An Introduction to Aramaic by Frederick Greenspan, and the Basics of Biblical
Aramaic by Miles Van Pelt. Particular attention is given in syntax to verbal aspect and stem formation as
elements of meaning.
For the reader without knowledge of the original languages, the Expository Reading Guide to
Daniel 7 will nuance the aforementioned lexical and syntactical information so that it will be easily
understood. Hopefully, the expository preacher, the Bible school teacher, and the leader of a home Bible
study should benefit from the syntactical data in the formation of expository preaching/teaching outlines.
The Guide offers a very detailed outline of Daniel 7. Hopefully, this outline will help the
expository preacher develop sermon series from Daniel 7; moreover, it is anticipated that the outline will
aid the Bible study leader to formulate lesson plans. If nothing else, the outline will help the reader set the
context for individual verses in Daniel 7, context which the Guide provides. Finally, as a matter of setting
the context, the verse-by-verse outline of the text is broken down into versets [Dan 7:1a, 7:1b, 7:1c, and so
on] based upon the Masoretic punctuation marks in the text. While these punctuation marks are not
inspired, they are an early reading of the organization of individual verses.
The Guide will offer paragraph summaries/reflections on some, but not each and every,
paragraph in Daniel 7. Also, pertinent comment is offered on some, but not all, verses in Daniel 7.
Finally, the reader is entitled to know the authors overall perspective on Daniel. As will be very
evident in the Guides treatment of Daniel 7, the author doubts that Daniel intended to offer a heads-up on
dates, events, or key players signaling the end of time. Rather, the overall theme of the book of Daniel is
this: God is sovereign over the national and international political power-players in this world. Yahwehs
authority over human governance will emerge clearly in Daniel 7. In a world where human governance is
out of control (or non-existent), this perspective should be calming and communicated.

Table of Contents
I.
Introduction .1
II.
Table of contents .2-3
III.
General introduction to Daniel 7 .4-6
IV.
Historical introduction [Dan 7:1] ....7-8
V.
Vision report [Dan 7:2-14] ..8-70
VI.
A.
General introduction to the vision report [Dan 7:2-3] ..8-12
B.
Vision report of first beast: lion/eagle [Dan 7:4] ..13-15
C.
Vision report of the second beast: bear [Dan 7:5] ....16-20
D.
Vision report of the third beast: leopard [Dan 7:6] ..21-23
E.
Vision report of fourth beast: horn of terror [Dan 7:7-8] 24-34
F.
Vision report of Endless of Days [Dan 7:9-14] ....35-70

1.
Vision report of the throne of Endless of Days [Dan 7:9-10] ...35-48
2.
Vision report of judgment [Dan 7:11-12] ..48-57
3.
Vision report of One like a Son of Man [Dan 7:13-14] .57-70
Interpretation of Daniels vision [Dan 7:15-28] ..70-109

A.
B.
C.
The personal effect of the vision on Daniel [Dan 7:15-16] ..70-74

1.
Daniels state of mind [Dan 7:15] ..71-73
2.
Daniel probes concerning the vision [Dan 7:16] ....73-74
The interpretation of the vision [Dan 7:17-18] .74-82

1.
Regarding the beasts [Dan 7:17] .74-75
2.
Regarding the saints [Dan 7:18] ..75-82
Daniel seeks clarification concerning the fourth beast [Dan 7:19-28a] ...82-108
1.
Certainty regarding the fourth beast [Dan 7:19-20] ....82

a.
Certainty regarding the beast [Dan 7:19] ..82
b.
Certainty regarding the horns [Dan 7:20] ......82

2.
3.
D.
An additional vision concerning this horn [Dan 7:21-22] .83-89

a.
War with the saints [Dan 7:21] .....83-85
b.
Judgment by Ancient of Days [Dan 7:22] ....85-89
Explanation of fourth beast and ten horns [Dan 7:23-28a] 89-109

a.
The fourth beast [Dan 7:23] ..89-93
b.
The horns [Dan 7:24-25] ...94-102
c.
Judgment in favor of the saints [Dan 7:26-28a] ...103-09

i)
The judgment [Dan 7:26] ....103-05
ii)
The saints [Dan 7:27-28a] .......105-09
Daniels concluding reflections [Dan 7:28b-d] ...109
General Introduction to Daniel 7

Genre
The Guide takes a fairly conservative approach to the biblical text; this means, among other
things, that authorial intention really matters. Especially in a biblical chapter such as Daniel 7, it is
indispensible to have some sense of what the author is up to in writing Daniel 7. This is where genre
comes into play.
Genre, in general refers to any recognizable and distinguishable type of writing or speech
which operates within certain conventions that are in principle (not necessarily in practice) stateable. 1
What this in turn means is that we must read Old Testament literature, including Daniel, for the genres into
which they can be classified, the kinds of meanings [emphasis mine] they are capable of having.2
The genre of the book of Daniel as a whole is apocalyptic, which, among other things, tells us the kinds of
meanings that Daniel can have. Apocalyptic literature, such as the book of Daniel, is a genre of revelatory
literature [emphasis mine] with a narrative framework, in which a revelation [emphasis mine] is mediated
by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality [emphasis mine] which is
both temporal, in that it envisages eschatological salvation [emphasis mine], and spatial, in that it involves
another, supernatural [emphasis mine] world.3 It is exceptionally crucial to recognize that, as apocalyptic
literature, Daniel functions to provide a view of the world that will be a source of consolation [emphasis
mine] in the face of distress, and a support and authorization for whatever course of action [emphasis
mine] is recommended.4
So, what is Daniel up to in writing this apocalyptic document? First, and foremost, the book of Daniel,
including chapter 7, is revelation from some heavenly spokesperson to Daniel and then to the modern
reader; second, Daniel intends to disclose a transcendent reality, in this case that Gods purposes are
greater than mans plans;5 or as stated in the introduction to the Guide: God is sovereign over the national
and international political power-players in this world; third, Daniel envisages end time salvation, as is
made clear in Daniel 7 with the Ancient of Days/One like a Son of Man vision report. This last point is
crucial: it should prevent the reader from becoming obsessed with identifying end time international
political players and events to the exclusion of the big picture Daniel is presenting us Gods purposes are
greater than mans plans. Revelation, a transcendent God over and above the politics of this world, and
salvation are the kinds of meanings we should look for in reading Daniel as apocalyptic.
The genre of Daniel 7 is a symbolic dream vision, which is a nocturnal vision which requires
interpretation.6 The function of this genre is multifaceted: first, this vision serves to portray the kingdoms
of this world as totalitarian and terrorizing; second, this vision, in concert with its transcendent reality,
functions to underscore judgment, as in the Ancient of Days/One like a Son of Man paragraph [Dan 7:914]; and third, this vision intends to signal, in no uncertain terms, assurance about ultimate outcomes [Dan
1 John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996), 16.
2 Ibid.
3 Rolf Knierim and Eugene Tucker, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, vol. XX, Daniel:
with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, John J. Collins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 105
[hereafter abbreviated FOTL/Daniel].
4 Ibid., 105-06.
5 D.S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC AD 100, (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1976), 50.
6 FOTL/Daniel, 118.
4
7:9-14, 27-28a]. Overall, with all of its terror and conflict, this vision report functions to bring comfort and
certitude: the evil machinations of totalitarian regimes throughout human history are not the end of the
story; rather, God will, in His own timing, intervene with judgment and justice. The transcendent,
overarching, all-encompassing divine perspective superintends Gods people, totalitarian regimes, and
judgment; this is what Daniel 7 is up to.
Structure
After the historical introduction [Dan 7:1] which serves to alert the reader to a vision, the author launches
into his first series of vision reports [Dan 7:2-14].
In Dan 7:2-3, the author apprises the reader of a crucial point; that is, the juxtaposition of the four
winds of heaven and four great beasts suggests comprehensiveness. In other words, these visions of
beasts are intended to represent all such regimes throughout human history. To be sure, this does not
prohibit Daniel from also specifically identifying the bear [Dan 7:5] and the leopard [Dan 7:5] with MedoPersia and Greece at specific points in history [Dan 8:20-21] as exemplars of what the righteous can expect
over time. Even with this, it is the patterns in history that Daniel 7 is about.
In Dan 7:4-8, the visions of the beasts progress toward ever greater levels of terror, with the
highlight in horror coming with the fourth beast. The implication of this progression is that, over time,
human political governance does not get better, it gets worse. Moreover, the emphasis in these four visions
is descriptive, graphically illustrating the dreadfulness of these four beasts cum governments. The four
vision reports function to tell readers about the quality of regimes over history, not necessarily who they are
or when they arise or what they may or may not lead to.
In Dan 7:9-14, the vision report transitions to judgment; God is neither blind nor unconcerned; the
time will come when the transcendent God will act in judgment upon the kinds of regimes depicted in Dan
7:4-8. What is more, the governance once lorded over by the beasts is to be transferred to one like a son of
man [Dan 7:13-14], thus effectively ending the reigns of terror that flourished in historys totalitarian
regimes.
With Dan 7:15-28, the author shifts from vision reports to the interpretation of Daniels vision by
an unnamed otherworldly personage.
In Dan 7:17, the interpreter tells Daniel, and us, that these four beasts are in fact kingdoms,
political entities that rule over the earth; we are in the world of human, political, governance.
In Dan 7:18, the interpreter then tells the reader that the saints of the Most High will in fact take
possession of the kingdom for all eternity. The co-regency between One like a Son of Man and the saints
of the Most High will be made explicit in Dan 7:27.
In Dan 7:19-28, Daniel seeks clarification concerning this fourth beast; the reader may infer that
the trajectory of Daniel 7 builds up to this clarification. This fourth beast was exceptionally frightening
[Dan 7:19] with ten horns out of which one particular horn was especially onerous [Dan 7:20].
In Dan 7:21-23, the flow of the interpretation is interrupted with an additional vision of this
singular horn from Dan 7:20. This horn wages war with the saints and then is singled out for judgment by
Ancient of Days [Dan 7:22]. At this point, the saints take possession of the kingdom.
In Dan 7:23-28a, the heavenly personage resumes his interpretation, beginning with the fourth
beast, greatly expanding the description of the quality of his regime, with particular emphasis placed on his
anti-God stance in Dan 7:24-25.
In Dan 7:26-28a, the interpretation concludes with an expansion of the judgment scene: first, to
the detriment of the singular horn [Dan 7:26] and then in favor of the saints of the Most High/One like a
Son of Man [Dan 7:27-28a].
5
The place of Daniel 7 in the book of Daniel

For reasons that will be cited, it seems as if Daniel 7 is the pivotal chapter in the book of Daniel.
That is, Daniel 7 interprets material in Daniel 2 and then provides the basis for additional interpretation in
the remainder of the book. Joyce Baldwin provides a chart, reproduced below with additions, that makes
this clear:7
Daniel 2
Daniel 7
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Iron/clay
Daniel 8
Interpretation in Daniel 8
Lion
(Babylon, presumably)
Bear
Ram
Medo-Persian (taken up in 10-12)
Leopard
He-goat
Greece (key to vision in Dan 11)
Horns of terror
(Rome, presumably)
As the reader can see, the four components of the statue in Nebuchadnezzars dream in Daniel 2
are resumed and expanded in Daniel 7 into four beasts. Then, in Daniel 8, only two of the beasts are reinterpreted; these two, in turn, are identified by a heavenly spokesperson as Medo-Persia and Greece,
respectively [Dan 8:20-21]. Ultimately, only the Grecian identity is elaborated in Daniel 10-12, especially
Dan 11:20-12:1.
The chart helps us appreciate the place of Daniel 7 in the trajectory of Daniel as a whole. The
reader can see that from the beginning the path of Daniel tends toward the Persian-Greek regimes as prime
exemplars of totalitarian states throughout history. But, more to the point of the book of Daniel as a whole
and Daniel 7 in particular, the reader will understand that this arc running through Daniel moves by
Yahwehs oversight and control. To put the same thing another way, the major player in Daniel is God, not
the rogue nations that appear only to disfigure human history.
7 D.J. Wiseman, ed, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Daniel by Joyce Baldwin (Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), 161.
6

I.
Historical introduction [Dan 7:1]
Text and translation8

7:1a
In the first year of Belshazzar, king of
Babylon,

7:1b
Daniel saw a dream,

7:1c
that is, visions in his mind,
7:1d
[as he lay] upon his couch;

7:1e
at once, he wrote down the dream,

7:1f
and related the substance of the matter.
In Dan 7:1a, the author tells us when this vision occurred: the first year of Belshazzar. This
would have been somewhere around 552-51 BC.
In Dan 7:1b-c, the author identifies Daniels visionary experience: a dream [], that is a
vision [] in his mind []. Syntactically, that is, a vision in his mind clarifies or explicates
a dream in the previous line.9 Semantically, and are part and parcel of the same package.
Dream [] is an Aramaic noun with a Hebrew cognate [] that is used in three senses in the Old
Testament: [1] natural dreams that reflect the happy or difficult situations of life and are a common part of
sleeping at night; [2] untrue or imaginary dreams from the evil thoughts of a false prophet or empty
dreamer; and [3] revelatory dreams from God, which reveal his will or some future event. 10 The usages
in Daniel 2, 4, 5, and 7 fall into the third category, with the additional observation that all of the usages of
/dream in Daniel require interpretation; the revelation in these dreams is not immediately selfevident to the dreamer.
Vision [] is an Aramaic noun that means apparition, vision.11 Brown-Driver-Briggs identifies the
use of in Dan 7:1 with vision (as a mode of revelation).12 Jackie Naud notes that in Dan 7:1
denotes a nocturnal revelation from God. In any case, this style of expression is intended to make
Daniel resemble the prophets of an earlier age.13 A. Jepsen more or less concurs, noting that in Aramaic,
has a wide range of meanings, referring both to natural vision of the eyes and to supernatural
visions of various kinds.14
8 All translations are the authors.
9 For the explicative function of the conjunction [], see Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander,
Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramischen (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1962), 70 r.
10 Willem VanGemeren, ed., The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis, by Gary V. Smith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000; CD-ROM); hereafter abbreviated
NIDOTTE.
11 Ludwig Kohler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament, revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Stamm, vol. II, - (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1872
[hereafter, vol. I, -, will be abbreviated KB1 and vol. II, -, will be abbreviated KB2].
12 Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs and Wilhelm Gesenius, The New Brown-DriverBriggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1979; reprint), 1092 [hereafter
abbreviated BDB].
13 Jackie Naud, , in NIDOTTE.
14 Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, ed., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,
vol. IV, , by A. Jepsen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 281-82 [hereafter abbreviated TDOT
with the appropriate volume number].
7
In his mind [] is more literally of/in his head. Kohler-Baumgartner identifies the entire phrase,
, as parallel with the former term, /dream.15 BDB notes that in Dan 7:1, the
is the head as the seat of visions.16 H.P. Mller notes, regarding Dan 7:1, that the head is the
site of spiritual impulses in the Daniel legends; for dreams and visions (Dan 2:28; 4:2, 7, 10; 7:1, 15). 17
Summary.
Dan 7:1 underlines the fact of a divine, supernatural revelation from God to Daniel. Future events are
clearly in view, albeit events that demand interpretation.
II.
Vision report [Dan 7:2-14]

A.
General introduction to the vision report [Dan 7:2-3]
Text and translation

7:3b

7:2a
Daniel spoke up and said:

7:2b
I looked in my night vision;
7:2c
and behold: four winds of heaven,
7:2d
were agitating the great sea.
7:3a
And then, four great beasts,
began ascending out of the sea;
7:3c
differing one from the other.
Dan 7:2 Daniel looked up and said: I looked up in my night vision; and behold: four winds of heaven
were agitating the great sea.
Night vision [ ] stipulates that the vision comes by night
[]; accordingly, Kohler-Baumgartner translates with night, as a time for a vision.18
As we have already noted, the dream/vision correlation points to a nocturnal vision as a dream vision.
There may be a practical reason behind dream/visions in the night: the dream vision of the night, during
sleep, places the dream vision beyond all human manipulation.19
Four winds of heaven [ ] is used only here in the Aramaic section of Daniel.
The phrase does appear in the Hebrew Bible five times [Jeremiah 49:36; Daniel 8:8; 11:4; Zechariah 2:10;
6:5]. Jenson notes that the numeral four [] may have a figurative usage: encompassing all
directions, four often indicates completeness and comprehensiveness.20 To be sure, the metaphor four
winds of heaven does imply all-inclusiveness, since north, south, east, and west exhaust the possibilities.
John Goldingay notes, Four winds and four creatures suggest the world-encompassing totality [emphasis
15 KB2, 1975.
16 BDB, 1112.
17 Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated by
Mark Biddle, vol. III, H.P. Mller, , (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 1193 [hereafter abbreviated
TLOT I, II, III for the three volumes of the dictionary].
18 KB2, 1909.
19 A. Stiglmair, , in TDOT, vol. VII, 540.
20 P.P. Jenson, , NIDOTTE.
mine] of divine power and disorderly energy.21 The net effect is that four winds of heaven give the
entire vision [Dan 7:1-28] a universal aspect. No single country has pride of place in Daniel 7; rather, pride
of place in Daniel 7 goes to Yahwehs oversight of His world.
Heaven [] should not be overlooked by the expositor: heaven in the Aramaic of Daniel is the
abode of God [Dan 2:18-19, 28, 37, 44; 4:34, 37; 5:23], is the abode of holy ones [Dan 4:13, 23, 31, 35;
7:13 (One like a Son of Man)], and heaven is even said to rule [Dan 4:26]. What this suggests is that the
final source behind these various beastly instantiations of human governance is heaven, i.e., God. C.F. Keil
puts the matter succinctly, The winds of the heavens represent the heavenly powers and forces by which
God sets the nations of the world in motion; and the number four has a symbolical meaning: that the people
of all the regions of the earth are moved hither and thither in violent commotion. 22
The reader will recall that in Daniel 2, the prophet was tasked with interpreting Nebuchadnezzars
dream. Having had the mystery revealed to him in a night vision, Daniel proceeds to honor God as: He
who changes times and epochs; He deposes kings and establishes them [Dan 2:21]. Thus, Daniel 7 as a
whole, including Dan 7:2, is spelled out and underscored commentary on Dan 2:21. The reader must never
lose sight of the fact that in Daniel 7 all of these monstrous, belligerent, rapacious specimens of human
governance serve at the pleasure of Yahweh; these beasts live to destroy, manipulate to enslave, persist to
enrich their own power only as long as Yahweh authorizes; then, as we shall see, judgment and annulment
and obliteration await them all; in Daniel 7, Yahweh sets enthroned above world events.
Were agitating the great sea [ (Aphel, participle, fm, pl)] describes
what the four winds of heaven [Yahweh] were doing. The Aphel stem in Aramaic is causative,23 which
tells the reader that this agitation was owing to divine intervention, syntactically verifying the
observations above on the four winds of heaven.
Agitating [] is an Aramaic verb, which when used followed by the preposition , that
means to churn up, stir up24 in Dan 7:2d. The verb occurs only here in the Aramaic OT. The Hebrew
cognate [/] appears six times, twice in a causative stem [Hiphil (Judges 20:33; Ezekiel
32:2)]. The Septuagint tradition offers two translations of , [LXX] and
[Theodotion]. The former Greek verb [] has a wide range of
meanings: [1] to fall in, to fall on, [2] to fall upon, to attack and [3] to break in, to burst in. 25 The
latter verb [] may mean [1] to strike, to dash against, or [2] to assign, to
procure.26 Slotki reads the action of the four winds upon the sea in the sense of broke forth upon. 27 Keil
translates in Dan 7:2 with to burst out in storm.28 Driver notes that suggests creating a
21 David Hubbard and Glenn Barker, ed., The Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 30, Daniel by John
Goldingay (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989), 160.
22 C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, vol. IX, Ezekiel,
Daniel: Three Volumes in One, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel by C.F. Keil, translated by
M.G. Easton (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991; reprint), 223.
23 Miles Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Aramaic (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 150.
24 KB2, 1843; see also Bauer-Leander 100 u.
25 Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1972; reprint), 545 [hereafter abbreviated LSJ].
26 Ibid., 1504.
27 Judah J. Slotki, Daniel-Ezra-Nehemiah (New York: Soncino Press, 1992; revised), 55.
28 Keil, 222.
9
great disturbance of the waters.29 Longman notes that the image is of turbulent, chaotic waters moving in
all direction.30 It seems best not to over-read ; the sense is that the four winds of heaven caused the
churning, roiling, or tossing of the sea, implying some threatening event.
Great sea [ ] is taken by many to be a reference to the Mediterranean Sea.31 But, as Collins
points out, of the four kingdoms that Daniel 8 eventually identifies Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece
of these only the fourth could be said to come from the Mediterranean.32 Driver also cautions against
over-reading, that sense (Mediterranean) is not to be pressed here; the great sea, tossed up by the four
winds of heaven, symbolizes the agitated world of nations.33
Sea [] should be taken into account by the reader as a metaphor of the chaotic, the menacing, the
uncontrollable. Indeed, in the next line, Dan 7:3, beasts begin to arise out of the sea [].
Sea [] is associated with the monstrous in the poetic sections of the Hebrew Bible [Job 7:12;
26:12 (Rahab a figure for forces of evil); Psalm 74:13; 104:25]. What is more, in the prophets, the
is associated with forces that are hostile to Yahweh and His people [Isaiah 5:30; 17:12; 27:1; 57:20
(metaphor of the wicked); Jeremiah 6:23; 50:42]. What is more, in both the Psalms and the Prophets, the
is totally under the control of Yahweh [Psalm 33:7; 65:7; 66:6; 74:13; 89:9; Isaiah 19:5; 50:2;
Jeremiah 5:22; 31:35]. Even on the basis of the use of in the Hebrew Bible, the reader can easily note
that may be used as a figure for [1] what is unknown, threatening, sinister, forbidding, evil [2] what is
hostile to Yahweh, and [3] what is absolutely under the control of Yahweh. The reader may reasonably
assume that all three figures apply to in Dan 7:2d, 3b.
Sea [] is also associated with chaos and hostility to the deities in the cultural background of
the ancient Near East, prominently from Babylon and the creation epic, Enuma Elish. In this Babylonian
creation epic, Tiamat [Sea] engages in hostilities with the chief god, Marduk.34 Eventually, the conflict
between the Marduk and Tiamat is resolved in the favor of Marduk.
As far as the ancient Near Eastern background goes, the Enuma Elish does help the reader appreciate how
saturated Babylonian culture would have been with the notion of the sea [] as hostile to the deities. In
the final analysis, deep in the psyche of the people of the ancient Near East the sea was more than a
dangerous place. It was a threatening force that was ranged against the beneficial forces of creation. 35 At
the same time, as the review of the Hebrew Bible shows, Daniel would have been well aware of the sea
[] as a figure of hostility to God, as a source of evil, and as a force over which Yahweh exercised final
authority.
Dan 7:3 And then, four great beasts began ascending out of the sea; differing one from the other.
29 S.R. Driver, Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), 80.

30 Tremper Longman III, The NIV Application Commentary: Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1999), 180.
31 KB2, 1976; Goldingay, 160.
32 John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993), 295.
33 Driver, 81; similarly, Slotki, 55.
34 For the outline and details of this hostility, see H.W.F. Saggs, The Greatness That Was Babylon
(New York: Hawthorne Books, 1962), 409-17.
35 Longman, 182.
10
Four great beasts [ (adjective, fm, pl) (noun, fm, pl) (cardinal numeral)]
is obviously figurative language: four is figurative, and beasts is figurative.
Four [] is a figure that we have already discussed. As four [] relates to
beasts, the adjective describes these beasts in terms of their comprehensiveness, exhaustiveness, and
their undeviating world-encompassing reality. As we shall learn in Daniel 8, these beasts are identified
as nation-states, as human governance that is totalitarian. The net effect is that four, as a figure of allinclusiveness, tells us that these beasts are meant to represent between them world-dominating figures
[emphasis mine] for all time.36
Beast [ (noun, fm)] is used metaphorically: these four kingdoms [Dan 7:17] are somehow like
beasts.37 With this metaphor, the author asks us to transfer that which describes a beast to these four
kingdoms; indeed, this beast metaphor is an attempt to communicate total experience [emphasis mine].38
Once more, the metaphor advances the comprehensiveness that we have associated with the figurative use
of four. The beast metaphor encapsulates emotional responses, images, and draws upon our human
experience of beasts to vividly and concretely demonstrate that totalitarian regimes are very much like
beasts. There is aversion in the metaphor, dread, insecurity, unpredictability, coarseness, and fear.
The Aramaic noun [] references a beast, animal in Dan 7:3.39 These beasts, at least the
lion, bear, and leopard, are metaphors for what is predatory, ferocious, rapacious and opportunistic. The
fourth beast [Dan 7:7] is all of this on steroids: terrifying [ (formidable, inspiring fear)], terrible
[ (frightful, terrible, dreadful)], exceedingly powerful [ (powerful in the sense of
hard, stern, severe)], devouring [ (consuming, devastating)], crushing [ (to grind into
pieces)], and trampling [ (squashing whatever may be left; total annihilation)].
The author uses the beast metaphor for at least two reasons: first, to make an affective comparison,
where the affective comparison is that in which the feel [emphasis mine] or value [emphasis mine], the
effect or impression [emphasis mine] is compared with that of another.40 Moreover, and this may be the
cardinal reason, the author is making a pragmatic comparison, that is, he compares the activity or result
[emphasis mine] of one thing with that of another.41 Pragmatically, the beast metaphor divulges brutality
that leads to annihilation; such is the comparison between beasts of prey and totalitarian human
governance.42
Began ascending [ (Peal, participle, fm, pl)] uses an Aramaic verb that means simply to go up, to
come up.43
36 Baldwin, 141.
37 For the use of metaphor in the Bible, see Leland Ryken, Words of Delight: A Literary
Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 166-69.
38 Ibid., 167.
39 KB2, 1874.
40 G.B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth Press, 2002; reprint),
147.
41 Ibid.
42 This is the impact Of Dan 7:3 cited in Rev 11:7; 13:1; 17:8.
43 Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), 92.
11
Differing [ (Peal, participle, fm, pl)] is a participle used attributively to modify beasts. 44 The
verbal root [] in Aramaic has two ranges of meaning in the Peal stem: [1] to be different and [2]
to change.45 In Dan 7:3, BDB opts for, to be different from.46 Holladay adds that in Dan 7:3, these
beasts were diverse from one another.47 The Septuagint translators use for , a
Greek verb that means to differ, to be different from, to differ from something with respect to
something.48
Following the lead of the Septuagint, we may conjecture that these beasts differ from one another with
respect to something. And, what is that something? As noted above in the discussion of metaphor, both
affective and pragmatic comparisons are made in the beast metaphor; this is where they differ. That is,
each seems to degenerate affectively into ever more appalling behaviors, and each worsens pragmatically
into ever more unspeakable consequences, especially for the people of God.
Summary.
For all practical purposes, Dan 7:2-3 conveys two notions that are crucial to the storyline in Daniel
7: first, the four winds of heaven convey the concept that, when all is said and done, the emergence of
these beastly totalitarian regimes is owing to the influence of heaven; and second, the four great beasts is
a summary statement, intended to alert the reader concerning world-dominating political leaders for all
time.
Regarding the influence of heaven, the use of the figurative number four points to the allencompassing sovereignty of heaven over the political-military shenanigans of all totalitarian regimes for
all time. As we noted above, the net effect is that four winds of heaven give the entire vision [Dan 7:128] a universal aspect. No single country has pride of place in Daniel 7; rather, pride of place in Daniel 7
goes to Yahwehs oversight of His world. To put the same thing another way, the authors use of the four
winds of heaven is another way of stating the thesis of the book of Daniel in its entirety: God is sovereign
over the national and international political power-players in this world.
Regarding the menace of the four great beasts, the reader should appreciate the fact that our
author is painting a picture of totalitarian regimes for all time. In the portrayal in Daniel 7, the picture is
all-embracing and comprehensive; mankind need not bother assuming trust in evolutionary progress in
human governance; quite the contrary. Modern technological progress in no way invalidates this
judgment, for it is international justice, peace, and human contentment and fulfillment that are in mind, and
in these realms it would be hard to argue that there has been progress.49 Indeed, Daniel 7 opens a window
onto the future of much of human governance, a future dominated by marauding regimes that are ever
increasingly rapacious, degenerate, mercenary, vicious, single-minded and predatory.
B.Vision report of the first beast: lion/eagle [Dan 7:4]
44 On this use of the participle, see Van Pelt, 115.

45 KB2, 1999.
46 BDB, 1116.
47 William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 424.
48 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, translated and revised by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1979), 190 [hereafter abbreviated BAGD].
49 Baldwin, 140-41.
12

7:4a
The first like a lion,

7:4b
and wings of an eagle on it;

7:4c
I continued looking until its wings
were plucked off,

7:4d
and it was lifted from the ground,

7:4e
and upon two feet like a man, it
was made to stand,

7:4e
and then, the mind of a man was given to it.
Like a lion [] is a simile, which is similar to a metaphor. In the case of the simile, the
first beast is something like a lion; the beast has characteristics in common with a lion. The reader will
naturally expect that the points of comparison in the simile are affective, the feelings, the impressions
associated with a lion, as well as pragmatic, the effects of coming into contact with a lion. The emotional
sting of the simile includes the fear, the fright, the panic aroused by the lion; the effectual impact would
include the lethal associations, the mauling, clawing, attacking ferocity of the lion.
Lion [] is used in Daniel only here and in Daniel 6, the lions den episode. In Daniel 6,
the lion is a means of capital punishment, death. In the Hebrew Bible, the lion/ is associated with
fearlessness [2 Samuel 17:10], craftiness [Psalm 10:9], rapacity [Psalm 17:12], ravenousness for prey
[Isaiah 31:4], viciousness [Isaiah 35:9], consumption [Jeremiah 2:30], and aggression [Jeremiah 12:8].
Accordingly, this fist beast, a totalitarian regime as we shall learn in Dan 7:17, has these characteristics in
common with the lion: valor and fearlessness, cunning and deviousness, avarice and self-interest,
insatiability and voraciousness, savagery and ferociousness, overwhelming and uncontrollable, and violent
and antagonistic.
Wings of an eagle [ ] is a piece of imagery; it is non-literal, intended to
appeal to the imagination. Furthermore, imagery is an instance of comparative language, like the simile
and metaphor.50 So, just what does the image of an eagle imply, what does the image communicate in the
readers imagination by way of additional overtones of meaning51?
Eagle [] is used in the Aramaic of Daniel only here and in Dan 4:33, where Nebuchadnezzar, in his
moment of divine judgment, takes on the characteristics of an eagle []. In the Hebrew Bible, the
eagle/ is associated with elusiveness [Exodus 19:4], unforeseen attack [Deuteronomy 28:49], speed
[2 Samuel 1:23], impregnability [Job 39:27], and power [Ezekiel 17:3]. The imagery of the eagle
reinforces the simile of the lion.
This first beast/totalitarian regime evinces all of the fearlessness and viciousness and cunning of
the lion with the speed and elusiveness and unpredictability of the eagle. Taken as a whole, this first kind
of regime combines enormous might and ferocity with swiftness and evasiveness. However, as we have
noted previously in Daniel 7, the reader is advised not to over-interpret this imagery by identifying it
specifically with Babylon. To be sure, in the context of Daniel 2, 7, and 8, Babylon does fit this profile,
but, recalling the discussion of the four winds of heaven, this first imagery suggests that Babylon will
have many successors. As Longman rightly notes, The fourfold pattern simply informs us that evil
kingdoms will succeed one another (at least seemingly) until the end of time. 52 In the long run, as we shall
see with the fourth beast/regime, the real point of these four kingdoms is [1] their hostility to God and [2]
their unrelenting persecution of the people of God.
Its wings were plucked off [ (Peil, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is also part of the
imagery, imagery that has the look of a significant loss: the beast is deprived of its speed and evasiveness.
50 Caird, 149.
51 Ryken, 161.
52 Longman, 184.
13
The verb [] holds no real surprises for the reader; Kohler-Baumgartner translates
in Dan 7:4 with to pluck out.53 Pluck [] is used only here in the Aramaic section of Daniel,
however when used in the Hebrew Bible, tends to point to plucking clean to the point of baldness
when used of human hair [Leviticus 13:40-41; Isaiah 18:2, 7; Ezekiel 29:18]. The verb is written in the
Peil stem, which is a passive stem;54 the agent is left unspecified, but the next three main verbs it was
lifted [ (Peil, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] and it was made to stand [ (Hophal, perfect,
3rd, fm, sg)] and it was given [ (Peil, perfect, 3rd, ms)] are also passive stem verbs, suggesting
that this first beast is susceptible to outside forces.
Moreover, the fact that the author uses four passive verbs between Dan 7:4c-e [1] its wings
were plucked off, [2] it was lifted from the ground, [3] it was made to stand, and [4] the mind of a
man was given to it suggests that these four lines are to be read and interpreted as a unified thought.
With all of this imagery, the author intends to signal that, according to Dan 7:4c-e, this beast/regime, with
all of its power and ferocity, speed and evasiveness, is still vulnerable to forces outside of its control.
In this case, the removal of the wings conveys the imagery of a powerful predator that is deprived
of its speed and evasiveness, denied its impregnability and at least some of its might. The pragmatic effect
of the imagery is underscored; this beast/regime is weakened in mid-flight. But, this weakening is only part
of the story, for what appears to be more positive outcomes are on the horizon for the beast/regime: [1] it
was lifted from the ground, [2] it was made to stand, and [3] the mind of a man was given to it.
It was lifted from the ground [ ] and upon two feet like a man it was
made to stand [ ] are two lines that are part and parcel of the
same package: it was lifted and then was made to stand fit together logically and conceptually. At the
same time, the focus of this pair of related events falls on the second line: upon two feet like a man, it was
made to stand.
Upon two feet like a man [ ] is another simile that seems to
underscore the humanization of this first beast; this lion-like, fearless, crafty, rapacious, vicious, voracious,
and aggressive beast/regime is now somehow like a man. Indeed, the repetition of man [] in the
next line clarifies the point of comparison in the simile.
The mind of a man was given to him [ ] fleshes out the
humanization process of this first beast; thought capability is how this beast is somehow like a man. Mind
of a man [ ] is a genitive construction, probably an attributive genitive, which Bauer-Leander
translates Menschenherz [human heart].55
In the Aramaic of Daniel, occurs only here. However, in the Hebrew Bible, a
synonymous collocation /heart of man does occur with a variety of nuances. In Genesis 6:5,
the /heart of man is inherently hostile to Yahweh as evidenced in wickedness [also Genesis
8:21; Proverbs 19:3; Ecclesiastes 8:11; 9:3]. In 1 Samuel 17:32, the /heart of man signifies
human courage in the face of a threat. In Proverbs 15:11, the /heart of man is fully open to
the scrutiny of Yahweh [1 Kings 8:39]. In Proverbs 16:9, the /heart of man represents a
mans ability to plan or to will some outcome. The sum of the matter is that the /heart of
man is a mixed bag, representing [1] the human penchant for evil, [2] human courage, [3] full openness to
Yahweh, and [4] the ability to plan and to will outcomes. Of these three, the /heart of man is
heavily weighted toward the human fondness for sin.
Summary.
53 KB2, 1922; similarly, BDB, 1101; Holladay, 412.
54 Van Pelt, 124; see also Bauer-Leander 32 b- e.
55 Bauer-Leander 89 a.
14
So, what do we conclude about this first beast/regime? What we have here is a tale of two similes. To begin
with, the first beasts lion-like qualities do not diminish like his eagle-like qualities. Whatever is implied in
the simile [like a lion], the beast/regime persists being somehow like a lion. Accordingly, even after the
loss of his wings and the gain of the mind of a man, the first beast/regime remains lion-like: he stays
fearless, crafty, rapacious, voracious for prey, vicious, and aggressive. The lion-like qualities of this
beast/regime show no signs of diminishing in the paragraph. At its most basic level, the first beast
represents a large, powerful, and expansionist nation, a mortal threat to smaller peoples.56
However, this beast/regime is vulnerable to forces outside of its control; lion-like though it may well be, it
is not invincible. The author rhetorically underlines the beasts susceptibility by using four [itself an image
of completeness (completely vulnerable?)] passive verbs to show that this beast/regime is not impervious to
powers beyond its influence: the beast/regime [1] stood by as its wings were plucked off, [2] as it was
lifted from the ground, [3] as it was made to stand like a man, and [4] as the mind of a man was given
to it. In both Aramaic and Hebrew, passive verbs imply an agent; someone or something is acting upon
the beast/regime without permission. The final verbal clause the mind of a man was given to it
suggests, and this is only conjecture, that the agent is Yahweh; who else could give a beast/regime a human
mind? The world may fear that this beast/regime is unassailable; the beast/regime may fancy itself
impregnable; but this is mere delusion, for this beast/regime remains defenseless before Yahweh.
Furthermore, this beast/regime is humanized; it is made to stand like a man, therefore, the
regime is accountable. This second simile [like a man] supplements the first: these two similes tell us
that this beast/regime waylays the world somehow like a lion and at the same time somehow like a man
with this second trait being imparted probably by Yahweh. The second simile balances the first by
counteracting lion-like invulnerability with man-like accountability. The beast/regime became liable when
Yahweh gave it the mind of a man. That is, the heart of man represents [1] the human penchant for
evil, [2] human courage, [3], human ability to plan and to will outcomes and [4] humanitys full openness
to the scrutiny of Yahweh. This last point is seminal, for great, formidable, and imperialist as this
beast/regime may be, the authors simile reveals that even these are accountable to the scrutiny of Yahweh.
Finally, our exposition of this first beast has been dominated by imagery, by simile and metaphor.
The author intends to make points of comparison between denizens of the animal world and totalitarian
political regimes. The author intends to evoke emotional impressions vis--vis rogue political regimes, as
well as to alert the reader to the kinds of governance political power-players can be expected to force on
humanity. While the conjunction of Daniel 2, 7, and 8 does permit a reference to Babylon in the person of
Nebuchadnezzar, as we noted at the outset, Babylon does not exhaust the comparisons the author intends to
make. This lion-like beast in the first of four beasts represents world-dominating regimes for all time; this
first beast would have many successors.
C.
Vision report of the second beast: bear [Dan 7:5]

7:5a
Then, behold: another beast,
56 Goldingay, 186.
15

7:5c
7:5d
7:5e
7:5f
7:5b
a second one resembling a bear,
and upon one side, it was made to stand,
with three ribs in its mouth,
between its teeth;
and so, it was told:
7:5g
Arise, eat much flesh!
Resembling a bear [ ] is another simile; this second beast/regime is somehow like

a bear. Once more, emotive and pragmatic connotations are presented by the author; the reader is invited to
imagine both the dread and the avariciousness of this kind of beastly regime, which will blight human
governance in the future and for all time.
Resembling [ (Peal, participle, fm, sg)] is from an Aramaic root [] that has
interesting ancient Near Eastern cognates, which shine light on the sense of the root in Dan 7:5. There is an
Imperial Aramaic and Egyptian Aramaic cognate that means resemblance, similarity; KohlerBaumgartner translate in Dan 7:5 with to resemble.57 BDB offers to be like for in Dan
7:5.58 In both of these senses, the net effect is that signals some level of observable likeness
between the bear and this second regime.
Bear [] is used only in Dan 7:5 in the Aramaic section of Daniel. The Hebrew noun [] is used
twelve times in the Hebrew Bible. When referring to the animal, the bear [] is [1] predatory [1 Samuel
17:34; 2 Kings 2:24], [2] is vulnerable [1 Samuel 17:36 (to death), 37 (to Yahweh), [3] and is protective of
her own [Proverbs 17:12]. There are usages of that are similes: [1] mighty and fierce [2 Samuel 17:8],
[2] opportunistic [Proverbs 28:15 (helpless people are vulnerable); Lamentations 3:10], [3] intimidating
[Isaiah 59:11], and [4] carnivorous [Hosea 13:8]. A. Caquot writes that the bear is primarily a wild,
carnivorous, and untamable animal like the lion, with which it is often connected. 59 Caquot notes that Dan
7:4 uses the figure of the bear as a carnivorous animal.60
The upshot is that this simile evokes an affective, emotional response: the helpless recognize, and
fear, their vulnerability, and those who happen to encounter the bear are immediately intimidated. On the
other hand, the simile has definite pragmatic connotations: the bear is a flesh-eating predator, and this is the
dominant point of comparison in the simile; she is fiercely protective of her own; and she is powerful and
brutal. At the same time, the bear is also vulnerable in its own right: it may be killed by another, and its
power is no match for the power of Yahweh. The point of the simile in Dan 7:4 is this: the beast/regime is
somehow like a bear in the sense of being a wild, untamable, flesh-eating predator.
And upon one side [] is a prepositional phrase. The object of the preposition
[] is a primary noun that simply means side.61 Commentators note that the figure of bear raised
up on one side is found in Babylonian art. More to the point, Montgomery refers to the figure of a bear
raised up on one side appearing frequently in well-known Babylonian seals.62 The pragmatic effect of
this imagery in Babylonian art and seals is that the animal then is pausing to devour a mouthful before
57 KB2, 1854.
58 BDB, 1088.
59 A. Caquot, , in TDOT, vol. III, 71.
60 Ibid.
61 KB2, 1986.
62 Montgomery, 288; see also Collins, Daniel, 298.
16
springing again on its prey.63 The simile underscores the insatiable desire for more prey transferred from
the bear to the regime.
It was made to stand [ (Hophal, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] is written in the Hophal stem which
is a passive voice stem.64 What is true of the Hophal in Hebrew also seems to be true of the Hophal in this
clause: in the Hophal the subject is caused to be acted upon or to suffer the effects of having been acted
upon (usually by an unnamed agent).65 The reader/expositor must account for the use of the passive voice
here; indeed, the author could have just as easily written the verb in the Peal, yielding: it stood. Why the
passive? Why indicate that this bear/regime suffered the effects of having been acted upon by an unnamed
agent? At the very least, this predator is also vulnerable to unnamed forces outside of it. Perhaps the
author is continuing to use passive voice verbs to signal Yahwehs engagement in this predators life.
Indeed, the passive Hophal of this same verb [] is used in Dan 7:4, where the lion was made to
stand, quite possibly pointing to Yahweh.
The point in Dan 7:5 is a small one and probably should not be pressed; at the same time, the
continued use of the passive voice may signal the ongoing involvement of Yahweh in the affairs of the
beastly kingdoms; the passive almost certainly signals susceptibility and exposure. Regardless of the
agent, this beast/regime, like the lion, is not invincible.
Three ribs [ (noun, fm, pl) (numeral, fm, sg)] uses a root for rib [] that
appears only here in the Aramaic section of Daniel. The Hebrew Bible writes the root and uses it
only twice to reference the ribs of a living being; in Genesis 2:21-22, the of Adam becomes the
material out of which Yahweh fashions Eve. Could it be that this imagery implies human ribs in the mouth
of the bear? Note the reference to eat much flesh in Dan 7:5d.
The reader/expositor must read three ribs as part of the imagery the author is utilizing in Dan
7:5. In concert with the simile of the bear, which communicates predominately a flesh-eating predator with
an insatiable appetite for more, the bear/regime has the remains of one victim in its mouth, preparing to
devour them, while its appetite is still not fully satisfied. This seems to be the point of the imagery, but this
has not stopped commentators from identifying the three ribs with various political regimes.
On one reading, the three ribs are an allusion to the threefold dominion of the second empire
Media, Persia, and Babylonia.66 E.J. Young cautiously opts for Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt.67 John Walton
affirms that the three ribs are Urartu, Mannaea, and the Scythians. 68
The net effect is that this wide diversity in identifying the three ribs should alert the reader to the
tenuous nature of the identification effort to begin with. We are in the indistinct world of imagery here, and
the reader must interpret these paragraphs in light of the images, the metaphors, and the similes with which
they are saturated. Images capture the imagination and the attention, painting pictures of terror or power or
invincibility or cunning or opportunism or vulnerability, as well as divine providence and reproof. There is
more imagery here than writing history in advance of events.
63 Ibid.
64 Van Pelt, 152.
65 Bruce Waltke and Michael OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 28.1a [hereafter abbreviated IBHS].
66 John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971),
156.
67 Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980; reprint), 145.
68 John H. Walton, The Four Kingdoms of Daniel, JETS 29 (1986), 30.
17
It was told [ ] is an ambiguous clause; the principle verb may be used either [1]
to say (in direct speech), or [2] to command.69 In the first case, the translation would be: they/some
were talking/speaking to it; in the second case, the translation becomes: it is commanded or someone
has commanded.70 The Guide prefers the command nuance since the nest two words in Dan 7:5 Arise,
eat are written as imperatives, commands.
The question now is: told by whom? The passage is silent on this point; yet we may make an
educated guess. When is used to express a command in the Aramaic of Daniel, the ones doing the
commanding are either [1] a human figure, such as Nebuchadnezzar [Dan 2:12, 46; 3:13], Belshazzar [Dan
5:2], or Darius [Dan 6:23] or [2] a divine figure [Dan 4:23, 26, 31]. As no human figure, king or otherwise,
appears in the context of Dan 7:5, the assumption is at least plausible that the One doing the commanding is
Yahweh. Young writes, The command is given by God, thus showing that Divine Providence overruled in
the affairs of the mighty human kingdom.71 The upshot is that, even at its most flesh-devouring, predatory
vilest, this beast/regime is still answerable to Yahweh.
Arise, eat [ (Peal, imperative, fm, sg) (Peal, imperative, fm, sg)] are both
imperatives; this ravenous beast/regime operates at the pleasure of forces well above it and far beyond it,
yet near enough to direct it.
Arise [] is an Aramaic root that may be translated to arise or to set about.72 BDB
interestingly translates /arise in Dan 7:5 with arise (out of inaction).73 Following BDB, the sense
of in Dan 7:5 may be something like swing into action. This is the only time in the Aramaic of
Daniel when arise [imperative] is immediately followed by another imperative [eat]. This collocation
is frequent with in the Hebrew Bible however.74 J. Gamberoni notes that when in the
imperative is immediately followed by another imperative, this second imperative actually defines and
determines the statement.75 But, why would the divine speaker invite this beast with prey already in its
mouth to set out to devour even more?
One suspects that when the divine voice, if that it who is speaking here, instructs a beast with three
ribs in its mouth already to Arise, eat, there may be something else embedded in this divine instruction.
Robert Alter recognizes what he calls prophetic poetry. To make a long story short, prophetic poetry is a
prophets way of using language for reproof and one of the principle ways of reproving is through
satire.76 Indeed, satire may drift into sarcasm77 so that the reproof has bite and sting to it, a way of
waylaying the addressee with a reprimand in the form of exposure for his activities.
69 KB2, 1816.
70 Ibid.
71 Young, 145.
72 KB2, 1968.
73 BDB, 1110.
74 All told, the collocation [imperative + imperative with nothing intervening] occurs about 49
times in the Hebrew OT. Random examples include: Genesis 13:17; Exodus 12:31; Numbers 22:20;
Deuteronomy 2:24; Joshua 1:2; 1 Samuel 16:12; Nehemiah 9:5; Jeremiah 13:4; Jonah 1:2.
75 J. Gamberoni, , in TDOT, vol. XII, 594.
76 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 141.
77 Ibid., 142.
18
It is easy to see reproof in the form of sarcasm as the heavenly voice invites a beast with
unconsumed prey between its teeth to arise and devour even more! The spokesperson is engaging in
satirical expos of the chutzpah of this beast/regime. The fact that Daniel 7 is saturated with imagery and
that Dan 7:5 is invested in simile, this imaginative use of prophetic poetry fits the expressive tone of both
the chapter and the paragraph. Moreover, the reader will note that the sarcastic reproof in Dan 7:5
anticipates the vision report of the throne room of Ancient of Days in two verses [Dan 7:9ff]. As Ryken
writes, The satirist is the bearer of bad tidings.78 Accordingly, the reader may see less of directive here
and more of rebuke, less permission and more a dressing-down.
Eat [] is used in two ways in the Aramaic OT: [1] to eat, to feed on and [2] more
metaphorically to devastate.79 BDB opts for the more literal of these nuances in Dan 7:5, to devour.80
G. Gerleman notes that in Biblical Hebrew when this root [] has a personal object, such as people,
the sense is more figuratively to destroy.81 This Aramaic root [] is used three other times in
Daniel 7, all of them used in the figurative sense of to destroy, consume, expressing destructive or other
hostile activities.82 So it is in Dan 7:5; means that this beast/regime intends to ravage whatever
flesh it can.
In light of the previous discussion on prophetic poetry, the heavenly speaker is sarcastically
dressing-down these kinds of regimes for their obsession with domination. It is not as if he were
exclusively directing them to destroy, rather he is reprimanding them for their fanatical will to dominate
and devastate. To be sure, there is mystery here: on the one hand, this is what is unfathomable about
Gods government of the world the temporary triumph of the wicked;83 while on the other hand is the
inevitability of reproof, of judgment, of Ancient of Days and One like a Son of Man. Faith comprehends the
eternal triumph of the latter over the temporary ascendency of the former, for, when all is said and done, the
message of Daniel 7 braces and consoles and assures: God is sovereign over the national and international
political power-players in this world, appearances to the contrary.
Flesh [] is an Aramaic root with both a literal and metaphorical sense: literally,
means flesh, while metaphorically, can refer collectively to mankind or collectively to the
animal world.84 BDB opts for the more literal sense, translating in Dan 7:5 with flesh (as
devoured by the beast).85 Still, the usage of in Daniel in its two previous appearances [Dan 2:11;
4:12] is uniformly metaphorical; in Dan 2:11, the sense of is mortal flesh and in Dan 4:12, the
sense is humanity in general.
Flesh [] in this immediate context may certainly be read in the more literal sense of flesh
as animal flesh. Indeed, this is how many commentators read the term and this reading is thoroughly
appropriate. At the same time, the wider context is saturated with allusive language and meanings,
suggesting wider applications. Perhaps we do have a deeper point being made here since the beast is later
78 Ryken, 329.
79 KB2, 1812.
80 BDB, 1080.
81 G. Gerleman, , in TLOT I, 105.
82 M. Ottosson, , in TDOT vol. I, 237.
83 Walter Lthi, The Church to Come (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1939), 99-100.
84 KB2, 1840.
85 BDB, 1085.
19
identified as a political regime that arises upon the earth [Dan 7:7]. From the standpoint of the wider
context, the sense of in Dan 7:5 also admits mortal flesh or humanity in general.
In terms of the wider context of Daniel 7, eat much flesh advises the reader that throughout
human history beastly regimes will be hell bent on ravaging humanity wherever they may find it. The lust
of totalitarian governments for territorial expansion and political domination will know no satisfaction, and
will be the order of the day right up to the end of human history, when one like a son of man finally
intervenes.
Summary.
The second beast/regime, the bear, is a metaphor of political governance that is aggressively predatory. In
the context of Daniel 7-8, this governance includes, but is not limited to, Medo-Persia [Dan 8:20], for
Medo-Persia has had and will have many successors. The quality of this governance, wherever and
whenever it emerges, is animalistic, bear-like in its features: ferocious, forceful, opportunistic, cunning,
daring, engulfing, overwhelming, devastating, and intimidating; this is the sort of regime that is predatory
to its core.
The second beast/regime is a metaphor of totalitarian governance that is rapacious, never satisfied,
always wanting more. This regime stands upon one side, always poised and always prepared to strike, to
gain more territory, to enslave ever greater numbers of the human race. Furthermore, while this beastly
regime pauses to digest its latest victim three ribs it is fully prepared to search for more. A flesheating predator with an insatiable appetite for more, the bear/regime has the remains of one victim in its
mouth, preparing to devour them, while its appetite is still not fully satisfied.
The second beast/regime is a metaphor of what is probably the obscenest trait of human
governance: the all too common lust to use power to overwhelm, destroy or enslave humanity in general;
none delivers from his power; he does as he pleases [Dan 8:4 (of Medo-Persia/the bear)]. Thus, Daniel
pictures the bear in Dan 7:5 with three ribs between its teeth, ribs that are in all likelihood human ribs.
Later, this beastly regime is told, quite probably is given permission, to eat much flesh, where flesh is
mortal flesh or humanity in general; power over humanity is the all-consuming obsession, the moral
compass, that guides this bear-like political power-player, and where totalitarian power is not capitulated to,
death awaits those who resist. Either way, none delivers from his power.
The second beast/regime is a metaphor of the paradox of power; this beast/regime, for all intents
and purposes, publically looks as if it acts autonomously, but all the while, privately is susceptible to the
power of Yahweh. The mystery is that this beast/regime has the chutzpah to run rough shod over nation
after nation and does as he pleases, or seems to; but, all the while this regime and others that mimic it are
operating by the aegis of Yahweh. If our reading of Dan 7:5f is correct, then this beast/regime is told to
arise, eat much flesh. The upshot is that even at its most flesh-devouring, predatory vilest, this
beast/regime is still answerable to Yahweh. Furthermore, if our reading of the two imperatives in Dan 7:5g
is correct, then Yahwehs supervision emerges in His sarcastic reproof of this regime and others like it.
Indeed, in this short passage, Dan 7:5, we have a key to understanding history from a biblical perspective:
The international scene is not after all out of hand, for it is in Gods hand.86
D.Vision report of the third beast: leopard [Dan 7:6]


7:6a
7:6b
7:6c
After this, I kept on looking,

and, behold: another like a leopard,
and upon it four wings of a bird,
86 Baldwin, 138.
20
7:6d


upon its back;
7:6e
moreover four heads upon the beast,
7:6f
and dominion was given to it.
Another like a leopard [ ] is a new simile; this third beast/regime is somehow

like a leopard, probably affectively and pragmatically; the portrait of this beast/regime will include
emotionally disturbing connotations, as well as conjuring up frightful no-nonsense outcomes.
Leopard [] is used only here in the Aramaic OT. Kohler-Baumgartner translates in Dan
7:6 as panther,87 as does Rosenthal.88 The Hebrew cognate [] is typically translated leopard.89
M.J. Mulder notes, The translation of varies in most dictionaries, translations, and commentaries:
sometimes leopard, sometimes panther, often without distinction.90
Leopard [] in the Hebrew Bible is depicted as cunning [Jeremiah 5:6] and ferocious [Jeremiah 5:6];
the leopard is opportunistic, lying in wait [Hosea 13:7], and they are swift [Habakkuk 1:8]. Driver has an
interesting note on the , The leopard is a fierce, carnivorous animal, remarkable for the swiftness
and agility of its attack. It is especially noted for the patience with which it waits, extended on the branch
of a tree, or a rock near a watering place, expecting its prey, on which it springs with a deadly precision.91
To the extent that this third beast/regime is somehow like a leopard, we may lift out the affective
comparisons: first, there is terror in the face of this beast since this brute is ferocious; second, there is
anxiety since this beast is cunning, patient, and unpredictable. Then, there are the pragmatic comparisons
between the beast/regime and the leopard: first, there is swiftness since this beast is among the fleetest of
the great cats; second, there is carnivorousness since this beast feeds on its prey. Overall, the simile
presents an intelligent, cunning, opportunistic, fierce, exceptionally swift and agile, and predatory
beast/regime.
Four wings of a bird [ ] probably enhances the speed imagery
in the simile. The noun wings [] is the same noun used in Dan 7:4 in relation to the lion; the
imagery underlines the exceptional swiftness of this predator. The numeral four may connote
completeness as it did in Dan 7:3. Overall, the imagery implied in four wings of a bird is of the absolute
and thoroughgoing speed with which this beast/regime can maneuver. One thinks of the German
Blitzkrieg during World War II.
Four heads upon the beast [ ] is another piece of imagery that continues
to picture the prowess of this beast/regime. Dan 7:6 is the only place in the Aramaic OT where four
heads [ ] appears; there is nothing in the Hebrew Bible that exactly replicates this
language. We may infer that the number four still has completeness connotations. But, that leaves us to
decipher what four heads represent. Montgomery combines four wings and four heads into an image
of the four quarters of the world.92 Goldingay has a very attractive proposal, one that fits with the
imagery of the wings as an accessory that enhances this beasts movement: the four heads simply indicate
that the beast can see in any direction.93 Baldwin concurs, adding this beast is looking in all directions
87 KB2, 1931.
88 Rosenthal, 91; similarly, Holladay, 412.
89 David Clines, ed., The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix
Press, 2009), 274 [hereafter abbreviated CDCH].
90 M.J. Mulder, , in TDOT, vol. IX, 433.
91 Driver, 83.
92 Montgomery, 290.
93 Goldingay, 163.
21
for prey.94 Whatever reading the expositor prefers, it must be held within the context of trappings
wings and heads that enhance the predatory capabilities of this beast/regime.
And dominion was given to it [ (Peil, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg) ] is quite possibly one
of the most important sentences thus far in Daniel 7. Part of the reason for this is that the action in this
clause was given is in the Peil stem, which is passive.95 The dominion this beast/regime has is
derivative; political power is unoriginal with this regime. As we have noted with other passive voice verbs
in Daniel 7, the passive voice implies an agent that, in this case, does the giving. Statistically, the verb in
this clause [] appears 28 times, of these, thirteen either explicitly mention Yahweh of imply Him as
the actor behind giving.96 Accordingly, with this beast/regime, as with the previous two, Yahweh is
sovereign over them. In a significant way, Dan 7:6f [dominion was given to it] is commentary on Dan
2:21 [Yahweh deposes kings and He establishes them].
Dominion [] appears here for the first time in Daniel 7;97 it is a very important concept in Daniel
7.
Dominion [], the noun, means might, dominion, power, rule.98 BDB adds dominion,
sovereignty for Dan 7:6.99 Holladay concurs, offering dominion, lordship.100 Philip Nel notes that
designates one who has power or control over101 a variety of entities. Rosenthal offers rule,
domination, dominion for .102 M. Sb writes that the meaning of the word family is always
associated with power; it usually denotes the possession and especially the exercise of power, rule. 103
As noted above, the possession of and the exercise of power/rule is derivative to the beast/regime; whatever
power over or control over is possessed and exercised, it is bestowed power and authority/control. As Dan
7:17 makes clear, all of these beasts/regimes are kingdoms [] that arise upon the earth; this means
that signals divinely appointed governance.104
The dominion word group is comprised of an adjective [], the noun [], and a verb
[], all used in the Aramaic section of Daniel. When the adjective, , is used in reference to
a human being, the setting of mastery or rule is always governmental [Dan 2:10, 15; 5:29]. When the noun,
, is used of a human being, it also is always used in terms of human governance [Dan 4:19; 6:27;
7:26]. Finally, when the verbal form of the dominion family is used of human subjects, it also always
refers to human governance [Dan 2:38-39, 48; 5:7, 16]. The upshot is that when this word family describes
human activity in the Aramaic of Daniel, the sense of the term is human political governance. Finally, both
94 Baldwin, 140.
95 Van Pelt, 124.
96 Dan 2:21, 23, 37-38; 4:16; 5:18-19, 28; 7:4, 12, 14, 25, 27.
97 Dan 7:6, 12, 143, 26, 272.
98 KB2, 1995.
99 BDB, 1115.
100 Holladay, 423.
101 Philip J. Nel, , in NIDOTTE [H8948].
102 Rosenthal, 98.
103 M. Sb, , in TDOT, vol. XV, 83.
104 Ibid., 87.
22
the usage of the verb, [Dan 2:38-39], and the noun, [Dan 7:6, 12, 26], are in contexts
where the dominion is granted or bestowed by Yahweh.
What all of this tells us is that in Daniel 7 human governance is conferred upon those who occupy
positions of political power and authority. Human governance is divinely assigned, not humanly grasped;
divinely allotted, not individually seized; divinely earmarked, not personally conquered. Daniel 7, as
convincingly and compellingly as any chapter in the book, affirms in no uncertain terms that, when it
comes to those who hold the reigns of human political power, Yahweh is absolutely sovereign over them,
deposing them when He sees fit and launching them when the time is right.
Summary.
The third beast/regime is a metaphor of a predator that is blindingly swift in pursuing its prey.
This third beast/regime is somehow like a cunning carnivore: it is predatory, ferocious, opportunistic, and
patient, instilling terror among its impending prey; it is dazzlingly fleet in pursuing its victim; and it is ever
on the lookout for more quarry to swallow up.
The third beast/regime is a metaphor of derivative power. In an exceptionally significant
statement in Dan 7:6, we are told that his dominion was given to him. This statement removes the
metaphor from the animal world and transfers it, per Dan 7:17, to the political world: this beast/regime is a
metaphor of allotted political power in the guise of human governance. As Baldwin writes, there can
never be an emperor so mighty that he is not under the control of the only God; not only will his end come
when God sees fit, but meanwhile he will serve Gods purposes.105 These purposes suggest a reflection.
Reflection.
In the Old Testament, the lion, the bear, and the leopard are used as metaphors of Yahweh. In Lamentations
3:9-10, both lion [] and bear [] are used of Yahweh as metaphors of His judgment. In Isaiah
38:13, Yahweh is as hostile as a lion [] toward King Hezekiah. In Hosea 13:7-8, Yahweh is
compared to a lion []-bear []-leopard [] in His judgment of Israel. These metaphors of
judgment add a larger perspective to the use of the similes in Daniel 7.
We have noted above that with all three beasts, each of them serves at the pleasure of Yahweh; in
each and every paragraph describing a beast/regime, in some way each is beholden to Yahweh. The reader
may weigh and consider the following: each of them may be ultimately a servant, in one way or another, in
one way or another, in Yahwehs judgment of forces hostile to Him. Yahweh is the Lord of history which
means that the final outcomes of human history are in His hands, and this includes judgment of regimes that
are hostile to Him and oppressive of His people.
E.
Vision report of the fourth beast: horn of terror [Dan 7:7-8]

7:7b
7:7a
After this, I kept on looking,
in my night vision,
7:7c
and behold: a fourth beast,
7:7d
terrifying and terrible,
105 Baldwin, 135.

23

7:7g

7:7i

7:8c

7:8e

7:8g

7:8h

7:7e
and extremely powerful,

7:7f
with large iron teeth on it,
devouring and crushing,
7:7h
and trampling the remains with its feet;
but, it differed,
7:7j
from all the beasts before it,
7:7k
for, ten horns upon it.
7:8a
While contemplating the horns,
7:8b
behold: another horn, a small one,
arose between them,
7:8d
and then three, from the first horns,
were rooted up before it;
7:8f
and behold: eyes like human eyes,
in this horn,
and a mouth speaking insolent words.
Dan 7:7 After this, I kept on looking, in my night vision, and behold: a fourth beast, terrifying and
terrible, and extremely powerful, with large teeth on it, devouring and crushing, and trampling the rest with
its feet; but it differed, from all the beasts before it, for, ten horns upon it.
In Dan 7:7d-h, the author describes the terrifying power of this fourth beast; then in Dan 7:7i-j, the
author reveals how this fourth beast differs from the previous three.
Terrifying and terrible and extremely powerful [ (adjective, fm, sg)
(adjective, fm, sg) (adjective, fm, sg) (Peal, participle, fm, sg)] are a group
of terms that characterize the intimidation and extreme force of this fourth beast.
Terrifying [] is a passive participle that has a durative, ongoing, character to it.106 Terror
is a typical, habitual effect of this fourth beast on those around it.
Terrifying/ is used only in the Aramaic portion of the OT; does have a Hebrew cognate,
. The root [] is translated with dreadful in Dan 7:7 by Kohler-Baumgartner. There is an
interesting Arabic cognate [dachal] that means longing for revenge. Returning to Dan 7:7, Holladay
translates with frightening, frightful.107
Terrifying/ is used six times in Daniel [Dan 2:31; 4:5; 5:19; 6:27; 7:7, 19]. In Dan 2:31,
depicts the emotional effect of Nebuchadnezzars dream-statute; it struck him dumbfounded with fear. In
Dan 4:5 in another dream, Nebuchadnezzar affirms that the substance of his dream terrified []
him, or in other words, alarmed [ (alarmed to the point of panic or possibly flight)] him; we may
infer that clarifies . In Dan 5:19, Daniel uses to explain to Belshazzar the
/fear that Nebuchadnezzar induced, fear/ that actually caused his people to tremble
[ (fear that is physically manifested in shaking)] before him. This fear/ and
trembling/ are driven by Nebuchadnezzars unbreakable power of life and death in Dan 5:19. The
same word pair, and , are used in Dan 6:27. The Septuagint translator uses
for in Dan 7:7, a Greek term used in an active sense of that which causes
fear.108
The upshot is that terror/ betrays a source of intense fear, fear that borders on emotional paralysis
[Dan 2:31]; fear that induces one to a level of panic that incites flight [Dan 4:5]; and finally, the fear/
that Nebuchadnezzar, and others like him, inspire is the sort that shows up in bodily shaking and
106 Bauer-Leander 82 c.
107 Holladay, 402.
108 BAGD, 862.
24
shuddering, fear inspired by the tyrants unassailable power over life and death. This last point, terror as
emotional paralysis in the presence of one with the power of life and death, is also born out for the fourth
beast/regime in Dan 7:7g-h: devouring, crushing, and trampling.
Terrible [] is an adjective that may be more or less synonymous with the preceding
participle. As synonyms, both terms, terrifying and terrible, must not only manifest a high degree of
semantic overlap, they must also have a low degree of implicit contrastiveness, 109 both of which these two
terms possess. As synonyms, the second term, terrible, will typically explain or clarify the first term,
terrifying.110
Terrible/ is an adjectives that describes that which is frightful,111 or what is dreadful.112
The Septuagint translator uses for , a Greek term that describes that which
utterly astonishes.113 The Hebrew cognate [], when describing some human terror, describes
those whose terribleness is sufficient to cause adversaries to melt away [Joshua 2:9 (/to
helplessly melt away in disheartened terror)]; what is more, to provoke such a terrible adversary is to
risk ones own life [Proverbs 20:2]. Overall, then, suggests the kind of terribleness that
leaves one feeling powerless and dispirited in the face of overwhelming force.
Extremely powerful [ (adjective, fm, sg) (adjective, fm, sg)] portrays the force of
this fourth beast. The operative term is powerful/, a term that illustrates a beast/regime that is
strong, impressive in Dan 7:7.114 The Hebrew cognate [] utilizes the adjective form once, in
Ecclesiastes 6:10, where Qoheleth says: a man cannot challenge [ (contend with, dispute)] with
that which is stronger [ (in Ecclesiastes, this adjective is probably a reference to God)] than he.
The verbal form of the root [] is utilized in the Hebrew Bible four times, with a decided nuance of
overpowering [Job 14:20; 15:24; Ecclesiastes 4:12]. Accordingly, the sense of extremely powerful is
possibly intensely overpowering. The imagery latches onto the pragmatic results of this beast/regime: he
is physically [militarily or politically?] overwhelming, uncontainable, irresistible, and uncontrollable. This
beasts level of force is unprecedented and unconquerable [on a human level]. Daniels vision has built up
to this point.
With large iron teeth in it, devouring and crushing is a pair of clauses that belong together; that is the
devouring and crushing describe the pragmatic effects of the large iron teeth.
Large iron teeth [ ] is imagery, imagery in this
case that is decidedly negative: the imagery suggests an attempt by the author to heighten the terror
associated with this beast/regime: the image of iron teeth is unnerving, intimidating, scary, and
formidable.
109 D.A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995; reprint), 266.
110 Ibid., 267.
111 Rosenthal 77.
112 Miles Van Pelt and Walter Kaiser, Jr., , in NIDOTTE [H399].
113 BAGD, 240.
114 KB2, 2008.
25
Teeth [] is used in the Aramaic of Daniel three times [Dan 7:5, 7, 19]. The Hebrew cognate,
, is used as an image in two ways: [1] as a metaphor of the power to harm others and [2] as a metaphor
of anger or aggression.115
Teeth [] of beasts in the OT is a metaphor of destruction, often as a vehicle of Yahwehs judgment
[Deuteronomy 32:24 (judgment); Job 4:10 (judgment); Psalm 57:4 (the wicked adversary); 58:6; Joel 1:6].
Teeth [] is used in the OT as a metaphor of the aggressive predator who devours his prey [Job
29:17; Psalm 3:8; Proverbs 30:14; Lamentations 2:16].
Teeth [] are represented as gnashing teeth in a metaphor of hostility toward someone116
[Psalm 35:16; 37:12 (plotting evil); 112:10].
The upshot is that teeth in Dan 7:7 is an image that heightens the terror associated with this beast/regime:
there is ruthless destruction in the image, as well as the portrayal of the heart of a violent marauder.
Iron [] intensifies the imagery by underling indestructability, a nuance we have yet to
see in the depictions of the beasts/regimes [Dan 7:4-6]. This beast/regime is ruthlessly destructive and
unyieldingly so!
Iron [] is used twenty times in the Aramaic of Daniel, usually in connection with
Nebuchadnezzars dream in Daniel 2. In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a great statue composed of
four metals: gold, silver, bronze, and iron. Subsequently, Daniel interprets these four metals as four
kingdoms of which Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold [Dan 2:38]. After that, the identities are uncertain.
Longman lays out the options: If one has already identified the first three as Babylon, Media, and Persia,
then the fourth must be Greek. If, on the other hand, one has combined Media and Persia and identified the
third as Greece, then the fourth kingdom must be Roman.117 Here is the point the expositor/reader must
weigh and consider concerning the use of iron in Dan 7:7: to the extent that identifications are uncertain,
then the reader may opt for abandoning identifications and mine Daniel 2 for insight on the imagery, the
semantics of iron [] as the imagery relates to teeth in Daniel 7:7.
We have consistently pointed out that the language in Daniel 7 is laced with imagery, and imagery
describes, alludes, portrays, pictures, evokes, feels, envisages; we doubt that imagery is intended to identify
in Daniel 7 as much as envision. While none can deny that the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 is the fourth
beast in Daniel 7, this is about all that can be said with confidence. With this in mind, the question is: what
does Daniel 2 tell us about the metaphorical nuance of iron [] as it heightens the beasts ruthless
destruction condensed in the imagery of teeth in Dan 7:7?
Dan 2:40 is quite helpful in teasing out the indestructability imagery of iron []. First, the
author employs a simile: strong [] as iron; then, the author affirms that iron breaks into pieces
[] and shatters [] all things, and then returns to a simile like iron that crushes [];
and finally the author elaborates on the previous simile with it [iron] will break into pieces [] and
crush [].
Strong as iron [ ] is the first image of iron in Dan 2:40; obviously, the
strength [] of iron is in view. The adjective translated strong in Dan 2:40 is the same adjective
that describes the fourth beast in Dan 7:73 powerful, or impervious and thoroughly resistant to
115 Francis Foulkes, , in NIDOTTE [H9094].
116 Ibid.
117 Longman, 186.
26
challenge. So it is in Dan 2:40; strong as iron is a metaphor for a kingdom that is indestructible,
unyielding, and rock-hard. For all intents and purposes, it is pointless to resist this kingdom in Dan 2:40.
Iron breaks into pieces [] and shatters [] all things is the second and fourth image
of iron in Dan 2:40, imagery of liquidation of anything that gets in its way. Both of these participles
function as pulverization metaphors in Dan 2:40. Break into pieces [] is used figuratively here in
the sense of crushing into fine dust; and shatters [] is used only in Dan 2:40 in the Aramaic OT
with the sense of crush and destroy. The reader will observe that this pulverization metaphor break into
pieces and shatters applies across the board; only a strictly human level, this fourth beast/kingdom is
unassailable.
Like iron that crushes [] is a simile; this fourth kingdom/fourth beast is somehow like iron
that crushes. Crushes [] is used only here in the Aramaic OT. The Hebrew cognate [] is
used to signal death [Ecclesiastes 12:6] or severe dismay [Isaiah 42:4]. In the case of Dan 2:40, the death
imagery seems to fit the context.
So, what does all of this tell us about the imagery of iron-like teeth in Dan 7:7? In a general way,
iron in Dan 7:7 enhances the image of this regime as ruthlessly destructive; iron heightens this image.
But how? First, by highlighting the iron-like quality of the beasts destructive prowess [teeth], the author
underscores the unassailable, uncompromising, and severe quality of this beasts ruthless destruction.
Second, by accentuating the iron-like quality of the beasts destructive agenda [teeth], the author
accentuates the obliteration, the pulverization, the crushing into dust that these iron-like teeth produce.
Finally, by featuring the iron-like quality of the beasts destructive knowhow [teeth], the author stresses the
inevitability of death at the hands of this beast with iron-like teeth.
Finally, the author of Daniel certainly has other objectives in mind by using the iron imagery. That
is, in Dan 2:45, the gold, silver, bronze, and iron regimes are destined to be crushed by a stone hewn out of
a mountain. The upshot is that, even in its overwhelming power and ruthless destruction, this iron-like
beast/regime travels finally and fully in the orbit of Yahweh; ultimately, this regime is neither invincible nor
unconquerable; its day will come.
The next three images depict the pragmatic effects of this ruthlessly destructive beast/regime: devouring,
crushing, and trampling.
Devouring [ (Peal, participle, fm, sg)] is a participle, probably signaling typical or
habitual action on this beasts part.118
Devouring [] is a trait that is shared with the second beast in Dan 7:5.119 As we noted in Dan 7:5,
is a metaphor of destruction, consumption, and ravaging. Ultimately, this beast will be revealed as
a regime that will /devour the whole earth, treading it down and pulverizing it [Dan 7:23]. The
net effect is that the wanton destruction of this beast/regime knows no bounds; empire-building is the sole
obsession with regimes like this one.
Crushing [ (Aphel, participle, fm, sg)] is used here for the first time in Dan 7; we have already
noted this imagery in connection with this beast/regime in Dan 2:40 [see the notes above on crushing].
Essentially, /crushing is a pulverization metaphor, reflecting crushing an opponent into fine dust.
Cornelius Van Dam notes that among the cognates of , the Akkadian cognate [daqqu] means to
be fine.120 The imagery is pragmatic: this beast/regime effectively crushes its enemies into dust.
118 Rosenthal 177.
119 See the full notes on at Dan 7:5.
120 Cornelius Van Dam, , in NIDOTTE [H1990].
27
Trampling the remains with its feet [ (Peal, participle, fm, sg) ] is a
metaphor of total annihilation.121 This is almost overkill; the residue [] from the devouring and
crushing is not left alone; it too is trampled with the feet.
Trampling [] is an Aramaic verb that means to tread down.122 The Aramaic verb appears here and
in Dan 7:19.
But, it differed [ (Pael, participle, fm, sg) ] provides the transition to the most
remarkable trait of these beasts thus far. The Aramaic verb in the Pael stem is translated by KohlerBaumgartner in Dan 7:7 with to change; with the preposition , the sense is different from.123
Montgomery notes that this verb is used to mark out the peculiar difference of this beast 124 from all of the
beasts/regimes before it. There was something unprecedented, unparalleled, and unmatched in this
beast/regime. The expositor should note that this fourth beast is not named, since evidently no name would
fit this grotesque beast, and now, it differs totally from all that have come before. Driver notes the point of
this remarkable imagery: this beast/regime is placed in a class by itself. 125
For, ten horns upon it [ ] is an explanatory line as signaled by the conjunction
[].126 The author is alerting the reader to just exactly how this beastly regime differs, just how it is
unmatched and in a class by itself.
Ten horns [ ] is another piece of symbolism; we may dissect the symbol in two parts:
first, the symbolism of the number ten, and second, the symbolism of the horn.
Ten [] is used symbolically in the Hebrew Bible to suggest completeness. 127 Baldwin
writes, Ten horns, five times the natural two, represent pictorially the extraordinary power of this beast. 128
Keil follows suit, observing The number ten comes into consideration only according to its symbolical
meaning of comprehensive and definite totality.129 As we noted concerning the comprehensive imagery
with which this chapter began [Dan 7:2 (four winds of heaven)], we have also a metaphor of
completeness or comprehensiveness vis--vis these horns.
Horn [] is a symbol of leaders [Dan 7:24 (ten kings)] who exert, and live for, no holds barred
power [Dan 7:8, 11, 21]. 130 In Daniel 7, these /horns possess (1) the power to overthrow other horns
[Dan 7:8], (2) visual ability [Dan 7:8], (3) vocal capability [Dan 7:8, 11], and (4) the power to wage war
against the saints [Dan 7:21]. Overall, this imagery suggests [1] power-struggles among political leaders
who lust for power (Dan 7:8), [2] antagonism toward God (Dan 7:8, 11), and [3] persecution of Gods
people (Dan 7:21).
121 F.J. Stendebach, , in TDOT, vol. XIII, 319-20.
122 KB2, 1983.
123 KB2, 1999.
124 Montgomery, 295.
125 Driver, Daniel, 83.
126 Bauer-Leander 70 r.
127 P.P. Jenson, , in NIDOTTE [H6924].
128 Baldwin, 140.
129 Keil, Daniel, 229.
130 See Michael Brown, , in NIDOTTE [H7697]; B. Kedar-Kopfstein, , in TDOT, vol.
XIII, 172.
28
The net effect is that the imagery of ten horns is an image of comprehensiveness vis--vis world leaders
who will vie among themselves for ever greater levels of power, and who will comport themselves with
godlessness and oppression of the covenant community. The function of the imagery of ten horns is to
envision world political-military leaders throughout human history. Naturally, this view questions attempts
to link specific leaders in history with these ten horns. There are two reasons for this: first, the descriptions
thus far in Daniel 7 lack sufficient precision to make anything like a certain linkages with specific
personages; and second, as we have noted repeatedly, Daniel 7 is saturated with imagery, images that are
designed by the author to alert the reader to the contemptible character of political regimes up to the end of
human history.
Summary.
One gets the sense that Daniel 7 has crested in picturing the appalling and dreadful quality of
world-kingdoms up to the end of human history. Dan 7:7 visualizes for the readers imagination a
grotesque image of a beast/regime that worships power and is determined to enslave or destroy.
This fourth beast represents world-kingdoms that, by virtue of their horrific swagger, engender
virtual emotional paralysis; the author tells us that they are terrifying [Dan 7:7d]. Now, this caliber of
terror implants panic and recommends flight; it is useless to resist save at the peril of ones life. Such is the
measure of this terror that it inspires physical symptoms: weakness, vulnerability, defenselessness,
impotence, and shuddering in fear when face-to-face with a beast/regime, or its minions, with the power of
life and death; this regime devours, crushes, and tramples [Dan 7:7g-h].
This fourth beast represents world-kingdoms that, due to their inhumanness, infuse persons with
dread, with dispiritedness; the author tells us that they are terrible [Dan 7:7d]. The cold-bloodedness of
regimes like this cause would-be resisters to helplessly melt away in disheartened terror [Joshua 2:9].
Indeed, one dare not provoke this beast/regime unless one is prepared to forfeit ones life [Proverbs 20:2].
When all is said and done, the terribleness of this kind of regime is its merciless and callous and coldhearted reliance on whatever force is at hand to achieve its political ends.
This fourth beast represents world-kingdoms that, owing to their thorough-going pragmatism,
secure results; the author tells us that they are extremely powerful [Dan 7:7e]. With no moral compass
that merits the word moral, these brutal and self-serving regimes are intensely overpowering. Assured
that it is by force alone that only the strong prevail in this world, these regimes reach the summit of military
and political and economic and technological superiority; thus, they become uncontainable, irresistible, and
uncontrollable. Throughout the course of history, the author is suggesting, there will arise the sorts of
beasts/regimes with an intensity of force and predominance of might that is unprecedented and
unconquerable, on a strictly human level at least.
This fourth beast represents world-kingdoms that utterly annihilate anything or anyone that dares
to stand in their way; the author tells us that they are devouring, crushing, and trampling [Dan 7:7g-h].
These are annihilation metaphors, pure and simple. This beast/regime devours, which means wanton
destruction that knows no bounds in the name of empire-building; this instantiation of rogue regimes
crushes, which means to utterly pulverize opponents, whether nations or populations or persons, into the
finest of dust in the name of imperialism; and this empire tramples the remainder, which means that,
should anyone, any group, any resistant faction, escape the crushing force of this political-military
malignancy, they will be summarily squashed.
But, this fourth beast/regime also differed from all the rest [Dan 7:7i]; this fourth regime is a
standout, conspicuously superior in death, destruction, and defamation. But it differed has an ominous
ring to it: in a chapter saturated with world-dominating leaders that are threatening, menacing, and
destructive beyond measure, it is unpromising to be told that a fourth kind of regime differed. These
three words but it differed portend something unprecedented, unparalleled, and unmatched in the
realm of world-dominating power-players; evil can, from time to time, be in a class by itself.
29
There is a sense of completeness bordering on overkill about this unprecedented power-player;

that is, his power and force are extensive; they are quite simply massive: he has ten horns. Joyce
Baldwins comment, noted above, to the effect that this regime has five times the normal number of horns
suggests that this regimes huge investment in power and force is heavy-handed overkill. In the final
analysis, one surmises that this explosion in possessing, and possibly using, forces intended for massive
destruction serve the ends of a regime that is brutal, ruthless, severe, and callous in pursuing its totalitarian
objectives. And, the reader must never lose sight of the fact that this fourth beast/regime is not merely one
particular regime in human history, but rather a regime that is part of a pattern in history; this fourth beast
has had, and will continue to have, many successors.
Finally, regimes have leaders, and, more often than not, the regime and its leader are part and
parcel of the same package; horn is a symbol of leaders of regimes, and quite a package they are. These
leaders of regimes live for power struggles among peoples [Dan 7:8]; they yearn for more lands and
peoples to conquer, scanning the horizon visually [Dan 7:8f]; they have voices [Dan 7:8, 11] with which to
bully, bluster, lie, deceive, propagandize and vilify; and they have a peculiar struggle to pursue: the struggle
against persons of faith [Dan 7:21]. To be sure, as we shall note later, these leaders have a vested selfinterest in exterminating any threat to their absolute power, such as God [Dan 11:36] and Gods people
[Dan 11:28, 30-35]. As we noted much earlier in the section on A General Introduction to Daniel 7, this
chapter is pivotal in the argument that Daniel is making, especially on the score of persecution of the
faithful: even though it is undeniably true that God is sovereign over the national and international political
power-players in this world, it is also deplorably true that those who love and serve the Lord of history will
endure persecution at the hands of those political horns who refuse to share power with anyone, including
Yahweh.
Dan 7:8 While contemplating the horns, behold: another horn, a small one, arose between them, and
then three, from the first horns, were rooted up before it; and behold: eyes like humans, in this horn, and a
mouth speaking blasphemous words.
While contemplating the horns [ ] is a construction that is
written with the finite verb, , in the perfect aspect with a participle, ; this construction
signals imperfect aspect,131 literally, I was contemplating. However, the collocation of this specific finite
verb, , plus a participle can have a temporal connotation132: while contemplating the horns or
while I was contemplating the horns or even just as I was contemplating the horns.
Contemplating [ (Hithpaal, participle, ms, sg)] in the Hithpaal stem is translated by KohlerBaumgartner in Dan 7:8 with to consider, have regard for.133 In this sentence, probably has the
sense of attentive observation, of perception and scrutiny, through which one becomes insightful. 134
Daniel is observing attentively, attempting to understand what the horns could mean. At this point, there
seems to be no small amount of uncertainty in spite of Daniels efforts; eventually, Daniel will ask
for certitude concerning the fourth beast [Dan 7:19] and the horns in particular [Dan 7:20]. In any event,
the sense in Dan 7:8a is: while I was scrutinizing (attempting to understand).
Behold: another horn, a small one [ ] depicts an interruption in
Daniels scrutiny of the ten horns, focusing his attention now on just one.
131 Bauer-Leander 81 q.
132 IBHS 37.7b.
133 KB2, 1987; similarly BDB, 1114; Holladay, 421.
134 M. Sb, , in TLOT III, 1270.
30
Behold [] is an interjection and interjections are words of emotion.135 In this context, the
interjection, , seems to function as an entreaty to direct attention to this small horn.136 Indeed, this
interjection, , is used four times in the Aramaic of Daniel in order to focus attention on some critical
element in the context [Dan 2:31; 4:7, 10; 7:8].
A small one [] is a feminine adjective that is used only here in the Aramaic OT; it means little,
small.137 Collins affirms that the adjective, , is slighting.138 Indeed, this adjective may suggest
a lack of importance or prestige.139 Interestingly, a similar small one crops up later in Daniel.
The Hebrew cognate of the Aramaic adjective, , is , which is used in Dan 8:9 [from
one of them (one of four horns in Dan 8:8) arose another small () horn]. The small
[] horn in Dan 8:9-12 is similar in destruction and sacrilege as the small [] one in
Dan 7:8. But, while extraordinarily similar, especially in terms of attacking the interests of God [Dan 8:1112], one of the key differences is that the small [] horn in Dan 8:9 arises out of four horns [Dan
8:8], while the small [] one in Dan 7:8 arises out of ten horns.140 Thus, Dan 7:8 and Dan 8:9,
pinpointing two different origins, describe two different antagonists.
The significance of this minor digression is major: if we can get beyond the mania for sticking names on
these malignant political thugs, then the reader may spot patterns in history. Leaders of world-dominions
will routinely set themselves up as God [Dan 8:10 (self-deification does not happen with the small horn in
Dan 7)] and correspondingly set out to exterminate the interests of God, including worship [Dan 7:25c;
8:11] and truth [Dan 7:25c; 8:12]. While the small [] one in Dan 7:8 is similar to this high
level of antagonism, he is not as impressively antagonistic as the small [] horn in Dan 8:9,
especially where God and self-deification of a politician are concerned. There are patterns in history:
defamation of God and persecution of His people gather momentum over time. Ultimately, the book of
Daniel will close on an ominous note: the power of the holy people will be completely shattered [Dan
12:7].
Arose between them [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg)], that is, arose between
the ten horns.
Arose [] in the Peal stem is translated by Kohler-Baumgartner in Dan 7:8 as to go up,
come up.141 The Arabic cognate [slq] means to ascend, mount, climb, scale; the neo-Babylonian cognate
[salqu] means to climb up.142 Theodotion translates with , a Greek verb
135 Paul Joon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, translated by T. Muraoka, 2 vols. (Rome:
Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996; reprint), 105 a [hereafter abbreviated J-M].
136 Ibid., 105 d.
137 Bauer-Leander 51 w.
138 Collins, Daniel, 299.
139 On this point, see M. Sb, , in TDOT, vol. XII, 425, 427.
140 Young, 276-79, tabulates a laundry list of differences between the two.
142 Ibid.
31
that implies any upward movement, ascend.143 The net effect is that this sentence is recording what
Daniel saw the small horn doing.
Were rooted up before it [ (Ithpeel, perfect, 3rd, fm, pl)] is a line that
features a verb written in the Ithpeel stem, a stem that is passive.144 Once more, the passive suggests an
agent behind the main action in the verb; the most likely candidate is the small horn, thus arrogating their
power to itself.145
Rooted up [] is an Aramaic root that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 7:8 with to be plucked
out.146 The Hebrew cognate [] clearly denotes a destructive action, tear out by the roots.147
This nuance fits the Dan 7:8 context admirably.
Before it [] may be saying more than meets the eye. That is, Kohler-Baumgartner
offer before in the sense of to make way for him.148 The upshot is that, if one retains the more literal
translation [before it], then the sense is surely in order to make a place for him. If the agent is indeed
the small horn, then this is the kind of leader that is pursuing his own power interests.
And behold [] is another instance of this interjection used to focus attention on a specific trait of this
small horn; a simile follows.
Eyes like human eyes [ ] is a simile: the small horn possessed
eyes somehow like human eyes. There is a comparison being made here that is in some fashion based in
reality. If nothing else, the use of the noun / human suggests that this small horn has visual
capability somehow like that of humans. As Joyce Baldwin notes, the simile suggests that a human ruler is
symbolized by the little horn.149 E.J. Young makes a very interesting point in this regard: the phrase eyes
like human eyes guards against seeing this being as possessing more than human characteristics; in
other words, this is no supernatural being.150 E. Jenni affirms that in Dan 7:8 refers to an organ
of sight.151 Driver claims that the imagery implies the faculty of keen observation and insight, and so
indirectly the possession of intellectual shrewdness.152 Slotki also reads in a figurative sense,
noting that the noun denotes the ability to see, a mark of intelligence and the ability to make plans. 153
A mouth speaking blasphemous words [ ] is likewise an extension of the
human-like quality of this fourth beast/leader.
143 BAGD, 50.

144 Van Pelt, 125; Bauer-Leander 76 r.
145 Baldwin, 140.
146 KB2, 1953; similarly, Holladay, 417.
147 H.-J. Fabry, , in TDOT, vol. XI, 320.
148 KB2, 1967; similarly, Montgomery, 295.
149 Baldwin, 140.
150 Young, 148.
151 E. Jenni, , in TLOT II, 875.
152 Driver, Daniel, 84; similarly, Baldwin, 140.
153 Slotki, 58-59.
32
Blasphemous words [] is a figurative way of translating the adjective, /many, great..

Kohler-Baumgartner offers two options for in Dan 7:8: [1] a mouth speaking
greatness, with a positive meaning or [2] with a negative meaning, insolently, boastfully, bragging,
blasphemously.154 Bauer-Leander opts for the second,155 as does Holladay.156 BDB prefers the first,
great.157 H.-J. Fabry identifies as an idiom in Biblical Aramaic: to speak
insolently, blasphemously.158 The verb used here, /speak, is used later in Dan 7:25, where the
sense is speak blasphemous words against the Most High. One may confidently assume that
blasphemous words against the Most High is the idea in Dan 7:8. Driver identifies
as speaking proud, presumptuous things, especially against God or His people.159 PterContesse and Ellington read / blasphemous more in the sense of pride or arrogance.160
Summary.
The thrust of Dan 7:8 is the introduction of the small horn. Initially, this small horn is introduced by
the writer in language that suggests insignificance, at least initially. The terminology is a stinging
description of this emerging leader, but not deterring, for he would overthrow at least three of those who
stood in his way [Dan 7:8e] and then proceed to defame God [Dan 7:8h].
One of historys most infamous despots, a genocidal maniac who nearly brought Europe to its
knees, began just as inconsequentially. Ian Kershaw asks: how was Adolph Hitler possible? Focusing on
Hitlers insignificance, Kershaw asks: How do we explain how someone with so few intellectual gifts and
social attributes, someone no more than an empty vessel outside his political life, unapproachable and
impenetrable even for those in his close company, incapable it seems of genuine friendship, without the
background that bred high office, without even any experience of government before becoming Reich
Chancellor, could nevertheless have such an immense historical impact, could make the entire world hold
its breath?161 Almost 2000 years after Daniel described his small horn, one of the many instantiations of
it emerges to nearly conquer the known world; beware the outsider, for there are patterns in history!
This small horn may be trifling, but he is not tentative: three from the first horns were rooted up in order
to make a place for him [Dan 7:8d-e]. As we noted above, rooted up means quite literally pulled out
by the roots, and this imagery is thoroughly compatible with the obliteration imagery that dominated Dan
7:7. The small horn does the uprooting, the annihilating, in order to seize power, and, for leaders like
this, life is all about power. Evidently, like our own age, this small horn lived in an era that worshiped
power. One may imagine that the idolatry of power at least has the advantage of offering a very simple,
uncomplicated, philosophy of life: for, there are many who worship might, venerate those who command
might, and are convinced that it is by force that man prevails [emphasis mine].162 As Mr. Boffin said in
Charles Dickens Our Mutual Friend, its scrunch or get scrunched!
154 KB2, 1976.
155 Bauer-Leander 94 d.
156 Holladay, 420.
157 BDB, 1112.
158 H.-J. Fabry, , in TDOT, vol. XIII, 273.
160 Ren Pter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on The Book of Daniel (New York:
The United Bible Societies, 1993), 184.
161 Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris (New York: W.W. Norton, 2000; paperback), xxiv.
162 Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets, vol. 1 (Peabody: Hendrickson Press, 2003; reprint
edition), 159.
33
Furthermore, this small horn may be socially negligible, but that does not prevent him from being
emotionally narcissistic: in order to make a place for him [Dan 7:8e] is the target of a conceited, selfabsorbed, self-important, narcissist. Again, Abraham Heschel is spot-on: inherent in power is the
tendency to breed conceit.163 In order to make a place for him means wrest their power from them and
grab hold of it for myself.
What is more, this small horn bears striking similarities to a human being: eyes like human eyes and
a mouth [Dan 7:8f-h]. This is imagery, figurative language geared to describe, add color and nuance, to
compare this beast/leader as one who is something like a human being; accordingly, this small one
scrutinizes, surveys, watches, scans; and, the imagery probably includes intelligence, all human traits. As
noted above, the imagery makes a comparison to humans, not demons, not supernatural beings, not Satan,
not the Antichrist; these associations are premature and should be left to the New Testament. For now, this
beast/leader is every inch a human ruler.
Finally, this small horn wastes no time attacking the One Being who has the legitimate right to
the preeminence, power, and recognition the small horn usurps: God [Dan 7:8h, 25a]. Devotees of the
idolatry of power must dispose of God by whatever means are to hand; in this case, the deletion seems to be
vocal, propagandistic, demagogic. Ludwig Kohler writes, To God belongs as His part the will, the
decision, the arrangement, the setting of the aim. To others who are not God, there falls the part of
obedience, submission, receiving and carrying out.164 Idolaters of power stand this on its head: to man, the
leader, belongs the will; to man, the commander-in-chief, belongs decisions; to man, the guide, belongs the
arrangements; and to man, the one in charge, belongs the setting of goals and objectives. Whatever
intellectual brainwashing, whatever cultural intimidation, whatever appeals to tolerance or sensitivity to
offense, whatever blather is required to dismiss God from the public square, the small horn will
blasphemously attack the Most High God.
F.Vision report of Endless of Days [Dan 7:9-14]

1.
Vision report of the Throne of Endless of Days [Dan 7:9-10]

(Endless of Days is seated: Dan 7:9a-c)

7:9a
So, I continued looking,

7:9b
until thrones were set up,
7:9c
and Endless of Days was seated;
163 Ibid.
164 Ludwig Kohler, Old Testament Theology, translated by A.S. Todd (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1957), 30.
34
(Endless of Days is described: Dan 7:9d-e)

7:9d
7:9e
His clothing like white snow,

the hair of His head like pure wool,
7:9f
7:9g
His throne aflame with fire,

its wheels a blazing fire.
(Throne is described: Dan 7:9f-g)

(The servants of Endless of Days: Dan 7:10a-e)

7:10a A river of fire,

7:10b flowing and coming forth,
7:10c from His presence,

7:10d thousands upon thousands were serving
Him,

7:10e and a thousand times ten thousand
in His presence were
standing;
(The Endless of Days court is seated: Dan 7:10f-g)

7:10f
the council of judges was seated,

7:10g and books were opened.
The final word in human history is not Realpolitik; not the jousting back and forth of
technologically superior military-political power players or their diplomatic puppets; rather, the ultimate
word in human history is Yahwehs in the form of responsibility to God for stewardship of power,
especially those of all-powerful nation-states. The world-dominating powers that crowd history over the
course of the human story are answerable, to God; this is the thrust of Dan 7:9-14. What is more, and this
is crucial for grasping the timing of Dan 7:9-14, Dan 7:12 will make it clear that this entire episode, Dan
7:9-14, is not the end of human history. For, Dan 7:12 clearly points out that the fourth nation-state is
destroyed [Dan 7:11], while the other three continue, though in reduced form [Dan 7:12]. Consequently,
the judgment throne may be occupied at any time, according to the free preferences of Endless of Days:
either during human history or at its cessation. In the final analysis, Dan 7:9-14 is yet another verification
of the basic theme of the book of Daniel: God is sovereign over the national and international political
power-players in this world, including their judgment either in real time or at the end of time.
Dan 7:9 So, I continued looking, until thrones were set up, and Endless of Days was seated; His clothing
white like snow, the hair of His head like pure wool, His throne aflame with fire, its wheels a
blazing fire.
Endless of Days is seated [Dan 7:9a-c]
Thrones were set up [ (Peil, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl) (noun, sm, pl)] is the first of
several hints [Dan 7:9d-g, 10] that suggests a scene in heaven where the divine judge is about to render
some decisions.
35
Thrones [] is written in the plural, since in Dan 7:10f, a council of judges [plural] will
also be seated. However, from Daniels perspective, there is only one throne that really matters.
Throne [] appears only twice in the Aramaic OT, here and in Dan 5:20, a reference to
Nebuchadnezzars forfeited throne []. The implication here may well be that, when all is said and
done, the only throne [] that is of any consequence is the heavenly .
Throne [] does have a Hebrew cognate [], well represented in the Hebrew Bible.
The Aramaic root [] is used to signal a throne for a king or for a god according to KohlerBaumgartner.165 In the Hebrew Bible, which may be taken as the standard for the throne concept in the
context of this heavenly vision [Dan 7:2], throne as the throne of God is often mentioned.
Throne [] in the Hebrew Bible appears about 137 times; of these, twenty two refer to the throne of
God. These, in turn are divided between reference to the throne of God in heaven, the majority of
references,166 and the throne of God established on earth.167 There are various qualities associated with the
throne of God in heaven: [1] sovereignty: Gods throne is sovereign over human thrones (1 Kings 22:19; 2
Chronicles 18:18; Psalm 47:8; 103:19; Isaiah 66:1); [2] judgment: Gods throne is the place from which He
judges the affairs of mankind with righteousness (Psalm 9:4, 7); [3] scrutiny: Gods throne is the place from
which His eyes search mankind (Psalm 11:4); [4] eternal: Gods throne is an eternal scepter of
righteousness (Psalm 45:6; 93:2; Lamentations 5:19); [5] righteousness: Gods throne is based upon
righteousness and justice (Psalm 89:14; 97:2); [6] exaltation: the throne of God is exalted (Isaiah 6:1;
Ezekiel 10:1).
Of these, sovereignty takes pride of place, since scrutiny, righteousness, and judgment are all subsets of
Yahwehs absolute sovereignty. What is more, Yahwehs sovereignty, along with His scrutiny,
righteousness, and judgment, are the most relevant to the throne motif in Dan 7:9b.
In Dan 7:9b, the throne that is set up is a sovereign throne; that is, this throne reigns over
[Psalm 47:8; 103:19] all of these beasts/regimes, human governance in other words, including the eventual
destruction of the fourth regime [Dan 7:11, 26]. Since the judgment spoken of in Daniel 7 is not the final
judgment, but rather one among what we must assume is a series of similar judgments up to the end of
history, the reader may infer that this kind of response to evil is also a pattern in history. Indeed, the kind of
judgment executed on the fourth beast/regime is a brief glimpse into the final judgment, when God finally
established His kingdom reign over all reality.
What is more, Gods sovereign throne is the place from which Yahweh routinely sets His throne
upon earth [Jeremiah 49:38; Daniel 2:21]; so it is here: One like a Son of Man is given dominion, majesty
and a realm [Dan 7:14, 27] upon earth. The events that make up Dan 7:9-14 are founded upon the
sovereign throne of Endless of Days; everything else is a subcategory.
In Dan 7:9b, the throne that is set up is a scrutinizing throne, that is, this throne is the place
from which God examines, that is searches through and through, humanity [Psalm 11:4]. The fact that
Endless of Days utterly destroys this fourth regime [Dan 7:11] and removes the dominion of the other three
[Dan 7:12b] clearly implies that Endless of Days was intimately aware of their tyrannical and inhumane
governance; none escapes the scrutinizing throne of Yahweh.
In Dan 7:9b, the throne that is set up is a judging throne, that is, this throne is the place from
which God judges righteously [Psalm 9:4]; indeed, the psalmist tells us that Gods throne is founded upon
righteousness and justice , lovingkindness and truth [Psalm 89:14; 97:2]. To be sure, in Dan 7:11-12, 26,
166 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chronicles 18:18; Psalm 9:4, 7; 11:4; 45:6; 47:8; 89:14; 93:2; 97:2; 103:19;
Isaiah 6:1; 66:1; Lamentations 5:19; Ezekiel 1:26; 10:11.
167 Isaiah 16:5; Jeremiah 3:17; 14:21; 49:38; Ezekiel 43:7.
36
judgment of all four regimes by Endless of Days is the order of the day; the reader may reasonably infer
that the standards informing Yahwehs judgment are righteousness, justice, lovingkindness, and truth. The
reader may also assume that these kinds of regimes, regimes that are founded upon unrighteousness,
injustice, malice and hatred, and deception and untruth, will be judged according to divine standards, either
in real time or at the end of time; it is only a matter of when the free and sovereign God decides to call
political power-players to account.
The upshot is this: throne implies first and foremost the absolute, unqualified, unlimited, and
unquestionable sovereignty of Endless of Days in the temporal, historical, governmental affairs of mankind.
In both real time and ultimately, God is the out-and-out sovereign over the national and international
political power-players in this world.
Beyond sovereignty, throne also entails scrutiny; none of these rogue regimes escape the thorough,
systematic, painstaking scrutiny of Yahweh as regards their stewardship of power. The reader may wonder
from time to time just what God is up to, permitting these tyrannies to run rough shod over nations.
However, God, in His unqualified sovereignty is free to choose His time for acknowledging these despots
for what they are; for our part, we are well advised to emulate men like Daniel and remain faithful until
such time as Gods scrutiny bears fruit and calls to account all regimes that so cavalierly repudiate His
dominion.
Furthermore, beyond sovereignty and scrutiny, throne most assuredly occasions judgment
according to the standards these regimes so high-handedly refuse to acknowledge. The Endless of Days
calls to account four dictatorial regimes on the basis of the ancient standards: righteousness, justice,
lovingkindness, and truth. These are Gods standards, not mens, and these are chief among the standards
by which not only individuals but also nations and institutions are judged either in real time or in the
fullness of time.
Finally, throne means Gods sovereignty, includes scrutiny, which leads to judgment, based upon
righteousness. The nation that flouts righteousness, ignores justice, spurns lovingkindness, and scorns truth
has a destiny: called to account before the Endless of Days to pay their dues [Revelation 20:11-12]!
Endless of Days [ ] is a phrase that appears only in Daniel 7 in the Aramaic
OT [Dan 7:9, 13, 23]; indeed, the phrase in Dan 7 is unique to the Old Testament as a whole. Whatever the
phrase means, two things seem beyond dispute: [1] the phrase refers to Yahweh and [2] the phrase is
symbolism.
Endless of Days [ (noun, ms, pl) (adjective, ms, sg, construct)] is a genitive
construction, which seems to signal a characteristic of the noun, days. Bauer-Leander translates
with alt an Tagen (ancient in days).168 The reader will note that Bauer-Leander
do not capitalize; strictly speaking, there is no particular reason to capitalize other than reading
as a reference to God. Otherwise, the genitive construction suggests that the
emphasis in the symbolism falls on the adjective, .
Endless [] in its Aramaic form occurs only in the genitive phrase:
/Ancient of Days. There are two forms of Hebrew adjective: and . The
former term [] has two forms; one may be mean freed from traditions, emancipated, unrestrained,
impudent;169 the other form may be translated time-honored, venerable, splendid [Proverbs 8:18 only].170
Now, the adjective that is written in Hebrew as it is in Aramaic [] may be translated: [1] old,
168 Bauer-Leander 89 a.
169 KB2, 905.
170 Ibid.
37
ancient (of records in 1 Chronicles 4:22);171 then [2] removed, set apart (Isaiah 28:9);172 and [3] sacred,
magnificent (of clothing in Isaiah 23:18).173 H. Schmoldt affirms that the basic meaning of the root
appears to be move forward, advance (in space or time).174
The Proverbs 8:18 passage uses the adjective [] to depict the appeal of wisdom: wealth
and abundance with me (wisdom); enduring () wealth and righteousness. Fox notes that the
usage of the adjective, , in Proverbs 8:18 points to the ability to endure, demonstrated by
somethings antiquity so as to be transposed into the future.175 Waltke also translates with
enduring, noting that the adjective does not convey a sense of already ancient, but conveys more
futurity, thus enduring.176 The upshot is that the usage of the adjective in Proverbs 8:18 points
to that which extends into the future, thus enduring; the usage in Proverbs 8 is less a matter of ancient
or venerable.
The 1 Chronicles 4 passage concerns the records of a genealogy; the writer notes: the records are
ancient []. As written, the passage does seem to emphasize antiquity, thus reliability and
trustworthiness.
The Isaiah 23:18 passage uses to describe clothing as: elegant [] clothing.
The sense here is a variation on Schmoldts note above: displaced from the ordinary, i.e., fine,
abundant.177
The Isaiah 28:9 passage is part of a judgment woe on Samaria, described pejoratively as: those
just taken from [] the breast. The basic meaning of the root is extended to mean those removed
[] from the breast.178
Finally, Schmoldt renders in Dan 7:9 as expressing the eternity of God,179 which
seems to be a variation on the enduring theme basic to the sense of the root []. Slotki notes that
signals an apocalyptic description of the eternal God Who is the first and the last
(Isaiah 44:6).180 So, where does all of this leave us?
Endless [] is symbolism that refers less to one considered especially wise181 and more to one
who is enduring from the past and into the future. As symbolic language for God,
implies perpetuity, permanence, endlessness as opposed to the four short-lived and transitory
171 Ibid., 903.
172 Ibid.
173 Ibid.
174 H. Schmoldt, , in TDOT, vol. XI, 456.
175 Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 277.
176 Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1-15 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004),
404-05.
177 Schmoldt, 457.
178 Ibid.
179 Ibid.
180 Slotki, 58.
181 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 186; Longman, 186.
38
beasts/regimes in Daniel 7; as circumlocution, is a figure of speech for Yahwehs

eternality.182 Thus, the Guide translates Endless of Days, retaining the capitalization in deference to a
designation of God.
Endless of Days is described [Dan 7:9d-e]
His clothing like white snow [ ] is a verbless clause with a definite subject
His clothing and an indefinite simile for the predicate like white snow. Altogether, Dan 7:9d is
anthropomorphism, beginning with the new element in the paragraph so far His clothing and
proceeding to the more emphatic given in the simile like white snow.
Clothing [] is simply a garment according to Kohler-Baumgartner in Dan 7:9d.183
Robert Alden offers garment, clothing, apparel, vestment for the Aramaic noun [].184 E. Jenni
identifies Dan 7:9d as an example of the common anthropomorphic realm and is conditioned by the
content of the image of the comparison or vision.185 This anthropomorphism is intentionally restrained
owing to the theophany [Gods appearance], as when Moses is told in Exodus 33 that he cannot see Gods
face, only His back.186 So it is here, restrained though the imagery may be, the reader may conclude that the
focal point of the anthropomorphism, Gods appearance, is the simile: Like white snow.
Like white snow [ ] is a simile that tells us that Gods appearance [what is called His
clothing] is somehow like white snow. The author intends to draw a comparison between white snow
and Yahwehs appearance; and the point of the comparison is surely affective: the feel or value, the effect
or impression187 of God is somehow like white snow.
White snow [ ] in Aramaic appears only here in the Aramaic OT. The corresponding
collocation, white snow, appears in the Hebrew OT in a different form, using the Hebrew for the
Aramaic . Still, even this Hebrew collocation appears only twice [Psalm 51:7; Isaiah 1:18]; both
use the collocation of snow and white metaphorically of purity after being cleansed of sin. Now, if this
imagery in both the Hebrew texts [Psalm 51:7; Isaiah 1:18] and the Aramaic of Dan 7:9d are symbols of
purity, as many maintain,188 and base this on either Psalm 51 or Isaiah 1, then the reader must be very
careful to clarify that this purity is not the effect of being cleansed of sin!
The hair of His head like pure wool [ ] is another anthropomorphism
utilizing a simile to tell the reader that the hair of His head was somehow like pure wool. When
describing God in terms of the hair of His head, we must remember that, with anthropomorphic language,
vividness of expression is not the same as literality. There are explicit denials that God has a body of flesh
(Isa. 31:3).189 Accordingly, as with the previous anthropomorphism, the author intends to tell us
something about Yahwehs appearance [what is called the hair of His head], namely that, it is somehow
like pure wool. Finally, the phrase, like pure wool, is unique to Dan 7:9 in the Old Testament; nowhere
in the Hebrew Bible is like pure wool used to describe God [or His hair for that matter].
182 See Caird, 138.
183 KB2, 1907; similarly Holladay, 409; BDB, 1098.
184 Robert Alden, , in NIDOTTE [H4252].
186 Caird, 175.
187 Ibid., 147.
188 Driver, 85; Baldwin, 141; Longman, 186 (righteousness); Young, 151; Slotki, 58.
189 Caird, 175.
39
Pure wool [ ] is a phrase that occurs only here in the Aramaic Bible; there is no
corresponding Hebrew phrase in the Hebrew Bible. When used in a simile in the Hebrew Bible, like
wool, appears three times [Psalm 147:16; Isaiah 1:18; 51:8]. Of these, the Isaiah 1 passage is closest to
Dan 7:9d, having already been cited in the previous simile like white snow. What this may tell us is this:
these two similes are parallel; they both signal something about the appearance of God. The question is:
what?
Like white snow and like pure wool are anthropomorphisms that are not intended to provoke a
literal image; the reader should not waste his or her time attempting to visualize either of these similes.
Rather, as Caird points out in such cases, the comparisons in these two similes are intended to evoke
feelings or impressions.190 For anyone who lives where it snows, one knows the impression one gets when
one steps outside in the sun light with snow covering the ground: the impression is dazzling, blazing,
intense, glittering, almost overwhelming; accordingly, there is a sense of mind-boggling magnificence here
in both similes. Such is Daniels impression in his vision when he views Endless of Days [Dan 7:9d-e].
The throne is described [Dan 7:9f-10c]
Fire dominates the description of the throne: [1] the throne itself is aflame with fire [Dan 7:9f]; [2] its
movements [wheels] are likened to a blazing fire [Dan 7:9g]; and [3] a river of fire flows from His
presence [Dan 7:10a-c]. In each case, the same Aramaic noun [] is used for fire. Obviously, we
are once more in the world of non-literal imagery, so what does fire convey figuratively?
To begin with, there are some terminological matters: fire in Dan 7:9-10 is conveyed by the
Aramaic noun, ; later, in Dan 7:11, fire is represented by the Aramaic noun, . Of these two
nouns, the Aramaic does not have a Hebrew cognate; but, the noun used in Dan 7:11, , does
have a cognate, .
Fire [] is used seventeen times in Daniel; fourteen of them are employed in Daniel 3,
depicting the fiery furnace episode [Dan 3:6, 11, 15, 17, 20-27]. We may read these usages in a literal
fashion, describing the three Jews crematorium. The other three uses are in Dan 7:9-10, used figuratively
of Yahweh.
Fire [] is used once in the Aramaic of Daniel in Dan 7:11, where is employed as a
figure of judgment on the fourth beast: given up to a burning fire. In the Hebrew Bible, /fire is
often employed as a figure of Yahwehs judgment [Psalm 11:6; Isaiah 66:15; Jeremiah 17:4; Lamentations
2:4].
Fire [] is also used in the Hebrew Bible as a figure of Yahwehs presence [Exodus 3:2; 13:2122; 14:24; 19:18; 24:17; Leviticus 10:2 (presence and judgment combined); Deuteronomy 1:32-33; 4:1112, 15, 24, 33, 36; 1 Kings 18:24, 33; Nehemiah 9:12, 19; Psalm 18:8, 12; 29:7; Isaiah 4:5; 64:2; 65:15
(presence and judgment combined); Ezekiel 1:4, 13, 27; 8:2; Daniel 10:8 (a heavenly being); Zechariah 2:5;
Malachi 3:22]. The upshot is that fire [] is a means through which God has chosen to make His
presence known. So, where does this leave us vis--vis the fire in Dan 7:9f?
To begin with, the author informs us that the throne itself is aflame with fire []. I
doubt that the reader need make too much of the difference in lexical items, /fire versus
/fire. That being said, the fact that the throne [] itself is aflame with fire demands that
the sense of throne be taken into account. Previously,191 throne [/] was identified as a
symbol of Yahwehs sovereignty, the place from which He scrutinizes all the earth, promotes righteousness
over all the earth, and effects judgment upon the earth. The net effect is this: to the extent that throne is a
190 Ibid., 147.

191 See the notes above on page 36.
40
symbol of Gods sovereignty, the more transcendent nuance of fire as a symbol of Yahwehs presence fits
nicely with the throne imagery. So, where does this leave us?
Fire [] in Dan 7:9f is a symbol of Gods presence in the vision; in other words, fire is a way the
author has of alerting the reader to the fact that everything that is going on in the vision is transpiring in
the transcendental world,192 that realm above and beyond human history where Yahweh is present [fire]
to exercise His sovereignty [throne] over human history. Furthermore, the reader will appreciate that
Yahwehs presence [fire] portends His active intervention, exercising sovereignty [throne] in human
affairs, in one way or another, including judgment [Dan 7:11g]; Gods presence is not static; rather
Yahwehs presence, worked out via the symbolism of fire, goes hand in-hand with His active
involvement in history, fleshed out via the symbolism of throne.
Its wheels a blazing fire [ ] is more imagery, imagery that suggests
mobility. The sentence is a verbless clause.
Wheel [] is used only here in the Aramaic portion of Daniel. There are no particular
surprises regarding the sense of the noun: Kohler-Baumgartner translates with wheel.193 The
Hebrew cognate to the Aramaic noun is also written ; it is used of Yahwehs throne in Ezekiel
10:1-2, where a throne [] is introduced in Ezekiel 10:1 and is subsequently described as having
wheels []. Then, a man clothed in lined is instructed to take coals of fire [] from the
wheels [] and disperse them over the city [Ezekiel 10:2]. It is obvious that the wheeled
vehicle transporting the throne of God has become the bearer of judgment.194 At the very least, when the
author of Dan 7:9f describes Endless of Days throne [] as having wheels [], the Ezekiel
passage offers commentary on the wheeled throne image: it is an image of judgment. But, this wheeled
throne imagery in Ezekiel has more commentary for us.
Wheel [] has a Hebrew counterpart [], which appears 35 times in the Hebrew Bible,
with 25 of these coming in Ezekiel. Ezekiel 1 has some rich and penetrating uses of /wheels.
The general flow of Ezekiel 1 is as follows:195
Introduction Ezekiel 1:1-4
The living creatures Ezekiel 1:5-14
The wheels [] Ezekiel 1:15-21
The platform and the throne [] Ezekiel 1:22-27
Conclusion Ezekiel 1:28
The living creatures [Ezekiel 1:5-14] are, we may assume, servants of Yahweh. The significant
fact about the wheels in Ezekiel 1:15-21 is that they can move in any direction [Ezekiel 1:17]. This
suggests omnipresence; these wheels can go anywhere at any time! Finally, the throne [] serves
to bring judgment [fire (); Ezekiel 1:27]. Ezekiel chapter 1 is sufficiently close in theme to Daniel
7:9 to allow us to draw upon Ezekiel 1 as commentary.
Its wheels [] is a symbol of mobility; to the extent that Dan 7:9 envisions
judgment, the mobility of the judgment throne means that judgment seeks out those for whom judgment is
worthy; there is no escaping judgment, whether in this life or the next; judgment comes to us. Furthermore,
the imagery of wheels symbolizes Yahwehs omnipresence; Yahweh can move in any direction He
chooses to bring judgment wherever He deems it compulsory [Ezekiel 1:17].
192 V. Hamp, , in TDOT, vol. I, 428.
194 Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 321.
195 Ibid., 91.
41
A blazing fire [ ] is a phrase that strikes the reader as unnecessary; what else would
fire as a symbol of judgment be? This tells us that blazing is a significant modifier.
Blazing [ (Peal, participle, ms, sg)] is used only in Dan 7:9 in the Aramaic OT. The use of
the participle is attributive, defining fire a bit more exactly.196 This Aramaic verb has a Hebrew cognate
[] that is used in Obadiah 18 of a blaze [] that is so intense that it consumes without
leaving survivors. Perhaps, the author is modifying fire with a term that may indicate complete
obliteration. If so, then a blazing fire is symbolism that evokes feelings and impressions of horror,
apprehension, anxiety and dread; like a wild fire, there is no evading such a raging blaze!
A river of fire, gushing and coming forth, from His presence in Dan 7:10a-c is the most syntactically
complex of the descriptions of the throne of Endless of Days so far; this complexity may alert us to the
seminal import of this description. We may set out the arrangement of the description thus:
A river of fire [ (noun, ms, sg)]
gushing and coming forth [ (simple waw, Peal, ptc, ms, sg) (Peal, ptc,
ms, sg)]
from His presence []
The river of fire is more closely described by two participles [gushing and coming forth]. If
nothing else, the syntax of these participles suggests that gushing and coming forth are habitual and
ongoing traits of this river of fire.197 We have noted previously that there are two ways of understanding
judgment in Daniel 7: first, judgment occurs in history and second, judgment occurs at the end of history.
As Dan 7:12 makes abundantly clear, the judgment occurring vis--vis these beasts/regimes is occurring in
history in real time.
The syntactical complexity of this final line in the description of the throne of Endless of Days
alerts the reader to this truth: Yahwehs sovereign majesty [throne] in passing judgment [river of fire]
strikes in real time and is ongoing [gushing and coming forth] throughout human history.
River of fire [ ] is a phrase that appears only here in the Aramaic OT; neither
does a comparable construction [ (river in the construct form followed by any noun for fire]
occur in the Hebrew Bible; whatever this imagery is, it is unique to Dan 7:10a in the Biblical text.
However, as the outline above indicates, the river gushes and comes forth. Since both of these
participles are terms that depict motion, it is reasonable to read a river of fire, gushing and coming forth
from His presence as disambiguating it wheels, also a motion term. The net effect is that river of fire
is a symbol of Yahwehs judgment. Keil writes, The fire which undergirds with flame the throne of God
pours itself forth as a stream from God into the world, consuming all that is sinful and hostile to God
[emphasis mine] in the world, and rendering the people and kingdom of God glorious.198
River [] is a symbol that draws upon a river as a perpetual flow of water.199 The
perpetuity symbolism fits well with the two participles, gushing and coming forth. L.A. Snijders
affirms that /river is a perennial river.200 What is more, to add to the perpetuity symbolism of
196 Van Pelt, 115.

197 Rosenthal, 177.
199 Allen Ross, , in NIDOTTE [H5643].
200 L.A. Snijders, , in TDOT, vol. IX, 264.
42
the river, the /river can also be a symbol of destruction, as when the wicked are washed away by a
river [Job 22:16].201 So, what does this tell us about the imagery of a river of fire?
River of fire [ ] is an image of motion and dynamism, of perennial,
destructive judgment from the throne of Yahweh. In the context of Daniel 7, this recurrent judgment occurs
during history at moments deemed obligatory by Yahweh. What is more, these periodic judgments are
themselves forward-pointing predictions of the thorough destruction of the wicked in the final judgment as
portrayed in Daniel 12:1-3. The principle is this: The kingdom of evil is being destroyed in every divine
judgment [emphasis mine] and will come to a climactic end [emphasis mine] with the establishment of the
sovereign and righteous kingdom of Yahweh.202 The sporadic destruction of beasts/regimes during the
course of history [one is reminded of the total devastation of the Third Reich at the end of World War II] is
but a distinct specimen of the manner of total destruction of all evil kingdoms at the end of human history
[Dan 12:1-3].
Gushing [ (Peal, participle, ms, sg)] is written as a participle, which may be read as
communicating ongoing activity;203 the durative aspect of the participle supports the imagery of a
perennial movement associated with the figure of judgment and destruction of evil.
Gushing [] suggests energy and vigor; Kohler-Baumgartner translates in Dan
7:10b with flow, gush.204 There are ancient Near Eastern cognates that offer a slightly different reading.
That is, in Jewish Aramaic, can have the sense of to pull, break out, spread; and in Syriac, the
cognate is translated to pull.205 The Septuagint translator, Theodotion, picks up on the pull nuance and
translates both /flowing and /coming forth with one verb, , a Greek verb that
may be translated to draw or derive from a source.206 Montgomery seems to prefer this nuance.207
Goldingay translates the two participles separately, rendering with surging forth.208 The
reader/expositor is left to make up their own mind; it may be better to translate the two participles
separately in order to preserve a more complete representation of the imagery. That is, the river of fire is
not only an image of a torrent, but also this torrent comes forth from Yahwehs presence.
Coming forth from His presence [ (Peal, participle, ms, sg)] is
written with a participle, once more indicating an ongoing event from the presence of Yahweh.209 The
entire phrase signals origin. The torrents of judgment, when they come, are not misfortunes of history;
they come from the throne room of Yahweh.
The servants of Endless of Days [Dan 7:10d-e].
Thousands upon thousands [ ] is a superlative figure of speech; Bauer-Leander
translates viele Tausende [many thousands].210 As imagery, the figure of speech is hyperbole, used to
201 Ibid., 269-70.
202 Willem VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 165.
203 Rosenthal 177.
204 KB2, 1926.
205 Ibid.
206 LSJ, 535.
208 Goldingay, 142.
209 See Rosenthal 177.
210 Bauer-Leander 89 i.
43
communicate the impressiveness, the awe-inspiring magnitude, the immensity of Yahwehs entourage. By
implication, Yahwehs limitless range of activities on earth and in heaven surely requires such an
incalculable staff of servants. In any event, the author intends that the reader be wholly stunned by the
sheer number of those serving Yahweh.
Serving Him [ (Pael, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl, 3rd, ms, suffix)] appears only here in the
Aramaic OT. The verb, , is probably an Egyptian loan word, meaning to follow, serve.211 There is
no Hebrew cognate and Dan 7:10 is the sole appearance in Biblical Aramaic. However, is used in
the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 4Q530, in language highly reminiscent of Dan 7:10, is used in the sense
of to minister, attend. The Septuagint tradition is divided; the Old Greek Version uses
, and Theodotion uses . The former verb, ,
is used in the sense of serving a divinity;212 or to be an attendant, to do service, or to do service to the
gods.213 The latter verb, , is used in the sense of to serve in a general sense;214
or to serve a master, to perform religious service.215 The Greek tradition implies that serving is
performing required but unnamed religious duties; thus serving in Dan 7:10d is simply serving the
master in whatever capacity He requires.
Standing [ (Peal, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is an Aramaic verb that has these ranges of meaning
in the Peal stem: [1] to rise, [2] to arise, [3] to stand, and [4] to endure.216 In Daniels vision, these
innumerable servants [the text nowhere identifies these servants as angels] are pictured simply as
standing.217 However, since /standing is used in tandem with /serving, it seems
reasonable to propose that these who are standing are fully prepared to whatever Endless of Days
requires of them.218
The imagery in Dan 7:10d-e is of an infinite heaven crowded with countless servants, eagerly
awaiting the opportunity to do the bidding of Yahweh.
Endless of Days begins the court session [Dan 7:10f-g]
The scene is deliberate: first, the court session begins with the seating of the Judge and then the books
were opened. As we have noted above, this is not a scene of the final judgment; rather, this is Yahweh in
charge of human political history on a day-by-day basis. Note especially the immediate context: in Dan
7:10f-g, the court is seated; in Dan 7:11-12, an insolent horn, speaking blasphemous words, is destroyed;
then in Dan 7:13-14, we return to the court room and one like a son of man appears before Endless of Days.
The arrangement of these contexts [court-insolent horn-court] is suggestive: on either side, hemmed in as it
were, of this blasphemous regime is the court that will annihilate him. None of these rogue regimes that
pop-up throughout the course of history are autonomous; they are all dependent and accountable!
Realpolitik only imagines itself the last word in all human events; the reality is quite different.
211 KB2, 1998.

212 BAGD, 359.
213 LSJ, 793.
214 BAGD, 470.
215 LSJ, 1036.
216 KB2, 1968.
217 Holladay, 418.
218 See Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 188 on this point.
44
The judgment [] represents, probably somewhat figuratively, a judicial assembly

according to Kohler-Baumgartner.219 Holladay opts for a council of judges220 in Dan 7:10f. However,
outside of Dan 7:10f, 26a, is not used of a judicial assembly in either the Aramaic or the Hebrew
Old Testament. To be sure, is used of Yahweh judging the world [1 Samuel 2:10; Psalm 7:8; 9:8;
72:2; 96:10], but these texts represent Yahweh alone judging the world. Accordingly, it might be best to
read /judgment as an example of an abstract concept [/judgment] to be read in the sense
of a concrete exemplar [/Judge], Yahweh. At the same time, when we take into account another
judgment verb from the same semantic field, , we do encounter a divine council setting for
divine judgment [Psalm 82:1; see also 1 Kings 22:19]. However, these examples are rare, so we may read
in Dan 7:10f in the sense of the court sat in judgment221 in the Person of Yahweh, the Judge. The
same sense of applies in Dan 7:26a.
And books were opened [ (Peil, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl) (noun, ms, pl)] does not have a
definite article on the subject of the sentence; strictly speaking the books is not quite correct. The main
verb /were opened is written in the Peil stem, which is passive;222 the implied agent who does the
opening is /Yahweh in Dan 7:10f.
Books [] carries forward the imagery of an official court setting.223 The Aramaic noun translated
book [] has fairly benign ancient Near Eastern cognates. For example, the Arabic cognate [sifr] is
simply a book; the Akkadian cognate [ipru] signals a message.224 Indeed, Kohler-Baumgartner
translate in Dan 7:10g as book.225 BDB offers book (of records), which would nicely fit the
context.226 This is the only use of the Aramaic noun, , in the book of Daniel. However, the Hebrew
cognate, , is used in a similar sense in Dan 12:1: all who are found written in the book. Moreover,
there are other passages in the Hebrew Bible that reference a similar concept [Exodus 32:32-33; Psalm
40:7; 69:28; 139:16; Malachi 3:16] utilizing the noun .
There appears to be three senses of these /book references: [1] Yahwehs book of life (Exodus
32:32-33; Psalm 69:29), [2] Yahwehs book of remembrance (Malachi 3:16), and [3] Yahwehs book of
destiny (Psalm 40:7-8; 139:16). 227 Of these, the Malachi 3:16 passage mirrors the idea in Dan 7:10g.228
The Malachi 3 passage is a record of how these people practically respond to Yahweh: by fearing Him
and placing a high value on His name. Similarly, the Dan 7:10g passage is also a record of the misdeeds
of these four beasts/regimes [Dan 7:11-12].
219 KB2, 1852.
220 Holladay, 402.
221 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 188.
222 Van Pelt, 124.
223 See Montgomery, 299.
224 KB2, 1939.
225 Ibid.
226 BDB, 1104.
227 On these concepts, see F.L. Hossfeld and E. Reuter, , in TDOT, vol. X, 339.
228 Malachi 3:16 is a kind of self-reflection among those, unlike many around them, who fear
Yahweh [ ]. Yahweh, hears and then a book of remembrance [an official record
or heavenly book, Holladay, 89] is recorded [ ( in Niphal stem means recorded,
registered, be noted down in writing, Holladay, 166) ] concerning [1] those who fear Yahweh and [2]
those who value/hold in high regard (Holladay, 119) His name.
45
It is to be doubted that Yahweh literally has books which He consults on such occasions. The reader must
not forget that Daniel 7 is saturated with non-literal images; and books is one of them. The thrust of the
imagery is that ones deeds in this life are divinely documented, divinely confirmed, and divinely certified.
Heaven itemizes human thoughts, logs human deeds, and chronicles human misdeeds; thus, the imagery
reveals the truth that solid documentation [/book] is produced by the Judge, evidence that
chronicles every second, every phase, every component of life, for God has His books.229
Summary.
In Dan 7:9b, the visionary witnesses and describes thrones being set up, thrones that will eventually
accommodate Endless of Days. This imagery describes the sovereign rule of the One who occupies the
throne, Endless of Days or Yahweh. Dan 7:9b opens the description of Endless of Days by affirming in
no uncertain language His sovereign rule.
Throne as an image of sovereign rule has three entailments: scrutiny of events on earth,
including rigorous inspection of human governance; righteous standards unswervingly applied to human
history, correlating righteousness, justice, lovingkindness, and truth with human governance; and finally
judgment of the stewardship of power by those who are granted authority, especially the dominion
exercised by those in positions of political-military power.
In Dan 7:9b, the throne that is set up is a sovereign throne; that is, this throne reigns over
[Psalm 47:8; 103:19] all of these beasts/regimes, human governance in other words, up to and including the
eventual destruction of the fourth regime [Dan 7:11, 26]. Realpolitik is thoroughly and unavoidably
subordinated to the throne of Endless of Days. Rabbi Heschel neatly summarizes the relevance of Dan
7:9b for us: It is generally assumed that politics, warfare, and economic activities are the substance and the
subject matter of history. To the prophets, Gods judgment of mans conduct [emphasis mine] is the main
issue; all else is marginal.230 Finally, we would remind the reader that the judgment spoken of in Daniel 7
is not the final judgment, but rather one among what we must assume is a series of similar judgments up to
the end of history, the reader may infer that this kind of response to evil is also a pattern in history.
In Dan 7:9c, the regal occupant of the sovereign throne, wherein is all dominion, is called
Endless of Days. For reasons cited in the exposition, Endless of Days describes the enduring
eternality of God. From the instant of creation to the moment human history ends, neither individuals nor
nations evade Endless of Days; He is the given, the absolute, the certain. Furthermore, Dan 7:9c
introduces the reader to the ultimate polarity: on one hand, Endless of Days, the perpetual, permanent,
and endless God; on the other hand, human regimes, human governance that emerges and disappears in
short-lived and transitory bursts. Only Endless of Days is fixed.
In Dan 7:9d-e, the description of Endless of Days is rounded out: His clothing white like
snow; the hair of His head like pure wool. This imagery envisions Yahwehs dazzling glory. Like
white snow and like pure wool are anthropomorphisms that are not intended to provoke a literal image;
rather the comparisons in these two similes are intended to evoke feelings or impressions. For anyone who
lives where it snows, one knows the impression one gets when one steps outside in the sun light with snow
covering the ground: the impression is dazzling, blazing, intense, glittering, almost overwhelming;
accordingly, there is a sense of mind-boggling magnificence here in both similes. Such is Daniels
impression in his vision when he views Endless of Days [Dan 7:9d-e]. This Danielic imagery is picked up
by John in Revelation 1:14, concerning which Caird writes, The humbling sense of the sublime and the
majestic which men experience at the sight of a roaring cataract or the noonday sun is the nearest
equivalent to the awe evoked by a vision of the divine.231
229 Baldwin, 141.
230 Heschel, 171.
231 Henry Chadwick, ed, Blacks New Testament Commentaries, The Revelation of St John by
C.B. Caird (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999; reprint), 25-26.
46
In Dan 7:9f-10c, the author returns to describe the throne of Endless of Days; the throne, and what
it stands for, is the centerpiece of Daniel 7:9-10. The reader will note that fire imagery dominates the
description of the throne [Dan 7:9f, g, 10a]. This repetition is intentional, focusing the readers attention on
three elements of the fire image: [1] Yahwehs presence in intervention (Dan 7:9f), [2] Yahwehs
omnipresence (Dan 7:9g) and [3] Yahwehs judgment (Dan 7:10a).
Drawing upon the imagery of fire elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible,232 fire in Dan 7:9f is a
symbol of Gods presence in the vision; in other words, fire is a way the author has of alerting the reader
to the fact that everything that is going on in the vision is transpiring in a transcendent world, that very
factual realm above and beyond human history where Yahweh is present [fire] to exercise His
sovereignty [throne] over human history. Furthermore, the reader will appreciate that Yahwehs presence
[fire] portends His active intervention, exercising sovereignty [throne] in human affairs, in one way or
another, including judgment [Dan 7:11g]; Gods presence is neither remote nor stagnant; rather Yahwehs
presence, worked out via the symbolism of fire, goes hand in-hand with His active involvement in
history, fleshed out via the symbolism of throne.
Divine omnipresence is also typified by the fire imagery; that is, Yahwehs throne is outfitted
with wheels, an image of omnipresence drawn from Ezekiel 1:17. Wheels are a symbol of mobility; to
the extent that Dan 7:9g envisions judgment, the mobility of the judgment throne means that judgment
seeks out those for whom judgment is worthy; there is no fleeing judgment for the stewards of human
governance, whether in this life or the next; judgment comes to them. Furthermore, the imagery of
wheels symbolizes Yahwehs omnipresence; Yahweh can move in any direction He chooses to bring
judgment wherever He deems it compulsory. Regardless of how imposing, how powerful, how influential,
how intimidating, how rapacious, how cunning, how ruthless, how arrogant beasts/regimes may become,
none of them will ever veil themselves from the divine omnipresence; judgment awaits them all!
Judgment is obviously part and parcel of the imagery of fire; indeed, a river of fire gushes
from His presence [Dan 7:10a-b]. River of fire is a consumption metaphor, picturing the judgment of
God gushing forth at flood stage consuming all that is sinful and hostile to God, embodied in human
governance. As a symbol of destruction, the river of fire, gushing epitomizes washing away everything
in its path, including the wicked as by a flooding river [Job 22:16]. River of fire is an image of motion
and dynamism, of perennial, destructive judgment from the throne of Yahweh. In the context of Daniel 7,
this recurrent judgment occurs during history at moments deemed obligatory by Yahweh. What is more,
these periodic judgments are themselves forward-pointing predictions of the thorough destruction of the
wicked, including despotic idolaters of political power, in the final judgment as portrayed in Daniel 12:1-3.
In Dan 7:10g, the visionary observes that books were opened by a council of judges [Dan
7:10f]. These books are also an image, an image of remembrance. As we noted above, there are
basically three senses of book as an image: [1] the book of life, [2] the book of remembrance, and [3]
the book of human destiny. In this context, remembrance in the specific sense of a record of deeds is
the best fit [see Malachi 3:16 for a parallel]. One may doubt that Yahweh literally has books which He
consults on such occasions. The reader must not forget that Daniel 7 is saturated with non-literal images;
and books is one of them. The thrust of the imagery is that the policies, the administration of those
policies, even the goals and objectives of human governments in this life are divinely documented, divinely
confirmed, and divinely certified. Heaven itemizes every governmental agenda, logs every governmental
law, and chronicles every governmental action among its citizenry, every injustice, every squalid deal,
every unwarranted death, every intimidation, every lie; thus, the imagery reveals the truth that solid
documentation, the book, is produced by the Judge, evidence that chronicles every second, every phase,
every component of each and every instantiation of human governance.
2.Vision report of judgment [Dan 7:11-12]
232 See the notes above on pages 40-41.

47

7:11d

7:11f

7:12a

given to them,

7:12d
7:11a Thereupon, I kept on watching,

7:11b because of the sound of the insolent words,
7:11c that the horn was speaking;
I kept on watching,
7:11e until the beast was slain,
that is, its body was destroyed,
7:11g namely, given up to a burning fire.
However, the rest of the beasts,
7:12b their dominion was taken away;
7:12c however, a lengthening in life was
for a time and a season.
Focus now shifts in Daniels vision from the throne room of judgment to the beneficiary of
Yahwehs real time judgment. All four of the beasts/regimes are recipients of Yahwehs divine judgment in
two very different ways: [1] the fourth beast/regime comes to an end, its reign of terror and blasphemy is
terminated by Endless of Days (Dan 7:11); [2] the other three continue, but in some diminished capacity
(Dan 7:12).
Dan 7:11 Thereupon, I kept on watching, because of the sound of the insolent words, that the horn was
speaking; I kept on watching, until the beast was slain, that is, its body was destroyed, namely given up to a
burning fire.
Dan 7:11 is sufficiently complex to merit a syntactical outline:
(1) Thereupon, I kept on watching
(reason) because of the sound of the insolent words,
(specification) that the horn was speaking;
(2) I kept on watching,
(temporal) until the beast was slain,
(specification) that is, its body was destroyed
(explication) namely,
given up to a burning
fire.
The reader will notice that Dan 7:11 focuses on the horn/regime from two perspectives: [1] its
most notable quality (because of the insolent words) and [2] its total annihilation (slain destroyed
given up to burning fire).
Dan 7:11b tells the reader what it was about this small horn, which emerged from the fourth beast
[Dan 7:8], that was so outstanding: the insolent words [ ]. The reader will note
that it is not this horns military/political overthrow of three other horns/regimes [Dan 7:8d-e] that attracts
the attention of Daniel; rather, it is the insolent words that this regimes propaganda spits out , including
the mind-boggling variety of cultural outlets in support of this propaganda.
Insolent words [ ] has already been discussed in connection with Dan 7:8.
To recap, /insolent words was read with a negative meaning, insolently,
48
boastfully, bragging, blasphemously.233 We noted that H.-J. Fabry identifies [Dan

7:25] as an idiom in Biblical Aramaic: to speak insolently, blasphemously.234 Indeed, we connected the
verbal form of the noun, /words, with its use in Dan 7:25 [/speak]; Dan 7:25 refers to
speaking [] blasphemous words against the Most High. Finally, as noted, Driver identifies
as speaking proud, presumptuous things, especially against God or His people.235
The upshot is this: the mighty tyrant who mocks and blasphemes Almighty God and who crushes and kills
Gods people will himself be consumed.236
In Dan 7:11e, the piper is paid: the beast was slain. The main verb [] is written in the Peil stem, a
stem that signals passivity;237 the beast is acted upon by some unidentified agent, probably Yahweh or
one of His innumerable cohorts [Dan 7:10d-e]. Note: this is the beast, not the horn.
Slain [] is an Aramaic verb that is well attested in the ancient Near East in the sense of to kill
something.238 W.R. Domeris notes that there is no figurative usage of /slain; it refers literally to
the taking of life.239 In fact, comes from a semantic field of terms for kill, murder, and massacre. 240
Accordingly, in a chapter dominated by figurative language, the author uses a term for death, the death of
this pretentious and violent regime that is utterly unambiguous; the fact is clear-cut: defy and mock and
scorn Yahweh and pay the price!
In Dan 7:11f, the author clarifies, as if clarification were needed, slain: its body was destroyed. Indeed,
as noted in the outline above, slain is disambiguated twice [Dan 7:11f-g]. This movement [slain
destroyed given up to a burning fire] conveys intensification, climaxing in the finale: given up to a
burning fire. Alter writes, Poetic form acts in these cases as a kind of magnifying glass, concentrating the
rays of meaning to a white-hot point.241 The comprehensive and out-and-out removal of this regime is
surely magnified in this intensification structure [Dan 7:11f-g].
Destroyed [ (Hophal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is written in the Hophal stem, a stem that once more
communicates passivity;242 once again, this horn/regime is being acted upon by forces outside of it and
quite obviously superior to it. Surely, Yahweh is the power behind this beastly throne. Moreover, the main
verb is written in the perfect aspect of the verb, which probably has a resultative nuance to it.243 In Biblical
Hebrew, and one may assume in Aramaic as well, the inherent meaning of a verb, destroy [] in this
case, has a more or less built in terminal point.244 Furthermore, as Comrie points out, the inherent
233 KB2, 1976.

236 D.S. Russell, Daniel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1981), 121.
237 Van Pelt, 124.
239 W.R. Domeris, , in NIDOTTE [H7779].
240 See Kill, murder, massacre in NIDOTTE.
241 Alter, 63.
242 Van Pelt, 152.
243 See Bauer-Leander 79 c.
244 IBHS 30.2.1d.
49
meaning of a verb may signal a well-defined terminal point, beyond which the process cannot
continue.245 Perhaps the reader can appreciate the intensification [noted above] implicit here: there is
nothing more to be done with this regime, and, for the regime itself, there is no turning back; its over [Dan
7:26]!
Destroy [] is used twice in Daniel 7, here and in Dan 7:26. This latter passage is even more clearcut vis--vis the sense of /destroy: exterminated and destroyed [] forever; no turning
back here either. Destroy [] is also from the semantic field noted above vis--vis /slain:
killing, murder, massacre. The repetition of a term from the same semantic field attests to the
intensification implicit here, magnification of the utter destruction motif. It is as if the visionary wants the
reader to understand in no uncertain terms: the tyrannical, despotic, oppressive, cruel and harsh
governments of this world will meet their final end [slain destroyed given up to a burning fire].
Destroy [] is used in Daniel in contexts that depict judgment [Dan 7:11, 26]. Similarly, the
use of /destroy, perish in the Hebrew Bible may refer to a wide variety of things, usually in a
context of judgment.246 Otzen observes in Biblical Hebrew what is patently obvious in the two uses of
in Daniel 7: Yahweh is the subject and the passages deal with military or political situations. 247
This means that the destruction [] is divinely willed, regardless of how it comes about.
Given up to a burning fire [ (Peil, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] is written in
another passive stem, the Peil.248 Once more, an unidentified agent of the giving up may be presumed,
surely Yahweh.
A burning fire [ (noun, fm, sg, construct)] is probably an epexegetical genitive: the fire is
characterized as burning.249
A burning fire [ ] is occasionally read in the sense of the burning fires of Hell.250 In the
Hebrew Bible, there are three primary terms for the underworld: /realm of the dead, /pit,
and /Sheol. In each and every case, none of these nouns is ever described as a place where
residents experience fire.251 While Dan 7:10 may be similar to Revelation 19:20, it is not at all clear that
the two are parallel. What is more, from Daniels perspective, the Revelation passage is non-existent;
furthermore, Daniel would have processed this terminology given up to a burning fire out of his own
Scriptural reading, which knows nothing of fires burning in Hell.
245 Bernard Comrie, Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 45.
246 Cornelis Van Dam, , in NIDOTTE [H6].
247 B. Otzen, , in TDOT, vol. I, 21.
248 Van Pelt, 124.
249 Bauer-Leander 89 a; IBHS 9.5.3 c.
250 Keil, Daniel, 232; John Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press,
1971), 165.
251 /realm of the dead [Isaiah 38:11]; /pit [Job 9:31; 17:14; 33:18, 22, 24, 28,
30; Psalm 7:15; 9:15; 16:10; 30:9; 35:7; 49:9; 55:23; 94:13; 103:4; Proverbs 26:27; Isaiah 33:17; 51:14;
Ezekiel 19:4, 8; 28:8; Jonah 2:6; and /Sheol [Genesis 37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31; Numbers 16:30,
33; Deuteronomy 32:22; 1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:6; 1 Kings 2:6, 9; Job 7:9; 11:8; 14:3; 17:13, 16;
21:13; 24:19; 26:6; Psalms 6:5; 9:17; 16:10; 18:5; 30:3; 31:17; 49:14-15; 55:15; 86:13; 88:3; 89:48; 116:3;
139:8; 141:7; Proverbs 1:12; 5:5; 7:27; 9:18; 15:11, 24; 23:14; 27:20; 30:16; Ecclesiastes 9:10; Song of
Songs 8:6; Isaiah 5:14; 7:11; 14:9, 11, 15; 28:15, 18; 38:10, 18; 57:9; Ezekiel 31:15-17; 32:21, 27; Hosea
13:14; Amos 9:2; Jonah 2:2; Habakkuk 2:5.
50
Burning fire [ ] is a genitive construction, probably an epexegetical genitive: the fire is

characterized as burning/blazing.252 The verbal form of this root [] is used eight times in Daniel 3
in reference to the blazing furnace into which the three young Jews were cast. Dan 7:11g is the only
occurrence of the noun, in Daniel.
Burning fire in the Hebrew Bible uses the same two roots, /fire and /burning/blazing, that
signal a divine judgment motif [Deuteronomy 32:22; Isaiah 10:16; 65:5; Jeremiah 15:14; 17:4]; so it is
here: burning/blazing fire is figurative language for Yahwehs wrath and judgment. Incidentally, this
reading may account for the authors shift in terminology from for fire [Dan 7:9f-10a] to
/fire in Dan 7:11g, that is, to draw upon a familiar way of depicting to Yahwehs judgment. The
point of the imagery is that Yahwehs judgment will totally consume the defiant horn/regime.
Dan 7:12 However, the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away; while a lengthening in life was
given to them, for a time and a season.
Dan 7:12 is an antithetical sentence [However] to Dan 7:11; this antithesis emerges on the basis
of the antithetical content of each verse.253 The import of this is to alert the reader that Dan 7:11-12 is a
vision of judgment on the idolatry of Realpolitik in real time. The final judgment is not specifically in view
here.
The rest of the beasts [ ] is front-loaded in the sentence, punctuated with a zaqeph
qaton indicating a slight pause in the reading of the line. The semantic-pragmatic function of this frontloading is to provide the reader with the focus of the utterance.254 The reader may infer that, owing to
Yahwehs sovereignty over the national and international affairs of mankind, these kinds of worlddominating regimes will continue to harass humanity; lion-like [Dan 7:4], bear-like [Dan 7:5], and leopardlike political power-players [Dan 7:6] and the regimes they lead are destined to survive. At the same time,
the reader ought not to over-interpret the demise of this insolent horn in Dan 7:11. For, another regime,
quite similar to the insolent horn will emerge in Dan 8:23. However, the regime in Dan 8:23 arises out of
four horns [Dan 8:22], while the insolent horn in Dan 7:11 arose out of ten horns [Dan 7:7].255 Thus, the
front-loading of the rest of the beasts suggests that the author of Daniel 7-8 is tipping off the reader to a
pattern in history: the surfacing of violent and ruthless, aggressive and cold-blooded forms of human
governance over the course of human history right up to the end.
Their dominion was taken away [ (Haphel, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is a puzzling
sentence. The question is: in what sense was their dominion taken away?
Dominion [] appears seven times in Daniel 7 [Dan 7:6, 12, 143, 26-27]. The root
[] is found among a semantic field of terms for rule, dominion.256
In Aramaic, the verbal form of the root, /to rule, means to rule over, have power over;
the Egyptian Aramaic cognate may be used in the sense of to make oneself master. 257 The verbal form of
252 Bauer-Leander 89 a; IBHS 9.5.3c.
253 J.C.L. Gibson, Davidsons Introductory Hebrew Grammar~Syntax (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1994), 142.
254 Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naud, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 47.2(i) [hereafter abbreviated van der
Merwe].
255 For a laundry list of differences between these two, see Young, 276.
256 See Rule, dominion in NIDOTTE.
257 KB2, 1995.
51
the root does not appear in Daniel 7. The verb [/to rule] is used in Daniel typically in the sense of
the exercise of political/governmental power [Dan 2:38 (granted by Yahweh), 39, 48; 5:7, 16]. Daniel also
has a nominal form [/ruler] that identifies persons in a position of power in a
political/governmental setting [Dan 3:2-3]. Finally, the noun we have in Dan 7:12 [] represents a
more abstract designation of the possession and especially the exercise of power.258
The usage of the noun [] in Daniel 7 deserves [Dan 7:6, 12, 143, 26, 27] a closer look. In
Dan 7:6, /dominion is used to depict territorial/political power that is both possessed and
exercised.259 What is more, in this verse the /dominion is neither seized nor appropriated;
rather this is granted, presumably by Yahweh. This usage illustrates the fact that human
governance is divinely appointed [Dan 2:21].
In Dan 7:26, /dominion once more has the sense of territorial/political power as
possessed and exercised, except that in this passage the /dominion is removed once and for all.
The same sense of /dominion also applies to Dan 7:12. This usage underscores the fact that
human governance is also divinely dismissed [Dan 2:21]. But, loss of territorial power is not all that is
going on in Dan 7:12, 14 and 26, 27; rather, there is transference of dominion in view.
Transference of dominion [] is the pattern in Daniel 7:12-14. That is, in Dan 7:12, the
rest of the beasts lose [] their dominion []. Then, in Dan 7:13, One like a Son of
Man appears before Endless of Days, and immediately in Dan 7:14 dominion [], majesty
[] a kingdom/realm [] are transferred [ (granted)] to Him. Accordingly, Dan
7:12-14 displays a loss of dominion-transference of dominion pattern. The same is the case for the end of
the chapter [Dan 7:26-27].
Transference of dominion [] is also the pattern in Dan 7:26-27, but with a twist. That is,
in Dan 7:26, the court sits and the insolent horn loses [] his dominion [] permanently
[]. Subsequently in Dan 7:27, a kingdom/realm [], dominion [], and greatness
[] are transferred [ (granted)] in perpetuity [] to the saints of the Most High.
Accordingly, Dan 7:26-27 also displays a loss of dominion-transference of dominion pattern.
The net effect is this: first, in Dan 7:12-14 the loss of dominion-transference of dominion involves
one like a son of man; and second, in Dan 7:26-27, the loss of dominion-transference of dominion concerns
the saints of the Most High. What all of this may mean must be considered at the end of the chapter; for
now, it is crucial to see that in the context, there is more going on here than merely a punishing loss of
dominion; rather there is transference of dominion [Dan 7:12 ( lost), 14 (
granted/transferred); Dan 7:26 ( lost), 27 ( granted/transferred)] from regimes to either
One like a Son of Man or the saints of the Most High.
At the beginning of this section, we asked: in what sense was the dominion of the beasts taken
away? The answer is: it was removed only to be transferred. Accordingly, our translation of Dan 7:12b
[their dominion was taken away] could be read in the sense demanded by the context: their dominion
was taken away (and subsequently transferred).
Was taken away [ (Haphel, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is an Aramaic verb that has several
ancient Near Eastern cognates. The Egyptian Aramaic cognate may be translated to remove, take away, to
pass by, go away; the Mandaean cognate means to allow to pass by, to be taken away. 260 KohlerBaumgartner translate /take away in Dan 7:12b with to take away, remove.261 Rosenthal offers
259 Ibid., 86.
260 KB2, 1943.
261 Ibid., 1944.
52
for : to come forth, to pass away, to become invalid; to remove.262 BDB opts for to take away,
remove, and depose.263 In the Septuagint tradition, Theodotion translates with the Greek verb,
, which means to remove, transfer, transplant, discharge.264 Liddell, Scott, and
Jones offer for this Greek verb in the passive voice when used of things, to change, alter (either for the
better or for the worse).265
Take away [] has some interesting synonyms in Daniel, each of them used in a royal or
governmental setting. That is, in Dan 5:20, is used synonymously with [to be
deposed266]; in Dan 7:26, is used in conjunction with [to exterminate267] and with
[to destroy268]. The net effect is that is used in conjunction with synonyms with two
slightly different senses: [1] to depose with no implication of destruction or extinction, and [2] a much
stronger sense, to exterminate/destroy.
The upshot is this: given the fact that dominion [] is the direct object of the verbs in the
stronger sense option in Dan 7:26, which is parallel conceptually to Dan 7:12b269, we may read take away
[] in this more unqualified sense: the dominion [ (territorial political power)] of the rest
of the beasts/regimes was thoroughly eradicated from their custody and employment. What is more, as
noted above, the reader must keep in mind that /removal, take away, eradication does not end
here; the abstract concept of is not eliminated, rather it is transferred. Human governance is in
the process of being dramatically changed: Realpolitik will soon give way to one like a son of man and the
saints of the Most High.
While lengthening of life was given to them [ ] is

an antithetical sentence; the contrast is between what they lost dominion [Dan 7:12b] as offset by
what they gained lengthening of life [Dan 7:12c]. If nothing else, these beasts/regimes will continue to
have a recognizable identity throughout the course of human history,270 even if, as noted above, the reins of
human governance is about to be transferred.
Lengthening of life [ ] is literally lengthening in life, although the
difference is marginal. Lengthening [] is an Aramaic noun that suggests prolongation, length of
time in Dan 7:12c.271 The semantic field of this noun is extending,272 thus suggesting prolonging life.
262 Rosenthal, 92.

263 BDB, 1105.
264 BAGD, 499.
265 LSJ, 1091.
266 KB2, 1930.
267 Holladay, 423.
268 Ibid., 396.
269 Dan 7:26a-c clarifies, amplifies, explains Dan 7:12b [their dominion was taken away].
270 Baldwin, 142.
271 KB2, 1825; similarly BDB, 1082; Holladay, 398.
272 See Extending in NIDOTTE.
53
Driver summarizes the point: these beasts/regimes were permitted to remain alive, i.e., the Gentile powers,
represented by the beasts, were to survive for a while as nations.273 The duration of this prolonged
existence is indefinite, as the next phrase points out.
For a time and a season [ ] is a prepositional phrase that seems to point
to a finite and limited period of time. This collocation [time and season ( )] appears
three times in Daniel [Dan 2:21; 7:12, 25]. In the Dan 2:21 citation, time and season represents indefinite
periods of time that are changeable and are controlled by Yahweh.
Time [] is an Aramaic noun with questions about its origin; Kohler-Baumgartner
translates in Dan 7:12 in the sense of a fixed time.274 BDB follows suit, picking up on the fixed
component in the term, appointed time for Dan 7:12.275 A. Tomasino also reads in Dan 7:12 in
the sense of a predetermined period of time.276 Michael Fox notes that denotes an appointed
time [emphasis mine], whether unique (such as the fixed time for Nehemiahs return, Neh 2:6) or periodic
(such as Esth 9:27, 31).277 It is best not to over-read ; the key notion in is that it is a
periodic or predetermined phase in time of unspecified duration set by Yahweh [Dan 2:21].
Season [] is an Aramaic noun that Kohler-Baumgartner translates in Dan 7:12 with
time.278 BDB also reads in a general sense, rendering Dan 7:12 with time, as duration.279 The
Aramaic noun, , has three ranges of meaning in the Aramaic of Daniel: [1] a precisely fixed point in
time (Dan 3:5, 15), [2] an indefinite span of time (Dan 2:8, 21; 4:16, 23, 25, 32), and [3] changing
(circumstances) over time (Dan 2:9). Once more, it is advisable not to over-read ; in concert with
above, is an indefinite span of time, the details of which are in the hands of Yahweh [Dan
2:21].
For a time and a season [ ] is thus a general figure of speech, depicting a
limited but unspecified span of time under the sovereign sway of Yahweh. Time is in Gods hands, not
those of the politically powerful or the politically connected.
Summary.
Overall, Dan 7:11-12 is about divine judgment inflicted upon human governance. In the context, judgment
is imposed upon the insolent horn [Dan 7:11], and then is demanded of the other three beasts: the lion
[Babylon], the bear [Medo-Persia] and the leopard [Greece] in Dan 7:12. The nature of the judgment
differs: in Dan 7:11, the beast/regime is utterly destroyed; in Dan 7:12, the remaining regimes are stripped
of real authority while permitted to continue as nations. To be sure, as remarked repeatedly, these
remaining beasts/nations are symbols of world-dominating political power-players throughout human
history; all of them must acquiesce to the power and purposes of Yahweh, as these two verses amply
demonstrate.

274 KB2, 1866.
275 BDB, 1091.
276 Anthony Tomasino, , in NIDOTTE [H2374].
277 Michael V. Fox, A Time To Tear Down and A Time To Build Up (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 200.
278 KB2, 1944.
279 BDB, 1105; similarly, Holladay, 416.
54
Dan 7:11 has two points of note: [1] those nations that defame Yahweh [Dan 7:11b speaking
insolent words] are [2] doomed to pay the price [Dan 7:11g given up to a burning fire]. In Dan 7:12,
the key assertion is the loss of dominion for the regimes that Yahweh allows to remain [Dan 7:12b their
dominion was taken away].
Dan 7:11b assures the reader of the prime motive for Yahwehs severe and terminal hammering of
the insolent horn in real time: this nation was condemned for speaking insolent words. As we noted,
insolent words include proud and presumptuous ridiculing of God and taunting His people. This nation,
and it has had many successors, would have done well to weigh and consider Hannahs prayer: Cease at
once speaking insolent words; stop immediately the arrogance that comes out of your mouth, because God
is all-knowing, with God actions are weighed [1 Samuel 2:3]. Even worse, we observed that insolent
words were blasphemous words; the reader can imagine profane disavowal of God, sacrilegious mocking
of His Word and ways, offensive and irreverent scoffing at His people; all of this and more glibly approved
of and condescendingly mouthed by the leadership and citizenry of the nation. Nations have soul, and
when the soul of a nation is as reprehensible, as impious, as shameless, and as pagan as the nation in Dan
7:11b, God weighs their actions and responds.
Dan 7:11g assures the reader of what happens when God weighs the actions of a nation; the price
will be paid: given up to a burning fire. The passive voice in which the verb is written signals that
Yahweh, having weighed the beliefs, the words, and the exploits of this nation, has decided to act. No
nation, no state, no government is so powerful, so arrogant, or so smugly indifferent to God that it can
count on avoiding the judgment of God. As Daniel has been at pains to point out, every nation in human
history must bow to the sovereignty of God either sooner or later; in this case, it was sooner: given up to a
burning fire.
Moreover, the burning fire motif is not code for burning in Hell. As the detailed exegesis
showed, never does the Hebrew Bible describe the netherworld as a place that is a burning fire. The
reader must read and interpret the language of Daniel 7 in terms of the scriptural setting of Daniel. This
means that Daniel would have processed this terminology given up to a burning fire out of his own
Scriptural reading, which knows nothing of fires burning in Hell. Rather, burning fire is yet another
piece of imagery that calls to mind Yahwehs wrath and judgment, and, the gist of the imagery is that
Yahwehs judgment will totally consume the insolent horn/regime.
Dan 7:12b is almost certainly the key sentence in Dan 7:11-12. Of particular import is the divine
judgment on the remaining beasts/regimes: their dominion was taken away. We may assume that this
loss of dominion, whatever it ultimately means, was not confined to the 6th century BC; rather, the
diminished authority of these three regimes is telescoped onto world-dominating regimes throughout the
course of human history.
Dan 7:12b affirms a divine reality in force to this very day: their dominion was taken away. The
question we asked was this: in what sense was the dominion of human governance taken away? After
detailed exegesis, we noted a pattern, especially in Daniel 7: a loss of dominion-transference of dominion
pattern. The net effect is that political dominion was removed only to be transferred to a more spiritual
dominion. Accordingly, our translation of Dan 7:12b [their dominion was taken away] could be read in
the sense demanded by the context: their dominion was taken away (and subsequently transferred).
Now, the dominion that was and is lost refers to the forfeiture of the unassailable political
chicanery exercised by these regimes; the demise of the unchallengeable application of political power
implemented by these regimes; the expiration of the unshakable rule by force applied by these regimes; and
the sunset of the fancy that ultimately everything in human history comes down to human governance.
Realpolitik, or power politics, has had its day, at least from the perspective of Yahweh and His servant,
Daniel.
55
Furthermore, the dominion that was and is gained refers to a dominion that is majestic [Dan
7:14b] and that is instantiated in real time as a kingdom [Dan 7:14b], where every citizen pays reverence to
the King [Dan 7:14e], and where every citizen is untied around its King [Dan 7:14c]; and finally, the
dominion that is gained is a governance that will never expire [Dan 7:14h].
Reflection.
Dan 7:12b seems to anticipate something Jesus more fully explained in the New Testament:
render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and render to God the things that are Gods [Matthew 22:21;
Mark 12:17; Luke 20:15]. One principle common to both is this: everything does not come down to human
governance, to Realpolitik, to power politics. Oscar Cullmann puts this specific principle in a nutshell:
Jesus did not accept the State as a final institution.280 The reader should weigh and consider some
entailments of Jesus attitude toward human governance.
First, Dan 7:14 represents a completely different model from Dan 7:12b; in other words, the realm in Dan
7:14 is not set up like those in Dan 7:12b, nor are the goals envisioned in Dan 7:14 brought about by the
kind of dominion portrayed in Dan 7:12b. The upshot is that the Kingdom of God is not brought in by
human power, nor is it set up as a political kingdom.281 The spiritual objectives of the Kingdom of God
will only be achieved by spiritual means; in other words, the weapons of our warfare are not exclusively
human, but divinely empowered for pulling down strongholds [2 Corinthians 10:4].
Second, Dan 7:12b and Dan 7:14 mean that the regimes in 7:12b and the Kingdom in 7:14 are not on the
same level. This principle is also an entailment of Jesus statement in the Gospels about rendering to
Caesar and to God [Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:15]: there can be no talk at all about equality
between Caesar and God. The State is nothing final.282 The net effect is that no member of the Kingdom
of God can truly hold to the proposition that one best serves God by serving Caesar! Involvement in
political matters, remaining informed, voting and the like, may be useful in its own way, but such
involvement is not to be equated with service in the Kingdom.
Finally, as we shall note later in Daniel, the regimes in Dan 7:12b-c will inevitably come into conflict with
the Kingdom in Dan 7:14. In one sense, by granting these regimes a lengthening in life, the reader may
infer that the State is willed by God. Fair enough; but another entailment of Jesus claim in the Gospels
[Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:15] is that, while Gods people must render to Caesar, Gods
people are not expected to give Caesar more than his due! That is, if ever the State demands what belongs
to God, if ever it hinders you in the proclamation of the Kingdom of God, then resist it.283
Indeed, resistance is demonstrated in the book of Daniel, in Daniel 3 and then again in Daniel 6.
In both cases, a politically powerful leader, Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 3 and Darius in Daniel 6, demanded
that the heroes of the book of Daniel do what God specifically disallowed; and in both cases, the people of
God resisted. There is a warning here. The reader may consult Readers Guides already published284, and
note the following: in both cases, Daniel 3 and Daniel 6, the moral demand for resistance was clear-cut.
There was no room for doubt: bowing in worship to a political idol [Daniel 3] and praying through a
political leader [Daniel 6] are not matters of opinion; resistance is clearly and scripturally demanded.
3.Vision of one like a son of man [Dan 7:13-14]
280 Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1956),
19.
281 Ibid., 21.
282 Ibid., 36.
283 Ibid., 37.
284 See L Lineberry on www.scribd.com for Daniel 3 and Daniel 6.
56

7:13a So, I continued looking in my night visions,

7:13b then, behold: along with the clouds of the
heavens,

7:13c one like a son of man was coming;

7:13d and, he approached Endless of Days,

7:13e and before Him [Endless of Days] they brought him
[one
like a son of man] near.

7:14a Then, to him [one like a son of man]
dominion was given,

7:14b majesty and a realm,

7:14c so that, every people,

7:14d nation and language group,

7:14e him [one like a son of man] they will serve;

7:14f His dominion an uninterrupted dominion,

7:14g that will never vanish,

7:14h His governance one that will never
expire.
Dan 7:13 So, I continued looking in my night visions, then behold: along with the clouds of the heavens,
one like a son of man was coming; and he approached Endless of Days, and before Him they brought him
near.
Upon the clouds of the heavens [ ] is a prepositional phrase. The
preposition [] means together with.285 The preposition suggests spatial proximity to or
accompaniment.286
Clouds of the heavens [ ] appears only here in the Aramaic section of Daniel; this is
also the only appearance of cloud [] in the Aramaic of Daniel. The reader may assume that
cloud/ is not referencing the meteorological phenomenon, but is used in a figurative sense.
In the Hebrew Bible, when used figuratively, the majority of uses connote the presence of Yahweh
[Genesis 9:13-14, 16 (covenant with Noah); Exodus 13:21 (exodus motif) 16:10 (glory); 19:9 (audible
presence); 24:15-16, 18 (Mosaic covenant); 34:5 (proclamation); Numbers 12:15; 14:4; Deuteronomy 5:22;
1 Kings 8:11 (Yahwehs glory); Psalm 97:2 (righteousness and justice); Jeremiah 4:13 (judgment) Ezekiel
10:3-4 (glory); Zephaniah 1:15 (judgment)]. Overall, then, cloud/ is a figure of speech that
connotes Yahwehs presence, often with some attribute/activity in focus. What is more, the majority of
these usages in the Pentateuch represent covenant initiation or the exodus motif. Finally, some of these
passages evoke the presence of Yahweh in terms of judgment [Psalm 97:2; Jeremiah 4:13; Zephaniah 1:15].
The upshot is that cloud/ displays a variety of figurative usages, all of them coalescing around
the presence of Yahweh.
The genitive phrase clouds of the heavens [ ] does not appear in the
Hebrew Bible; this specific phrase in Dan 7:13b is unique to the OT. Heaven/ is used twenty
eight times in Daniel, all of them with the definite article. Thus, most of the usages in the Aramaic OT
reference heaven/ as the dwelling place of God;287 in one instance, is metonymy
[stands for] God Himself [Dan 4:26].
285 Rosenthal 83; similarly, KB2, 1950; BDB, 1107.

287 Dan 2:18-19, 28, 37, 44; 4:13, 31, 34-35, 37; 5:23; 6:27; 7:2, 27.
57
So, where does all of this leave us? First, and foremost, the imagery of upon the clouds of heaven evokes
Divine presence; both cloud and heaven support this principle thrust of the imagery. Second, given the
broader context, judgment may not be far from the authors mind in using this imagery. Slotki writes in this
regard, Symbolically, it [clouds of heaven] denotes an emanation from a Divine source in contrast with
the four beasts that arose from the sea.288 Similarly, Montgomery notes, The clouds are in contrast to the
chaos of the waters the Kingdom of Heaven opposed to the kingdoms of tis world.289
Thus, the upshot is that clouds of the heavens signals contrast: the opposition between the
Divine presence in this world and Realpolitik. Moreover, the clouds of the heavens takes the presence
motif a step further: the judgment of Realpolitik as exercised in the form of power politics. The gist of the
judgment is spelled out in Dan 7:14.
One like a son of man [ ] is another simile; this being is somehow like a son of man.
If nothing else, the simile suggests a human comparison in some sense. Obviously, there may be more
going on here than meets the eye.
Son of man [ ] in this precise collocation is unique to Dan 7:13; however, two other
phrases, also written in the genitive construction [ (literally sons of mankind)], appear
in Dan 2:38 and Dan 5:21. They are parallel accounts of Nebuchadnezzars humiliation at the hands of
Yahweh; and they basically signal humanity in general. Finally, this Aramaic phrase, , is
found three times in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 1Q20 21:13; 11Q10 9:9; 26:3, all of the depicting human beings.
1Q20 is the so-called Genesis Apocryphon, written in Aramaic. The writing of the Scroll is dated
to the first half of the first century BC, and the composition itself to the early first, or possibly second,
century BC,290 about 400 years or so after the writing of Daniel. There are four sections in the Genesis
Apocryphon, the fourth of which is an elaboration of the story of Abraham, where our first reference to
is located. The context of the citation is the separation of Abraham and Lot in Genesis 13. In
the biblical account in Genesis, Yahweh visits Abraham in a vision [Genesis 13:14-17]; portions of
Yahwehs speech to Abraham are reproduced in 1Q20 21:13 of the Apocryphon: your descendants
[ ] will be innumerable. This line essentially repeats Genesis 13:16, where the Aramaic
/descendants renders /your descendants in Genesis 13:16. The net effect is this:
in 1Q20 means human beings as descendants of Abraham.
11Q10 is the Targum of Job, a kind of interpretive paraphrase of portions of the text of Job 17-42.
The date of the Targum is disputed; a descent guess is somewhere between 250 and 150 BC, 291 within 300
to 400 years of the text of Daniel. The first citation from the Targum is based upon Job 25:6; the Targum
reads: a worm [] and a son of man [ /human being] a maggot [].
Moreover, /son of man/human being in the Targum of Job 25:6 renders /son
of man/human being in the biblical text of Job 25:6. The second citation from the Targum is based on Job
35:8; the Targum reads: Your righteousness [] for mortals [ /son of
man/humans]; the biblical text in Job reads: Your righteousness [] for mortals
[]. Once more, the phrase in the Targum of Job, , references mortals,
human beings.
The upshot is this: the Dead Sea Scrolls, written or copied 400-500 years after Daniel, use the
phrase in the sense of human beings, mere mortals. What is more, the Targum of Job uses
/mortals/human beings for the Hebrew phrase, /mortals, human beings.
288 Slotki, 59.
290 Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1977; revised edition), 66.
291 Ibid., 78.
58
The net effect of this second observation is that the usage of in the Hebrew Bible should be
consulted.
The parallel phrase to the Aramaic /son of man/mortal, human being is the Hebrew
phrase, /son of man, mortal, human being, which is used about 139 times in the Hebrew
Bible. Of these, all but two [Psalm 80:17; Dan 10:16] are clearly used in the sense of a human being or a
mortal person.
The entry from Psalm 80 is fairly clear; that is, the in 80:17 is parallel in thought to
vine [ (a common figure for the people of God)] in 80:15, to nursery stock [ (only use in
the Hebrew Bible)], and to son [] in 80:15. The net effect is that since vine, a reference to the
people of God, is the controlling referent in this section, we may read as a human reference,
i.e., Israel.
The entry from Dan 10 is more or less parallel to Dan 7:13c, both reference a being who is
somehow like a , son of man. Dan 10:16 is another visionary experience of Daniel, so the
contextual parallel with Dan 7:13 is intact. In Dan 10:16, Daniel employs a simile to tell us that he saw
one in the likeness of [] a son of man [] touching his lips. Later, in Dan 10:18,
Daniel will refer to this being in another simile as like the appearance of a human []. This last
reference does seem to disambiguate what Daniel reveals that he saw: a heavenly being that had the
physical appearance of a human being.
Lets summarize how the phrase son of man is used. First, in Aramaic text of Dan 7:13c, the
phrase is a simile, and a simile is an explicit comparison;292 a simile is a way of going from the known to
the unknown. The conclusion is that the reader should guard against over-reading the comparison the
author intends to make. In order to avoid over-interpreting, the usage of the phrase in the relevant literature
must be taken into serious account.
Second, in the Aramaic texts, the phrase [/son of man] is always used as a cipher
for a human being [Dan 2:38; 5:21; 1Q20 21:13; 11Q10 9:9; 26:3]. Thus, if we simply relate the relevant
Aramaic usages of , then the conclusion for Dan 7:13c would be that the reference is to a
mortal. The being approaching upon the clouds was something like a human being. This is also the case
for Dan 10:16.
Third, when the comparable phrase [] is used in the Hebrew Bible, in 137 of 139
usages, the phrase is code for a human being. Of the two questionable cases [Psalm 80:17; Dan 10:16], a
plausible case can be made for reading these usages of /son of man in human terms.
Accordingly, on the basis of the usage of the phrase [son of man/] in the relevant
Aramaic/Hebrew literature, we conclude that the phrase refers to a human, mortal type of being. In other
words, when Daniel reports that he saw one like a son of man approaching, he intends to say that he saw
something like a human being approaching Endless of Days.
Was coming [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg) (Peal, participle, ms, sg)] is a periphrastic
construction, combining a finite verb [] with a participle []. In Aramaic, this construction is
roughly parallel to a perfective nuance,293 simply stating the fact. In Aramaic, this construction may also
signal an instantaneous act.294 Cautiously, we may read the line in the sense of one who resembled a
human being was (in the process of) coming. This latter reading would lend a sense of immediacy to the
physical movement in the vision report.
292 Caird, 144.
293 Bauer-Leander 81 q.
294 IBHS 37.7.1c.
59
He approached Endless of Days [ ] uses a different finite verb to

signal the approach [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)]. In the Peal stem, this verb has several ranges of
meaning: [1] to reach, [2] to attain to, [3] to come upon (with ), [4] to affect, [5] to come over/happen
to.295 This is the only use of this verb [] used with this specific preposition [] in the Aramaic
OT. Accordingly, sense 3 above is appropriate here: to come upon. BDB translates this verb-preposition
collocation in Dan 7:13 with, to come as far as.296 Holladay opts for arrive in Dan 7:13.297
Before Him they brought him [ ] is the third action attributed to one like a
son of man: [1] Daniel saw him in the process of coming, [2] approaching, and now [3] brought him.
The deliberateness, the gravity, the momentousness, implied in this repetition of verbs of approach suggests
a ceremonial presentation before a royal personage, which is what is happening in Dan 7:13. The idea is
that of a royal audience.298 There is almost a sense of climax with the clause they brought him; the
procedure necessary to come before a royal personage has been completed; now the author turns his
attention to the investiture by Endless of Days of this heavenly being who is somehow like a mere mortal.
Dan 7:14 Then, to him dominion was given, majesty and a realm, and so every people, nation and
language group will serve him; his dominion an uninterrupted dominion that will never vanish, his
governance one that will never expire.
Dan 7:14 is sufficiently complex syntactically to merit a syntactical outline:
To him, dominion [] was given,
(specifically) majesty and a realm [],
(result) and so every people, nation and language group will serve him;
(qualification) his dominion [] an uninterrupted dominion [],
(qualification) that will never vanish,
(qualification) his governance [] one that will never expire.
It is clear from this outline that investiture with dominion is the sense of Dan 7:14, this is, what
Dan 7:14 says about one like a son of man. The repetition of Hebrew nouns for rule/dominion dominates
the verse; dominion [] is repeated three times [Dan 7:14a, f (twice)], and governance
[] is used twice [Dan 7:14b, h]. In addition, the consequence of this dominion is obedience
paid to one like a son of man. In a nutshell, Dan 7:14 tells the reader the following about one like a son of
man: he is invested with dominion with the result that he is obeyed and followed.
To him, dominion was given [ ] is a clause that opens with a prepositional
phrase, to him [], pointing to the beneficiary of the tendered dominion. This same prepositional
phrase [] is also used in Dan 7:14e, signaling the second major benefit to accrue to one like a son of
man: obedience. These prepositional phrases serve as discourse markers, pinpointing the two major truth
claims that concern one like a son of man in Dan 7:14 to him dominion was given [Dan 7:14a] so
that to him submission would be paid [Dan 7:14e].
295 KB2, 1914.

296 BDB, 1100.
297 Holladay, 411.
60
Dominion was given [ (Peil, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is written in a passive
stem, with a perfect aspect verb. The perfect aspect in this case may be viewed globally, simply
assessing the giving as a whole.300 In other words, was given denotes a completed state of affairs. The
reader must recall Dan 7:12b [their dominion () was taken away (Haphel, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl)],
which also uses the perfect aspect verb to signal another completed state of affairs. Dan 7:12b and 7:14a
are polar opposites; the former regimes had dominion [] taken away, while one like a son of
man is given dominion []. Between Dan 7:12b and 7:14a, human governance has been
dramatically altered; Realpolitik has given way to the dominion of one like a son of man. Finally, the
passive voice signaled in the Peil stem of was given implies an agent; the reader may infer that the agent
of this transfer of /dominion is Yahweh, Endless of Days.
299
Dominion [], as noted above,301 is a power term, found in a semantic field of terms for rule,
dominion.302 In Aramaic, the verbal form of the root, /to rule, means to have power over; the
Egyptian Aramaic verbal cognate may be used in the sense of to make oneself master.303 The net effect is
that the /dominion that is transferred to one like a son of man embodies power and mastery,
authority and supremacy, influence and leadership. But, there is a major difference; this is not Realpolitik.
For, the /dominion is qualified in Dan 7:14 with terminology that would never apply to
as exercised in Realpolitik, power politics. That is, the /dominion in the hands of
one like a son of man is majestic [ (Dan 7:14b)], a kingdom/realm [ (Dan 7:14b)],
uninterrupted [ (Dan 7:14f)], impervious to vanishing [ (Dan 7:14g)] and expiration
[ (Dan 7:14h)].
Majesty [ (noun, ms, sg)] is prefixed with a conjunction [], which may signal a
specification or clarification of the preceding noun /dominion.304 The upshot is that majesty
qualifies or clarifies /dominion, teasing out an element of /dominion that is
transferred.
Majesty [] is an Aramaic noun that essentially means dignity, honor in Dan 7:14b.305 William
Yarchin affirms that in Dan 7:14b qualifies /dominion as distinction of a royal sort,
and imperial honor.306 S. Wagner notes that is a quality term, expressing meanings having to do
with value [emphasis mine].307 As a quality term, may be used of persons whose value is
exhibited as importance, honor.308 The noun can describe abstract qualities attributed to a person, such as
dignity, honor, glory, and splendor.309 Wagner identifies the abstract quality of in Dan 7:14 in the
299 Van Pelt, 124.
300 See Comrie, 17-18; IBHS 30.1b; Bauer-Leander 79 h.
301 See the notes on page 52.
302 See Rule, dominion in NIDOTTE.
303 KB2, 1995.
304 Bauer-Leander 70 r.
305KB2, 1893; similarly, BDB, 1096; Holladay, 408.
306 William Yarchin, , in NIDOTTE [H3700].
307 S. Wagner, , in TDOT, VI, 280.
308 Ibid.
309 Ibid.
61
sense of incomparable superiority: in Daniel serves to predicate majesty and exalted status
[emphasis mine] of a person.310
The net effect is that /majesty in Dan 7:14b qualifies /dominion in terms of majestic
and exalted status. There is an invaluable quality to the /dominion of one like a son of man: his
/dominion is choice, irreplaceable, inestimable, treasured among people, nations, and language
groups of the world, and this qualifies one like a son of man in terms far superior to players in powerpolitics, i.e., Realpolitik.
Realm [] may also be translated kingdom. /realm/kingdom is used here in
Dan 7:14b for the first time in Daniel 7. There are two domains of usage for in Daniel: the
/kingdom of God and the /kingdom of men. Obviously, Dan 7:14b falls within the
former domain. Within the divine domain, is used eight times in Daniel [Dan 4:42, 34; 7:142,
273]. The nominal form, , suggests the act ruling in Dan 7:14b as opposed to the subject of
ruling or the office of ruling.311 For, the act of ruling is clarified in the following line: and so, every
people, nation, and language group will serve him [Dan 7:14c-e]; this realm/rule/ is global in its
reach and servant oriented in its nature.
We should also note that, per the outline above, /kingdom/realm teases out the result of
/dominion. As already noted, is a power term, depicting one who exercises mastery,
dominion, or authority. We may conclude, then, that /kingdom/realm identifies servanthood as
the net effect of /dominion, exercising mastery and authority.
The range of the son of mans office [] is global: and so, every people, nation, and
language group will serve him [Dan 7:14c-e]. Syntactically, this sentence is related to dominion was
given as its result.312 Thus, Dan 7:14c-e [and so, every people, nation, and language group will serve
him] disambiguates the dominion in the previous sentence in terms of consequences, including the
global outcome of his dominion.
The range of the son of mans dominion/kingship is expressed in human terms and is global
[/every].
People [ (noun, ms, pl, definite article)] is a term that is used of both Israelites and
non-Israelites in the Aramaic OT.313 William Holladay understands the term as depicting an ethnic
designation.314 Daniel Block notes that the term, people [], designates a sense of ethnic community
based upon blood relationships.315 E. Lipiski demurs, noting, that frequently suggests the notion
of totality, of the people as a whole, like the Arabic mma. It is used in connection with political, civil,
and religious institutions: levy of troops, popular assembly, and populace, congregation of the faithful and
religious community. 316 At the same time, Montgomery identifies people [] as the political unit
within the empire.317
310 Ibid., 284.
311 Philip J. Nel, , in NIDOTTE [H4887].
312 See KB2, 1862; BDB, 1091; Bauer-Leander 70 c.
313 KB2, 1950.
314 Holladay, 416.
315 Daniel I. Block, Nations/National Theology in NIDOTTE.
316 E. Lipiski, , in TDOT, vol. XI, 174.
62
People [] is used fifteen times in the Aramaic of Daniel; it falls within two, possibly three domains: [1]
people of Israel (Ezra 5:12; 7:13, 16, 25), and [2] non-Israelites (Ezra 6:12; Dan 2:44; 3:4, 7, 29; 4:1: 5:19;
6:26), which are both ethnic distinctions, and [3] people who are saints of the Most High
[ (Dan 7:27)],318 which is a more spiritual distinction.
It is significant that most of the usages of in Daniel refer to non-Israelites [Dan 2:44; 3:4, 72,
29; 4:1; 5:19; 6:26]. Of these eight references, five are used in a political context of a decree imposed upon
people, nations, and language groups [Dan 3:4, 72; 4:1; 6:25], and one is a reminiscence of the range of
Nebuchadnezzars political power over people, nations, and language groups [Dan 5:19]. The speakers
in the first five references are either politicians or a representative of a politician; in the one reference,
Daniel is speaking to a politician. Thus, these six references should probably reflect the non-Israelite
ethnic distinction.
As far as the usage of people [] in Daniel is concerned, the joker in the pack is people [] who are
saints of the Most High [ (Dan 7:27)]. Obviously, this usage of
is different from the clearly ethnic usages of the term, since is used in the sense of people as saints.
Accordingly, the reader may discard an either-or decision, either Israelite or non-Israelite, for the sense of
, and infer that may denote persons beyond this opposition in Dan 7:27. But, beyond in what
sense?
To answer this question, the reader is invited to consider the speakers involved that used people
[] in the phrase people, nations, and language groups. In three passages, the speaker is either a
political leader [Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:4); Darius (Dan 6:26)] or a herald who speaks for a political
leader [Dan 4:1]. Naturally, these speakers have more mundane objectives on their minds. But, the
speaker in Dan 7:14 is Daniel, reporting what Endless of Days is conferring on one like a son of man.
Owing to the heavenly locale and the heavenly participants, we might conclude that the usage of
/people in Dan 7:14 includes both Jew and Gentile, or what amounts to all, ethnic groups subsumed
under the rubric: people as saints of the Most High.
Nations [ (noun, fm, pl)] is a term that signifies a community, a nation.319 Block claims
that nation [] signifies a clan or a nation descended from a common ancestry.320The corresponding
term used in the Hebrew Bible [] does have tribal connotations.321
The noun, , is used seven times in Daniel, all of them in the phrase people, nation, and language
group [Dan 3:4, 7, 29; 4:1; 5:19; 6:26; 7:14]. In these passages, the collective sense of the term fits each
context.
Tongues [ (noun, ms, pl, definite article)] indicates linguistic distinctions within the
empire. The practice of identifying national identity on the basis of language was alive and well in the
Ancient Near East.322
The outcome of one like a son of man receiving dominion, specifically the exercise of mastery and
authority, this dominion takes the shape of a kingdom, the activity of a ruler, is that it leads to global
human mastery: every people, nation, and language group. What is more, this mastery foments global
318 This last domain is problematic; it does seem to be wider than merely Israel in Dan 7:27.
319 KB2, 1815.
320 Block, Nations/National Theology in NIDOTTE.
321 KB1, 62.
322 See Block, Nations/National Theology in NIDOTTE.
63
unity: people, ethnic unity, nation, community, and language, national identity; a single ruler over a
unified humanity. With one voice, this unified humanity serves their king.
Serve [] is an Aramaic verb that seems to fall into two domains: [1] to pay reverence to, or
[2] to serve.323 Kohler-Baumgartner offer only the latter nuance, offering to serve God for the usages
of in Daniel; Kohler-Baumgartner do acknowledge the reverence nuance through Akkadian
influence.324 Rosenthal acknowledges both the worship nuance and the serve nuance.325 Moreover in
the book of Daniel, the reverence nuance is supported by the use of in parallel with /pay
homage to326 on four occasions [Dan 3:12, 14, 18, 28]; and, the service nuance is supported by the use of
in parallel with /servant327 [Dan 6:21 (noun)], and /obey328 [Dan 7:27].
Owing to the contextual overlap between Dan 7:14 and Dan 7:27, the reader may infer a connection
between the two contexts vis--vis the usage of /serve. In Dan 7:27, is used in tandem
with /obey. In Dan 7:27, is written in the Hithpaal stem and with the same prepositional
phrase as we have in Dan 7:14e []. This collocation of verb in the Hithpaal with the prepositional
phrase yields the meaning: to obey.329
The net effect is that Dan 7:14a-e is telling us the following: one like a son of man is given dominion,
indeed a dominion that has been transferred from the domain of Realpolitik [Dan 7:14a]; this dominion is in
effect mastery and authority with the quality of majesty, an exalted status in the world [Dan 7:14b].
Furthermore, one like a son of man is invested with a kingdom over which he rules [Dan 7:14b]; what is
more, the results of this investiture are twofold: it is global [Dan 7:14c-d] and it produces obedient service
to one like a son of man [Dan 7:14e].
Finally, Daniel adds a further set of details concerning the dominion of one like a son of man: it is
uninterrupted [Dan 7:14f], permanent [Dan 7:14g], and it is eternal [Dan 7:14h]. The contrast with the
guardians of Realpolitik is striking.
Uninterrupted [] is a noun that describes the dominion of one like a son of man. The
Aramaic noun, , has, according to Kohler-Baumgartner, three ranges of meaning: [1] duration,
eternity, [2] world, and [3] people.330 Kohler-Baumgartner opt for the first meaning in Dan 7:14f.331
BDB follows suit, translating in Dan 7:14f with perpetuity in the future.332 Jenni, citing James
Barr, affirms concerning that the basic meaning is a kind of range between remotest time and
perpetuity.333 The reader may infer that designates an uninterrupted dominion.
323 BDB, 1108.
324 KB2, 1957.
325 Rosenthal, 94.
326 KB2, 1937.
327 Ibid., 1942.
328 Ibid., 1998.
329 KB2, 1998.
330 Ibid., 1949.
331 Ibid.
332 BDB, 1106.
333 Ernst Jenni, , in TLOT II, 853.
64
Vanish [] is also something that will never befall the dominion of one like a son of man. The
Aramaic verb, , appears nine times in the book of Daniel.334 The verb, , has two ranges of
meaning: [1] when used with the preposition, , it means to pass over335 or to touch;336 or [2] to go
away, to be taken, to vanish.337
The usage of in conjunction with dominion [] is instructive. In Dan 7:12, the
dominion/ of the three beasts/regimes is taken away []; and in Dan 7:26, the
dominion/ of the single horn that arises from the ten horns will be taken away [],
annihilated [], and eradicated [] forever. The writer enlightens us by implying the
complete contrast between the /dominion of Realpolitik and that of one like a son of man: they
are removed from power, even discover that their governance is annihilated and eradicated; but, not so the
/dominion of one like a son of man, for his /dominion will never vanish.
A further point regarding the use of with the noun king/ . That is, in Dan 2:21,
Daniel learns that it is Yahweh who removes/ kings from their thrones. The contrast here is that
Yahweh has no intention whatsoever of removing one like a son of man from his kingdom.
Expire [] is written in the Hithpaal stem, a passive stem,338 which implies an unidentified
agent of the action, surely Yahweh in this case. In concert with the point in the previous paragraph, the
governance of one like a son of man is sheltered from removal by God.
Expire [] has a range of meanings, beginning with [1] to hurt, inflict injury to [2] to
destroy or to be destroyed, perish in the Hithpaal stem.339 Kohler-Baumgartner translates in
Dan 7:14 with to be destroyed, perish.340
The root [] appears five times in Daniel.341 The verb is used of violence of one degree or
another directed toward two referents: human/physical referent [Dan 6:23] and kingdom referents [Dan
2:44; 4:23; 6:27; 7:14]. Of this last category of referents, one references violence directed towards a
political regime [Dan 4:23 (Nebuchadnezzar)], and the other three references negate destruction vis--vis
Yahwehs divine kingdom [Dan 2:44; 6:27; 7:14]. In these three references to the impossibility of
/destruction coming upon the divine kingdom, the meaning of is the guarantee that the
kingdom will never be destroyed, nor the sovereignty given the son of man.342
Theologically, the reader must conclude that the range of is much less toward the violence
end of the scale and more toward the destruction end of the hierarchy. Indeed, the dominion and kingdom
of one like a son of man will indeed suffer violence, but never eradication nor elimination from the globe
[Dan 2:44; 7:14].
334 Dan 2:21; 3:27; 4:31; 5:20; 6:9, 13; 7:12, 14, 26.
335 BDB, 1105.
336 KB2, 1943.
337 Ibid., 1944.
338 Van Pelt, 138.
339 KB2, 1868.
340 Ibid.; similarly, BDB, 1091; Holladay, 404.
341 Dan 2:44; 4:23; 6:23, 27; 7:14.
342 J. Gamberoni, , in TDOT, vol. IV, 185.
65
Summary.
Dan 7:13 is related to Dan 7:14 in a relationship of introduction [Dan 7:13] to investiture [Dan 7:14]. Dan
7:13 serves to introduce the key player in the paragraph: a being identified as one like a son of man. Dan
7:14a makes the basic claim affecting him: to him (one like a son of man) dominion was given. The
upshot is that one like a son of man dominates Dan 7:13 and dominion governs Dan 7:14.
One like a son of man is written as a simile; the interpreter must take this fact into account as
Dan 7:13 is read. The reader is asked to take a point of comparison literally, to the exclusion of all else. If
we read more into the simile than is actually there, we risk over-interpreting or, what is worse, missing
altogether the point of the comparison. Now, the point of the comparison the author intends that we grasp
is exclusively this: this being was somehow like a man; this heavenly being was human-like, at least from
Daniels vantage point, and that is all that we are told.
I emphasize this point in order to make another: it is undeniably true that Jesus uses the phrase
son of man roughly 45 times, applying it to Himself in a variety of contexts to a variety of ends. Indeed,
every single one of the Gospels uses the phrase, indicating that it must have been one of our Lords favorite
self-designations. However, the reader of Dan 7:13 must not read legitimate New Testament usages back
into Old Testament material. As a methodological matter, it is inadmissible to misuse a genuine subsequent
meaning of a phrase by importing it back into an Old Testament antecedent.
The moral of this discussion is this: let Daniel develop the simile as he sees fit, outfitting it with
whatever content Daniel intends, and then permit the Lord to pick up the entirety of the phrase and use it to
His own ends. In fact, the reader must permit Daniel to develop the wholeness of the phrase in Dan 7:1314; then, and only then, may the reader turn to his/her New Testament and fully appreciate the use that our
Lord makes of son of man. The reader must grasp the entirety of Dan 7:13-14, both the introduction
son of man as well as the investiture dominion was given.
One like a son of man is the way Daniel describes the being he saw in his night vision [Dan
7:13a]. After reviewing relevant usages of the phrase in both Aramaic and Hebrew, we concluded the
following: on the basis of the usage of the phrase [son of man/] in the relevant
Aramaic/Hebrew literature, the phrase refers to a human-like being, a mortal type of presence. In other
words, when Daniel reports that he saw one like a son of man approaching, he intends to say that he saw
a being who was something like a human being moving toward Endless of Days.
The author focuses on the phrase one like a son of man three times in Dan 7:13 [Dan 7:13c
(explicit reference), 13e (twice by virtue of a pronoun, him)]. This repetition serves to introduce the
focal point of the paragraph [Dan 7:13-14] one like a son of man. But, Dan 7:14a front-loads a
prepositional phrase to him in order to complete the introduction with the investiture.
In Dan 7:14, the dominion motif dominates the verse by defining the investiture. Everything else
in Dan 7:14 is based upon and fills out Dan 7:14a: to him [one like a son of man] dominion was given.
The remainder of Dan 7:14 amounts to four clarifications of his dominion [Dan 7:14b (majesty and
kingdom/realm), f (uninterrupted), g (never vanish), h (never expire)] and one statement of the
result of his dominion [Dan 7:14c-e (every people, nation, and language group will serve/obey him)].
With all of that, the vital matter is his investiture with dominion.
One like a son of man is invested with dominion; dominion is the indispensible take away
from Dan 7:14. To be sure, the clarifications are important in their own right, essentially differentiating
one like a son of man from all of the pretenders in Daniel 7, but the fact that this being is invested with
dominion, with complete authority, with comprehensive governance, with all-embracing rule, is the vital
point in Dan 7:14.
Dominion is, when all is said and done, power; one like a son of man is a being who is
invested with unrivalled power in the abstract, unparalleled mastery, unquestionable authority, incontestable
rule, and the unassailable exercise of power.
66
What is more, the dominion [] with which the being, one like a son of man, is
invested had once been bestowed on the beasts/regimes, but was taken away [Dan 7:12b]. To be sure,
their life spans have been lengthened [Dan 7:12c] so that they are still with us, but they have been
divested of their dominion []. The reader must appreciate the transfer of dominion from the
realm of Realpolitik, i.e., power-politics, to a heavenly being, one like a son of man. The four
qualifications that follow differentiate the dominion of one like a son of man from the beasts that once
held it.
Finally, the dominion with which this being is invested has an unrivalled outcome: every people,
nation, and language group will serve him [Dan 7:14e]. The author uses every people, nation, and
language group, in a collective and comprehensive sense. The human race will serve this man-like being.
As we noted above, every people, nation, and language group is hyperbole for everyone! The global
reach of this being will be all-inclusive, wide-ranging, and across-the-board ethnically, ancestrally, and
nationally. Dissolved are all racial distinctions, all clannish distinctions, and all nationalistic distinctions.
Moreover, the human race will serve this being that is somehow like a man. Will serve him
means that humanity will willingly serve and obey this being that is somehow like a mortal.
Reflection.
There are at least three issues that merit reflection in Dan 7:13-14: first, there is the matter of
transference of power from the world of Realpolitik to the realm of the Kingdom of God; and second, there
is the matter of rendering to Caesar, and finally one like a son of man.
Transference. Between Dan 7:12b [their dominion was taken away] and Dan 7:14a [dominion
was given to him (one like a son of man)], the locus of power in society has dramatically shifted; it has
been transferred from the world of Realpolitik, i.e., political-military power-players, to the realm of Endless
of Days and His colleague, one like a son of man, a realm of majesty and reverence and service to God.
One of the questions this transference suggests is this: so what?
In one sense, the answer to that question is directly dependent upon who it is that is asking, and
where the questioner is standing when posing the query. For the purpose of this reflection, I choose to
frame the question from the standpoint of an evangelical Christian standing within the political framework
of a western democracy. So, what difference does the shift in societal power, which Dan 7:12, 14 imply,
make to an evangelical Christian living in a democratic society?
I once heard a person say, in a Bible school class I was teaching on the Lords Day in the United
States, the following: Politics is everything. Now, the operative term in that statement is everything;
for, there is a theology wrapped up in that word, a theology that gives short shrift to Dan 7:12b, 14a; in
effect a theology that shelves Dan 7:14a [dominion was given to him (one like a son of man)] and
reverses Dan 7:12b [their dominion was taken away]. What mortal is empowered to do that, especially in
a Bible school class on the Lords Day? Indeed, this notion, all too common among evangelicals in western
democracies, namely that politics is everything, thoroughly repeals the momentum in Dan 7:12b, 14a.
Again: so what?
The notion put forward, where [in a Bible school class] and when [on the Lords Day] it was
tendered, invites some soul searching: how can an individual disposed to remark that politics is
everything sing, a scant twenty minutes later, To God Be The Glory? Is not this illogicality symptomatic
of a person attempting the deadly compromise: serving two masters? Indeed, one gets the distinct
impression that untold numbers of evangelicals in the United States attempt to place a foot in rival camps,
Realpolitik and the Kingdom of God, serving two masters and essentially short-changing both.
67
The upshot is this: the transference of authority from the world of power-politics as proclaimed in
Dan 7:12b to the Kingdom of God as declared in Dan 7:14a demands a clear-cut choice one way or the
other. Our Lord framed this kind of choice this way: no man can serve two masters [Matthew 6:24; Luke
16:13]. The Lords rationale behind this either-or is quite simply this: whatsoever ones master is, precisely
there, invested with that master, are our heart and our treasure [Matthew 6:21]. In other words, our
master, our treasure, and our heart come down to our trust, our security, our consolation, and our
God. It matters not one whit whether we think we can successfully pull off this deadly compromise, that is,
the delusion that we can serve God and Realpolitik in perfectly equal proportions. Again, our selfdelusions are irrelevant; it is what the Lord thinks and what the Lord demands of those who name Him as
Lord that really matters, and He says that we must hate the one and love the other [Matthew 6:24]. When
it comes to where we place our trust; where we find our security; where we locate our hope, there is no
third way! The lordly dominion of power politics has surrendered the field to the dominion of the Lord.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by the Gestapo in Nazi Germany on April 9, 1945. Bonhoeffer
was executed for his role in the attempt to topple Adolph Hitler from power. Before he died, Bonhoeffer
wrote a letter to Reinhold Niebuhr, laying bare before the world the terrible alternative that Matthew 6:24
demanded of him:343
I shall have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life
in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my
people Christians in Germany will face the terrible alternative of
either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian
civilization may survive, or willing the victory of their nation and
thereby destroying our civilization. I know which of these alternatives
I must choose.
The transference of real authority in this world from the realm of Realpolitik [Dan 7:12b] to the Kingdom
of God [Dan 7:14a] places upon every evangelical Christian in the western democracies Bonheoffers
terrible alternative: our ultimate loyalties, our supreme allegiances, either lie with one like a son of
man or with the proposition that politics is everything. Our Lord requires that we resolve this terrible
alternative unambiguously and recognizably in His favor!
Render to Caesar. The remarks above on the terrible alternative that the transference of real
authority places upon us does not imply total abandonment of the world of Caesar. For, Daniel also
observed in his vision: a lengthening of life was given to them [the dominions of this world]. The upshot
is that we are not expected to completely abandon Caesar, but rather render to him his due. Rendering
Caesar his due surely takes many forms, some of which we should note.
First, following the model of Daniel, it seems that the evangelical Christian, situated at least in
modern western democracies, must not stop engaging Caesar. To be sure, Daniel regularly dialogued with
Nebuchadnezzar, often subtly challenging the tyrants polytheistic idolatry [Daniel 2 and 4]. What is more,
we all remember the dialogue between Nebuchadnezzar and the three Jews in Daniel 3, a dialogue that was
resistant and defiant. In both cases, these men of God rendered Caesar his due by engaging a tyrant
rather than disengaging from him.
It is unwise, if not unchristian, to uncouple ourselves completely from Caesar. To be sure, based
upon the first reflection, in matters of ones ultimate loyalties, we are expected to unyoke ourselves from
Caesar; for, Caesar is not our God. That said, Christians should weigh and consider the wisdom of
separating themselves completely from matters of mutual concern between people of faith and Caesar. If
personal experience counts for anything, most of us have heard some Christian affirm, I dont care what is
going on in this world with all of its slimy politics; I am just going to serve the Lord. It is not quite that
simple; for, as Daniel and his comrades demonstrate, there are times when one must witness to Caesar
concerning matters in the public domain.
343 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (London: SCM Press, 1959), 13.
68
Second, again following the model of Daniel, serious men and women of God need not spurn a
career in government simply because it is government. Judging by the historical dating we have in the
book of Daniel, Daniel spent somewhere in the neighborhood of 65 years in the service of the royal court.
Beyond doubt, this royal court had its ungodly, idolatrous elements [Dan 1:3-7], its intrigues and backbiting [Dan 6:6-10], everything that makes politics, politics! But Daniel, for his part, conducted himself as
a man of integrity and competence [Dan 6:4-5]. When all was said and done, it seems that Daniel rose to
be second in command under Darius [Dan 6:4]. Accordingly, we may infer that in and of itself a career in
governmental service is not forbidden to a serious member of Gods covenant community.
One like a son of man. I am convinced that the author of Daniel, inspired by the Divine Mind as
he certainly was, intended that the reader of Dan 7:13c understand one like a son of man in terms of this
beings investiture, not so much in terms of his identity. While most readers of the phrase one like a son of
man would have no doubt that in about 600 years or so Jesus of Nazareth would appropriate the phrase for
His own purposes, one must recognize that the focus in Dan 7:13-14 is upon the matchless dominion, the
utterly new and unique dominion, with which this person is invested. The vision report in Dan 7:13-14
displays the royal traits of this unidentified being [and one like a son of man is unidentified in the
passage], traits that will fit Jesus person and work, traits that make His dominion one of a kind.
Majesty is one of these traits that would eventually fit the Messiahs dominion perfectly. The
matchless dignity of the Messianic kingdom compares very favorably to the unparalleled disrepute of many
politically powerful regimes that blight the world. The peerless honor of the Messianic kingdom compares
favorably to the unrivalled baseness of many bastions of Realpolitik that disfigure human governance in the
world. And, the unequaled values of the Messianic kingdom, values it defines, values it offers, values it
sustains, compares very favorably to the incomparable triviality, and often wickedness, of what passes for
policy in many nations at this hour.
Unity is another of those traits that mark out the dominion of one like a son of man as one of a
kind. The dominion of one like a son of man will embrace every people, nation, and language group.
Within the dominion of this unidentified being, distinctions of race, of class, of gender, of preferred groups,
of political affiliation, of national identity will shrivel, dry up and die. Eventually, the Messianic kingdom
would demonstrate that walls, petitions, and barriers could be broken down so that all groups would
become one [Ephesians 2:14]. How does this compare to social world that human governance, in all of its
wisdom, experience, tradition, propagandizing, legislating, and conferring, has and continues to give us?
How integrated are Jews and Arabs? How cohesive are North and South Koreans? How united are AfricanAmericans and Caucasians? Is every people, nation, and language group pious and wishful thinking? Or,
has culture missed something vital? Could it be that the wherewithal to effect unity passed from one
dominion to another one of a kind dominion?
Servitude is another of the traits that distinguish the dominion of one like a son of man. For, the
dominion of this mysterious being will unify humanity around him, so that humanity will serve him.
This one of a kind dominion turns the worlds modus operandi upside down; for the world thinks in
contrasting terms: it is by might and mastery, attention to the idol of self-interest, that men prevail;
servitude is demeaning, depreciating, defeatist. Furthermore, by the worlds standards, it is every man for
himself; by the one of a kind standards of this new Messianic regime, it is every man for him. The latter
standard promises regeneration; the former standard produces what we see and read about: ruin.
III.
The interpretation of Daniels vision [Dan 7:15-28]

A.
The personal effect of the vision on Daniel [Dan 7:15-16]

1.
Daniels state of mind [Dan 7:15]

distressed,
7:15a
My spirit, I, Daniel, was
69

me.
2.
within me;
7:15b that is, the visions within my mind terrified
Daniel probes concerning the vision [Dan 7:16]

standing by,

7:16b
7:16c

known to me.
7:16a
I approached one of those who was
and reliable information I requested from him,

concerning all of this;
so, he answered me,
7:16d and the interpretation of the matter he made
The flow of the paragraph may be set out thus:

7:15 = internal focus: distress/terror
7:15a
(1) My spirit I, Daniel was distressed [3rd, fm, sg, perfect]
within me [prep phrase]
7:15b
(2) [Clarification of 7:15a] That is, the visions within my mind terrified me [3rd, ms, pl, imperfect]
7:16 = internal focus: reliable interpretation
7:16a
(3) I approached [1st, sg, perfect] one
(specification) of those who were standing by
7:16b
(4) [Sequential/7:16a] and then I requested [1st, sg, imperfect] reliable information
(source) from him,
(content) concerning all of this;
7:16c
(5) [Consequence of 7:16b] so, he answered [3rd, sg, perfect] me,
7:16d
(6) [Clarification of 7:16c] and the interpretation of the matter he made known [3rd, sg, imperfect] to me.
As the reader can easily see from the outline, Dan 7:15-16 describes the internal outcomes of the
vision upon Daniel, and that in two respects: first, Daniel is emotionally disquieted [Dan 7:15], and then,
second, he is intellectually disconcerted [Dan 7:16]. Joyce Baldwin writes, The personal cost of receiving
divine revelation is never underestimated in the Old Testament (Jer 4:19; Ezek 3:15; Zech 9:1; 12:1), and
the book of Daniel insists here and in subsequent chapters (8:27: 10:1, 10, 11, 15, 18) on the anxiety and
psychological turmoil in receiving, even at Gods hand, understanding of the future course of history. 344
Dan 7:15 My spirit, I, Daniel, was distressed within me; indeed, the visions within my head terrified
me.
344 Baldwin, 143.

70
Dan 7:15a in the Aramaic text is written differently, vis--vis word order, than appears in the more smooth
English translations. Literally, we have: distressed my spirit, I, Daniel. The word order respecting the
subject and verb distressed my spirit is unremarkable; a verb-subject order dominates both Hebrew
and Aramaic word order. The striking element in this sentence is the appositional self-designations I,
Daniel. There is obviously an emphasis on the personal impact of this vision on Daniel.
My spirit [] uses the noun to describe Daniels inner man. The noun []
appears ten times in Daniel [Dan 2:35; 4:8-9, 18; 5:11-12, 14, 20; 6:4; 7:15], here in Dan 7:15 for the only
time in Daniel 7. As used in Daniel, has basically four ranges of meaning: [1] wind, in the sense of
the natural atmospheric phenomenon [Dan 2:35], [2] an indwelling divine spirit [Dan 4:8-9, 18; 5:11, 14],
[3] a more general sense of ones internal disposition or mood [Dan 5:20 (pride); 7:15 (distress/terror], and
[4] the more mental or intellectual qualities associated with [Dan 5:12; 6:4]. The reader may opt
for meaning 3, a depiction of Daniels overall mood or disposition; at his depths, Daniel was troubled and
shocked.
Was distressed [ (Ithpeel, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg] is written in the Ithpeel stem, a
reflexive stem in Aramaic.345 The reflexive stem signals an impersonal construction, simply stating the fact
of the impact of the vision on Daniel with no hint as to its agency.
Distressed [] is a difficult word to pin down; it is used only here in the Aramaic OT, and there are no
uses of in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rosenthal translates with to become sick or sad.346
Kohler-Baumgartner translates with to be distressed.347 Holladay differs only slightly,
translating with to be anxious, distressed.348
The ancient Near Eastern cognates for differ somewhat. The Mandaean cognate means to be
sorry; the Syriac cognate means to be short, to suffer; the Akkadian cognates go in two directions, first
to become short, to become impoverished (kar) or second to become bemused, dazed.349 Of these
options, the Akkadian cognate [kar] in the sense of to become dazed would admirably suit the context
of Dan 7:15a.
The Septuagint tradition, represented by Theodotion, uses the Greek verb , which means to
shudder with fear.350 Liddell-Scott-Jones also notes the psychological/emotive use of this Greek verb,
remarking that it communicates the effect of fear in the sense of shuddering, trembling. 351 The upshot
is that the Akkadian nuance of , dazed, does not differ appreciably from Theodotions Greek verb,
to shudder in fear. Montgomery concurs, observing that implies mental impatience, anxiety.352
Slotki translates with was pained, and offers other options for , uneasy, bewildered, cut
off, estranged.353
345 Bauer-Leander 99 e.
346 Rosenthal, 88.
347 KB2, 1902; similarly, BSB, 1097.
348 Holladay, 409.
349 KB2, 1902.
350 BAGD, 866.
351 LSJ, 1955.
353 Slotki, 60.
71
The visions within my head [ ] is a genitive construction, literally the visions of my

head. The function of the genitive may be the attributive genitive, where the visions are characterized as
conceptual.354 This is not to say that these visions were purely a product of Daniels imagination, rather,
these visions passed through the field of his mind, not his emotional life.
Head [] is an Aramaic noun that is used in this same genitive construction [ ] six
times in Daniel [Dan 2:28; 4:5, 10, 13; 7:1, 15]. In Dan 2:28, is used in conjunction
with /dream [similarly, Dan 7:1]. In Dan 4:5, is used in conjunction with
/dream and /dream-fantasies.
in and of itself is simply a designation of the head as the seat of visions.355
Moreover, as the parallels above indicate, /visions within my head is simply a
circumlocution for a dream/ or a dream-fantasy/.
Terrified [] is an Aramaic verb that is used eleven times in the Aramaic text of Daniel [Dan 2:25;
3:24; 4:5, 192; 5:6, 9, 10; 6:20; 7:15, 28]. The Aramaic root is located in a semantic field of terms for
terror.356 In and of itself, has two basic meanings: [1] to frighten/be frightened, and [2] to hasten.
If there is a connection between the two usages, it is elusive.357 The latter usage is confined to the use of
the infinitive of as a substantive [Dan 2:25; 3:24; 6:20].358
Terrified/ describes terror, dismay or fear in the sense of an emotional reaction.359 Otzen remarks,
In the Biblical Aramaic of the book of Daniel, bhl repeatedly denotes mans reaction to weird visions.360
The fact of the matter is that both before [Dan 7:15] and after the interpretation [Dan 7:28] Daniel remains
, that is, terrified, frightened, dismayed. One can only presume that both before and after the
interpretation, it was his insight into the future course of history that most alarmed him. While Dan 7:15
pictures Daniels emotional disquiet, Dan 7:16 depicts Daniels quest for certainty in what he perceives, or
perhaps thinks he understands, for the future course of history. Keil neatly summarizes, It was the things
themselves as they passed in vision before him the momentous events, the calamities which the people of
God would have to endure till the time of the completion of the everlasting kingdom of God which filled
him with anxiety and terror.361
Dan 7:16 I approached one of those who was standing by, and reliable information I requested from him
concerning all of this; so he answered me, and the interpretation of the matter he made known to me.
Perhaps half suspecting the enormity of the pattern of tragedy, of tyranny, of terror that is to reign over
human history, Daniel seeks clarification, i.e., reliable information.
One of those standing by [] presents no surprises; the same Aramaic verb describes those
myriads who were standing by [] in attendance upon Endless of Days [Dan 6:10].
354 Bauer-Leander 89 a; IBHS 9.5.3b.
355 BDB, 1112.
356 See Terror in NIDOTTE.
357 B. Otzen, , in TDOT, vol. II, 3.
358 On this use of the infinitive, see Bauer-Leander 85 h.
359 Walter Kaiser, Jr., and Miles Van pelt, , in NIDOTTE [H987].
360 Otzen, , 4-5.
72
Dan 7:16b front-loads the key term: /reliable information. is a feminine

adjective that appears three times in the Aramaic text of Daniel [Dan 3:24; 6:13; 7:16]. The adjectival form
may be used as a substantive, when followed by the preposition, , as it is here: reliable information
[] concerning [] this matter.362 Accordingly, Daniel is after the truth, the reliable
information concerning this matter; and he gets it!
Reliable information [] is a term that means well established; Kohler-Baumgartner translates
in Dan 7:16 with reliable information; literally, what is certain, what is reliable.363 Some of
the ancient Near Eastern cognates affirm this notion of certitude; the Jewish Aramaic cognate means
certain, true, irrefutable, definite, valid; the Egyptian Aramaic cognate describes that which is valid. 364
BDB, drawing upon the substantival collocation noted in the previous paragraph, simply renders
in Dan 7:16 with the truth.365 In the Septuagint tradition, Theodotion, translates with the noun
, which means exactness.366 Liddell-Scott-Jones concurs, mentioning exactness,
precision, and minuteness.367
The upshot of Dan 7:16 is this: Daniel suspects enough, owing to what he has seen in his vision, to be
thoroughly terrified [Dan 7:15]; accordingly, the prophet wants the truth concerning this matter beyond a
shadow of a doubt; he asks for exactness, certitude, irrefutability, precision in Dan 7:16. Eventually, once
he gains certainty concerning this matter, emotionally he is not one whit better off [Dan 7:28].
Summary.
Basically, there are few surprises in this paragraph; it means pretty much what it says. First, in
Dan 7:15, the visionary frankly admits the psychological effect this vision had upon him: he was distressed
and he was terrified; both words are part and parcel of the same expressive package in this paragraph.
Daniel experienced this vision, and, as a result, emotionally, he was dazed, pained, bewildered, dismayed;
he was shuddering with fear. We surmise that Daniel intuited the basic contours of the vision as a whole,
but, given what he suspects (or fears about the future), he pleads for substantiation.
Second, Daniel asks for verification of the details of this vision; he asks for reliable information.
To be sure, Daniel is after the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt; oversimplifications will not work;
banalities and commonplaces will not fill the bill; the stakes are far too high for those imposters, Daniel
wants the truth. Daniel respectfully seeks certitude; he requests an irrefutable interpretation of what he has
just envisioned; he is going after definitiveness and exactitude, and, as noted, he gets it!
Reflection.
The reader is asked to reflect for a moment on the personal effect of this vision on Daniel. On any
reading, Daniel was utterly horrified by what he saw and appalled by what he surely suspected. Heaven
had decided to directly communicate with Daniel, offering insight on the course of human history. In all
likelihood Yahweh Himself was behind this revelation to a mere mortal, and the effect on Daniel was
petrifying. Indeed, as we noted earlier, alarm and shock were typical of Daniel when God, through
intermediaries, had directly communicated with him [Dan 8:27; 10:1, 10, 11, 15, 18].
362 On this point, see Bauer-Leander 94 b.
363 KB2, 1893.
364 Ibid.
365 BDB, 1096.
366 BAGD, 33.
367 LSJ, 55.
73
How different such divine-human encounters seem to be today! In the United States, most of us,
who are inclined to do, so may watch any number of TV evangelists who seem to have regular conference
calls with God. Of the few I have witnessed, I have never heard any of them testify to a reaction anything
like that of Daniel.
The language describing these encounters varies; sometimes we hear: The Lord spoke to me last
night; or the Lord laid it on my heart; the Lord told me; or more vaguely, the Lord showed me.
Whatever the terminology, the outcome is predictable: some theological clich is smoothly delivered with
total calm and with complete security in the truth of what is said. Worlds apart from Dan 7:15-16!
Perhaps this reflection will lead all of us to test the spirits to see if they are of God. Simply
because a man or woman claims to have regular conversations with God does not make such divine-human
encounters factual, that is, anything other than imaginary at best or pretense at worst. Watch, weigh and
consider, test, and scrutinize those who claim direct contact with the Person and Voice of God.
B.
The interpretation of the matter [Dan 7:17-18]

1.
Regarding the beasts [Dan 7:17]

2.
7:17b
7:17a These great beasts,

which are four;
[are] four kingdoms,
that will arise from the earth.
Regarding the saints [Dan 7:18]

7:18a But, the saints of the
Most High will take over rule of the
kingdom;
7:18b that is, take possession of the kingdom,
forever,

and for all ages to come.
Owing to the importance of this paragraph, its syntactical structure may be set out thus:
7:17 = affirmation: four beasts = four earthly kingdoms
[Earthly kingdoms (plural)]
7:17a
(1) These great beasts,
(Clarification) which are four;
7:17b
(2) [are] four kingdoms [plural]
(Clarification) that will arise
(Origin) from/upon the earth.
74

7:18 = antithesis: saints will rule the heavenly kingdom forever

[Heavenly kingdom (singular)]
7:18a
(3) (Antithesis to 7:17) But, the saints of the Most High will take over rule of the kingdom [singular]
7:18b
(4) (Clarification of 7:18a) that is, take possession of the kingdom [singular] forever,
(Emphasis) and for all ages to
come.
Generally, Dan 7:17-18 stand in a relationship of claim [Dan 7:17] to counter-claim [Dan 7:18].
The claim concerns the equation of the beasts in the vision with the admittedly earthly kingdoms
throughout history; the counter-claim concerns a single kingdom with rulership being settled upon the
saints of the Most High. The theme of this paragraph [Dan 7:17-18] is this: Dan 7:17 references the earthly
kingdoms of this world, world-dominating regimes throughout all time, and the permanent transference of
rule to the heavenly kingdom in Dan 7:18.
The reader will observe that one term unites Dan 7:17-18: kingdom [ (7:17b; plural);
(7:17a-b; both singular with a definite article)]; we may infer, therefore, that the overall subject
of the paragraph is kingdom, both earthly [Dan 7:17 (plural/many instantiations over time)] and heavenly
[Dan 7:18 (singular with a definite article/a single instantiation perpetually)]. That said, the interpreter in
the vision makes a stunning counter-claim: the saints of the Most High are destined to rule over the
kingdom forever. The reader will observe that verbs for rule unite Dan 7:18a-b.
Dan 7:17 These great beasts, which are four; [are] four kingdoms, that will arise from/upon the earth.
Four [] is repeated twice; the repetition grabs the attention of the reader. The symbolic
nature of the cardinal numeral, four, has been treated at some length in Dan 7:2.368 For now, we recall
that four/ is a figure of comprehensiveness; that is, the vision interpreter is reminding us that
these beasts represent human governance for all time. These four accounts are parables; imaginative
snapshots of the best mankind can manage vis--vis human governance without Gods help. The figure is
all-inclusive, depicting world-encompassing completeness vis--vis Realpolitik, power politics. These
beasts have had and will continue to have many faces; these faces will include Babylon, Medo-Persia
[Dan 8:20], Greece [Dan 8:21], and possibly Rome in the context of Daniel; however, the faces of the
beasts in Daniel do not end with Daniel, for they have had many reincarnations.
Kingdoms [ (noun, ms, pl)] is literally kings. The terminology does leap out at the reader of
the Aramaic text. The terminology may be nothing more than a figurative use of language, where, by
synecdoche, the whole kingdom is represented by one of its parts king. The function of this
figure may conceal a deeper point: the king often becomes the face of the kingdom, as for example
Hitler was the face of Germany from 1933-45. To put the same thing another way, kingdom is an
abstract term, but a king has a name and a face; the king is the executor of power in and through the
kingdom. All of this may well be the vision interpreters way of affirming that human responsibility lies
behind human governance; a regime adheres to the policies of the human being in charge.
From the earth [] is a phrase that is different from Dan 7:3, where we were told
that these beasts arose from the sea. Evidently, some fluidity of thought is in play here: the beasts
originate from the sea [a figure of wickedness]; but, these wicked beasts function upon the earth, arising
from it in a steady stream. It is this latter point that the interpreter intends to impress upon the reader.
Dan 7:18 But, the saints of the Most High will take over rule; that is, take possession of the kingdom
forever, and for all ages to come.
368 See page 9.
75
The reader is advised to take note of the syntactical relationship between Dan 7:17 and 7:18; the
latter is antithetical to the former. The antithesis is warranted by noting the adversative use of the
conjunction [] prefixed to the opening word will take over.369 The antithesis is between the multiplicity
of kingdoms that arise upon the earth [Dan 7:17] and the single, perpetual kingdom ruled over by the saints
of the Most High [Dan 7:18]. This antithesis is reminiscent of the transference motif we noted with Dan
7:12-13. Indeed, Dan 7:17-18 amplifies the transference of authority motif implicit in Dan 7:12-13. As in
Dan 7:12-13, so in Dan 7:17-18, human governance is in the process of being radically transformed on a
permanent basis. The transformation consists in replacing human governance [Dan 7:17] with heavenly
governance [7:18].
The saints of the Most High [ ] is the subject of the main verb, will take over
rule of the kingdom []. The question concerning the saints of the Most High is this: what is
the referent of the phrase? The question is complicated by the fact that in Dan 7:14, one like a son of man
is given a kingdom []. Is one like a son of man parallel to saints of the Most High or is
there some sort of relationship between two different referents? 370 Lets begin by looking at the use of the
relevant terms in the book of Daniel, both Aramaic and Hebrew.
Saints of the Most High [ ] appears four times in the book of Daniel, all in
Daniel 7 [7:18, 22, 25, 27]. Leaving aside for the moment Dan 7:18, lets look at each of these in turn.
Dan 7:21-22 says: So I kept on looking, and that horn waged war with the saints
[]; and proved too powerful for them (Dan 7:21). Until Endless of Days came, and the
judgment was given on behalf of the saints of the Most High [ ]; and then the
appointed time came, and the saints [] took possession of the kingdom (Dan 7:22).
To begin with, saints of the Most High in Dan 7:22 is parallel to saints in Dan 7:21. So, lets
consider how saints [] is used in Dan 7:21.
In an additional vision, Daniel keeps on looking and notes: [1] that horn [2] waged war with
[3] saints [4] and proved too powerful for them. That horn is the horn that emerges from the ten
horns in Dan 7:20; the horn that subsequently caused three horns to fall before it. It is this horn in
Dan 7:21 that eventually waged war with the saints [] and proved too powerful for them.
The question for Dan 7:21 is: how is saints [] used? Obviously, these saints are capable
of waging war [ ] and being overpowered []. Lets focus on the term saints
[].
Saints [ (adjective] is used thirteen times in the Aramaic of Daniel. Outside of Daniel 7,
saints [] is used seven times in reference to a divine being of some sort [Dan 4:8, 9, 13, 17, 18,
23; 5:11]. Thus, in Daniel 4-5, the referent of saints [] is a heavenly being; in other words, in
Daniel 4-5, saint [] is not a reference to a human being.
However, of these seven references outside of Daniel 7, all of them are clearly defined as divine or
heavenly in one way or another in the context. In four of these references to , the translation
holy applies since the term is disambiguated by a spirit of the holy gods referencing Daniels divinely
inspired ability to interpret dreams [Dan 4:8, 9, 18; 5:11]. Finally, in the other three, is
disambiguated by holy ones descended from heaven [Dan 4:10] or by watchers [Dan 4:17], which are
defined as watchers descending from heaven [Dan 4:23]. The net effect is that, when is
used in reference to a heavenly being of some sort, that reference is clearly defined in the context.
However, simply because a word has one usage in one or several contexts does not mean that it will
maintain those uses in all contexts.
369 For the adversative , see Bauer-Leander 70 p.

370 Collins, Daniel, nicely summarizes the issues, 313-18.
76
Accordingly, if the usage of in Daniel 7[Dan 7:21-22, 25, 27] is also read in terms of the
use of the adjective in each respective context, then the usage of in context may point in a
different direction.
In Dan 7:21-22, the saints [] wage war [ ] and are
overpowered []. On the surface of it, these two activities waging war and being overpowered
would seem to involve human activities. War/ is used only in Dan 7:21 in the Aramaic OT. The
ancient Near Eastern cognates coalesce around the concepts of war, battle, conflict. 371 The Hebrew
cognate, , is used routinely in a context of military battle or war, typically a human endeavor.372
Interestingly, the Zechariah 14:3 passage is an eschatological passage, depicting a day where God will do
battle against the forces of evil that range against Gods people.373 If we choose to read Dan 7:21-22 with
eschatological overtones, then we surely must realize that implies a human referent.
Finally, in Dan 7:21, overpower is the translation of /to prevail against, defeat
followed by the preposition, , indicating the person who is defeated.374
Dan 7:21-22 uses saints [] is a context of warfare, warfare engaged in by human
referents. Lets turn to the next passage that uses .
Dan 7:25 says Then, he [another king that arises from the ten] will continually speak words
against the Most High, also, he [the king] will continually harass the saints [] of the Most
High, and then, he [king] will strive to change holy days and Gods law, and so they [] will
be given into his hand, time, times, and a half time. The saints [] are referred to twice in
this passage: [1] they are the victims of harassment by a king, and [2] they are given into his hand.
The principle actor in Dan 7:25 is an unidentified king that arises from a cadre of ten kings in
Dan 7:24a; in other words, the interpreter of Daniels vision explicitly identifies this king as an
unidentified human monarch.
Moreover, this human monarch will continually harass [] the saints [] in
Dan 7:25b. Continually harass [] denotes wearing out or possibly to torment.375 It seems
obvious that this human monarch is exhausting the physical and psychological resources of human saints
[].
Finally, these saints [] are said to be given into his [the human monarchs] hand
[Dan 7:25d]. The way the interpreter expresses himself, he indicates that the saints are given over to
human power.376
Dan 7:25, we may conclude, uses saints [] in a context of human activity: the saints are
worn down by a human monarch, and they are given over to this monarchs human power. The net effect is
that Dan 7:25 disambiguates the referent, stipulating saints [] as human.
Dan 7:27a is the final passage that uses ; it says, Then, the royal authority,
sovereignty, and greatness of dominions under the whole of the heavens will be given to the people, the
371 KB2, 1972-73.
372 2 Samuel 7:11; Job 38:23; Psalm 55:18, 21; 68:30; 78:9; 144:1; Ecclesiastes 9:18; Zechariah
14:3.
373 Tremper Longman, III, , in NIDOTTE [H7930].
374 KB2, 1891.
375 Ibid. 1835.
376 Ibid., 1888.
77
saints [] of the Most High. There are two contextual matters of moment here: [1] the
saints [] are promised dominions under the whole of the heavens [
] and [2] the recipients, saints [], are identified as people [].
Under the whole of the heavens is obviously figurative language for all the earth. Thus,
whatever these dominions are specifically, they are clearly those to be found upon the earth, where
humans are involved.
People [] speaks for itself. The noun is used in three ways in the Aramaic of Daniel: [1] the
people of Israel, [2] people who are non-Israelites, and [3] people, the saints of the Most High (only Dan
7:27)]. In options 1 and 2, obviously points to a human being; the third option amounts to
the same thing, if a grammar option is noted. Most English translations render the Aramaic as a genitive
construction, people of the saints of the Most High. While this is permissible, it is also permissible to
read the Aramaic noun as an absolute form. What is more, the noun people [] is punctuated in
the Masoretic text with a disjunctive accent [tiphah], signaling a brief pause after people. Accordingly, if
we read as an absolute form with a pause in reading after it, the people [] and saints of the
Most High are in apposition to each other. Clearly, then, saints equals people.
Dan 7:27a, then, uses in contexts that point to a human referent: [1] their
dominion is destined to be global [under the whole of the heavens] and [2] human since the saints are
people [].
The upshot of the usage of in Dan 7:21-22, 25, 27a is that all of them contextually
disambiguate the referent of in terms of a human referent. With this conclusion in view,
lets return to Dan 7:18.
Dan 7:18 tells us that the saints of the Most High [ ] are the
principle actors who will take over rule. The key contextual pointer in Dan 7:17-18 is kingdom
[], a root that is common to both verses. In Dan 7:17, kingdoms [] is plural and
does not have an article; there are four of them, figuratively designating a comprehensive reference to all
human governance, probably for all time. Then, in Dan 7:18, both uses of kingdom [] are
singular and both have a definite article. The upshot is that the many kingdoms [Dan 7:17] in some sense
become the kingdom [Dan 7:18]. Accordingly, in Dan 7:18, saints [] involves a human
referent.
We also asked another question: is one like a son of man parallel to saints of the Most High or
is there some sort of relationship between two different referents? Since saints [] has been
shown to imply a human referent, and since one like a son of man was shown to be a heavenly referent,
there would appear to be [1] a relationship of some sort [2] between a heavenly referent and a human one.
To anticipate, this divine-human relationship will be disambiguated in Dan 7:27 along these lines: the
people of God [Dan 7:27a] and the King [Dan 7:27b-c]. Lets now return to flesh out more fully the
complete phrase, saints of the Most High. How is saints used?
Saints of the Most High [ ] is a genitive phrase. The translation of
any genitive is tricky and is, in the final analysis, dictated by the words in context. In this case, we seem to
have a state of affairs in mind, a state of affairs in the form of possession: the saints belong to the Most
High.377
Saints [] in the Hebrew Bible is an adjective that means [1] holy, commanding respect,
awesome with regard to things or people, [2] singled out, consecrated for with regard to either people or
occasions, [3] people are called holy, [4] as well as God, and [5] heavenly beings are called holy. 378 We
377 See Van der Merwe 25.4.1; IBHS 9.5.1i; Bauer-Leander 89 a.
378 KB2, 1066.
78
shall be concerned with the use of in relation to the deity, in other words those usages of
that fall under meanings 2 and 3.
Saints [] used to denote those who are singled out for or consecrated for refers to [1] priests
(Leviticus 21:6-8), [2] the Levites (2 Chronicles 35:3), [3] the nation of Israel (Exodus 19:6 {kingdom of
priests}; Numbers 15:40 {obedience}; Deuteronomy 7:6 {treasured possession}; 14:2, 21; 26:19 {set above
all the nations}; 28:9, [4] the Nazarite (Numbers 6:5, 8).
Saints [] in sense 3 above, people who are holy refers to [1] people as clean/unclean
(Leviticus 11:44-45; 20:7 {keep Yahwehs decrees}, 26 {a nation set apart for Yahweh}; 21:6 {holy in
matters of worship}; Deuteronomy 33:3 {the holy receive instruction from Yahweh}, [2] the remnant
(Isaiah 4:3), and [3] those who fear Yahweh (Psalm 34:9).
Saints in the Hebrew Bible, when used of human beings, denotes: [1] a servant status for the
nation, a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6), [2] a moral code: obedience (Numbers 15:40), separation
from whatever was unclean (Leviticus 11:44-45), open to divine instruction (Deuteronomy 33:3, [3] an
elevated status: set apart for Yahweh (Leviticus 20:26; Deuteronomy 7:6; 26:19), and [4] a holy worship
(Leviticus 21:6).
If the saints of the Most High means that the saints belong to the Most High in a divine-human
relationship, then from the saints point of view, they serve, obey, separate themselves, remain open to
divine instruction, appreciate their elevated status, and worship in holy worship; this is humanity as God
intended it to be! C.F. Keil summarizes who these saints of the Most High are: they are the
congregation of the New Covenant, consisting of Israel and the faithful of all nations; for the kingdom
which God gives to the Son of man will, according to vs. 14, comprehend those who are redeemed from
among all the nations of the earth. 379
Take over rule [ (Pael, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] in Dan 7:18a is parallel to take possession of
[ (Aphel, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] in Dan 7:18b. Both verbs are written in the imperfect
aspect, suggesting a future eventuality380 with the timing of the fulfillment left open-ended.
Take over rule [] is literally, receive the kingdom, but Holladay reads the collocation of the
verb [] plus the direct object [] in the sense of will take over the rule.381 Rosenthal
concurs, offering to receive, to take over for the Pael stem of .382 The same collocation [
] is used in Dan 6:1 of Darius succeeding to the throne. The Septuagint tradition in both the Old
Greek and Theodotion use for , a Greek verb that may mean to receive,
to take over.383 Pter-Contesse and Ellington affirm that denotes receiving royal power.384 The
next verb seems to clarify the meaning of .

380 Bauer-Leander 78 e.
381 Holladay, 418.
382 Rosenthal, 95.
383 BAGD, 619.
384 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 195.
79
Take possession of [ (Aphel, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is written in the Aphel stem, a causative
stem385 that implies that the saints will neither rule nor possess on their own terms; they are recipients not
anarchists.
Take possession [] is used twice in the Aramaic text of Daniel, here and in Dan 7:22. KohlerBaumgartner translate in Dan 7:18 with to take possession of, to occupy.386 Holladay differs
only slightly, offering for Dan 7:18 to take possession of, possess.387 Rosenthal concurs with these,
offering to possess, to take possession of.388 Once more, the Septuagint tradition is on the same page,
offering for , a Greek verb that means to take into ones possession, to occupy.389
One suspects that the relationship between one like a son of man and the saints who occupy is
something along these lines: the dominion/kingdom that one like a son of man was given [Dan 7:14] is
occupied in his name by the saints of the Most High.
Summary.
Taking Dan 7:17-18 as a whole, the author intends that we grasp the direct opposition between the multiple
kingdoms in Dan 7:17 and the single kingdom in Dan 7:18. Like Dan 7:12-13, this paragraph reverses the
locus of authority among men from human governance [Dan 7:17] to a more heavenly governance [Dan
7:18]. Moreover, the reader will note that in the Dan 7:12-13 passage, the transference is from human
governance [Dan 7:12] to one like a son of man [Dan 7:13]. In the current paragraph, however, the
transference is from human power politics [Dan 7:17] to the saints of the Most High [Dan 7:18]. This
distinction is intentional: the saints of the Most High [Dan 7:18] will rule in the name of one like a son of
man [Dan 7:13].
Dan 7:17 has two points of note: the imagery of four and the verses emphasis on
kings/kingdoms as the locus of personal responsibility.
First, we have encountered the figurative use of four previously; in the current verse, the
numeral applies to human political regimes: four kingdoms. The significance of the figure is in pointing
out comprehensiveness or world-encompassing completeness vis--vis world-dominating figures for all
time. The reader/interpreter of this verse must appreciate the open-endedness of the phrase four
kingdoms; there will be many instantiations over the course of history until the Lord wraps up His
universe like a scroll [Isaiah 34:4].
It is inadmissible to read this discreet piece of prophecy, These great beasts, which are four, are
four kingdoms that will arise from the earth, as pointing to a single national instantiation in human history.
Indeed, it is even wider of the mark to read into Dan 7:17 a specific nation that signals the end of human
history and the immanent return of the Lord. To begin with, if Dan 7:18b is taken at face value; the time
frame in this paragraph is open-ended: forever, and for all ages to come. There is a reason for this
position.
One of the principles for interpreting prophecy adequately is the recognition that there are three
kinds of prophecies in the OT: [1] unconditional prophecy, [2] conditional prophecy, and [3]
sequential prophecy.390 This passage in Daniel, indeed almost all of the prophecies in Daniel, fall in the
385 Van Pelt, 150.
386 KB2, 1878.
387 Holladay, 406.
388 Rosenthal, 85.
389 BAGD, 423.
390 Walter Kaiser, Jr. in An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., and
Moiss Silva (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 148-50.
80
category of sequential prophecies: The predictions contained within them place several events together in
one prediction, even though they will be fulfilled in a sequence and a series of acts perhaps stretching over
several centuries [emphasis mine].391 Accordingly, these four kingdoms encompass all such regimes
throughout all of human history.
Second, we must note the personal responsibility of kingdoms/kings implicit in Dan 7:14b. For the
reasons cited above, the author uses, literally, a word for kings that is legitimately translated kingdoms.
The terminology is a form of figurative language whereby an author represents the abstract notion,
kingdom, by its concrete representative, king. The import of this use is to put a human face on human
governance. Just as Nebuchadnezzar was the face of Babylon, Darius the face of Persia, Nero the face of
Rome, Hitler the face of Germany, Saddam Hussein the face of Iraq, Assad the face of Syria, Washington
the face of America, so each and every one of these faces, these real people, are personally responsible
for the public expression of their policies. None of them escapes divine scrutiny: Nebuchadnezzar had his
watchers [Dan 4:17]; these beasts have Endless of Days sitting in judgment over them [Dan 7:11, 22, 26].
Dan 7:18 is dominated by two factors: first, the saints, and second, their rule.
First, regarding the saints, after the long analysis of the word usage in Daniel 7, we concluded that
saints implied a human referent. What is more, the character of these saints should be duly noted.
They are characterized as people whose allegiance belongs to the Most High. This fact, in and of itself,
helps define their rule: these people will represent the interests of Yahweh in their rulership.
Furthermore, the character of a saint includes servanthood, obedience, separation from the
world, openness to divine instruction, appreciation of their elevated status, and worship in holy reverence.
These traits are not the qualities of tyranny, nor are these the attributes of a theocracy. Rather, these are the
mannerisms of men and women for whom what God thinks and wants is all that really matters. The upshot
is that Dan 7:18 is the work of a community of people [Dan 7:14] who acknowledge the exclusive authority
of the Most High and serve undividedly in the name of one like a son of man.
Second, their rule is neither political nor tyrannical; rather, these saints embody a community
that, first, receives royal power and authority [take over rule], which is in turn clarified with occupies (in
the name of one like a son of man) [take possession of]. If nothing else, this much is crystal clear about
this communitys rule: these do not rule by their own standards, nor do they lord it over others [Matthew
20:25; Mark 10:42; Luke 22:25]. The communitys status as saints [see above] precludes the use of power
or authority in a political model. The safeguard against religious tyranny is the fact that Dan 7:13-14 and
Dan 7:18 have the imprimatur of heaven: The ones who fulfill this vision will be those who come from
God, who can be perceived to share Gods priorities.392
C.Daniel seeks clarification concerning the fourth beast [Dan 7:19-28a]
1.
Daniel asks for certainty regarding the fourth beast [Dan 7:19-20]

a.
Certainty regarding the beast [Dan 7:19]

7:19a

them;

7:19c

7:19d
Immediately I longed to be certain,

concerning the fourth beast,
7:19b which was different from all of
exceptionally frightening,
its teeth of iron,
391 Ibid., 150.

392 Goldingay, 191.
81

feet.
b.
7:19f
7:19e its claws of copper,

devouring, shattering,
and trampling down the remainder with its
Certainty concerning the horns of the beast [Dan 7:20]

horns,

counterparts.
7:20a
7:20d
7:20e
[as well as certainty] concerning the ten
that were on its head,

7:20b especially the other one that came up,
7:20c and then, three fell off before the other one;
namely, that horn,
with eyes on it,
and a mouth speaking insolently,
7:20f and its appearance more imposing that its
The reader is invited to review the analysis of Dan 7:7 for Dan 7:19, and Dan 7:8 for Dan 7:20;
these passages are virtually identical.
2.
An additional vision concerning this horn [Dan 7:21-22]

a.
This horn wages war with the saints [Dan 7:21]
7:21a
7:21b
7:21c
b.
So, I kept on looking,

and that horn,
waged war,
with the saints;
and so proved too powerful for them.
Judgment by the Ancient of Days [Dan 7:22]
7:22a
Until Endless of Days came,
82

7:22b and so the judgment was
given on behalf of the saints of the
Most High;

7:22c that is, the appointed time came,

7:22d and so the saints took possession of
the kingdom.
In the midst of Daniels request for an interpretation [Dan 7:19-20] of this fourth beast, his enquiry
is interrupted with an additional vision concerning the horn that single horn that emerged eventually from
the fourth beast [Dan 7:19-20]. This additional vision provides additional insight into the real threats to be
faced by the saints of the Most High [Dan 7:18]: the community is empowered to act on behalf of Endless
of Days and in the name of one like a son of man, but not without terrible conflict [Dan 7:21] and not
without vindication [Dan 7:20].
We may outline the flow of this paragraph thus:
Dan 7:21 conflict
7:21a
(1) So, I kept on looking,
7:21b
(2) [Specification of (1)] and that horn waged war with the saints;
7:21c
(3) [Result of (2)] and so proved too powerful for them
Dan 7:22 vindication
7:22a
(4) [Temporal marker] Until Endless of Days came
7:22b
(5) [Result of (4)] and so the decision was given
on behalf of the saints of the Most High;
7:22c
(6) [Clarification of (5)] that is the appointed time came,
7:22d
(7) [Result of (4-5)] and so saints took possession of the kingdom.
We may read Dan 7:21-22 as a visionary addendum to the creation of the community in Dan 7:18;
the author supplements Dan 7:18 with the certainty of conflict [Dan 7:21] and the assurance of vindication
[Dan 7:22].
Dan 7:21 So, I kept on looking, and that horn waged war with the saints; and so proved too powerful for
them.
Dan 7:21b contains the statement of conflict: that horn waged war with the saints. Syntactically,
Dan 7:21b specifies just what Daniel saw as he kept on looking [Dan 7:21a].
That horn [ ] is the one that preoccupies Daniel in Dan 7:20 [also Dan 7:8, 11].
The reader may consult commentaries or have footnotes in their Bibles that identify this horn as Antiochus
Epiphanes, possibly with additional references to Dan 8:9, 23-24. However, while the references in Dan
8:9, 23-24 probably are an allusion to Antiochus Epiphanes, Daniel 8 stipulates that he grew out of four
83
horns [Dan 8:8-9, 22-23], not the ten horns that birthed the horn Daniel is concerned with [see Dan 7:8].
The difference is a small one; but the reader should appreciate what the author is cleverly highlighting: the
emergence in world history of two different but correspondingly evil regimes. Baldwin comments on this:
This fact is an indication that we are being introduced to a recurring historical phenomenon [emphasis
mine]: the clever but ruthless world dictator, who stops at nothing in order to achieve his ambitions. 393
There are patterns in history!
Moreover, readers should be cautious about applying the term antichrist to this horn in any of its
appearances in Daniel [Dan 7:8, 11, 20-21]. For, as a general interpretive principle, it is inadmissible to
read a New Testament meaning back into an Old Testament term. That said, this horn, as he is represented
in Daniel 7, is indeed anti, but he is anti-saints in Dan 7:21. The opposition envisioned in Dan 7:21 is
opposition to the community that represents the interests of God and serves in the name of one like a son of
man; readers should keep in mind the authors key point here: the inevitability of serious conflict between
the people of God and rogue regimes wielding political power.
Waged war [ ] appears for the only time here in the Aramaic text of Daniel.
Rosenthal affirms that war/ shows Akkadian influence.394 The Mandaean cognate [qraba] means
either war or conflict.395 The Hebrews noun, , is drawn from a verbal form, , that means
to draw near; this usually denotes physical, spatial proximity, and coming or bringing near can have
various motivations including hostility.396 In Biblical Hebrew, is used in two ways: [1] armed
conflict (2 Samuel 17:11; Job 38:23; Psalm 68:30; 78:9; 144:1; Ecclesiastes 9:18) and [2] interpersonal
strife (Psalm 55:18, 21; Zechariah 14:3). The Septuagint traditions use the Greek noun
for the Aramaic noun, ; the Greek noun means strife, conflict, quarrel.397 The conflict motif will
be enlarged upon and elaborated in Daniel 11-12; indeed, there is a state of conflict on the horizon for the
community of saints that includes desecration of worship [Dan 11:31], defections [Dan 11:32], defiance
[Dan 11:33] and death [Dan 11:33]. Without a doubt, a time of conflict is inevitable, including a level of
conflict unheard of in human history [Dan 12:1], including the shattering of the power of the people of God
[Dan 12:7]. There is a hint of Dan 12:7 in Dan 7:21c.
Proved too powerful [ (Peal, participle, fm, sg)] is from an Aramaic root [] that has two
ranges of meaning in the Peal stem: [1] to be able, and [2] to prevail against, defeat.398 The root comes
from a semantic field of terms for power or strength.399 Robin Wakely translates in Dan 7:21
with prevailing over, or proving too powerful for them.400 J.A. Soggin affirms that the most frequent
meanings of the root [] include: be able, to succeed, be allowed, be superior, be victorious over, to
grasp, to bear, and to endure; in Dan 7:21, means prevail.401
393 Baldwin, 162.

394 Rosenthal, 188.
395 KB2, 1972-73.
396 R.E. Gane and Jacob Milgrom, , in TDOT, vol. XIII, 137.
397 BAGD, 685.
399 See Power, strength in NIDOTTE.
400 Robin Wakely, , in NIDOTTE [H3523].
401 J.A. Soggin, , in TDOT, vol. VI, 72.
84
Obviously, /prevail signals a graver intensity of struggle than waging war [] in the rather
benign sense of conflict. Perhaps, from a human point of view, these terms suggest a scale of conflict up
to and including being prevailed over. That said, as noted vis--vis conflict in Daniel 8, the community of
saints will experience various levels of struggle over the course of their work on behalf of Endless of Days
and one like a son of man. Indeed, so intense is the conflict between the anti-saint, anti-God forces that
only divine intervention provides rescue [Dan 7:22]. Finally, if our reading of the imagery of Daniel is
correct, then this horn that wages war and prevails will have many instantiations over the course of
human history. The community of saints down through human history, from the moment the ink dried on
Daniels scroll right up to the instant of Jesus final return, will endure embodiments of the same rapacious
and desecrating forces, typically the forces of human governance, as we see in Dan 7:21. Again, there are
patterns in history.
However, the final victory is not to be gained by the defiling and blasphemous forces of human
governance, rather, the victory is completely in the hands of Yahweh, as the next verse shows.
Dan 7:22 Until Endless of Days came, and so the decision was given on behalf of the saints of the Most
High; that is, the appointed time came, and so, the saints took possession of the kingdom.
It would be advantageous to review the syntactical structure of this most important verse. To
begin with until [ ] is a temporal marker with a fairly exact point to make: /until
signals a point in time up to which events occur, and not beyond.402 As we have noted repeatedly, the theme
of the entire book of Daniel is that God is sovereign over the national and international political powerplayers in this world; this includes the certainty of Yahwehs intervention when these political thugs do
their worst vis--vis the community of saints.
And so, the decision [] signals the result [and so] of the intervention of Endless of Days. The
syntactical marker of result is the waw [] prefixed to the noun, decision [].403
That is, the appointed time [] once more uses the disjunctive waw [], this time to clarify or
specify the judgment.404 Whatever this appointed time is, it is part and parcel with Yahwehs intervening
decision.
And so, the saints took possession [] actually front-loads the noun kingdom with the
prefixed waw [] teasing out the result of the decision of Yahweh.
Putting all of this together, we have this: there is a time beyond which even the most powerful, the
most defiling, the most dishonoring political regime cannot move: Until Endless of Days came; what is
more, given His intervention, there are always consequences: and so, the decision, that emerges at the
appointed time; furthermore, another consequence: and so, the saints took possession. What the syntax
betrays is the all-encompassing sovereignty of Yahweh in judgment of evil and blessing of His saintly
community.
There is one final point that is partly syntactical, partly poetic: in Dan 7:22b, 7:22c, and 7:22d the
author front-loads a noun with a definite article. The arrangement reads thus: the decision the time
the kingdom. If nothing else, this scheme charts what is pivotal in Dan 7:22: the decision, the time, the
kingdom.
402 On this point, see Rosenthal 86; Bauer-Leander 70 v; KB2, 1943.

403 For this use of the disjunctive waw, see Bauer-Leander 70 c.
404 For the clarifying use of , see Bauer-Leander 70 r.
85
The decision [] uses a very common root [] in both Aramaic and Hebrew for
judgment. In the Old Testament, is either a divine activity or a human activity.405 In Daniel 7,
appears three times [Dan 7:10, 22, 26], all associated with Endless of Days and therefore all divine
usages of .
Decision [], in the Aramaic of the book of Daniel, has three ranges of meaning: [1] divine justice
regarding humans, [2] a divine court assembled for judgment, and [3] judgment.406
In the first meaning, is used in tandem with /truth in Dan 4:37. In that passage,
Nebuchadnezzar extols Yahweh thus: all His works [] are true [] and all His ways
[] are just []. In the second clause, the usage of tells us that all of Yahwehs ways
of dealing with men upon this earth are governed by , by justice [for this nuance of in the
Hebrew Bible, see Psalm 9:4; 140:12]. In this usage, then, has the meaning of justice.
In the second meaning of , the usage denotes a divine court assembled for dispensing
divine judgment upon the wicked [Dan 7:10, 26].
In the third case, is judgment executed by humans in the form of corporal punishment,
including death, banishment, loss of personal property, or imprisonment [Ezra 7:26].
Provisionally, when used in reference to Yahweh outside of Dan 7:22, either denotes [1]
divine justice or [2] a divine court convening for judgment upon the wicked.
The Septuagint tradition varies; the Old Greek uses , and Theodotion uses
for . If we take the Old Greek translation, then the translator reads in the sense
of judgment as the activity of God.407 If we follow Theodotion, then we read in one of three
senses: [1] decision, [2] judgment, in the sense of Gods judgment, or [3] judicial verdict. 408 If we go
along with the Old Greek reading, , then the translator is pointing to the process of
judging.409 On the other hand, if we stick with Theodotion, then the translator is reading the result of the
process of judging, thus decision, verdict, judgment.410 So, where does all of this leave us?
First, if we choose to read with the meaning judgment, then the nuance of divine judgment
appears for the first and only time in the Aramaic use of in Daniel. But, owing to the fact that
is used in the Hebrew Bible with the meaning divine judgment [Job 36:16; Psalm 76:8],
importing this usage to Dan 7:22 is permissible.
Second, if we opt for with the meaning of divine justice, then we do have a similar
usage of in Dan 4:37. Moreover, we pointed out a similar usage of in Psalm 140:12. This
view of has much to recommend it. Theodotion seems to read as a decision.
Interestingly, Montgomery translates with a decision was rendered for and reads as
parallel to /maintain justice in Psalm 140:12.411 Driver seems to concur, writing, God
405 See Richard Schultz, , in NIDOTTE.
406 KB2, 1852.
407 BAGD, 452.
408 Ibid., 450.
409 Moiss Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 744 [hereafter abbreviated NDNTTE with volume number].
410 Ibid.
411 Ibid.
86
by His judgment secures justice for His saints.412 Keil opts for divine justice, observing, is
justice procured by the judgment, corresponding to the Hebrew word (justice) in Deut
10:18.413 Finally, Slotki reads in the sense of the decision in their favor.414
Third, the usage of with the meaning divine court assembled for judgment clearly does not fit the
context.
Fourth, we may also rule out the translation, the (power) of judgment was given to the saints, on
the grounds cited by Montgomery: God is the judge in this chapter.415
The sum of the matter is this: the subject of Dan 7:22b is Yahwehs decision on behalf of His saintly
community. This divine decision is, in reality, Yahweh vindicating His people. This timely [Dan 7:22c]
vindication takes the form of the community taking possession of the kingdom. If this reading is correct
and as pointed out it has the benefit of similar usage of here and in Dan 4:37, then reading
in the sense of the final judgment is surely out of bounds.
The appointed time [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg) (definite article, noun, ms,
sg)] is a phrase that uses the Aramaic noun []. This noun [] means a fixed time with three
shades of meaning: [1] an unspecified but limited duration of time, [2] a point in time when an event
occurs, and [3] a sacred occasion.416 Anthony Tomasino also sees a basic notion to with three,
somewhat different, nuances; the basic idea of is a point in time when an event occurs.417 Among
the nuances of this basic idea of are: [1] a point in time, especially when referring to a coincidence
of events, [2] a predetermined period of time, and [3] a predetermined moment or hour.418
In the case of Dan 7:22c, the meaning of seems to be a fixed point in time when an event occurs,
the saintly community taking possession of the kingdom in this case. Tomasino writes that refers
to, a predetermined time when the kingdom of God will be established on the earth (7:22). Driver
observes that refers to the time appointed by God for the purpose.419 Slotki adds an interesting
nuance to ; it is the time determined by God for the end of heathen domination,420 a nuance that
certainly fits the context of Daniel 7. The usage of in this verse does rest upon the determination of
Endless of Days [Dan 7:22b]. In other words, there are times in life in the sense of a fixed point in time
when an event occurs that are completely beyond human control, for God is their sole agent.421 On the
other hand, there are times when events occur that are thoroughly within the province of man; but not the
possession of the kingdom by the saintly community.

414 Slotki, 62.
416 See KB2, 1866.
417 Anthony Tomasino, , in NIDOTTE [H2374].
418 Ibid.
420 Slotki, 62.
421 Michael V. Fox, A Time To Tear Down and A Time To Build Up (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 201.
87
The kingdom [] is used in Dan 7:18, but we refrained from comment on at that
point. In the Aramaic of Daniel, is used: [1] of both human and divine subjects, [2] with an
emphasis on the exercise of sovereignty within a human domain, and [3] or, more comprehensively, with an
emphasis on the realm where sovereignty within a human domain is exercised.422
When refers to the exercise of sovereign power within a political realm, there is usually some
disambiguation in the context that points to the exercise of sovereignty. Thus, in Dan 2:37 is
clarified by power [] and might []; in Dan 2:39 is elucidated with rule over
[]; in Dan 5:20 is explained in terms of behaved arrogantly []; and in Dan 7:2324, is illuminated with devour [] and subdue []; and finally, is
clarified with under the whole of the heavens in Dan 7:27a.423
When refers more abstractly to the realm wherein sovereign power is exercised, the noun is
generally used of leaders, divine or human, operating within a sphere of political influence. Thus, in
Nebuchadnezzars dream of a divided [Dan 2:41-42]; or when the heavenly watcher advises
Nebuchadnezzar that Yahweh is the One who rules human [Dan 4:17, 25]; or even the entire
Babylonian that Nebuchadnezzar built and over which he presides [Dan 4:29-30].424
Finally, when is used in relation to Yahweh, refers to His kingdom, which will put an
end to all of those kingdoms mentioned in the two paragraphs above [Dan 2:44]; furthermore, this divine
will be permanent, lasting on this earth from generation to generation [Dan 4:3]. Ultimately, it is
Daniel 7 that truly disambiguates the of God: first, it is given to one like a son of man [Dan
7:14a-b] so that all humanity would serve one like a son of man [Dan 7:14e] again permanently [Dan 7:14fh]. Furthermore, the community of saints will take possession of this , representing the
interests of Endless of Days and serving in the name of one like a son of man [Dan 7:18, 22, 27b].
The upshot is that the in Dan 7:22d is [1] an earthly realm, [2] that is perpetual, and [3]
and that is overseen by the saintly community [4] in the name of one like a son of man, [5] representing the
interests of Endless of Days, i.e., God.
Summary.
Dan 7:21-22 are part of an additional vision, and, as a vision, Daniel is the recipient of an
additional revelation. The subject of this revelation in Dan 7:21-22 is judgment, specifically judgment
upon adversaries of the saintly community [Dan 7:21] followed by divine vindication. The highpoint of
Dan 7:21-22 is the community of saints taking possession of the kingdom of God, serving in the interests of
God and one like a son of man.
There is one matter of note in Dan 7:21: Dan 7:21 is the first explicit revelation from the heavens
concerning the hostility between human governance and the saintly community. To be sure, there have
been hints to this effect earlier in the chapter [insolent words in Dan 7:11, 20], but Dan 7:21 is the first
direct revelation that an adversarial relationship between human governance and the people of God will
overshadow the foreseeable future. There are two matters of interest here: waging war and proving too
powerful.
Waging war is not a pleasant expectation, nor is it intended to be. The warfare between the
community of saints and human tyrants denotes conflict, as demonstrated in Daniel 11-12: desecration of
worship [Dan 11:31], defections [Dan 11:32], defiance [Dan 11:33] and death [Dan 11:33]. Without a
doubt, periods of religious conflict are inevitable, but the strife only worsens, culminating in an intensity of
conflict unheard of in human history [Dan 12:1], involving the shattering of the power of the people of God
422 For a similar breakdown, see KB2, 1917-18.
423 On this point, see Dan 2:37, 39, 40; 5:20, 29; 6:2, 5, 26; 7:23-24.
424 For this usage, see Dan 2:41-42, 17-18, 25-26, 29-32; 4:36; 5:7, 11, 16, 18, 21, 26, 28; 6:1, 4, 29.
88
[Dan 12:7]. If nothing else, Dan 7:21 prepares the reader of Daniel for the comprehensive and ignoble
picture of the warfare between God and His people and political power-players in the future [Daniel 11-12].
Proving too powerful is the net effect of the warfare noted above. The language here is
unambiguous; it points to the downfall of the community of saints. The adversaries of the community
prevail; they are superior, so much so that they are victorious over. The reader cannot escape the
conclusion here that Daniels vision reveals, as Walter Lthi puts it, the temporary triumph of evil.425
These beasts are granted their fifteen minutes of fame: a moment is allowed to the beasts, that they should
have a season and time to make great speeches, to devour and break in pieces, trample down, and to crown
all, to boast of their successes.426 This is the case throughout human history until the appointed time
comes.
If Dan 7:21 is the worst of times for Gods people, then Dan 7:22 assures them of the best of times: the
people of God will be vindicated by God Himself! With a verse like Dan 7:22, the reader should appreciate
the pastoral import of the apocalyptic genre of Daniel: the aim of apocalyptic, the aim therefore of Daniel
as a whole and Daniel 7 in particular is to comfort and to encourage Gods people to steer the course as the
people of God. Collins writes, The intention of an apocalypse then is to provide a view of the world that
will be a source of consolation [my emphasis] in the face of distress and a support and authorization for
whatever course of action [my emphasis] is recommended, and to invest this worldview with the status of
supernatural revelation.427 It is as if Daniel were saying something like this: Endure whatever hardship
you must as a good soldier in Gods army; remain steadfast, for you will be vindicated!
Indeed, the decision has been made in Dan 7:22b. As noted above, the decision is Yahwehs resolution
on behalf of His saintly community; in reality, Yahwehs vindication of His people by granting them
possession of the kingdom. The warfare noted above is effectively ended; Gods saintly community
assumes the task representing Gods interests, serving in the name of one like a son of man [Dan 7:14, 18]
on earth.
Took possession of has already been discussed in Dan 7:18. For now, it is crucial to note that this
possession is not merely the transference of raw political power from the hands of human tyrants to the
hands of religious tyrants. John Goldingay is absolutely correct when he writes that there is little evidence
that Israelites or Christians make less oppressive rulers than Babylonians or Greeks. 428 Be this as it may,
as noted in our study of saints above, these people into whose hands the kingdom now falls share and
reflect the priorities of God; this is the safeguard against the emergence of an empire in the hands of
religious fanatics.
The saintly community took possession as recipients, not as anarchists; they were granted the privilege of
representing the interests of God, but they did not seize such a high calling; they are servants [Dan 7:14e],
not masters. The upshot is this: the dominion, the kingdom that one like a son of man was given [Dan
7:14], is occupied in his name by the saints of the Most High. Ultimately, when Jesus of Nazareth
emerges on the world scene, adopting the moniker one like a son of man, among other things, this is the
case: that which is promised the saintly community in Dan 7:18, 22, and 27 is inaugurated for all time. In
effect, the saintly community becomes a co-regent with one like a son of man, both representing, not the
narrow and self-serving interests of human beings, but rather doing the bidding of God alone [Dan 7:27].
3.
The explanation of the fourth beast and the ten horns [Dan 7:23-28a]
425 Lthi, 100.

426 Ibid.
427 Collins, FOTL, 22.
428 Goldingay, 190.
89

a.
The explanation of the fourth beast [Dan 7:23]

7:23a

kingdoms,

shattered.
Thus, he explained:
7:23b The fourth beast,
7:23c will be the fourth kingdom on the earth,
7:23d which will be different from all
7:23e
7:23f
and so, it will devastate the entire earth,

so that the earth is trampled down and
This is the third mention of the fourth beast thus far in Daniel 7 [Dan 7:7, 19, 23]. In Dan 7:7,
we have the original vision of the beast; in Dan 7:19, we have Daniels question concerning this fourth
beast, and in Dan 7:23, we have the interpretation of it. To gain some contextual perspective, we may set
these passages side by side, focusing on the description of tis fourth beast:
Dan 7:7
Terrifying and terrible
Extremely powerful
Large iron teeth
Devouring/crushing
Differed
Dan 7:19
different from all of them
exceptionally frightening
teeth of iron/claws of copper
devouring/shattering/trampling
Dan 7:23
different from all kingdoms
devastate the entire earth
earth is trampled/shattered
From this schematic, the reader can easily see the new information the interpreter gives us in Dan
7:23 concerning this regime: this fourth beast/kingdom differs from its predecessors in the intensity with
which it pursues its world-wide ambitions. However, it is best not to over-interpret this reference to
universal ambitions. To begin with, Nebuchadnezzar also seems to have harbored world-wide ambitions
[Dan 4:1, 11, 17]; and, if we interpret Daniel 2 and 7 correctly, Nebuchadnezzar is the first beast, Babylon.
Furthermore, the third beast in the line of beasts in Daniel 2 also had international ambitions [Dan 2:39].
The only beast for which there is no explicit reference to global ambitions is the second beast. The
yearning for world-wide domination seems to be a fairly common desire among these beasts/regimes.
Most importantly, the fifth kingdom mentioned in Dan 2:35 is also destined to rule the earth. The
contextual perspective boils down to this: many pretenders have coveted world-wide influence [Dan 2:35,
39; 6:26; 7:23], pursuing this objective with greater or lesser degrees of intensity; no matter, only one is
destined to succeed [Dan 2:35; 7:14, 18, 22 and 27].
Dan 7:23 is sufficiently important to warrant a syntactical outline:
7:23 = a difference with the fourth beast: will to conquer the world
7:23a
(1) [Consequence of 7:19-20] Thus, he [the heavenly interpreter] explained,
7:23b-c
(2) [Basic truth claim] The fourth beast will be the fourth regime upon the earth,
7:23d
(3) [Clarification of fourth regime] which will be different from all the kingdoms;
7:23e
(4) [Further clarification: different how] that is, it will devastate the entire earth,
7:23f
(5) [Consequence of 7:23e] so that the earth is trampled down and devastated.
The fourth kingdom [ ] is the fourth (and final) model of the
comprehensive depictions of human governance begun in Dan 7:2. It is sheer over-reading to infer that this
90
is the final regime in human history before the end of human history. Rather, this fourth regime, like all the
others, and horns too for that matter, are patterns of the kinds of political-military power players the world
will have to withstand before the rightful heir to authority comes into its own [Dan 7:27].
Different from all the kingdoms [ (Peal, imperfect, 3rd, fm,
sg)] mentioned in the overview of human governance moving into the future [Dan 7:1-7]. As the
clarifications makes apparent, the difference between this regime and its predecessors is the intensity with
which it pursues its world-wide objectives. Slotkis observation about different is fitting: different in
degree; more oppressive and tyrannical.429
Devastate the entire earth [ (Peal, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] is a striking phrase;
the question is: should we read the phrase literally or non-literally? One clue is provided by the fact that the
verb we have translated devastate literally means to eat (as in a meal), obviously then, /eat is
used metaphorically in the sense of devastate430 or devour in this context. Perhaps we should keep in
mind Cairds observation about non-literal language: Any statement, literal or metaphorical, may be true
or false, and its referent may be real or unreal.431 Thus, devastate the entire earth may be conveying
some metaphorical truth about this kind of regime; the fact that Daniel uses /eat in a
metaphorical sense does not mean that he doesnt accept the reality of what he is writing. But, what is the
reality that he intends to communicate?
Devastate the entire [] earth sounds like hyperbole. Hyperbole is overstatement, the tendency to
think in extremes [emphasis mine] without qualification.432 The usage of the entire earth
[] elsewhere in Daniel supports the hyperbolic usage of the phrase. Nebuchadnezzar
seems to use the entire earth [] when he issues his proclamation in Daniel 3:31 (4:1).
Indeed, Collins refers to this usage of the phrase, the entire earth as a common part of royal ideology in
the ancient Near East.433 Later, Darius makes use of the same phrase, in the entire earth
[], for his proclamation concerning the reverence due to Daniels God [Dan 6:26]. So,
given all of that, just what is the rationale behind the hyperbolic use of the entire earth
[]?
Hyperbole generally relies upon absoluteness,434 that is using language in such a way as to avoid any
middle ground, any compromise, any black and white; the determination to conquer is absolute, thus the
rationale behind the hyperbole is to communicate this iron clad determination in superlatives, all the
earth []. Hence, in the context of apocalyptic as revelation, this hyperbole reveals the
absolute determination, the iron will, of this fourth beast to conquer, to overpower, to subjugate, to
utterly vanquish as much as he can, as often as he can. The reader may also infer a kind of warning here
revealed by the heavenly interpreter to and through Daniel: be forewarned: men like this, barbarians
blinded by ambition, political-military power players, will emerge from time to time and stop at nothing to
satisfy their ravenous appetites for world-wide conquest. In view of that, this unbending and resolute will
is pictured with three action words, also used metaphorically: devastate, trample, and shatter.
429 Slotki, 62.

430 KB2, 1812; similarly, Holladay, 397.
431 Caird, 131.
432 Ibid., 110.
433 Collins, 221.
434 Caird, 110.
91
Devastate [] is from a semantic field of terms for devouring.435 The metaphorical usage of
devastate/ connotes hostile forces that are depicted as consuming and thus destroying.436 There
are implications of annihilation in this term.
Trample [] is from a semantic domain of terms for threshing.437 This verb appears only here in the
Aramaic section of Daniel. In the Hebrew Bible, is used both literally [Deuteronomy 25:4; 1
Chronicles 21:20; Isaiah 28:27-28] and non-literally [Judges 8:7; 2 Kings 13:7; Isaiah 21:10; 41:15; Micah
4:13; Habakkuk 3:12]. Mark Futato writes that the term trample/ is a figure of defeat, including
by military victory.438 H.F. Fuhs writes that the verb trample/ may be used as a figure for the
destruction of countries and nations.439 H.G. Stigers notes that the figurative use of makes use of
the breaking action of threshing in the defeat of adversaries.440 In the Septuagint tradition, Theodotion
uses the Greek verb for , a Greek verb that means to trample under foot.441
There may be an element of smashing attached to the figurative use of .
Shatter [] is from a sematic field of terms for crushing.442 The metaphorical usage of is
captured by Kohler-Baumgartner, to be crushed into small pieces, ground up fine.443 On the surface of
things, seems to point to a pulverization metaphor.
What exactly is the interpreter attempting to reveal to Daniel, especially by piling up these obviously
synonymous terms? On one level, as Cruse remarks, synonyms are often employed as an explanation, or
clarification, of the meaning of another word.444 Accordingly, we may infer that the interpreter is intent on
being absolutely clear in his revelation to Daniel. Thus, the speaker multiplies terms for annihilation or
complete destruction. At another level, this multiplication of more or less synonymous terms enables the
interpreter to focus on his main point: human governance will be peopled by leaders who are intent on total
destruction in the pursuance of their objectives.
Summary.
Dan 7:23 picks up the interpretation begun in Dan 7:19-20 and interrupted in Dan 7:21-22 with assurances
for the community of saints about vindication after being overpowered in conflict. The thematic idea in
Dan 7:23 is the world-wide ambitions of this fourth beast and the intensity with which he pursue his
objectives.
As the fourth kingdom, this is the final exemplar of the kinds of human governance that Daniels
vision was intended to communicate. The interpreter should not over-read this fourth kingdom in the
sense of the fourth and final kingdom before the end of human history. There is no evidence in the
435 See Devour in NIDOTTE.

436 For this thought, see Robert H. OConnell, , in NIDOTTE [H430].
437 See Threshing in NIDOTTE.
438 Mark Futato, , in NIDOTTE [H1889].
439 H.F. Fuhs, , in TDOT, vol. III, 184.
440 R.L. Harris, G.L. Archer, Jr., and B.K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2
vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), [419 (hereafter abbreviated TWOT)].
441 LSJ, 1681.
442 See Crushing in NIDOTTE.
443 KB2, 1855.
444 Cruse, 267.
92
context of the paragraph that the interpreter is looking that far ahead. Rather, he is providing Daniel, and
us, with yet another model of human governance that will blight civilization throughout human history.
Dan 7:23 tells us that this fourth kind of kingdom is different for all the rest, differing in intensity
and in ambition. This kind of regime has its eye on the entire earth [Dan 7:23c], and intends to pursue its
goals with thoroughgoing intensity: devastating [Dan 7:23d], trampling, and shattering [Dan 7:23e].
It is difficult to ignore some sense of regression; for, as presented in Daniel 7, these beasts/regimes
get worse as they are presented to us. This may imply that, over time, human governance does not
progress in the quality of its work but rather degenerates into regimes that lust for world domination.
The reference to all the earth must be read with caution. As noted in the analysis above, there is
ample evidence that, among the tyrants who actually used the phrase in Daniel, it may have been used more
ideologically and somewhat metaphorically. Indeed, the metaphor may be used to communicate in no
uncertain terms the iron-willed determination to conquer. Whether such a regime actually succeeds in
world domination is a matter for God and history to reveal. Accordingly, the reader is cautioned against
understanding Dan 7:23 as an iron-clad guarantee that at the end of human a one world government is
destined to emerge. This may well be over-reading.
In any event, in the pursuance of his will to conquer, this kind of regime spares no effort; he
devastates; he tramples; and he shatters. The sum of the matter of all of these synonymous actions is
this: such regimes have no scruples about totally devastating, totally annihilating any resistance that would
dare to challenge their iron-willed determination to conquer.
b.
The explanation of the ten horns and the additional horn [Dan 7:24-25]

ones,

against the Most
7:24a
High,

saints of the Most High;

holy days and Gods law,

As for the ten horns,

out of this kingdom,
ten kings will arise;
7:24b but, another will arise after them,
7:24c and he will be different from the former
7:24d
7:25a
7:25d
that is, three kings he will subdue.

And then, he will continually speak words
7:25b
also, he will continually harass the
7:25c
and then, he will strive to change
and so, they will be given into his hand,

time, times, and half time.
93
The reader will observe that Dan 7:24-25 builds up to the emergence of a single horn that will
specifically target God and His people. Thus, the overall theme of Daniel 7:24-25 is this regimes conflict
with God and His people. The syntactical outline makes this clear:
Dan 7:24-25 = conflict between a regime and God and His people
7:24a = interpretation of the ten horns = ten kings
(1) As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom, ten kings will arise
7:24b = a contrast, focusing on one horn/king
(2) but, another [king] will arise after them,
7:24c = clarifying statement concerning this one horn/king
(3) and, he will be different from the former ones,
7:24d = further clarification of this specific horn/king
(4) that is, three kings he will subdue
7:25a = a contrast, not content to conquer kings, this horn/king strikes out at God
(5) However, he will continually speak words against the Most High;
7:25b = escalation of persecution from God to His people
(6) also, he will continually harass the saints of the Most High
7:25c = specification of persecution of the saints of the Most High
(7) and then, he will strive to change times and law,
7:25d = the end result of Dan 7:25b-c
(8) and so, they will be given into his hand, time, times, and half time
Dan 7:24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom, ten kings will arise; but another will arise after them,
and he will be different from the former ones, that is three kings he will subdue.
Dan 7:24a tells us that the fourth regime in Dan 7:23 has ten kings who rule simultaneously as a
part of this fourth empire. Thus, the heavenly interpreter tells us that these ten horns/kings arise out of this
[fourth] kingdom.
Dan 7:24b affirms that another king arises within the empire that will become the focus of the
paragraph.
Dan 7:24c gives us the first substantive piece of information about this particular king: he will be
different [ (Peal, imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg) ]. This is language that has been used on three
occasions of the fourth empire [Dan 7:7, 19, 23] that spawned this particular horn/king. Drivers
observation concerning the import of /be different in Dan 7:7 is apropos here: this horn/king is
placed in a class by itself.445 Evidently, especially rapacious regimes spawn leaders after their own kind.
As Baldwin notes, this kingdom as a whole is destructive.446
Dan 7:24d indicates that there is political-military trouble within the regime: three kings he will subdue
[ (Haphel, imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg)]. Evidently, this king will overcome militarily about a third
of the empire, securing gains at the expense of other leaders within the empire as a whole. The reader will

446 Baldwin, 146.
94
note that not only the people of God but also humanity as a whole suffer at the hands of these politicalmilitary power-players who are driven by an iron-willed determination to conquer.
Subdue [] uses a verb from a semantic field of terms communicating low, humble, flat,
level.447 Rosenthal offers to bring down, to humiliate, to humble for .448 Humiliate seems to be
the usage of in Dan 4:34, used in contrast to pride []. Bring down fits the usage of
in Dan 5:19, used in contrast to exalt []. In Dan 5:22, has a direct object, heart
[] that yields the sense of humble oneself.449 Keil avers that is used in Dan 7:24d in the
sense of to deprive of sovereignty.450 The Septuagint tradition uses for , a
Greek verb that means in this context to abase, confound, overthrow.451
In Biblical Hebrew, Kohler-Baumgartner offer the following ranges of meaning452 for the Qal
stem: [1] to be (become) low, fall, referring to trees, mountains and hills, and a city; [2] to be (become)
humiliated, abased, used of people; [3] to be quiet or gentle of voice. Then, in the Hiphil stem, the ranges
of meaning are: [1] to bring low, overthrow, referring to a city, a person; [2] to abase or humiliate, used
with the accusative of either a person or a thing. Since the Haphel stem is used in our Aramaic form in Dan
7:24d, we may compare the Hiphil of in Hebrew with the Haphel of in Aramaic.453
The reader will doubtless note the difference in intensity between the treatment meted out to his
fellow rulers and the people of God. That is, the divine interpreter describes the treatment of the former in
terms of humiliation [], while the treatment of the people of God is described in far more menacing
language: harass [], strive to change [], and more or less overpower [
]. In the final analysis, it is not at all clear just what subdue [] denotes. Young writes,
How this is to be accomplished is not stated, nor is sufficient revealed to enable us to identify with
certainty this event when it transpires.454 The net effect may be that the details of this horn/kings rise to
power are marginal particulars; it is his antagonism toward God and His people that really matters, as we
are about to see.
Dan 7:25 And then, he will continually speak words against the Most High, also, he will continually
harass the saints of the Most High; and then, he will strive to change times and law, and so, they will be
given into his hand, times, time, and half time.
This verse depicts an all-out attack on the faith of the saints of the Most High. Beginning with attacking
God Himself, this tyrant proceeds to attack the people themselves and then manipulate human history as
well as codes of conduct.
447 See Low, humble, flat, level in NIDOTTE.

448 Rosenthal, 99.
449 KB2, 2001.
451 BAGD, 805.
452 Ibid., 1631-32.
453 On the overlap between these two stems, see Van Pelt, 143.
454 Young, 160.
95
This political power-players attack on God takes this form: continually speak words [
(Pael, imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] against the Most High. We have chosen to read the imperfect aspect of
in an ongoing sense for obvious reasons: one must attack their God relentlessly over time.455
Speak against [ ] is actually a verb [] followed by a prepositional phrase [].
As noted above, speaking against is habitual with this regime.
Speak against is a phrase that points to the use of human language []; in the Aramaic
section of Daniel, the usage of is restricted to spoken language [Dan 6:22; 7:8, 11, 20, 25]. The
useful fact for our purposes is that is used of the speech of this single horn/king in Dan 7:8, 11, 20.
We may set out these passages for comparison:
Dan 7:8
Dan 7:11
Dan 7:20
a mouth speaking insolent words

the sound of insolent words a mouth speaking insolently
( )
( )
( )
We may assume that speaking insolently and speaking against the Most High interpret each
other. When we studied in Dan 7:8, we noted that the collocation was an idiom for
arrogant and presumptuous speech, and when used in relation to God, the collocation amounted to
blasphemous speech.
In every case noted in the schematic above, insolent is a translation of an Aramaic adjective,
. The usage of in the Aramaic section of the OT includes the following ranges of meaning: [1]
in the sense of noble (Ezra 4:10); [2] as an honorific of God (Ezra 5:8; Dan 2:45); [3] as an
honorific of a human king (Ezra 5:11; Dan 2:10); [4] used to designate an office holder of some rank
(Dan 2:14; 4:9; 5:1, 11); [5] used in the sense of that which is imposing or magnificent (Dan 2:31, 35,
48; 4:37; 7:2, 3); [6] in the sense of that which is strong, mighty, powerful (Dan 4:3; 7:7); and [7]
used of bragging or proud speech (Dan 7: 8, 11, 20). H.-J. Fabry remarks that in Biblical Aramaic
we find in the idiom , speak insolently, blasphemously.456 Slotki affirms that
the collocation entails blasphemous words.457 Young writes, He will employ language in which he will
endeavor to set God aside and will arrogate to himself prerogatives which belong alone to God. 458 The net
effect is that speaking words against the Most High is a fairly general accusation, depicting a denial of
the sovereignty of God as well as mockery of God. Exactly how this is accomplished is not explicitly
stated; one knows it when one hears it.
He will continually harass [ (Pael, imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] the imperfect aspect of this verb also
indicates an ongoing or typical activity of this particular leader. The Aramaic root [] is used only
here in the Aramaic OT.
Harass [] means to wear out in Dan 7:25b according to Kohler-Baumgartner.459
Holladay shades the verb slightly differently, translating in Dan 7:25b with to wear down.460
455 See Bauer-Leander 78 a and Van Pelt, 96.
457 Slotki, 62; similarly, Driver, Daniel, 92.
458 Young, 160-61.
459 KB2, 1834; similarly, BDB, 115.
460 Holladay, 399.
96
Kaiser concurs with Holladay, noting that the usage of in Dan 7:25b is wear out or exhaust.461
Baldwin understands long-drawn-out persecution in the sense of wear out.462 This long term wearing
out would fit well with the imperfect aspect of the verb, signaling an ongoing event. Indeed, there is
ongoing affliction implied in the difficulties mentioned in the next sentence: change holy days and Gods
law. The upshot is that in this line points to protracted conflict that seeks to fatigue, weaken, and
wear down the saints of the Most High. We have translated with harass continually per BDB,463
preferring to avoid communicating any idea of annihilation or complete destruction.
Harass [] appears in the Hebrew Bible in the Qal stem and the Piel stem. In the Qal stem,
appears eleven times, all of them referring to some physical item wearing out: [1] the human body (Genesis
18:12; Job 13:28), or [2] of clothing (Deuteronomy 8:4; 29:4; Joshua 9:13; Nehemiah 9:21; Psalm 32:3;
102:26; Isaiah 50:9; 51:6). In the Piel stem, appears six times with three ranges of meaning464: [1]
to consume the physical body (Lamentations 3:4; Psalm 49:15); [2] to annihilate people (1 Chronicles
17:9); and [3] to enjoy fully (Job 21:13; Isaiah 65:22). The Septuagint traditions vary; the Old Greek uses
for , a Greek verb that means, when used of persons, to wear out, to
exhaust.465 Theodotion uses for , a Greek term that means in the active voice to
make old, to declare or treat as obsolete.466
Strive to change the times and law [ (Haphel, infinitive construct)
(Peal, imperfect, 3rd, ms)] is a line that specifies the nature of the harassment in Dan 7:25b.
Strive to change [ ] suggests a concerted effort to effect alterations in
matters of divine history and behavioral code. This collocation is used only here in the Aramaic OT.
Strive [] is an Aramaic verb that means to intend in Dan 7:25c according to KohlerBaumgartner.467 Rosenthal opts for to hope, to intend.468 Holladay once more adds a slightly different
shade of meaning, suggesting to strive or to seek for Dan 7:25c. 469 The Hebrew cognate for is the
root . This root, like the Aramaic root, , comes from a semantic field of terms denoting
hope or expectation.470
In the Hebrew OT, this construction, the verb [] plus an infinitive construct [of any root within a
range of five lexemes] appears twice [Esther 9:1; Psalm 104:27]. The Esther passage involves humans:
the enemies of the Jews hoped [] to gain mastery [infinitive] over them. The Psalm passage
involves humans and Yahweh: for You they wait [] to give them [infinitive] their food. In the
Esther passage, one suspects that the outcome hangs in the balance, thus hoped; in the Psalm, the
outcome seems to be certain, thus wait. If this tells us anything about the collocation in Dan 7:25c [he
461 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., in TWOT [246].
462 Baldwin, 146.
463 BDB, 1084.
464 See KB2, 132.
465 LSJ, 918.
466 BAGD, 606.
467 KB2, 1937.
468 Rosenthal, 92.
469 Holladay, 414.
470 Daniel Schibler, , in NIDOTTE [H8432].
97
will strive to change], then the phrase, as used by the heavenly interpreter, communicates uncertainty;
indeed, the heavenly speaker is hinting that these changes are planned, intended, wanted, anticipated, or
even expected, but not necessarily inevitable.
Times [ (noun, ms, pl)] is an Aramaic noun that has several ranges of meaning according
to Kohler-Baumgartner471: [1] a fixed/appointed time, [2] a period of grace, respite, [3] a moment in time,
[4] a sacred occasion, feast, and [5] a time, turn. Of these options, the first may fit best: an appointed time
or epoch, possibly back referencing /time/epoch in Dan 7:22 [ in the sense of the
appointed time for the saints to take possession of the kingdom]. If appointed time is the usage in Dan
7:25, then this horn/king is striving to change the appointed time in Dan 7:25, which God ordained in
Dan 7:22.
Be that as it may, the lexicons differ. BDB renders in the sense of (festival) seasons.472
Holladay follows suit with holy time, feast,473 as does Kohler-Baumgartner.474 If festival seasons or
the like is the meaning of in Dan 7:25, then this is the only such usage in the Aramaic of Daniel.
Some of the commentators follow suit, rendering holy days,475 seasons,476 religious festivals,477 and
the seasons.478
These readings are certainly possible; but, given the near contextual usage of in Dan 7:22,
the sense of as appointed time seems to fit the immediate context better.
Law [] is an Aramaic noun that has three ranges of meaning: [1] a royal command, [2] state
legislation or public law, and [3] Gods law, which amounts to Torah.479 The net effect is that this political
leader is intent on altering [] the law of God in the realm under his control. Joyce Baldwin calls this
his attempt to inaugurate a new morality.480 Slotki notes that this regime stands for an attempt to change
the ordinances [of God].481
The reader who consults most commentaries, or possibly footnotes in his/her Bible, on Dan 7:25
may find references to Antiochus Epiphanes, especially his attempts to change the faith of the people under
his dominion in 1 Maccabees 1:44-49. That Antiochus actually attempted this and that this is more than
likely the leader in view in Dan 8:9, 22-23 must be admitted; but, this leader, Antiochus, is said to emerge
out of four horns [Dan 8:8, 22] while the nameless leader in Dan 7:24 arises out of ten horns. While the
difference is a small one, it is a difference. Thus, to identify the small horn/king in Daniel 7 with Antiochus
Epiphanes in Daniel 8 is a misreading of the details of both chapters. The upshot is this: by appreciating
471 KB2, 1866.
472 BDB, 1091.
473 Holladay, 404.
474 KB2, 1866.
475 Baldwin, 146.
478 Slotki, 62.
480 Baldwin, 146.
481 Slotki, 62.
98
the distinction between the leaders in Daniel 7 and 8, we understand that different leaders will attempt the
same defiance of God and the harassment of His people. As Joyce Baldwin puts it, This fact is an
indication that we are being introduced to a recurring historical phenomenon [emphasis mine]: the clever
but ruthless world dictator, who stops at nothing in order to achieve his ambitions. 482
And so, they will be given into his hand [ ] teases out the end result of
this leaders efforts to overcome Gods people; for a brief time [time, times, and a half time], he
succeeds.
They will be given [ (Hithpeel, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is written in the Hithpeel
stem of the Aramaic verb. This stem represents the passive voice483 of the verb, which tells us that an agent
is behind this giving, probably God. What is more, the verb is plural, thus the subject of the verb is the
saints in Dan 7:25b. The net effect is that Yahweh permits this horn/king to subjugate His people for a
finite and limited length of time. As Paul Gilchrist observes, they will be given declares that God is set
forth as the one who is in control of the destinies of people and nations.484
His hand [] is a metaphor of being placed under the power of this horn/king. The Aramaic
noun, , is used in Daniel in the following ways: [1] political-military rule of a regime (Dan 2:38; 7:25),
[2] human power or control of the representative of a regime (Dan 3:15, 17), [3] Gods power/might (Dan
4:35; 5:23), and [4] of the power of lions (Dan 6:27). Based upon the usage of in Daniel, the best fit
for in Dan 7:25d is the political-military power of a national regime.
Overall, then, given into his hand signifies being delivered into the power or authority of this
leader and his regime. This conveyance portends antagonism to the people of God theologically, including
blasphemous propaganda against God [Dan 7:25b] along with flying in the face of providence, asserting
that this leader and his regime can act as God in decreeing the how and when of imperial power485
[change times]; moreover, this antagonism is also behavioral, promoting an alien morality, overtly
attacking the ordinances of God [law]. Given all of tis, the reader may safely assume that the people of
God suffer under this kind of rule.
Time, times, and a half time [ ] is a prepositional
phrase, suggesting the duration over which these events in Dan 7:25 occur.486 This would yield a wooden
translation such as over time, times, and a half time, or possibly throughout a time, times, and a half
time.
Time [] is a different Aramaic noun from the one for time in Dan 7:25c [].
Obviously, we should expect some slight difference in meaning. We must begin by consulting the lexicons
for the meaning of .
482 Ibid., 162.

483 Van Pelt, 125.
484 Paul Gilchrist, , in TWOT [849].
485 Russell, Daniel, 135.
486 For the durative use of this preposition [] in Dan 7:25d, see Bauer-Leander 69 y
[whrend].
99
Kohler-Baumgartner render with two ranges of meaning; [1] time, and [2] used
in the sense of a year.487 This second nuance seems to be influenced by the Septuagint, about which more
later. BDB follows suit with Kohler-Baumgartner.488 Rosenthal offers time, season, year.489
Time/ appears thirteen times in Daniel, three of them in Dan 7:25. Apart from the
troublesome usages of in Daniel 4, there are some obvious usages of in Daniel: [1]
as an indefinite but fixed period of time [Dan 2:8, 21; 7:12], [2] used to represent circumstances in
time [Dan 2:9], and [3] a specific moment in time [Dan 3:5, 15]. For the time being, we shall leave the
usage of in Dan 7:25 open.
The troublesome usages of in Daniel 4 coalesce around the meaning of
/seven periods of time [Dan 4:16, 23, 25, 32]. All of these usages of are translated with
year by the lexicons.490
Kohler-Baumgartner cites the Old Greek translation of with the Greek noun ,
which is routinely translated year, in Dan 4:16, 32.491 However, Theodotion uses the noun
, which is time as a point of time or a period of time.492 Obviously, Theodotion reads
in the sense of [1] above, an indefinite but fixed period of time. None of the lexicons cite this
usage from Theodotion.
There is one more grammatical matter that influences the translation of this phrase. The second
term, , is either a plural or a dual form; in Aramaic, the two forms are basically
indistinguishable.493 The point is that in order to translate with years (two) so as to have the
entire phrase refer to three and one half years, the translator has to make an arbitrary decision to read the
form, , as dual rather than plural. At best, one choice is as good as the other with neither able
to lay claim to certainty.
Taken as a whole, especially in light of the translation of Theodotion who translates with
and thus reads an indefinite but fixed period of time, we prefer to read the phrase in Dan
7:25 as time [an indefinite but fixed period of time], times [an indefinitely longer but still fixed period of
time] and a half time [a fixed but halved period of time]. This still leaves us to attempt to understand the
phrase as we have translated it.
The translation adopted by the Guide reads the phrase as a progression: an unspecified period of
time, followed by an unspecified period of time of longer duration, concluded with a halving of the
unspecified time frame. The Guide follows suit with many commentators who read the phrase figuratively:
that which starts out well time gains momentum times is abruptly halted half time.494 Longman
summarizes the drift of the phrase: the rebellion of the little horn will get off to a fast start and seem like it
is going to last forever, but then is suddenly cut off.495
487 KB2, 1944.
488 BDB, 1089.
489 Rosenthal, 92.
490 KB2, 1944; BDB, 1105; Holladay, 416.
491 KB2, 1944.
492 BAGD, 394.
493 Rosenthal, 45.
494 For this idea, see Goldingay, 181; Baldwin, 164; Longman, 190-91; Young, 162.
495 Longman, 190-91.
100
Summary.
Dan 7:24 recapitulates Dan 7:7-8, 19-20. In Dan 7:24, the fourth beast is in a class by itself [different].
Obviously, the contextual function of Dan 7:24 is to provide the womb out of which the small horn is
eventually birthed in Dan 7:25.
Dan 7:25 offers the reader an overview of the antagonism between the small horn and God and
His people. This antagonism comes in two ways: [1] antagonism toward God and [2] antagonism toward
His people.
This leaders antipathy toward God comes in two forms: verbal enmity [Dan 7:25a] and
providential hostility [Dan 7:25c]. Verbal enmity is expressed in terms of continually speaking words
against the Most High. As we noted, this verb animosity amounts to blasphemy, probably reviling and
mocking God.
Providential antipathy is this regimes ill-fated insistence on ignoring the appointed time already
established by Yahweh [Dan 7:22c]. The divine Lord of history had already established the transference of
authority from the world of kings, princes, tyrants and despots to the saints of the Most High who would
represent His interests and rule in the name of one like a son of man [Dan 7:22]; however, oblivious of the
greater sovereign, the lesser sovereign, the small horn, elbows his way forward, changing times as he
sees fit.
This tyrants rancor toward Gods people also comes in two form: first, it is depicted as wearing
them down [Dan 7:25b]. In other words, the text foresees long-drawn-out persecutions in the offing for
Gods people. The upshot is that harassing the people of God represents protracted conflict that seeks to
fatigue, weaken, and wear down the saints of the Most High. We are not in the realm of annihilation or
destruction of Gods people, rather their exhaustion, weariness that comes from unrelenting conflict with an
all-to-powerful world.
And, this despots antipathy to Gods people comes in the form of imposing an alien morality on
them: strive to change [Gods] law. Just how this is done is not made explicit by the heavenly
interpreter. One may fairly imagine that political-legal finagling is in mind.
Reflection.
This small horn knows precisely what he has to attack first in order to establish the supremacy of
political-military might within his regime: he has to speak words against the Most High [Dan 7:25b]. In
other words, he must banish God from the thought-world of the citizenry of his regime. This small horn
has had many successors.
Today, in the United States, the consensus of the political and legal elite is that American society is
much better off having more or less successfully banished God from the public square. Notice I write that
in the past perfect aspect; the deed has been done; atheism has, for all intents and purposes, won the day
over the vast majority of Americans, leaders and the led alike. There are cultural reasons for this victory.
First, there is the victory of materialism. By this I mean the philosophical assumption, shared by
the highest echelons of government and society as a whole, that man has no other vital environment than
that of the sensible world.496 The gist is this: the sum total of all conceivable reality is what I can see, what
I can touch, what I can feel; in other words, only that which is available to my senses. The upshot is that
we do not need to establish any contact whatsoever with God.
Second, there is the victory of rationalism. By this I mean the assumption, shared in our culture from top
to bottom, that we must appeal to human reason alone [my emphasis] to discover the why of things and
496 Cornelio Fabro, God in Exile: Modern Atheism translated and edited by Arthur Gibson
(Toronto: Newman Press, 1968), 5.
101
our knowledge of them.497 From the most radical freethinker to the most brilliant scientist, unaided human
reason is the sole means by which the mysteries of the Universe are to be unlocked. To be sure, the almost
breathtaking achievements of modern science provide an imposing pretext for the victory of reason in
modern life. The upshot is that we do not need either revelation or spirit to understand our world and our
places in it.
Third, there is the victory of immanentism. By this I mean the assumption, obvious when we watch either
our political leadership or our fellow citizens, that starts from the principle of consciousness and stops at
the reality of human nature in its immediate social or individual actuality. 498 This gist is this: living life
begins, progresses, and ends with me; my mind, my will, my desires are what counts, nothing else much
matters. The upshot is that we do not need interference from God, for such interference runs the risk of
stifling the person!
Finally, Fabro makes a chilling claim about the nature of modern atheism: it is militant. Fabro writes,
Atheism today is coming right out into the open in its operations and organization, with the professed aim
of eliminating Christianity [emphasis mine] as the chief bulwark of resistance.499 I need not rehearse the
uncountable examples of federal and state laws aimed at banishing God and the Christian faith from life
throughout the modern world, not only the United States.
Daniel and his three comrades were accosted by the atheism of their day; but, they firmly but gently
resisted, first actively and then verbally. These four heroes of the faith are our models!
c.
Judgment of the additional horn in favor of the saints [Dan 7:26-28a]

i)
Judgment of the additional horn [Dan 7:26]

7:26a

But, the court will sit;

7:26b and so, they will take away his dominion,
7:26c annihilated and eradicated forever.
The judgment of the small horn carries a bracing message of hope and encouragement: even the
worst of the worst among this worlds power-hungry tyrants will answer to God. There are some things
even the most overpowering, nuclear-armed, savage, and tactically brilliant tyrannies cannot prevent: the
497 Ibid.
498 Ibid.
499 Ibid., 6.
102
court will sit and nothing prevents it; dominion will be taken away and that in real time in real history
for all to see; and his dominion will be annihilated and eradicated forever.
The court will sit [ ] is reminiscent of Dan 7:10, both passages expressing the
same thing in the same language. At that time, we noted that the imagery of the court sitting suggested a
deliberate proceeding: the judges were seated and in Dan 7:10 books were opened; we may assume the
same here.
As we have noted in connection with Dan 7:10 and also here in Dan 7:26, this is not a scene of the
final judgment; rather, this is Yahweh in charge of human political history on a day-by-day basis. None of
these rogue regimes that pop-up throughout the course of history are autonomous; they are all dependent
and accountable! Realpolitik only imagines itself the last word in all human events; the reality is quite
different.
Obviously, judgment in real time is the point in Dan 7:26, as it was in Dan 7:10. In both passages,
the court sits in judgment with Yahweh as the primary Prosecutor and Judge. To be sure, while no mention
is made of books being opened in Dan 7:26 as they were in Dan 7:10, we may reasonably assume as
much on this occasion.
It is to be doubted that Yahweh literally has books which He consults on such occasions. The
reader must not forget that Daniel 7 is saturated with non-literal images; and books is one of them. The
thrust of the imagery is that ones deeds in this life are divinely documented, divinely confirmed, and
divinely certified. As in Dan 7:10, so here in Dan 7:26, heaven itemizes human thoughts, logs human
deeds, and chronicles human misdeeds; thus, the imagery reveals the truth that solid documentation is
produced by the Judge, evidence that chronicles every second, every phase, every component of the life of
this and any political regime, for God has His books.500
They will take away his dominion [ (Haphel, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl) ] is written
with a plural verb form, they. The reader may assume that the antecedent is the members of the court,
drawing upon the imagery in Dan 7:10. The net effect is that the council of judges and the books they have
remove the dominion of this political leader.
Will take away [] is written in the Haphel stem, an active causative stem in
Aramaic.501 Powerful as he is, or was, this regime is powerless to prevent the removal of his politicalmilitary power. For the sense of this action, the reader may consult the notes on Dan 7:12. In brief,
points to an annulment of this regimes political power, a removal power that is tantamount to its vanishing.
Indeed, for the power behind this annulment, the reader is referred to the first use of in the Aramaic
of Daniel: referring to Yahweh, we are told that He removes [] kings in Dan 2:21. The long and
the short of it is this: God is sovereign over national and international political power-players in real time.
Dominion [] is a term we have noted previously in Daniel; in general, implies mastery
over or rulership over. When used in Daniel of human rulers, denotes political and military
power and mastery over a regime in a localized territory.
The referent of this loss of power, his dominion, is back referenced in Dan 7:25, the small
horn. There is no contextual warrant for reading the referent of this power fade as the Antichrist. Rather,
we are in the world of Yahwehs sovereign rule and reign over the political power-players of this world.
The author rhetorically underlines the total annihilation of world-dominating regimes that attempt
to swallow up other nations in ongoing power grabs. He does so by using two more or less synonymous
infinitives: annihilating and eradicating. The use of these two similar terms is emphatic; there are to be
500 Baldwin, 141.
501 Van Pelt, 143.
103
no doubts here on the part of the reader: these kinds of tyrannies simply disappear from the face of the
earth.
Annihilate [] is used only here in the Aramaic section of Daniel. is from a sematic
field of terms for destruction, annihilation, and devastation.502 Kohler-Baumgartner translate
in Dan 7:26 as annihilate.503 The Mandaean cognate [mt] means to banish; the Jewish Aramaic
cognate [] is more to the point of our term, banishment.504
Annihilate [] is written in the Haphel stem in Aramaic and corresponds to in the Hiphil stem
in the Hebrew Bible.505 This correspondence implies that /annihilate in Dan 7:25 suggests that
particular emphasis should be given to the deliberateness [emphasis mine] of the action in the sense of
to feel oneself compelled to destroy/exterminate something. 506 There is a powerful insight here: Yahweh
is constrained to banish these rogue regimes that emerge throughout human history; He is obliged to
remove them from human sight; indeed, Yahweh is purposeful, premeditated, calculated, and intentional in
His removal of political-military power players who terrorize humanity. To the extent that Daniels
apocalyptic book is intended to console the reader, it is surely reassuring to know that evil-saturated
despots who surface from time to time will have to settle accounts with God on Gods timing not
necessarily ours.
Eradicate [ (Haphel, infinitive construct)] is also written in the Haphel stem, signaling that this
this regime is acted upon by an implied agent, the court in this case. The Aramaic root used here
[] means to destroy.507 The Septuagint tradition sheds light on , using ,
which means to demolish, to lay waste, to drive to ruin, to cease to exist.
Summary.
Dan 7:26 closely parallels in thought Dan 7:11. In both passages, this particularly ravenous, destructive,
expansionistic horn/regime is utterly wiped off the face of the earth. As we noted, this is judgment in real
time, unleashed on an especially evil political-military regime.
Moreover, it is crucial to note that this regime differs from the one in Dan 8:22-23. As we pointed
out, the regime in Dan 7 emerges from ten horns, while the one in Dan 8:22-23 emerges from four horns.
The distinction is more than merely a matter of mere differentiation; the larger point is that, while both
adopt particularly heinous means to achieve their ends, including religious persecution, the crucial matter is
that many similar kinds of regimes will surface over human history.
ii)
Judgment in favor of the saints [Dan 7:27-28a]

7:27a
great

heavens,

of the Most High;
Then, the royal authority, sovereignty, and

7:27
dominions under the whole of the
7:27
will be given to a people, the saints
502 See Destruction, annihilation, destruction in NIDOTTE.

503 KB2, 1997.
504 Ibid.
505 D. Vetter, , in TLOT III, 1367.
506 KB2, 1553.
507 Ibid., 1806; similarly, BDB, 1078.
104

7:27


7:27b His royal authority a eternal governance,
7:27c and so, every dominion will serve Him,
and show themselves obedient.
7:28a Here lies the end of the matter.
A crucial question in Dan 7:27b concerns a referent; that is, who is the referent to His royal
authority? There are two possibilities: either the Most High or a people.
If we take His royal authority to refer to its most immediate antecedent, Most High, then we
have a 3rd, masculine, singular, pronominal suffix His referring to Most High, a masculine, plural,
adjective. The plural form, Most High, may be following the plural form for God in the Hebrew
Bible ,.508 If so, then Most High like God is a plural of majesty referencing a single deity.
Hence, there is no grammatical reason why His could not refer to Most High. This reading has the
additional benefit of understanding that every dominion is to serve Him [the Most High] in Dan 7:27c
and to show themselves obedient, presumably to Him [the Most High] in Dan 7:27c.
However, if we take His royal authority to refer to a more remote antecedent, a people, then we have a
masculine, singular noun people picked up in the 3rd masculine singular pronominal suffix His,
a construction that fits the grammar nicely. Having said that, this reading has the troubling effect of
understanding that every dominion will serve and show themselves obedient to a people.
However, as we have pointed about above, saints of the Most High means that the saints belong to the
Most High in a divine-human relationship, so that they serve, obey, separate themselves, remain open to
divine instruction, appreciate their elevated status, and worship in holy worship; this is humanity as God
intended it to be! C.F. Keil summarizes who these saints of the Most High are: they are the
congregation of the New Covenant, consisting of Israel and the faithful of all nations; for the kingdom
which God gives to the Son of man will, according to vs. 14, comprehend those who are redeemed from
among all the nations of the earth. 509
On the whole, less for reasons of grammar and more for reasons of theology, the Guide reads the
antecedent of His in Dan 7:27b as both the Most High and a people. That these people were
initially Jews is obvious; yet, as Russell notes, these Jews were no ordinary members of Israel, but a
special group nearer to the ideal of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. 510 The upshot is this: the rule
of God on earth [Dan 7:27b-c] is implemented through a people, the saints who belong to the Most High.
The royal authority contrasts entirely with the rule and reign of Realpolitik, power politics; it is a royal
authority that is both human and divine, being shaped by its supernatural origin: service, obedience to
Yahweh, separation from the political philosophies of the world, open and alert to divine instruction
through Torah, fully aware of their elevated mission, and dedicated to holy worship.
Lets take a moment to outline syntactically this verse.
Dan 7:27 = the implementation of Gods rule on earth
7:27a = the consequence of the court decision in Dan 7:26 (implementation)
(1) The royal authority, sovereignty, and great dominions will be given to a people
(Range) under the whole of the heavens
(Apposition) the saints of
the Most High
7:27b = the further consequence of the court decision in Dan 7:26 (Gods eternal rule on earth)
(2) His royal authority eternal governance
508 Bauer-Leander 87 g.
510 Russell, citing E.W. Heaton in Daniel, 131.
105
7:27c = the result of Dan 7:27b (Gods rule on earth)

(3) And so, every dominion will serve Him and show themselves obedient [to Him/the Most High]
The royal authority, sovereignty, and great dominions [
] stipulates what a people are given. Most English translations have
the greatness of the kingdoms or words to that effect for great kingdoms. The construction is a
genitive construction and, therefore, may be woodenly translated greatness of dominions. We may
translate the genitive construction in the sense of an epexegetical genitive, where the dominions are
characterized by greatness;511 in other words, great dominions.
Royal authority [] is from an Aramaic root [] that is used with three ranges of meaning
in Daniel: [1] it is used of both human and divine authorities, [2] with an emphasis on the exercise of
sovereignty within a human domain, or [3] or, more comprehensively, with an emphasis on the realm
where sovereignty applies.512
Since royal authority references human authority on earth [under the whole of the heavens], then option
2 fits best. That is, when refers to the exercise of sovereign power within a territorial realm,
there is usually some disambiguation in the context that points to the earthly exercise of sovereignty, as we
have here.513 So, royal authority in the sense of the exercise of authority is given to a people. Again,
this exercise of authority is not the exercise of raw power cloaked in religious garb; rather, the reader must
give full weight to the fact that these people are saints who belong to the Most High; accordingly, these
people who exercise authority represent the interests of the Most High, not their own religious concerns.
Sovereignty [] is an Aramaic noun that is more or less synonymous with /royal
authority. Indeed, this Aramaic noun, /sovereignty comes from the same semantic field as
/royal authority.514 And, as noted previously, this noun means the possession of and the
exercise of power.515 The upshot is this: /sovereignty declares that it is possible to speak of a
divinely appointed governance; and beyond this, against the background of the collapse of so many of the
beasts/regimes in Daniel 7, the eschatological end becomes visible: Gods dominion is manifested in
Gods kingdom, in the final apocalyptic battle with other powers.516
Great dominions [ ] is followed by a qualifying prepositional phrase: under
the whole of the heavens [ ]. Dominions under the whole of the heavens
suggests the universal range of the realm/dominion [] of the people, the saints of the Most
High. What is more, the plural, dominions [], should also be noted, underling a sense of
inclusiveness to which the authority of this new kingdom reaches. That is, the authority that these people
represent, the Most High, will hold sway over all mankind.
His royal authority [(noun, fm, sg, construct, 3rd, ms, suffix)] back references both
the Most High and the people, the saints of the Most High. This coalescence of royal authority is also
signaled by the use of / great dominions in the plural in the previous line [Dan 7:27a (great
dominions under the whole of the earth)] followed by the use of /royal authority in this line,
Dan 7:27b; in other words, the many become one.
511 See Bauer-Leander 89 a; IBHS 9.5.3c.
512 For a similar breakdown, see KB2, 1917-18.
513 On this point, see Dan 2:37, 39, 40; 5:20, 29; 6:2, 5, 26; 7:23-24.
514 See Kingship, rule, supervision, dominion in NIDOTTE.
515 See the notes above, pages 52-53.
106
We have affirmed that, in terms of deity, His royal authority back references the Most High; in the
context of Dan 7:27, this is plausible, as we have shown above. At the same time, the reader does not want
to forget that one like a son of man was also given a , a realm [Dan 7:14]. It may be well not to
press all of this too far, but the gist seems to be this: a people who are totally devoted to, open to, and
subservient to the Most High [Dan 7:18, 22, 27] will assume authority over all of the great dominions
under the whole of the heavens. At the same time, these saints seem to be co-regents with one like a son
of man [Dan 7:14].
An eternal governance [ ] translates in the sense of the the exercise
of sovereignty within the human domain; hence the translation governance, the exercise of authority,
direction or control. This governance, or what amounts to the same thing this co-regency upon earth, is
qualified as eternal []. BDB translates in Dan 7:27b with perpetuity in the future.517
Since the dominions that will serve Him are those under the whole of the heavens, then the assumption is
that is human history for the foreseeable future. E. Jenni notes that the basic meaning of this root is
a kind of range between remotest time and perpetuity.518 H.D. Preuss notes that in the book of
Daniel is concerned with the coming divine rule in the sense of extolling the present and future rule as
being perpetual.519
Will serve Him and show themselves obedient [ ] is a clause that is
translated for the English reader. The Aramaic text places the words in a different order, front-loading Him
[], literally to Him. A better translation would be: Him they will serve and show themselves
obedient. Most commentators seem to slide over this front-loaded phrase, but, it should be taken into
account in reading the line. It would seem that focus is intended, concentrating on service and obedience to
Him/Most High, or possibly the divine co-regent, one like a son of man [indeed, this same collocation
is used in Dan 7:14 in reference to one like a son of man]. It is difficult to imagine
that the author of Dan 7:27 would front-load a reference to people, even saints, as the recipients of service
and obedience.
Will serve [ (Peal, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] possibly uses the imperfect aspect to
signal a situation that is dependent on Dan 7:27b [His royal authority an eternal/perpetual governance],
thus indicating a specific future.520 The aspect of this action may be durative:521 will [continue to] serve.
Serve [] is an Aramaic root that is used in Dan 7:14 of the service/ that is rendered to one
like a son of man. In that passage, as in Dan 7:27, the meaning of is serve. In the Septuagint
tradition, Theodotion uses for , a Greek verb that has two ranges of meaning: [1]
denoting a relationship in the sense of be a slave or be subjected, and [2] denoting action or conduct, thus
perform the duties of a slave, serve, obey.522
Show themselves obedient [ (Hithpaal, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is written in the Hithpaal
stem, a stem that is reflexive in tone.523 The reflexive stem implies that the subject every dominion
517 BDB, 1106.
519 H.D. Preuss, , in TDOT, vol. X, 542.
520 IBHS, 31.6.2b.
521 J-M 113 b.
522 BAGD, 205.
523 Van Pelt, 138; Bauer-Leander 76 u.
107
transforms itself or is transformed into the effected state signified by the root obey [].524 That
the author used this reflexive stem after the active stem in should be taken into account. That is, it
may be the case that serve [ (Peal, imperfect)] is clarified by show themselves obedient
[ (Hithpaal, imperfect)]. The sense between the two lines then could be: every dominion
will serve Him by showing themselves obedient. This is the only use of the Hithpaal stem of in
Daniel.
Obey [] has three ranges of meaning: [1] of physical hearing, [2] of hearing about someone in the
sense of witness or testimony about, and [3] of obedience. The relationship between physical hearing and
obedience is clarified by U. Rterswrden: Hearing is critical for the interaction between God and
human beings; the medium through which God makes His will known among His people (in
commandments of mediated by the prophets) is the audible word.525
in the sense of obedience plays a major role in Daniel 9. Daniel 9 is a prayer of confession devoted
to, among other things, Israels refusal to /obey. Presumably, the new people of God alluded to in
Dan 7:27 will correct the deficiencies of pre-exilic Israel. Specifically, in Dan 9:6, pre-exilic Israel did not
listen to/obey the voices of the prophets; in Dan 9:10, pre-exilic Israel did not listen to/obey Yahwehs
Torah; in Dan 9:11, pre-exilic Israel did not listen to/obey Yahwehs Torah and hence transgressed and
turned aside from the voice of God; and finally, Dan 9:14 affirms that pre-exilic Israel did not listen to/obey
the voice of Yahweh.
In the context of Dan 7:27, then, to show oneself obedient means [1] listening to the voices of
the prophets, [2] obeying Yahwehs instruction, and [3] neither transgressing nor turning aside from the
voice of Yahweh. Finally, obedience plays a role in the lives of the saints of the Most High. As we noted
in connection with Dan 7:18, if the saints of the Most High means that the saints belong to the Most High in
a divine-human relationship, then from the saints point of view, they serve, obey, separate themselves,
remain open to divine instruction, appreciate their elevated status, and worship in holy worship; this is
humanity as God intended it to be. The net effect is that Dan 7:27 leads to the creation of saints of the
Most High.
Summary.
In some ways, Dan 7:27 summarizes the entire vision as it relates to the worst of the worst of
human historys vile political regimes. Having dispended with this regime in Dan 7:26, the heavenly
interpreter now addresses the matter of the saints of the Most High and the Most Highs governance for the
remainder of human history. A new authority in this world surfaces in Dan 7:27.
The central teaching of Dan 7:27 is the co-regency of this heavenly kingdom, a regency shared
between the saints of the Most High and the Most High Himself.
As noted above, there is no grammatical reason for denying that His authority in Dan 7:27b has
as its antecedent the Most High at the end of Dan 7:27a. The net effect is that both the saints receive
authority in this new kingdom in Dan 7:27a as well as the Most High in Dan 7:27b.
The net effect of this co-regency is that every dominion [Dan 7:27c], dominions under the
whole of the heavens [Dan 7:27a], will serve and show themselves obedient to Him, the Most High
[Dan 7:27c].
D.
Daniels concluding reflections [Dan 7:28b-d]

were extremely alarming to me,
7:28b
I, Daniel, my thoughts
524 For this idea, see IBHS 26.2a.

525 U. Rterswrden, , in TDOT, vol. XV, 258.
108

changed upon me,


7:28c
7:28d
and my facial features were
but, I kept the matter in my mind.
As we have noted previously, when Daniel receives these visions, they tend to leave him deeply
disturbed. This final passage is no exception.
My thoughts [] is an Aramaic noun that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 7:28
with thought.526 The ancient Near Eastern cognates shed some light. The Jewish Aramaic cognate
[] means attitude, thought; the Syriac cognate [reyn] means will, thinking; and the
Mandaean cognate [ruiana] means thought.527
In Dan 4:19, this noun, thoughts/ , is used with this same verb, alarmed/, and the
collocation is parallel to appall/. This latter verb only appears in Dan 4:19 in the Aramaic section
of Daniel. Kohler-Baumgartner translates with be appalled.528 The root is from a semantic
field of terms for horror, shuddering, terror.529 At the very least, to the extent that /appall
describes my thoughts were alarming, the force of the latter clause is heightened to horror, shuddering,
and terror. Indeed, Tyler Williams notes that in a context such as Daniel 4, denotes revulsion or
astonishment, thus appalled, astounded, awestruck, stupefied or even horrified.530 I. Meyer translates
Dan 4:19, I was petrified with fear.531
The upshot is this: to the extent that Dan 4:19 [was appalled ()] is parallel to thoughts alarmed
[ ], then Daniels reaction was highly disconcerting; evidently he was petrified,
awestruck, stupefied or horrified by the cumulative effect of the vision in Daniel 7. We may easily surmise
just what it was that unsettled Daniel so: first, the absolute fierceness and rapacity of human governance
going forward in human history; and second, the terrible intensity of persecution that awaited the saints of
the Most High God. Overall, the vision confronts Daniel with an unexpected, and surely unwanted, level of
threat and disaster.
Indeed, so intense was Daniels reaction to the overwhelming force of this vision upon his soul
that Daniels facial expression seems to turn pale.

527 KB2, 1983.
528 Ibid., 1998.
529 See Horror, shuddering, terror in NIDOTTE.
530 Tyler F. Williams, , in NIDOTTE [9037].
531 I. Meyer, , in TDOT, vol. XV, 239.
109

Expository Reading Guide To Daniel 7

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Expository Reading Guide To Daniel 7

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 7

Loren Lineberry, 2015