# comment

text:
<p>It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps, who should be throughout the whole kingdom- These 120 satraps were symbolized by the 120 lion statues along Babylon’s main procession street. The destruction of their representatives by lions is another inversion of Babylonian power and values which is common in Daniel. Herodotus records that "Darius" [’restrainer’] was a title for the king, an appellative like ’Pharaoh’, rather than a personal name. This may therefore be a different ’Darius’ to that of <a href='B:340 5:31'>Dan 5:31</a>. It could well be that the Darius of Daniel 6 was in fact Cyrus the Persian (see on :28). This would then fit the historical interpretation of <a href='B:340 7:5'>Dan 7:5</a>, which requires a Mede to be in power before the elevation of Cyrus. The book of Esther records 127 satraps at that time, so 120 at this time sounds right. However, the 120 could have been over the newly conquered province of Babylon.</p>


text:
<p>And over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one; so that these satraps might give account to them, and that the king should have no loss-  We note that Daniel had turned down the offer of becoming third in the kingdom under Darius (Dan. 5:16). But what he rejected he has now been given. The elevation of Daniel would have been because it was known that he had bravely prophesied the victory of the Medes over Babylon. He was well known for this, hence his elevation; but this means that the Babylonians also would have known Daniel’s position about them, and he would have been in a similar position to Jeremiah, who likewise was within the besieged city [of Jerusalem in his case] and prophesied the victory of the enemy. These similarities between human lives all serve to give us encouragement and warning, as well as demonstrating that all is indeed under Divine control and we are not at the mercy of random event.</p>


text:
<p>Then Daniel was promoted above the presidents and the satraps, because an excellently wise spirit was in him- This spirit perceived within him was that of God (<a href='B:340 4:8-9'>Dan 4:8-9</a>; <a href='B:340 5:11'>Dan 5:11</a>; <a href='B:340 5:14'>Dan 5:14</a>). His wisdom of spirit is elsewhere associated with his interpretation of Divine dreams; perhaps the promotion was because of this, as it was every other time he was promoted. His interpretations had of course predicted the Medo Persian victory against Babylon, and yet they also demanded their fall. Perhaps it was because of his words against Babylon that he was promoted. But it may equally have been because of his general wisdom and integrity. He was promoted several times, and each time he seems to slip out of the limelight, either by his own will or because he was manipulated out of the position. To be in any position of power within those empires would’ve involved him in conflicts of conscience to his God. We too at times need to allow ourselves to slip away from the limelight and situation provided by promotion of whatever kind.</p><p>And the king thought to set him over the whole kingdom- This could refer to the province of Babylon. But just as Joseph had the promotion to a similar position over all Egypt, perhaps Daniel’s integrity and evident connection with Yahweh made the king desire to give him practical responsibility for the entire empire.</p>


text:
<p>Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find occasion against Daniel regarding the things of the kingdom; but they could find no case nor fault, because he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him- The content of the Gospel is "the things [of] the kingdom" (<a href='B:510 1:3'>Act 1:3</a>; <a href='B:510 8:12'>Act 8:12</a>; <a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a>). The kingdoms of the world at Daniel’s time are setup as fake kingdoms of God, with their leaders as an imitation Christ, an antiChrist. As ever, jealousy motivated all personal criticism of Daniel. It would have been an unpleasant experience for him, living as a foreigner amongst jealous men seeking his downfall, and all the time not wanting the exalted position anyway.</p>


text:
<p>Then these men said, We shall not find any occasion against Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God- This has remarkable implications about Daniel’s absolute integrity, for which all God’s servants should be known in their secular lives. Worship of other gods was allowed in the empire, but religion was seen as a part time affair and your loyalty to your god was not an exclusive relationship. You could also be loyal to other gods, and for certain periods you could be totally devoted to another god, e.g. if it was the day of worship of the local god, you worshipped that god on that day. And that is the essence of the test of our faith in this multivalent world. Our faith and devotion is exclusively to the one God, and it is not a part time hobby level matter.</p>


text:
<p>Then these presidents and satraps assembled together to the king, and said to him, King Darius, live forever- All the monarchs had the idea that they were immortal and expected this to be recognized- hence the address "live forever". Nebuchadnezzar had sought to demonstrate this by making the statue of gold completely, when he was but the head of gold according to the image of Daniel 2. We note however that Daniel, despite his sensitive conscience toward his God, still goes along with this form of address (:21), even though he of all people knew from his own prophecies that the kings were far from immortal and would all come to their end.</p>


text:
<p>All the presidents of the kingdom- This was untrue, because Daniel was one of them. The king ought to have perceived that this was a set up.</p><p>The deputies and the satraps, the counsellors and the governors, have consulted together in order to establish a royal statute, and to make an enforced decree, that whoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, except of you, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions- Darius knew full well that Daniel would be praying to his God. For Daniel prayed with his windows open toward Jerusalem in full view of everyone, "as he did previously" (:10). It was therefore known to all that Daniel did this. Darius knew that Daniel had contact with his God and had made prophecies through God’s Spirit (see on :3). Darius presumably went along with the suggestion because he was fearful of minorities rebelling against him, and such periodic tests of loyalty were common. This was what Nebuchadnezzar had done with his golden image. But Darius didn't learn the lesson from that.</p>


text:
<p>Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which doesn’t alter- It was only by tradition that it didn’t alter. The king was all powerful. The only thing required to change it was his humility, but as we note on :9, his pride was too great. The courtiers seemed to have guessed that when it came to killing Daniel for praying to Yahweh, the king was likely to want to change; and so they remind him that this law cannot be changed. The only reason Darius would have agreed to this was because of the appeal to his pride- that he was divine, and a divine being didn’t change his principles.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree- As noted on :7, Darius knew full well that Daniel was in the habit of openly praying to his God, and I suggested on :7 that the king surely knew that Daniel was being set up. And yet Darius clearly respected Daniel, which was why he had promoted him, and on account of which he was so distressed when he realized that Daniel had to die. Why then did he sign the decree? A theme of Daniel is the almost unbelievable power of human pride. The king’s better judgment was overridden by his pride, and his wish to go along with his flatterers in believing the myth of his times- that he as king was in fact Divine and immortal. This had been the undoing of Belshazzar, and it had almost been the undoing of Nebuchadnezzar. We see therefore the power of human pride and what happens if we succumb to flattery and the human tendency to play God. Our better judgment and spiritual side is flattened beneath the weight of it. Darius acts in accordance with how the other monarchs in the book of Daniel are presented- they could have repented and were given the chance to, they theoretically accepted the truth of God’s prophetic word and personally respected Daniel; but their pride stopped them from accepting the basic truth of the image of Daniel 2, that they too would pass, they were not eternal, were men and not God, and needed to accept the reality of God’s Kingdom and resign their own kingdoms.</p><p>In the same way as they could have repented, they could also have restored captive Judah to their land, and thus helped re-establish the Kingdom of God in Israel. Cyrus is presented by name in Isaiah as a Messiah-like figure who could have orchestrated this, by destroying Babylon and empowering Jewry to return. If the Darius in this chapter was indeed Cyrus as suggested on :1 and :28, then we see how far he failed to realize what was potentially possible. He gave the decree to allow Judah to return in the first year of his reign (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>); but now he seems to have faltered and become consumed with pride so that he didn’t live up to his potential; and Judah likewise failed to grasp the Divinely presented opportunities, with the majority of them preferring to remain in captivity.</p>


text:
<p>When Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he still went into his house (now his windows in his room were open toward Jerusalem) and he kneeled on his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did previously- The three times of the day connected with when the morning burnt-offering was offered, when the 'evening' burnt offering was offered; and then sunset. This continues the major Biblical theme that prayer is our equivalent to sacrifice. It is a giving to God, of time, of mental focus, of trust. 
</p><p>The statement that his windows were open may not require us to imagine that he opened the windows. They were open windows i.e. without lattice work (cp. "closed windows" with lattice work in Ez. 40:16). It was easy to see into them because there was no window nor anything blocking the view inside. Prayer towards the temple was in time of confession of sin and need for God's forgiveness and salvation, as we see in Jonah: "Then I said, I am cast out of Your sight; yet I will look again toward Your holy temple”. There was no religious or legal obligation for Daniel to pray like this, just as there was no obligation for him to refuse the king's food in Dan. 1. He risked his life for his personal conscience, which was likely a conscience not shared by the rest of his Jewish brethren; even though his prayer to Jerusalem in time of exile was surely begging for their salvation. He had the spirit of the Lord Jesus as He died for Israel, misunderstood and even hated by them. He had no group support psychologically nor spiritually; this issue of prayer was totally personal to him. He was making a point; he could have taken the essence of the Lord's future teaching that in prayer we should close the door of our inner room and pray unseen by others (Mt. 6:6). He could easily have justified private prayer at this time. The strength and depth of his personal conscience at this time was so strong; he must have been so very close to the Father as he knelt in prayer at this time. "As he did previously" points up how important is daily spiritual habit. It was and is worth dying for. He was known for retiring to his upper room three times / day to pray to his God. Everybody knew that was the rhythm of his life, now matter how busy things were in the office... He was surely inspired by David's example, although again we note that example is not Divine law: “Evening and morning and at noon will I pray, and cry aloud; and He shall hear my voice” (Ps. 55:17). A verse like that can be used to build a personal conscience, but not to argue for a Divine law about praying three times / day.
</p><p>He prayed toward Jerusalem with reference to how Solomon had said that Israel in their sin and captivity would pray toward the temple (<a href='B:110 8:33'>1Ki 8:33</a>; <a href='B:110 8:35'>1Ki 8:35</a>; <a href='B:110 8:38'>1Ki 8:38</a>; <a href='B:110 8:44'>1Ki 8:44</a>; <a href='B:110 8:48'>1Ki 8:48</a>). Daniel was deeply aware of the sin of Judah and felt it as being his own sin; his prayer in Daniel 9 is full of such identification with Israel’s sins. He felt that duty towards his weak and sinful brethren as stronger than his own fear of a miserable death. He saw this as a Divine command which although not explicitly expressed as a command, is effectively a commandment because it is so strongly implied as necessary for us. This incident is surely thebasis of <a href='B:510 5:29'>Act 5:29</a>: "We ought to obey God rather than men". Many Jews surely consoled themselves that prayer is a private matter, and wouldn’t have advertised their prayers, certainly not by opening their windows and praying on their knees in full view of religious informers. But Daniel was willing to die for the sake of how important he felt prayer to be. And he challenges us all in this, we who so often are guilty of praying when overtired, or spending ou time on petty things until we have no time left to pray. Our time budget needs to give prayer serious priority, at whatever loss- even of life itself, according to Daniel’s example. To pray regularly three times / day, perhaps as David did at dawn, noon and unset (<a href='B:230 55:17'>Psa 55:17</a> cp. <a href='B:510 10:9'>Act 10:9</a>) required no small discipline. He had a demanding job and life situation, just as David did. His requirement for time to pray regularly was therefore advertised to his contemporaries; it was no secret. This is such a challenge to those in demanding careers; it is no more the done thing to take time out to pray than it was for Daniel, living as he did in an environment where leadership was connected to religion, and he was clearly out of step with the surrounding religious views.</p><p>Solomon’s prayer, to which Daniel is alluding, required prayer to be made specifically toward the temple in Jerusalem. But that temple lay in ruins. Daniel’s prayer toward it therefore reflected his understanding that God’s presence doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands. "That is true" (literally "the thing is true", as AV) is the very term used of the truth of Daniel’s prophetic revelations (<a href='B:340 7:16'>Dan 7:16</a> - remember that the visions of Daniel 7 were given before this time, see <a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a>). If this "Darius" is indeed Cyrus, then we note that in his third year, Daniel received another vision, "and the thing was true" (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>). But Darius would not humble himself before the truths of God and change his perceived truth, just as we and many others struggle to.</p>


text:
<p>Then these men assembled together, and found Daniel making petition and supplication before his God- "Assembled" means more 'to throng'. The petition and supplication (the idea is of "grace") was surely for the revival of Judah’s fortunes with the re-establishment of God’s Kingdom in Israel, and the fulfilment of the prophecies of the restoration. But Daniel knew that due to Judah’s weakness, this would have to be by grace, and thanks to the intercession of a righteous remnant represented by himself. This was for Daniel more important than his personal death. "Before his God" suggests that the presence of God was just as much there in a room in Babylon as it was in Zion.</p>


text:
<p>Then they came near, and spoke before the king concerning the king’s decree: Haven’t you signed a decree, that every man who shall make petition to any god or man within thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered, That is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which doesn’t alter- Now was the moment when the king could say: ’Yes I did, but I was wrong, I am not going to have Daniel killed. Mock me as you will, assume that I cannot actually be divine because I am now changing my position, but change it I will’. And he doesn’t do that. His pride was too great, although at one and the same time, as the text often implies, he had a level of faith and spirituality. But human pride is so strong.</p>


text:
<p>Then they responded and said to the king, That Daniel, who is of the captives of Judah, doesn’t respect you, O king, nor the decree that you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day- "That Daniel" indicates how they despised him. This is the extreme power of human jealousy. "Doesn’t respect you" was just what the courtiers had eagerly told Nebuchadnezzar when the three friends refused to bow to his image in Daniel 3. Darius ought to have learnt from Divine history and perceived that he was being set up for a major fall. But he refused to join the dots, just as we do, because his pride made him act illogically in spiritual terms. </p><p>They mention that Daniel is a Jew- and refer to him by his Hebrew name and not his Babylonian name. They surely did this because the idea of the decree had been to guard against rebellion and disloyalty from ethnic minorities within Babylon who were seeking to rebel against the king. And Daniel's interpretation of the dreams in Daniel 2 and 4, along with the words of the other Hebrew prophets, clearly showed that the Hope of Israel was the ending of all human empires [including that of Persia] and the establishment of Israel as God's Kingdom upon their ruins. Daniel was already under suspicion; and this act of disloyalty confirmed that.
</p><p>We note the strong similarities between the friends being "cast" into the fiery furnace, and Daniel being "cast" into the den of lions. In both cases they had disobeyed an edict from the king that demanded false worship. In both cases they are reported to the king by jealous contemporaries and "accused" (Dan. 3:8; 6:25). In both cases, an Angel saves them (Dan. 3:28; 6:23). Those who try to harm them are harmed in that same way [death by lions / fire]. Both kings (Nebuchadnezzar and Darius) rise in alarm (Dan. 3:24; 6:20), approach the place of destruction (Dan. 3:26; 6:21), address the Jews by their names, and then use the same term to describe them: “servants of the Most High God” (Dan. 3:26) and “servant of the living God” (Dan. 6:21). The kings both command the Jews who had survived death to then come out and approach them. We naturally enquire why there are these parallels. It could be that Daniel had somehow saved himself from having to stand up for his faith in the events of Daniel 3, for Daniel's absence from the story is strange. But he was made to fellowship the sufferings of his friends in a remarkable way. 
</p>


text:
<p>Then the king, when he heard these words, was very displeased, and set his heart on Daniel to save him; and he struggled until the going down of the sun to save him- AV "displeased with himself". The apparently omnipotent king is again demonstrated to be easily manipulated. He is driven to asking or hoping that Israel's God will save Daniel (:17), seeing his power and his gods cannot. And this is a theme of Daniel; that apparent power is not really power, and all such structures have feet of clay as shown in the image of Dan. 2. He presumably kept quiet and internal how displeased he was. For the courtiers wouldn't have wished to provoke his displeasure. His admiration for Daniel and his struggling to save Daniel were all internal and well hidden. Otherwise we are left with the case of his courtiers forcing him to do what displeased him. And that just wasn't what courtiers did. His struggle within himself [he "set his heart on Daniel to deliver him"]  that night was largely with himself, with his own understanding and projection of himself as a god who always made infallible decisions which therefore could never be changed nor somehow have exceptions added to them. He struggled with his own pride, and how he would look to his courtiers. This struggle or ’labouring’ may perhaps have involved consultations with legal experts, but more likely it refers to the internal struggle within him against his own pride. And the fact he didn’t command Daniel’s release shows that he lost it; his pride was stronger than his humility and displeasure with himself ("sore displeased with himself", AV).</p><p>In Ezra 4, Artaxerxes issues a decree to cease the rebuilding of Jerusalem. In Ezra 7 king Artaxerxes issues a decree to begin restoring and building Jerusalem. But the laws of the Medes and Persians were unchangeable (Esther 1:19; Dan. 6:14-16). So we see here how Darius could have changed the fate of Daniel- only his pride stopped him. For to lose face and admit "I was wrong, just too hasty in my words" is so hard for man.   </p>


text:
<p>Then these men assembled together to the king, and said to the king, Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians, that no decree nor statute which the king establishesmay be changed- "These men" had the upper hand over the king, but only because they knew that his pride was such that he could not retract the law. The same happened when Herod refused to retract his oath and had John the Baptist murdered. This is the power of human pride; it can bring down the most powerful person.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions- Being cast to the lions and preserved may therefore be used in <a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a> and <a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a> in a figurative sense, encouraging us to see ourselves as in Daniel’s shoes and likewise preserved.</p><p>Now the king spoke and said to Daniel, Your God whom you serve continually, He will deliver you- Service to God is here paralleled with prayer. Those who lament their apparent inability to do much physical service should remember this. Prayer is no less a service to God. I have suggested that Darius did on one level believe, but his pride squashed his spirituality. We see his more spiritual side expressed here, weak though it was; he believed that God would deliver Daniel. We note too that Darius knew full well that Daniel prayed / served his God "continually". His signing of the decree was therefore done in the full knowledge that it would affect Daniel. I don’t think he was simply an elderly man who was fooled and manipulated by his courtiers. Rather was he like us, knowing truth on one level, and yet allowing his pride on the other hand to lead him to decisions of a moment which he would later bitterly regret. This seems to me the more likely and imaginable understanding of why he signed the decree. By admitting that Daniel’s God could save Daniel whereas the king could not, Darius was tacitly accepting that he was not God, and his acceptance of prayer solely to himself was therefore wrong. But as with Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar initially, his repentance didn’t go far enough. His apparently solid faith that God would deliver Daniel contrasts with his query in :20. Again we see repeated a feature of all the monarchs in the book of Daniel- they displayed spirituality, faith and humility for moments, but like us, found it hard to maintain their intensity.</p>


text:
<p>A stone was brought, and laid on the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet ring, and with the signet ring of his lords; so that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel- "Sealed" or 'closed' is the word used of God closing or sealing the mouths of the lions (:22). The king's apparent power to seal or close was in fact irrelevant, and totally overridden by what God did. We have here another similarity with Joseph, who was thrown into a cistern (Gen.37:24), which typically had a stone placed over it (Gen. 29:3; Lam. 3:53). </p><p>The situation has evident similarities with the sealing of the Lord’s tomb (<a href='B:470 27:66'>Mat 27:66</a>), after Pilate like Darius before him allowed his pride to override his better judgment. It could be that Darius wanted his lords and himself to take total responsibility, and believed that God would deliver Daniel (:16) and their collective power and authority would thereby be declared as null and void. But by doing so we could also understand that even at the very end, he still lacked the required humility to disassociate himself from the execution.</p><p>&nbsp;As explained on :10, Daniel had risked his life to pray for Judah and confess their sins because he felt so identified with them. Being placed in a grave to die was a response to that; for he was suffering the punishment upon Judah, who were figuratively "cut off in the dungeon" with a stone barring their escape (<a href='B:310 3:53'>Lam 3:53</a>). In this again we see a pointer forward to the Lord Jesus, whose death and burial was likewise an act of identity with His people.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king went to his palace, and spent the night fasting; no musical instruments were brought before him: and his sleep fled from him- The Aramaic word for "palace" can also mean ’temple’. We again meet the theme of the Babylonian religious system being trounced and declared powerless. The lack of sleep recalls the parallel situation in <a href='B:190 6:1'>Est 6:1</a>; circumstances repeat in history, because it is the same Divine hand at work. It is our wisdom to perceive this, and to conclude that man is never alone, never in an unprecedented situation. This is the purpose of Biblical history. The king’s fasting was presumably in order to beg God to deliver Daniel. If he had humbled himself, then he could simply have released Daniel. We see here how things so often turn out; he had a lower level of spirituality because he wouldn’t take the highest level, which was to simply release Daniel as Pilate could have released the Lord. But the point is, he did fast to God, and even through his own weakness, God urged him closer to Himself. We marvel at God’s patience and desire to work with all men, even the proud, to bring them to Himself.</p><p>The Aramaic for "musical instruments" is obscure and could also mean 'dancing girls' or concubines. His sleep fleeing from him is what happened to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:1). But there is no vision- for Darius knows the essence of the message of the Dan. 2 vision, that Yahweh rules in the kingdoms of men. 
</p><p>The narrative at this point expresses the lack of action by all involved. The king doesn't even sleep, he doesn't even 'do' that; he has no entertainment; the accusers and Daniel do nothing, and the lions do nothing. Daniel is apparently silent throughout until the morning light comes and the ordeal is over. In the midst of all this human inaction, God's silent action is paramount.
</p>


text:
<p>Then the king arose very early in the morning, and went in urgency to the den of lions- Again we see the conscience of the king at work. He was not disinterested. See on :18. "In urgency" recalls Nebuchadnezzar responding "in haste" to the suffering of the three friends (Dan. 3:24).  </p>


text:
<p>When he came near to the den to Daniel, he cried with a lamentable voice; the king spoke and said to Daniel: Daniel, servant of the living God, is your God, whom you serve continually, able to deliver you from the lions?- His apparently solid faith that God would deliver Daniel in :16 contrasts with this query. Again we see repeated a feature of all the monarchs in the book of Daniel- they displayed spirituality, faith and humility for moments, but like us, found it hard to maintain their intensity. "The living God" is a term used to differentiate the one true God from the idols (<a href='B:510 14:15'>Act 14:15</a>; <a href='B:590 1:9'>1Th 1:9</a>). We see here the progress in his thinking. His night of fasting to Daniel’s God led him to believe that the one "living God" was Daniel’s God and not his idols. We would likely have given up in disgust with Darius, after he sacrificed Daniel’s life for the sake of his proud agreement to play God. But God worked with him, and brought about this undoubted spiritual progress in the man.</p><p>This is the only time a Gentile calls Yahweh "the living God". We could well read this within the background context of King Nebuchadnezzar turning to Yahweh. We wonder to what extent Darius too became a believer in Yahweh. For "the living God" is a phrase usually used in the context of declaring all other gods as dead and lifeless (Josh. 3:10; 1 Sam. 17:26; 2 Kings 19:4; Jer. 10:10). 
</p><p>"Whom you serve continually" alludes to Daniel's praying continually, three times / day, and continuing doing so on pain of death. Prayer is service. This is a comfort for all who are incapacitated. They can serve- in prayer. Prayer is a form of serving God.
</p><p>We note the characterization of the king as emotional. He is "deeply distressed" (:15), unable to sleep, and calls to Daniel with a "lamentable" voice , LXX "with wailing" (:20), and is then "exceedingly glad" at Daniel's deliverance (:23). Daniel is presented as without emotion and just calm and secure in his faith. Such emotion was not seen as appropriate for a king; the gods, whom the kings were supposed to represent, had no emotion. Hence a king's decree was not to be changed because he was eternal and infallible, like the gods. The presentation of the king as emotional points up the irony of the situation.
</p><p>The "den of lions" was full of wild angry destructive beasts. And "den of lions" may have been just a technical term for the pit, possibly other wild animals were there too. The connection is clear with the visions of wild beasts in the next chapter; and Daniel, representing God's people, lives at peace amongst them and is saved from them. Thus Dan. 6 is the preface to Dan. 7. Lions got into a pit by being lured into it and then trapped; thus lions are hunted by using a pit (Ez. 19:4,8), and dens / pits are used to trap and subdue wild animals (Ps 7:16; 9:16; 35:7,8, 57:7; 2 Sam. 23:20; 1 Chron. 11:22). The lions had been trapped already. They were not free agents. And Daniel moved at peace amongst them, their mouths closed to him by the Angel. 
</p><p>And there is a deconstruction going on here. In the Akkadian poem Ludlul bel nemeqi, the hero of the story loses his high status at court because of malicious plotting by other courtiers, is thrown to the lions but Marduk rescues him “from the pit”. The king clearly knew the story, and wonders whether Daniel's God can actually do what Marduk supposedly did in mythology. And He does. This poem was very well known. It has been found on over 50 cuneiform tablets from the time from throughout the region. It was apparently used as a standard text in educating the elite classes. Everyone knew the story. And thereby Marduk was deconstructed. The one true God controlled the wild animals, preserving His people from them, and using them to destroy the enemies of His people when the sun arises and a new day dawns [cp. the Lord's coming]. And that is the simple message of the vision of the next chapter. So many reliefs have been unearthed presenting the kings of the time as glorious hunters of lions, triumphing over them. Especially from the North Palace of Nineveh, depicting king Assurbanipal. But again all this is deconstructed. The king Darius fears the lions and is powerless over them, as are his courtiers. But Daniel and his God have power over lions and triumph over them. The North Palace in Nineveh had reliefs, currently in the British Museum, showing the king playing with lions he had tamed and conquered. They had apparently been drugged. The idea was to show how the king was supreme over the king of wild beasts. But it was the king Darius who was fearful of the power of the lions, and it was God's man Daniel who walked at ease amongst lions. Lions appear so frequently on the reliefs uncovered from palaces of the time. The lion was a symbol of kingship. But the Most High was in control of the lions, not king Darius. He controlled kingship, as the image of Dan. 2 had made clear. And His man Daniel was effectively the king. The reliefs portray the king as always winning against the lions. Dan. 6 shows the king as it were overpowered, both by his own courtiers and his fear of the lions. And Judah's God alone triumphant through Daniel, the quiet, calm, humble believer in Him. The seals of the kings usually included lion imagery. Again we see the irony. Darius sealed the stone over the den of lions with his lion imagery on the seal. But he was powerless over those lions. Kings are found depicted as shutting the mouths of lions by their great supposed strength, given from their gods. But clearly it was God and not the king who shut the mouths of these lions. Kings kept lions as a symbol of their power. The lions in the pit were the king's lions. But he had no actual power over them; rather did he fear their power. We see yet again that the Daniel story is about a war between the gods- and Yahweh the one true God, the God whom the Babylonians had apparently humiliated by taking His temple vessels into the house of their god. But God wins. That is likewise the simple summary of the book of Revelation.
</p>


text:
<p>Then Daniel said to theking, O king, live forever- The LXX reflects the ambivalence of the terms used: "O King, I am alive!". But I suggested on :6 that despite his sensitive conscience, knowing that all these kings would be deposed, Daniel went along with this form of address. We too have to make decisions as to whether we shall ’go along’ with incorrect ideas and behaviour, or make a point, as Mordecai did by not bowing to Haman. Sometimes Daniel did make a point, e.g. regarding eat meat offered to idols; on this point, which didn’t directly concern him personally, he didn’t. See on :26. It could also be that Daniel used the term "O king, live forever" but understood it in his own way, namely that he wished that the king would repent and thereby live forever in God’s eternal kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>My God has sent His angel, and has shut the lions’ mouths- Darius had closed the mouth of the pit (:17) but Daniel understands that Yahweh had closed the mouths of the lions. The lions were the king's personal beasts, for kings always had their own lions. True to the theme of Daniel, the king and all his power is under the hand of the one true God. Likewise in Dan. 4:10-12 Nebuchadnezzar is likened to a tree beneath which the wild animals live. But that tree is in fact the symbol of God's Kingdom. The wild animals would take over Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom, as we see in Dan. 7. But in reality they were all beneath God and His rulership and dominion. Nebuchadnezzar himself is changed from being the tree to being just another wild animal. The kings of the time are presented on reliefs as hunters and tamers of lions and other wild animals. But clearly it is God who is the lion tamer and not the king, who is pathetically powerless over them. The putting to death of the most ferocious beast by the "Son of man" in Dan. 7:11,12 is what kings were supposed to do- slaying dragons etc. But it is God who does this, ultimately through His Son. And the greatest king is presented as merely a beast to be conquered by God.</p><p> Here we have another parallel with the situation in Dan. 3 with Daniel's friends. Their persecutors were likewise slain by the flame intended for them; the king came to their place of intended suffering and spoke; justified and praised them and their God etc. We see this kind of thing in our lives; we pass through situations so similar to those of our brethren, and our experiences are also intended as a template for our future brethren (2 Cor. 1:4). This is one helpful window onto the meaning of suffering in the lives of believers. The shutting of the mouth of the pit by men is contrasted with the Angel shutting the mouths of the lions. Daniel’s faith in this would have been developed by his knowledge of what had happened to the three friends in the furnace. This is how friendship and fellowship in Christ should work in our days- the experiences and deliverances of others become our pattern and inspiration. See on :23. It was Daniel’s faith which stopped the mouth of lions (<a href='B:650 11:33'>Heb 11:33</a>); but he says that it was God who shut them. We see here how faith makes us as it were workers together with God; what we believe in, He does, to the point that therefore we, as it were, do it. This is the level of intimacy possible between God and faithful man.</p><p>And they have not destroyed me; because before Him innocence was found in me; and also before you, O king, have I done nothing wrong- The original words develop a word play. The lions did not harm Daniel because he had done no harm to the king: "They did not harm me [because] to you I have done no harm". Daniel insists that disobedience to the king was not in fact harming the king; he protests his innocence. The Lord’s innocence was likewise the basis of His ’resurrection’ (<a href='B:510 2:24'>Act 2:24</a>). Perhaps Daniel inspired Paul, who wrote of how he too was delivered from lions (<a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a>) and who likewise claimed to be innocent before God and man (<a href='B:510 24:16'>Act 24:16</a>). Daniel was no mere Sunday School or Synagogue story for him, and neither should it be for us; we are to see ourselves in Daniel and be inspired to act in faith likewise.</p><p>One part of our message is of the Kingdom of God; we should be living witnesses to the current rulership of God over our lives, and thereby we testify with credibility and integrity to the future establishment of that Kingdom on earth at the Lord’s return. If we are living the eternal life, the Kingdom life, then we are in ourselves advertisements for the good news of the Kingdom. Daniel is an example of this. The Aramaic verb habal occurs several times in Daniel, and between them we build up a picture of how Daniel was a living witness to the Kingdom. The word means to hurt / destroy. We find that the Kingdom of Babylon was to be cut down and destroyed; whereas the Kingdom of God was to never be destroyed (<a href='B:340 4:23'>Dan 4:23</a>; <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>). The mouths of the lions were closed so that they did not "hurt" [s:w. ’destroy’] Daniel (<a href='B:340 6:22'>Dan 6:22</a>); and because of this, Darius praises God, saying that His Kingdom would never be ’destroyed’ (<a href='B:340 6:26'>Dan 6:26</a>). Daniel was not destroyed; and thus Darius came to believe that God’s Kingdom would not be destroyed. Because Daniel was set up as a living part and foretaste of that Kingdom. To a far greater extent, "the Kingdom of God" is a title given to the Lord Jesus- because He in His mortal life was the essence of that Kingdom, the embodiment of the Kingdom life.</p><p>"Done nothing wrong" is literally "done no harm". It is the word used of how the lions did no harm to Daniel (:23). The king's power to "harm" Daniel is again overridden and he is shown to be powerless. Just as the king had closed the den but God closed the mouths of the lions (:17). The apparently unchangeable nature of Medo Persian laws is overridden by God's law and word.</p>


text:
<p>Then was the king exceeding glad, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no kind of harm was found on him, because he had trusted in his God- Again we see a similarity with the deliverance of Daniel’s friends from the furnace, upon whom no smell or trace of fire was even found. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded, and they brought those men who had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions mauled them, and broke all their bones in pieces, before they came to the bottom of the den- "Accused" is literally 'slandered'. A sober warning to slanderers. This breaking in pieces connects with the image prophecy, where the little stone crushes to pieces the kingdoms of men. The historical incidents in the book of Daniel were all evidences that the larger Divine program would just as surely come to fulfilment. Such punishment of men with the very experience they intended to inflict upon others is in accordance with God’s law (<a href='B:50 19:11-13'>Deu 19:11-13</a>; <a href='B:50 19:19'>Deu 19:19</a>; <a href='B:50 24:16'>Deu 24:16</a>), and the whole scene is presented as analogous to the destruction of the rebels in the wilderness (<a href='B:40 16:32'>Num 16:32</a>). Perhaps Darius had been made aware ofGod’s law through the preaching of Daniel; to have agreed to destroy Daniel because of his pride therefore makes his failure all the more serious. And God’s continued grace and patience with him all the more wonderful.</p><p>The method of destruction here appears to fulfil Nebuchadnezzar’s penalty for blasphemy against Yahweh: "[they] shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses [families] laid in ruins" (Dan. 3:29). The king ordered the deaths of all these people immediately, without any due legal process, exercising his right to override the legal process. He likewise could have used his sovereign power to deliver Daniel. The destruction of the families of the guilty was usually only done in cases of insurrection or treason. The king considered that actually these men were plotting his overthrow- whereas they had tried to make Daniel out as guilty of this. Perhaps they wanted Daniel dead in order to advance their own plans for overthrowing the king. This kind of irony is so true to real life- the one who is actually doing good and preventing treason is the one falsely convicted of treason.</p>


text:
<p>Then king Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages, who dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied to you- This copied Nebuchadnezzar in making a multi-lingual declaration of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to all peoples. That the king had power to unilaterally do this further indicates that he was not as weak and manipulated as some like to make out. He was proud and powerful, that was the problem. His power to do this suggests further that this "Darius" was not "Darius the Mede" who would not have had such wide authority.</p>


text:
<p>I make a decree, that in all the dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel; for He is the living God, and steadfast forever, His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed- Perhaps the king is alluding to how he was usually addressed "O King, live forever"; and he now recognizes that he is not in fact Divine, and only Daniel’s God lives for ever. See on :21. He is accepting the truth of the image of Daniel 2. He was clearly aware of passages like <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>, but had previously resisted the implications of the message. Now he accepted it and preached it to all peoples. The similar vision of the four beasts was given before this incident (<a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a>), and the king likely was aware of the same teaching expressed there- that God’s Kingdom alone would be eternal, and would triumph over his empire.</p><p>And His dominion shall remain to the end- This could simply mean ’eternally’. But perhaps this passage is behind Paul’s explanation of how the Lord Jesus delivers the Kingdom to God the Father at "the end" (<a href='B:530 15:24-26'>1Co 15:24-26</a>). This is very much the language of the image vision of Daniel 2, and of the proclamation of Nebucadnezzar in Dan. 4:3,34. Clearly Daniel's earlier history and dream interpretations were known. And these may have led to the accusation of treason against him.</p>


text:
<p>He delivers and rescues, and He works signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, He who has delivered Daniel- Darius here displays quite some humility; for it was he who had struggled and failed to deliver and rescue Daniel (Dan. 6:14). The emphasis is on how "He", God, delivers and rescues when man cannot. This suggests that Darius realized that Daniel’s deliverance was only one of many ongoing miracles and activities of God in "heaven and in earth" at that time. He recognized the wider hand of God in human affairs. Darius is here using the words of Nebuchadnezzar (<a href='B:340 4:3'>Dan 4:3</a>); perhaps he was trying to make a similar repentance, inspired by the example of a previous monarch who had likewise encountered Daniel. The examples of repentance we see and read of in others are intended to inspire us to repentance (see on <a href='B:470 21:31-32'>Mat 21:31-32</a>).</p><p>From the power of the lions- Darius may also have in view how Daniel’s enemies were as a den of lions to him, which is how the figure is used in <a href='B:330 22:25'>Eze 22:25</a>.</p>


text:
<p>So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian- The identity of Darius is problematic; this could be a way of saying "Darius, who was Cyrus the Persian". But Darius is specifically called a Mede, although perhaps this is a way of saying that he now called himself a Persian. Thus we could render with D.J. Wiseman "Darius, even (namely, or i.e.) the reign of Cyrus the Persian". "Such a use of the appositional or explicative Hebrew waw construction has long been recognized in 1 Chron. 5:26 ("So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria even the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria"). We note Dan. 11:1 LXX "The first year of Cyrus". It is a sociological and political miracle that a man could serve under at least four kings, remaining in 'power' even when political power changed from Babylon to Media to Persia: Nebuchadnezzar, [and possibly Evil-merodach], Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus. It is a testament to Daniel's integrity and also his lack of strong political allegiance to any of them- for otherwise the successor power would have destroyed him along with the rest of the previous empire.</p>


text:
<p>The Beasts of Daniel 7</p><p>The four metals of the image of Daniel 2, followed as they were by the feet and ten toes part of iron and clay, are matched by the four beasts of Daniel 7, culminating in the beast with ten horns, which is also destroyed by the second coming of Christ. It is emphasized that Nebuchadnezzar ’saw’ the image, or literally, he had a vision of it (<a href='B:340 2:26'>Dan 2:26</a>; <a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>; <a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan 2:34</a>; <a href='B:340 2:41'>Dan 2:41</a>; <a href='B:340 2:43'>Dan 2:43</a>; <a href='B:340 2:45'>Dan 2:45</a>). The same word is used in Daniel 7 of how now Daniel ’saw’ or ’had a vision of’ the four beasts (<a href='B:340 7:1-2'>Dan 7:1-2</a>; <a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>; <a href='B:340 7:6-7'>Dan 7:6-7</a>; <a href='B:340 7:9'>Dan 7:9</a>; <a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>; <a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a>; <a href='B:340 7:21'>Dan 7:21</a>). The Daniel 7 vision or ’seeing’ was perhaps from God’s perspective, Heaven’s view of the same realities which Nebuchadnezzar saw from an earthly perspective. There are many verbal similarities, as well as the general outline similarity between the four kingdoms. Thus the intention of the Daniel 2 image was to show how God ‘sets up kings’ who ‘rise up’ (<a href='B:340 2:21'>Dan 2:21</a>; <a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>; <a href='B:340 2:39'>Dan 2:39</a>), and the same word is used of how both the lion and the bear are ‘set up’ or ‘raised up’ (<a href='B:340 7:4-5'>Dan 7:4-5</a>); indeed, all four beasts “are four kings which shall arise out of the earth” (<a href='B:340 7:17'>Dan 7:17</a>). The kingdoms of Daniel 2 reigned over the earth, and that clearly refers to the eretz promised to Abraham, Israel, rather than the entire planet. Daniel 7 makes the point that these kings or kingdoms will arise out of that same ‘earth’ which they later dominate. Clearly we are not to look for any identification of the beasts or kings from outside the land promised to Abraham.</p><p>The ten horns likewise represent “ten kings” which shall “arise” (<a href='B:340 7:24'>Dan 7:24</a>); and although it is not stated specifically, we are to assume that they arise also out of the same area, the “earth” / land. &nbsp;We should therefore be looking for a group of four kings / kingdoms, out of which arise ten kings / kingdoms; and out of them arises one “little horn” in particular. Revelation’s take on the beasts adds more detail- there are also seven heads, a false prophet acting as publicity agent for the beast, a whore riding the beast, sitting on seven hills / kings. The four beasts / kings are initially in conflict, striving with each other upon the sea, and arising from that comes the fourth beast entity, the composite beast including elements of all the previous ones. And from that there arises the ten horns and one little horn. We should not, however, think of these situations as having to be chronological developments, i:e. first the four, then the fourth beast, then the ten horns, then the little horn. It may work out like that, but not necessarily. The precise details need not concern us ahead of time; the picture is of a series of leaders and powers involved in the domination of the land promised to Abraham. The fact is, the beasts will all exist together in the last days, just as the metals of the image will. These various entities will “arise” from the land. And this is what we see happening already- in the last few years there has been what is called the Arabic, and particularly Sunni, sahwa, ‘awakening’. Powers and kings have risen up out of the scrubland and desert of the eretz, united in their hatred of Israel, but bitterly divided against each other.</p><p>We are for sure in the stage of the winds / ruach / Angel controlled nations ‘striving’ with each other- the eretz is full of conflict as never before, not just between Israel and her neighbours, but between those neighbours. There are currently four non-Jewish nations within the eretz- Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. But they exist just on paper as lines on the map; there are other significant entities within the area, e.g. Kurdistan, the Islamic State, Gaza, parts of Egypt and Turkey [depending how one defines the northern border of Israel], parts of Saudi Arabia [depending how the eastern border is defined]. In total they make ten kingdoms, but the number ten may not be literal. We would then be awaiting for the “little horn” to arise- a charismatic, antiChrist leader, or perhaps another very small entity. For the horn is called the little horn, and yet it is the most powerful in the very last days. However, the Hebrew and Aramaic words translated “little” can mean ‘short’ in terms of time as well as size. The idea may be that it lasts a very short time indeed, maybe literally days or hours in the very last day, and is the human representative of the beast / horns who personally challenges the Lord Jesus and is destroyed by the brightness of His coming.</p><p>The Origins of the Beasts</p><p>The empires of Daniel 2 dominate the earth. The Hebrew eretz can refer either to the entire planet, or to the land- the land promised to Abraham, the land of Israel, from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt. The dominion of the four beasts is therefore over the same area. Daniel saw the beasts arising out of the great sea. This could be a reference to the laver, which is also called a ’sea’ (<a href='B:110 7:23-26'>1Ki 7:23-26</a>; <a href='B:110 7:39'>1Ki 7:39</a>). This was a huge circular bowl for washing which was set upon 12 bronze oxen, representing the 12 tribes of Israel. They were arranged in four groups of three, facing north, south, east and west, in imitation of the camp of Israel in the wilderness. The beasts therefore arise out of the territory promised to the twelve tribes of Israel.</p><p><a href='B:730 17:15'>Rev 17:15</a> interprets waters or seas as "peoples". The beasts therefore arise out of the peoples who are to be found in the land of the 12 tribes of Israel. The interpretation is confirmed by the words of the Angel in <a href='B:340 7:17'>Dan 7:17</a>, who says that the four beasts who arise out of the sea are four king[dom]s which "shall arise out of the earth / land".</p><p>Another possibility regarding the "great sea" is that it refers to the area of Babylon’s dominion. The vision of Daniel 7 clearly parallels that of Daniel 2, which was intended to explain what would happen after the Babylonians. The arena of the "great sea" was to be dominated by other kingdoms apart from Babylon. In confirmation of this, we find the word rab ["great"] used about the greatness of Babylon ("great Babylon", <a href='B:340 4:30'>Dan 4:30</a>; <a href='B:360 2:2'>Joe 2:2</a>; <a href='B:360 2:11'>Joe 2:11</a>). But rab is also translated "master" (<a href='B:340 1:3'>Dan 1:3</a>), "lord", "captain", "chief" (<a href='B:340 2:10'>Dan 2:10</a>; <a href='B:340 2:14'>Dan 2:14</a>; <a href='B:340 2:48'>Dan 2:48</a>), "master" (<a href='B:340 4:19'>Dan 4:19</a>; <a href='B:340 5:11'>Dan 5:11</a>). We could understand the "great sea" as the sea of nations ruled over by the master, the lord of the sea, the king of Babylon- and Daniel is seeing this vision in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon (<a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a>). As in the Daniel 2 vision, Daniel is explaining that the leadership of Babylon will not last, other kingdoms will arise to also dominate the sea of nations which was then under Babylon’s sole control. This again pushes us towards understanding the entire vision as specifically concerning the area over which Babylon had dominion, and not the whole planet.</p><p>Let’s not get caught up with the idea that Israel shall survive and defeat the invaders in her own strength. The beast must dominate Israel. Jerusalem will be taken. <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>; <a href='B:340 7:21'>Dan 7:21</a> speaks of how the beast made war with the saints and prevailed against them- Israel- until the Ancient of days came; in <a href='B:340 7:23'>Dan 7:23</a> he devours the whole land [as a beast] and shall tread it down. The beast of Revelation is so powerful in the earth / land that "the world" wondered at it and at the whore riding it (<a href='B:730 13:3'>Rev 13:3</a>; <a href='B:730 17:6-7'>Rev 17:6-7</a>), feeling unable to make war with it. This of itself requires the demise and degrading of America, Europe and the West generally. <a href='B:340 11:41'>Dan 11:41</a>; <a href='B:340 11:45'>Dan 11:45</a> are likewise clear about the latter day King of the North: “He shall also come into the glorious land… He shall plant the tents of his palace between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him”.</p><p>-------------</p><p><a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a></p><p>In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon- This was about 10 years before the fall of Babylon. As with all Bible prophecy, there was a short term initial fulfilment which guaranteed that the larger picture would likewise finally come true. We discussed on Dan. 2 how the initial possible fulfilment of the image was in the immediate Babylonian dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar's descendants failed to have his final humility before the things of God's Kingdom, as Dan. 5 makes clear to Belshazzar. And so now the kaleidoscope turns, and the elements align to produce another possible picture- that after Babylon arises another empire. Thus Dan. 7:1 locates the vision at the beginning of the reign of Belshazzar, who is presented in Dan. 5 as the last king of Babylon. Dan. 8 shows how yet another sequence was possible, with the Kingdom of God being established at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. </p><p>Daniel had a dream on his bed: then he wrote the dream and told the conclusion of the matters- The entire vision of the beasts of Daniel 7 is summed up in <a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a>: "the rosh of the words" (AV "sum of the matter"). And the rosh surely refers to the individual of <a href='B:330 38:2'>Eze 38:2</a> who will lead the latter day armies against Israel. The whole system of beasts is summed up in an individual rosh or leader, just as the metals of the image in Daniel 2 are in the form of a man with the face of Nebuchadnezzar. The little horn of Daniel 7 is actually called "the beast": "I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame" (<a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Daniel spoke and said, I saw in my dream and, behold, the four winds of Heaven broke forth upon the great sea- This again is a deconstruction of Babylon’s religion; the Enuma Elish describes the god of Babylon, Bel (or Marduk) using four winds to destroy sea monsters and become god of gods. This narrative is subverted so that Yahweh is to be recognized as God of all gods.</p><p> Nebuchadnezzar 'saw' the image, or literally, he had a vision of it (Dan. 2:26,31,34,41,43,45). The same word is used in Daniel 7 of how now Daniel 'saw' or 'had a vision of' the four beasts (Dan. 7:1,2,4,6,7,9,11,13,21). The Daniel 7 vision or 'seeing' was perhaps from God's perspective, Heaven's view of the same realities which Nebuchadnezzar saw from an earthly perspective. There are many verbal similarities, as well as the general outline similarity between the four kingdoms. Thus the intention of the Daniel 2 image was to show how God ‘sets up kings’ who ‘rise up’ (Dan. 2:21,31,39), and the same word is used of how both the lion and the bear are ‘set up’ or ‘raised up’ (Dan. 7:4,5); indeed, all four beasts “are four kings which shall arise out of the earth” (Dan. 7:17). 
</p><p> Quite simply, God is behind all these beasts. They are raised up and destroyed by Him. He is in control, no matter how scary they appear. This is why all four of the beasts are alluded to in Hos. 13:7,8, a passage which alludes to all of them- lion, leopard, bear and general "beast": "I became like a lion to them, like a leopard beside the road I will lurk. I will meet them like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will rip apart their heart's enclosure. And I will devour them there like a lion, as a beast of the field would mangle them".
</p><p> The situation here clearly alludes to that at creation. Darkness covered the deep, and the wind / Spirit of God swept over the waters- resulting in creation (Gen. 1:2). Daniel at night in the darkness sees the same thing. And out of this work of the wind / Spirit, there arise beasts (Gen. 1:20,21,24,25,28,30; 2:7,19,20) just as there do throughout Daniel 7. Man was given dominion over the things thus created (Gen. 1:26-28), and in Dan. 7 the "son of man" ends up having "dominion" over the beasts that have arisen. The simple takeaway is that God is over the arising of the beasts. Despite the wickedness and freewill decisions of evil men, God is the creator of it all. And all those beasts, kings and empires arose in order to judge Israel for their sins. As the prophets repeatedly teach, this was all of God. Scary and powerful as those entities were, they were created by God, made to arise from the water covered land / earth, just like the natural beasts of the field had arisen. God is repeatedly presented as the creator of "evil" in the context of the judgment of His people (Is. 45:5-7). All this is why I don't vote and take a laid back approach to human politics, as we see God raising and deposing leaders and empires.
</p>


text:
<p>Four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another- This again is a subversion of the entire narrative of Babylon, for the walls of the Ishtar Gate were decorated with identical great beasts, who were said to defend Babylon. They would all come to their end beforeIsrael’s God. The nations represented by the beasts come from the earth, the eretz or land promised to Abraham (:17). The imagery of the sea may therefore simply be because there is a deconstruction going on- as explained on :2, the god of Babylon was supposed to have dominated the monsters of the sea in order to become the supreme god.</p><p>Wild beasts were the threatened punishment upon Israel for their sin. So we are to expect the dominion of these beasts to be over the land and people of Israel. And this is what the metals of the image of Daniel 2 speak of likewise- dominion over the earth / land of Israel. Indeed, the ancient world often spoke of the arising of beasts as punishment for breaking a covenant (evidence provided in G:W. Buchanan, The Book of Daniel p. 167). And Israel had broken covenant; and these were the judgments to come upon them. The point is, the dominion of these beasts was to be over Israel; that is the focus of the vision, not Europe nor the rest of the planet.</p><p>Daniel saw this vision at the very end of the Babylonian empire, in the reign of Belshazzar (:1), whom Daniel 5 presents as the last king of Babylon. But he sees the beasts, including the first beast [which is clearly based upon historical Babylon] arising from the sea. Yet Babylon had already arisen at the time of the vision, and was waning in power. This underlines the fact that the essential fulfilment of this vision is in the last days, for all the beasts exist together then just as all the metals in the image exist, to be broken by the Lord’s return. Whatever historical fulfilments there were, the vision speaks of entities arising in the very last days to abuse God’s people and be destroyed by the coming of His Son. </p><p>The four beasts are "diverse from one another" (Dan. 7:3), just as the four metals of the image of Daniel 2 do not naturally bond with each other. The four beasts are controlled by four spirits in Heaven who 'strive' with each other (Dan. 7:2). God makes His Angels spirits (Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:7). Each of those kings or empires had a representative Angel in Heaven. It's not that the Angels themselves strive with each other, they are all obedient to God (see my The Real Devil chapter 2 http://www.realdevil.info/2-1.htm) but they play out before the court of Heaven the situation on earth. Later in Daniel we find Angels likewise representative of kings and kingdoms (Dan. 10:13,20). The comfort is that God is aware of all that happens on earth, and in fact He orchestrates it. The situation on earth is therefore not ultimately spinning out of control. My point in this context is that the four beasts strive with each other and do not naturally bond with each other. This is the same situation as we find in the feet and toes made part of iron, part of clay, mixed with each other but not cleaving to each other. Just as the image stands erect in the last days in order for it to be destroyed, so the sequence of beasts which we have in Daniel 7 are not simply a historical outline of a sequence of empires. Each of them exists in some form in the last days, and are united together in their brief domination of the earth / land promised to Abraham. The first three beasts stand 'before' the fourth one, the original meaning 'in the presence of', rather than previously in chronological terms (Dan. 7:7). The fourth beast has its body destroyed, although the other beasts are also present there and have their lives prolonged "for a season" (Dan. 7:11,12). The historical interpretation of the beasts is not irrelevant, however. The final entity dominating Israel will incorporate aspects of all the previous systems which have dominated the land promised to Abraham. 
</p><p> Daniel sees the four beasts (having similarities with the four metals of the image of Daniel 2) all come up together after the waves of the sea are troubled (Dan. 7:3), connecting with the Lord's description of the last day powers around Israel in the same way (Lk. 21:25). 
</p><p> The four beasts are described as “diverse” from each other (Dan. 7:3). The Aramaic word translated “diverse” is used 21 times, and every time it distinctly means to be changed from one state to another. It is used about ‘altering’ a king’s word (Ezra 6:11; Dan. 3:28), the face of a man being ‘changed’ from one appearance to another (Dan. 3:19; 5:6). The idea is not simply that there were four beasts which were different from each other; it’s surely axiomatic that four different beasts are going to be different from each other. The beasts of Daniel 7 are clearly related to the metals of the image in Daniel 2; but this is not to say that the same thing is being said simply through different symbolism. That would be relatively pointless. There is an extension of the ideas and a modification of the way in which the final end [the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth] will be achieved. 
 
</p><p> Whilst the beasts of Dan. 7 and the metals of Dan. 2 are related, there are significant differences. There is not a one for one alignment between the two visions; that would be rather pointless. The vision of the metals in Dan. 2 doesn't precisely map out onto the beasts of Dan. 7. In Dan. 2, all four kingdoms are utterly destroyed simultaneously by the stone (Dan. 2:35,45). But in the vision of the four beasts, only the fourth beast is killed; the first three beasts have their empire / dominion taken away but themselves continue to live (Dan. 7:12). Dan. 2 stresses the weak and mixed nature of the final kingdom (Dan. 2:40-43). But Dan. 7 emphasises a progression of kings [horns] within the fourth kingdom and describes one particularly terrifying king. The fourth kingdom is observed by Daniel to be radically different to all the others (Dan. 7:7,8,19-25). The Dan. 2 image has no mention of ten entities or kings at the end, nor of anyone equivalent to the "little horn". If the idea was that these beasts arose one after the other, surely this would have been stated. Without that clarification we are surely left to assume that they arose together at the same time. 
</p><p> Likewise, the sequence of Dan. 8 [Medo-Persia, Greece, Little horn, Kingdom of God] is shorter than that of Dan. 7 [four beasts starting with Babylon, horns, little horn, Kingdom of God]. Which in turn is shorter than the sequence of Dan. 2, which has four empires starting with Babylon and then a weak entity of iron mixed with clay, leading to the Kingdom of God. The focus of Dan. 7 is largely upon the fourth beast and little horn, whereas Dan. 2 doesn't give this emphasis. The two feet are mentioned in Dan. 2 but not ten toes. In the initial possible application to Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, there was no feature of "ten" at the end of it. Just the co-regency of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, the two feet. But in the later re-interpretation, we are left to deduce that the ten toes could be the ten horns of the fourth beast in Dan. 7. Although the weakness of the feet in Dan. 2 is not a theme found in the parallel in Dan. 7; there was a reinterpretation and extension of the 'ten toes' in Dan. 7.
</p><p> It could even be argued that although the empires of Dan. 7 do have some similarities with the kings and empires of Dan. 2, the Dan. 7 beasts are totally different entities which shall exist specifically and only in the last days, at the moment when the Lord comes and establishes God's Kingdom. The four beasts apparently arise together, at the same time (Dan. 7:3); the entire vision of Dan. 7 would then be solely about the situation in the very last days before God's Kingdom is established on earth. Whereas the entities in Dan. 2 arise one after the other. And that is the whole purpose of that vision. We learn in Dan. 7:7 that the fourth beast stamps upon "the residue", i.e. the others, the other three beasts, who are therefore existing at the same time as the fourth beast. Those entities do not destroy or succeed one another, like the kingdoms do in Dan 2; but are trampled on by the fourth beast. "The residue", i.e. 'the rest' of the beasts, again feature in :12: "As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time". These statements are stubborn problems for any continuous historical interpretation of the beasts. The fourth beast is presented in Revelation as an entity that specifically arises and exists in the very last days. It is not an entity that historically existed for centuries in some form. This approach certainly solves other stubborn problems which arise if we insist on seeing the entities of Dan. 7 as merely parallel to those in the image of Dan. 2. Dan. 7:17 states clearly that "These great animals, which are four, are four kings, who shall arise out of the land". Clearly this is at some time future to when Daniel had this vision (:1), decades after the vision of Dan. 2. The first beast was yet to arise. But if this is paralleled with the "head of gold" then this becomes problematic. For Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon had already arisen, Nebuchadnezzar was long dead and Babylon was about to fall. So it seems also legitimate to take an entirely latter day view of the beasts, incorporating as they do elements of the previous entities that had dominated Israel seen in Dan. 2. This obviates all the difficulties in trying to force history into compliance with these prophecies, as we see in the vain attempts to find 10 horns on the Roman empire. All this would explain why Daniel was so grieved that he didn't understand the vision of Dan. 7; whereas he had been given the interpretation of that of Dan. 2. He clearly saw the events of Dan. 7 as different to those of Dan. 2, which he apparently did understand. For "understanding" had been given unto him of the Dan. 2 vision. This approach however is just one possible turn of the kaleidoscope; for the relevance to Greece and Antiochus is too exact to deny. But when this didn't lead to the re-establishment of God's Kingdom, thanks to the arrogant, legalistic, unspiritual nationalism of God's people, then the kaleidoscope turned again. And quite possibly this totally latter day interpretation comes into view. These aren't all just possible interpretations; they are possibilities that really could have brought about the establishment of God's Kingdom. One after another, the human factors failed. Cyrus wasn't the Messiah he could have been, neither was Zerubbabel, neither was Judas Maccabeus. And Israel crucified Jesus their Messiah when He came. But still God's final saving purpose will succeed, even if it takes more time. "For at the time of the end shall be the vision" (Dan. 8:17) would suggest that the things of the little horn etc. have their main fulfilment at the very end, before the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth, and not in any other time historically.

</p><p> I suggest these differences of interpretation reflect the different scenarios that were possible. Just as in our lives, there have been so many possible scenarios. Our failure to take the path we were meant to didn't mean the end of our relationship with God. It meant that one possible set of potential futures didn't happen. Both on the level of individuals and geopolitics, we see God striving by all means to make something work, inexorably leading towards His final plan of salvation in His Kingdom.
</p><p> There is so much repetition of behaviour and patterns of behaviour and judgment in the book of Daniel. Thus Belshazzar's behaviour in desecrating the things of Yahweh's temple was to be repeated in that of the little horn. That doesn't make the little horn Belshazzar. And so it would be in line with this if the entities of Dan. 7 are not the same as those of Dan. 2, but they followed the patterns seen experienced with those entities.
</p>


text:
<p>The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings- We have noted on Dan. 6 how the king's lions were tamed and under Yahweh's total control, and His man walked fearlessly with them. Now we find that the first of the beasts is a lion. The connection is clear- that somehow God's true people will be ultimately preserved. The bas reliefs show that the kings of Babylon and Assyria claimed to have hunted and killed wild animals before their coronations. In Dan. 7, we see God ultimately overcoming the wild animals and then being enthroned over the world for ever.
</p><p> The initial reference is to Nebuchadnezzar, who is described as an eagle during his madness (Dan. 4:30). We note the LXX of Dan. 4:30 "My hairs became like an eagle's wings and my nails like a lion". In his humiliation, it's as if his eagle's wings were clipped and he was left just with the claws of an eagle. 
</p><p> Both lion and eagle are symbols of Babylon (<a href='B:300 49:19-22'>Jer 49:19-22</a> cp. <a href='B:310 4:19'>Lam 4:19</a>; <a href='B:350 8:1'>Hos 8:1</a>; <a href='B:420 1:8'>Hab 1:8</a>). They are also associated with Islam; Ali, Mohammad’s on in law, is called "The lion of God, always victorious". The plucking of the wings could refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s loss of power. <a href='B:300 49:19-22'>Jer 49:19-22</a> specifically calls Nebuchadnezzar the lion, and his soldiers the eagles. The primary potential fulfilment of the vision was in matching the four metals of Daniel 2, which spoke primarily of four kings rather than kingdoms which were to arise. A lion with eagles’ wings would have appeared like a sphinx, a monster assumed to be a demonic being. The point is that all that was considered demonic and radically evil was all the same under Divine control and manipulation; there is no radical evil in creation. This is why the New Testament uses the language of demons when describing the Lord’s miracles, which clearly showed that whether or not demons actually exist, they are of no power compared to God.</p><p>I saw until its wings were plucked- Maybe a reference to the mental illness of Nebuchadnezzar, or the decline of the empire after his death. I have suggested several times on Daniel 2-6 that the various monarchs had the opportunity to repent and restore the Jews, and to resign their own kingdoms under the Kingdom of God they were allowing to be re-established in the form of the kingdom of Judah. But they all failed in this. The lifting up of the plucked lion would therefore refer to how after Nebuchadnezzar’s final repentance, the kingdom could have been lifted up and glorified. Whether or not Nebuchadnezzar maintained his repentance to the end of his days we don’t know, but his kingdom and successors didn’t. And so their kingdom likewise had to fall.</p><p>The plucking of the wings could refer to how Lydia, Media, and Persia cast off Babylonian rule and appointed their own kings. Or maybe to how after Nebuchadnezzar, there was no farther extension of the Babylonian empire under the subsequent, weaker, rulers.  </p><p> And it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand on two feet as a man; and a man’s heart was given to it- "It was lifted up" just as the bear "was raised up" (:5) and "dominion was given" to the leopard (:6). True to the message of Dan. 2, human power and prowess is all ultimately given by God. Although there is no specific definition of the power lifting up, raising up and giving dominion, it is clearly God. His is the higher hand in human life, over and above human freewill. And this mighty hand is willing to work in our lives through the Spirit, if we are open to it. The first three beasts are all natural animals that have something added to it which doesn't belong by nature. The lion and leopard have wings, the bear was strangely raised up on one side. This simple observation reflects again the higher hand of God in human life, over and above the natural. 
</p><p> LXX "stood on human feet"; the feet were changed from paws to human feet. We should note that Daniel was likewise raised to his feet as a sign that his self abasement had been acceptable with God (Dan. 8:18 "he took hold of me, raised me to my feet"). So it was with Nebuchadnezzar. His repentance and humiliation made him man as God intended. A psychological miracle was performed upon that man. Having the mind of a man is what God seeks from all men, and will finally be achieved in all those who are in His Kingdom: "Let the nations know that they are men" (Ps. 9:21).
</p><p> Nebuchadnezzar started as a man, but was made as an animal, so that he might become "a human" again, but man as God intended: "Let his mind be changed from that of a human, and let the mind of an animal be given to him" (Dan. 4:16).͟ But Dan. 7 presents Nebuchadnezzar before his conversion as an animal; a lion with eagles' wings. The 'human mind' he then had was in fact that of an animal. Those wings are plucked and he is given a man's heart- he is transformed from an animal to a man; a true man. The first beast of Dan. 7 was "lifted up from the ground" so it could stand on two feet as a man. No longer a four footed lion. 
</p><p> Nebuchadnezzar in his days of madness would have been similar to a middle aged man in a psychiatric ward, sectioned and identifying as an animal, with wild frightened eyes and a diagnosis well beyond any human cure through therapy or medication. Yet the power of the Holy Spirit is such that in this case, such a person had a spiritual awareness deep within them. And when this was responded to, God did the greatest psychological miracle of the Old Testament. He healed that tormented mind, and made that man the world's most powerful ruler. And despite the man's awful sins and blasphemy, God sanctified and eternally saved him. We have for all time a parade example of how God can psychologically transform a person and save them. Human psychology and psychiatry never totally cured anyone. At best a few symptoms were partially relieved. No psychotropic medication, no course of therapy, can radically transform. Only God's Spirit can. And here we have the parade example.
</p><p> The lifting up from the earth / ground may simply mean that this beast becomes like a man. The first beast, representing Babylon, had "the heart of a man". It was the embodiment of an individual person- Nebuchadnezzar. The latter day Babylon likewise will be centred around a person- the antiChrist figure of the last days, who in turn will profess to be the incarnation or embodiment of the false prophet Mohammed. What happened here is the reverse of what happened to Nebuchadnezzar (<a href='B:340 4:16'>Dan 4:16</a>; <a href='B:340 4:33'>Dan 4:33</a>). It could be that we have here a potential prophecy, of what could have happened after Nebuchadnezzar’s repentance after his years of mental illness, living as a beast. The beasts are represented as having human features because like the metals of the image, the primary possibility of the prophecies was that Nebuchadnezzar would be followed by a series of kings rather than kingdoms, which would climax in the revelation of Messiah and the re-establishment of the Kingdom. That didn’t happen, but it was the potential, which Judah’s spiritual indolence disallowed.</p><p>Nebuchadnezzar in his madness became as a beast- with a body like a beast, hair like an eagle, and nails like those of a beast (<a href='B:340 4:33'>Dan 4:33</a>). This language is all used about the beasts in the later prophetic parts of Daniel’s prophecy. They had features of eagles (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>), bodies of beasts (<a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>), and remarkable nails or claws (<a href='B:340 7:19'>Dan 7:19</a>). Nebuchadnezzar became like such a beast because the latter day beast would be the embodiment of him, just as the image of Daniel 2 had the face of Nebuchadnezzarand was in the form of a man. The beast is epitomized by a man- "the number of the beast…is the number of a man" (<a href='B:730 13:18'>Rev 13:18</a>). </p><p>Note that Nebuchadnezzar personally was the head of gold, and so we can understand this first beast as Nebuchadnezzar or at least, Babylon at his specific time. It is Nebuchadnezzar who is described as an eagle (Dt. 28:49-53; Lam. 4:19; Ez. 17:1-5,11-14; Hab. 1:6-8) and lion in his attack upon Judah (Is. 5:25-30; Jer. 4:6,7,13; 25:9,38; 49:19,22; 50:17,44). </p>


text:
<p>Behold, another beast, a second, like a bear; and it was raised up on one side- "On one side" could refer to how Cyrus arose on the borders of Chaldea, and in this way the bear positioned itself to attack the lion [Babylon]. But probably better is GNB "like a bear standing on its hind legs", making it have an element of Nebuchadnezzar, who likewise we have just read stood on his feet like a man rather than as an animal (:4). </p><p> The original could mean "half crouching", or standing on its hind legs, ready to pounce in attack. The historical application could be to the Medes arising and then the Persians, hence it appears to have two sides to it.</p><p>And three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth: and they said thus to it, Arise, devour much flesh- "Arise" is a command to the beast to stand up as a man, on two feet; to perhaps repent and become fully human as Nebuchadnezzar did (see on :4). Whether it does arise as commanded isn't recorded. Just as we will not read whether the first three beasts are destroyed or not; we are only told that the fourth beast is destroyed, whilst the others have their lives prolonged for an undefined period. As noted on :4, these beasts are all epitomized in a man, the latter day antiChrist figure who is based upon Nebuchadnezzar. The "three ribs", the remnant of other beasts devoured by this beast, encourage it to stand up as a man and devour even more flesh; to do to others, as had been done to them. The three ribs could refer to the conquering of Lydia, Egypt and Babylon by Medo-Persia; or to the three great Assyrian cities of Nineveh, Calah, and Resen which they sacked. But it’s hard to understand how their remnants encouraged Medo-Persia to devour others. The relevance to Lydia, Egypt and Babylon was therefore but a primary fulfilment; the vision, like that of Daniel 2, speaks primarily of the last days, in the same way as the entire image of Daniel 2 [the basis of Daniel 7] stands complete in the last days. Or the three ribs may refer to Nebuchadnezzar, his son and his son’ son, the three generations that ruled Babylon according to Jer. 27:7.
</p><p>Jer. 51:27-29 describes how God stirs up four nations against Babylon. One was Media, the other three were the  kingdoms of Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz. These were all taken over by Media. Jer. 51:11 and Is. 13:17 speak of how God "stirred up" the Medes against Babylon, and Is. 21:2 commands Media to besiege Babylon. This Divine stirring up and command is referred to in this "Arise, Devour much flesh".  The beast is in the process of eating- it has ribs in its mouth and is being commanded to eat. This would refer to the Medes about to devour Babylon. For this vision is in the first year of Belshazzar (:1), and he only reigned for three years before being overthrown by Darius the Mede. And yet if we turn the kaleidoscope and see a latter day application, all these beasts are to devour God's people and land. These four beasts are reflected in Hos. 13:7,8, where God threatens that He will be to Israel like a lion, a leopard, a bear and a wild beast. Israel's enemies are often likened to such wild animals. All these beasts are significant because of what they do to Israel; that is the territory and arena of their domination in the image of Daniel 2.
</p><p> We can also translate as it having three ribs between it's teeth. These would connect with the idea of three horn kings who would pass away which we will meet later. The three Medo Persian kings we are told of in the Bible are Cyrus, Ahasuerus and Darius. This has the advantage of an interpretation which requires only a knowledge of Biblical history.
</p><p> The clear initial reference of the little horn to Antiochus Epiphanes [especially when we connect it with the little horn of Daniel 8] means that one possible sequence was Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece. "The order of Medes and Persians as the second and third kingdoms is supported by the sequence of kings in Daniel 6 and by their pairing in Dan 5:28. Furthermore, in Dan 8:3, the two-horned ram represents the kings of Media and Persia, with the latter appearing afterwards and larger". 
</p>


text:
<p>After this I saw, and behold, another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it- Daniel sees one vision in :1-6 of four beasts arising but only three of which he describes. He then sees another night vision, beginning in :7, of the fourth beast. Why? In Dan. 8 we are presented with a scenario whereby the Kingdom of God could have been established in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, at the end the Greek empire. That possibility didn't happen. And so the kaleidoscope turned and the possibility of a fourth entity became the next potential reality. That is why there are two visions here. In the first, there are four beasts but only three are described, the vision ending with the third beast of Greece. But then in the second vision, from :7 onwards, we have a vision specifically of the fourth beast, its' horns and little horn.</p><p> The four wings may refer to the four winds, one for each of the "four corners of the earth" (Ps. 104:3; Zech. 2:6). Cyrus described himself as "‘king of the four corners of the earth... Sin, the light of heaven... gave into my hands the four corners of the earth". The four heads would then be the four kings of Persia we are informed of in Dan. 11:2 ["there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth..."]: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius and Xerxes.</p><p>The four heads could suggest a looking to expand in all directions. The historical application would be to the kingdom which succeeded Babylon. But I have explained that just as the image of Daniel 2 stands complete in the last days, so all the beasts likewise exist on the eve of the Lord’s return (:12). They can refer to different aspects of the latter day entity which dominates the land promised to Abraham. The fact Daniel saw them successively arise is on one level just the furniture of the vision, and doesn’t have to mean that there will be a chronological sequence of entities in the last days. There will be an element of four wings and heads in this particular manifestation of the latter day beast.</p><p>Historically, the leopard could refer to the lightning speed of the Persian troops, if the bear is understood as Media. The four heads / wings would then refer to the first four Persian kings, from Cyrus to Xerxes. Or it could refer to the lightning speed of the Greek ascendancy to power in the region under Alexander the great and his four generals, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip, and Antigonus; who may each be represented by the four wings and heads. Unless the generals are represented by the heads, and the wings speak of the four divisions of the Greek empire: Greece, Western Asia, Egypt, and Persia / India. The problem with all these historical interpretations is that they fail to meet the required criteria- that the vision of the beasts, like that of the image in Daniel 2, concern domination of the eretz promised to Abraham and not areas far outside of it such as Greece and India. The similarities are at best vague, and the main fulfilment will become clear in the latter domination of the eretz by an entity which includes all these previous elements. It should also be remembered that in <a href='B:730 17:13'>Rev 17:13</a>, horns represent kings, and heads represent mountains or kingdoms. Whether the four heads can represent Persian kings or parts of the Greek empire is therefore questionable, especially as the Greek conquests were not established as kingdoms under a king. The decorum of the symbolism requires that the wings and the heads are different in their meaning; four wings would suggest two pairs of wings. It may simply be allusive to the double winged beasts which were the classic symbols of Babylon and Assyria, as if to say that there were elements of their abuse of Israel in this beast.</p><p>"Dominion was given unto it" would clearly refer to the lightning speed of Alexander's victories, within a few years conquering from Greece to India, defeating 600,000 Persians with only 30,000 men etc. </p>


text:
<p>After this I saw in the night visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, awesome and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces- This is what the little stone of <a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan 2:34</a>; <a href='B:340 2:45'>Dan 2:45</a> does. This entity tries to execute judgment which only God should, and which He will do in the return of His Son to earth. This playing God is a significant factor in the judgment of these latter day entities. The beast will "devour" the land (Dan. 7:7), just as the historical Babylon 'devoured' Jerusalem with fire (Jer. 30:16; Lam. 4:11; Ez. 15:5; 19:12; 23:25; Hos. 8:14; Am. 1:4; 2:5) and the Assyrians devoured the land (Jer. 50:17; Hos. 11:6; 13:8; Joel 1:4,19,20; 2:3,5,25). All these verses use the same word translated 'devour' in Dan. 7:7. Clearly enough, the 'devouring' of the fourth beast is a summation of all previous 'devourings' of God's land and people. Even in Old Testament times, this idea of a singular beast embodying all Israel's enemies was not unknown. For Ez. 34:28 looked forward to the day when "Neither shall the beast of the land devour them [any more]". Mal. 3:11 likewise speaks of how "the devourer" will be rebuked by God when finally Israel respond to the Elijah prophet (Mal. 3:1). This again suggests that the final devouring of Israel will be whilst the Elijah prophet is making an ongoing appeal for their repentance and acceptance of Jesus. Once they do so, the devourer is rebuked and Jesus returns to His desperately repentant people. 
</p><p> The beast stamps on others (Dan. 7:7); the same word is used for how Egypt did this to God's people and others within the land promised to Abraham (Ez. 32:2). Although Egypt doesn't figure in the sequence of metals in the image of Daniel 2, the beast incorporates aspects of all Israel's previous dominators- and they include Egypt. We can therefore expect the beast entity to include features of Nazi, Catholic and other historical persecutors of God's people, even though those entities weren't part of the Daniel 2 image. This is why the historical interpretations of 666 and the beast which apply them to Nero's Rome and various Catholic persecutions are not per se incorrect. They were true for their time. But the final persecuting entity will include them all within what it is and what it does. 
</p><p>And stamped the residue with its feet: and it was diverse from all the beasts that preceded it; and it had ten horns- This beast was a composite beast, including the elements of the former beasts. It would have appeared very similar to Marduk, god of Babylon. Just as the image of Daniel 2 stands complete in the last days, headed up by a latter day Nebuchadnezzar, so this final beast is Babylon revived.</p><p>The difference between devouring and then stamping the rest with its feet could suggest that this entity was not content merely with conquering, but destroyed [stamped upon] the rest which it could not conquer. This is hard to fit to any particular historical entity, but it complements the general impression we get of the latter day entity conquering the eretz of Israel and then causing destruction to the surrounding peoples. Such a scenario can easily be imagined given the current nature of things in the Middle East. The stamped bits of beast, as it were, would then correspond with the brief final part of the Daniel 2 image, a mixture of metal mixed with clay. That is how the Middle East will end up, and the Lord’s return will be in judgment upon that final phase of the Daniel 2 image and the mess left by the fourth beast.</p></p> The little horn in Dan. 8 is clearly Antiochus Epiphanes in its initial application. This leads us to see the fourth beast as Greece. The ten horns in this case would refer to the ten successors of Alexander on the throne of Antioch: (1) Alexander the Great, 336–323; (2) Alexander Aegus, 323–312; (3) Seleucus I, 312–280; (4) Antiochus I, 280–261; (5) Antiochus II, 261–246; (6) Seleucus II, 246–226; (7) Seleucus III, 226–223; (8) Antiochus III, 223–187; (9) Seleucus IV, 187–175; (10) Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 175–16 ; taken from Hartman and Di Lella, The Book Of Daniel, p. 214.</p>


text:
<p>I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one- The little horn came up or 'arose' just as all the beasts arose from the sea (:3) as a result of the winds of heaven blowing on the sea. The simple takeaway is that these monstrous entities were all caused to arise by God. This is the great theme of Daniel, that human political power is given and taken away by God. All is under His control; there is no radical evil out there in the world of human geopolitics. This arising / lifting / coming up of the little horn is the antithesis of how God makes the horn of His people and Messiah to arise, e.g. "He has lifted up a horn for His people" (Ps. 148:14); "I will cause a horn to sprout for the house of Israel" (Ez. 29:21); and in Zion "I will cause a horn to sprout for David" (Ps 132:17; also Ps. 89:19-21). The little horn has "fellows" (:20), just as the Lord does (Heb. 1:9; Zech. 3:8). Likewise we wonder as to the meaning of the worst horn being "little". Possibly the connection is with the Lord coming from "little" Bethlehem (Mic. 5:1), and the little one becoming a thousand (Is. 60:22). Whilst the stone of Dan. 2:34 is not specifically called a "little stone" we can infer that we are supposed to see it as a small stone, which turns into a huge ever growing mountain. Again we are thus led to see this horn as a fake Christ. All the horns represent men, kings, but the little horn has "eyes like the eyes of a man". Why mention this, unless the idea is that he is a fake replica of the "son of man" figure we also meet in this vision.
</p><p> The little horn has points of connection with Nebuchadnezzar. His eyes are notable, just as Nebuchadnezzar lifted up his eyes to heaven. His mouth likewise spoke great things (:8), mocking the God of Israel in how he spoke to the three friends and to the Jews besieged in Jerusalem. The little horn has an especially arrogant look; the same word is used of the "sight" or look of Nebuchadnezzar in his arrogance, as a tree whose "sight" was visible to all the earth (Dan. 4:19,20). Nebuchadnezzar persecuted the saints [Judah in their land, and also the three friends] and tried to change God's times and laws (:25), as seen in his attempt to build a gold statue that changed God's statue of Dan. 2. We also see this in the fact that God's law required Him to be worshipped exclusively yet Nebuchadnezzar sought to change that. The little horn is therefore cast as a Nebuchadnezzar redivivus. "The same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them" (:21) clearly alludes to what Nebuchadnezzar did to Judah and Jerusalem. This is the sense in which the entire image of Dan. 2 is Nebuchadnezzar, headed up by him as the head of gold, and standing complete in the last days. The language of the little horn in Dan. 8:10 recalls that used of Nebuchadnezzar in Is. 14:13 "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God".
</p><p> As explained in the introduction to this chapter, this appears to speak of an individual who arises, the antiChrist, who deposes others in order to establish himself as the personal epitomy of the fourth beast, which in turn is the composite of all the beasts. It is this individual who faces off against the real Christ at His second coming and is judged by His appearance on earth (:9). The horn / king was "little", and the original may mean one who has been diminished. The one made little arises or ’comes up’ to be the greatest, an imitation Christ. It could be that this individual has been humiliated in some previous conflict, but now arises again. This could be associated with the way the beast received a deadly wound but was healed (<a href='B:730 13:3'>Rev 13:3</a>; <a href='B:730 13:12'>Rev 13:12</a>).</p><p>Before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things- The plucking up of three horns (= kings, <a href='B:340 7:24'>Dan 7:24</a>; <a href='B:340 8:20'>Dan 8:20</a>; <a href='B:730 17:12'>Rev 17:12</a>) by such a dominant individual is hard to conclusively prove as having been historically fulfilled. It has a latter day application which is yet to become clear. This ndividual king is as it were the personification of the beast. He arises in the last days and will be alive at the time of the Lord’s return. This simply doesn’t fit a Pope being given three states in Italy. The horns are kings, not kingdoms. Mountains or kingdoms are heads not horns (<a href='B:730 17:9'>Rev 17:9</a>). The destruction of the little horn simply cannot refer to the supposed "loss of temporal power of the papacy" in 1870. This individual is destroyed by the Lord’s return and not some generations previously. And he is destroyed by the Lord’s return, not some European individual of bygone centuries.</p><p>Nor is it reasonable to claim that the uprooting of three horns was done by the Papacy in the destruction of the Heruli, Vandals and Ostrogoths in the sixth century. What great, acute persecution of "the saints" happened after that? In any case, the Ostrogoths and the Vandals were defeated by Belisarius, a general in the army of Justinian, emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Heruli were destroyed by the Lombards in 493 AD. The Lombards were Arians and not Catholic, indeed they were enemies of the papacy.
</p><p> The little horn of Dan. 8:9 pushes in three directions. Possibly this matches the little horn of Dan. 7:8 uprooting three horns. "A mouth speaking great things" fits well with Antiochus Epiphanes, who "spoke with great arrogance" (1 Macc. 1:24). The three kings he uprooted would then be King Artaxias of Armenia, Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VII Euergetes, all of whom Antiochus defeated one after the other (in 169, 168 and 166, respectively). Or they could refer to the Selucid kings whom Antiochus Epiphanes uprooted: Seleucus IV and his sons Demetrius and Antiochus.
</p><p> And yet although the little horns do the same things, there are differences between the "little horn" scenarios, comparing Daniel 7 and Daniel 8. In Dan. 7 the little horn arises from the fourth beast and is among the 10 horns which are part of that beast. In Dan. 8, the goat first has one horn, which is then broken and replaced by four horns (Dan. 8:5,7). And the little horn arises from one of them. The four horns are clearly the four kingdoms that arose out of Alexander the Great, whereas the horns in Dan. 7 are clearly individual kings or rulers. Yet again, we have different possible scenarios within God's ultimate unstoppable purpose of establishing His Kingdom on earth. </p>


text:
<p>I saw until thrones were placed, and One who was the ancient of days sat: his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of His head like pure wool; His throne was fiery flames, and its wheels burning fire- "Were placed" is correct. "Set" or "cast down" misses the allusion to how cushions for great men were laid, not "set", but "cast down" for the great man to sit upon.
</p><p> The language is that of the cherubim vision of Ez. 1. Remember that Ezekiel and Daniel were in Babylon as exiles around the same time. We note the wheels of fire; and the living creatures which are part of the cherubim. Above them there is the equivalent of this "ancient of days" figure: "and on the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the appearance of a man on it above" (Ez. 1:26). The idea may that the beasts of Dan. 7 are in fact to be incorporated into the cherubim vision. The four beasts of Dan. 7 are different to each other and in conflict, but the four beasts of Ezekiel's cherubim are identical and all under God's control. That was God's perspective on the apparently random time and tide of human empires. There is no radical evil, and these entities are in fact all under Divine control and will be moved and controlled to ultimately achieve His glory. But the vision of Ez. 1 was specifically to encourage the exiles in Babylon of their possible future. The cherubim were potentially hovering over them in Babylon and they could have returned to Zion with the cherubim above them, as it were, to judge all their oppressors. They precluded that possible future at the time by their refusal to repent and accept the prophetic message. But ultimately the cherubim vision of the Kingdom of God would come true when the scenario of Dan. 7 was worked out. Daniel perceived the idea of God prolonging and delaying the final restoration, in that in Daniel 9 he begs that God will not in fact delay; for the visions of Dan. 7 and Dan. 8 all spoke of a delay in the restoration compared to his time. He was heard in that an Angel was caused to fly swiftly, implying a speeding up of the Angelic processes; but still the delay remained in place because despite that, Israel refused to adequately repent. 
</p><p> There is an abrupt change from the earthly realities of :8, which are recorded in prose, to this poetic [in Aramaic] description of the Divine throne and judgment. This abrupt change is intentional; to get the point over, that the situation on earth is going to be dramatically, suddenly changed by the Lord’s return. The thrones were "placed" or as AV "cast down". The kings and kingdoms of men are to be destroyed by the Lord’s coming, just as the little stone destroys all the metals. The kingdoms of men become those of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:730 11:15'>Rev 11:15</a>). The ambiguity between ’placing / imposing’ and ’throwing down’ is because the placing of God’s throne is upon the casting down of human thrones. The "thrones" plural may be an intensive plural referring to the one great throne, sat on by "Him" singular (:10). Or the plural may be because it is the thousands of elohim, the judged and persecuted people of God, who now as it were sit on the Lord’s behalf to judge their persecutors.</p>


text:
<p>A fiery stream came forth from before Him- The original for "stream" is only elsewhere used about "the river", Euphrates. Now the forces represented by that river are to be judged. But the equivalent Hebrew idea is repeatedly used for how the nations were to flow as a river to Jerusalem (<a href='B:290 2:2'>Isa 2:2</a>; <a href='B:290 60:5'>Isa 60:5</a>; <a href='B:300 31:12'>Jer 31:12</a>; <a href='B:400 4:1'>Mic 4:1</a>). The harder side of God strangely attracts. As the judgments flow out of Zion, so the peoples flow towards it. When God’s judgments are in the earth / land, its inhabitants come to learn righteousness (<a href='B:290 26:9'>Isa 26:9</a>).</p><p>Thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him- These are not myriads standing before Him to receive judgment, but the myriads of the seed of Abraham who now as it were sit with Him in judgment upon their persecutors. ’Standing before’ is being used as a parallel to ’ministering’.</p><p>The judgment was set, and the books were opened- The Lord Jesus returns to earth with the Angels. They play a part in the final judgment. The placing of thrones (:9) and the sitting of the judgment is likely metaphor, part of the idea of the thrones / kingdoms of the world being subsumed beneath God’s throne / Kingdom. I discussed on :9 that the "Him" may refer to the Lord Jesus personally, but it could be that the plural "thrones" mean that God’s people now sit in judgment upon their persecutors, with their representative Angels now physically with them.</p>


text:
<p>I saw at that time because of the voice of the great words which the horn spoke; I saw even until the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire- The destruction of the beast is spoken of immediately after introducing the little horn. That horn&nbsp; or leader is presented as the personification of the beast, the whole evil system of its day and previous generations all represented in one person. Thus the words of the horn call forth the beast’s destruction; it will be the ultimate case of being condemned for the sake of words (<a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a>), and the Lord applies that principle as warning to us all. The language suggests that it was the words of the horn which led to the beast’s destruction. There will be teaching and claims made by the horn which are the most blasphemous ever; there was something dramatically noteworthy about them. </p><p>"The voice" is literally 'the sound', as if the words reached Heaven itself and human words triggered such a huge judgment response. So sensitive is God to our words. The implication of this verse could be that the primary reason for the judgment of the fourth beast was its arrogant and blasphemous words. We see for all time the importance of words and language. By our words men shall be judged and condemned.
</p><p> There is a repeated theme of pride being the reason for the fall of the kings / empires. The ram "did as he pleased and grew arrogant" (Dan. 8:4), in turn "the goat grew more and more arrogant" (Dan. 8:8). In Dan. 8:25 The little horn "will be proud of himself", "the little horn bragging and boasting" (Dan. 7:11), "it had eyes and a mouth and was boasting proudly" (Dan. 7:20). 
</p><p> It is common for interpreters to see the beasts of Revelation as a continuation of the fourth beast of Daniel. But again there are differences- as the kaleidoscope turns and presents another picture, similar but still different. Thus Daniel’s fourth beast is slain and destroyed (Dan. 7:11), whereas the beast of Revelation is slain and revived (Rev. 13:3,12,14). Daniel’s beast is slain and given to the fire, whereas that of Revelation is thrown alive into the fire (Rev. 19:20).</p>


text:
<p>As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time- Just as all the metals of the image exist together when the little stone [Messiah] comes to earth and destroys them, so all the beasts likewise exist together at the time of His coming. The taking away of all human dominion surely speaks of their being subsumedbeneath God’s eternal kingdom. But their lives bring prolonged for a period, a season [a period until a Jewish feast?] and a time [a year?], may be in order to give them the chance of repentance. The original word for "Prolonged" only occurs elsewhere in <a href='B:340 4:27'>Dan 4:27</a>, where Daniel urges Nebuchadnezzar to repent so that there might be a lengthening or prolonging of his life. This connection should serve to guide us in interpreting this prolongation of their personal lives after their political destruction; it will be in order to help these terrible abusers of God’s people to repent. Such is God’s earnest desire to bring all men unto repentance, and we should share in that Spirit today. See on :5. God's desire for human repentance is so huge. This means that all our attempts to preach repentance and to personally repent will have His huge blessing and presence.
</p><p> The "dominion" will be taken away in the sense that these entities have no dominion over God's people. Ez. 34:25 will then come true, when Israel accept the new covenant: "I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause dangerous animals to cease out of the land".
</p><p> As discussed above, the metals of the image of Dan. 2 do not map well onto the beasts and vision of Dan. 7. The entities of Dan. 2 are all destroyed at the same time. Those of Dan. 7 are not destroyed apart from the fourth beast. Those of Dan. 2 are introduced in succession but exist simultaneously. The fate of the first three beasts isn't clear. Perhaps because of an open ended element to God's purpose with them, in one or more possible iterations of it. Perhaps some element of repentance is factored in; or some weighting is given to the fact they were merely instruments of judgment upon Judah, used in God's hands. But the glorious end is similar- the unhewn rock hits the image and becomes an eternal mountain (Dan. 2), the son of man comes in judgment in the clouds of heaven to avenge His people (Dan. 7). 
</p><p> "A season and a time" could simply mean 'until a specific predetermined point in time' rather than refer to any particular time period. See on :25 for discussion of how these terms don't necessarily mean a year and are open ended. Because that is the nature of prophecy. "The time" of :11 is ultimately the point when the Lord returns and establishes God's Kingdom: "for the time had come, and the holy ones took possession of the kingdom" (Dan. 7:22 NJPS).
</p>


text:
<p>I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of the sky One like a son of man, and he came up to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before Him- One option for this human like figure is that it refers initially to Michael, the Angel prince who stands for Israel. This is why this figure is interpreted later in the vision as the "saints", Israel, God's people; it is to them that the kingdom / dominion is given, whereas here it is given to the Son of Man. But they are represented in Michael (Dan. 12:1), and Angels in Daniel are described as being in human form. But as the kaleidoscope of the various possible interpretations turns [fulfilment in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, in AD70 and then in the last days], it becomes clearer that this element of the vision, this "Son of Man", is the Lord Jesus. This "One like a Son of Man" is the equivalent of the little stone of Dan. 2- but I showed there that the stone represents both God's revived people and also the Lord Jesus personally. It's the same with the Son of Man. And that would be why the first beast alludes to  Nebuchadnezzar, who was made fully human [a "son of man"] by his repentance and subsequent exaltation.
</p><p> "The sons of men" is a common term for humanity in general. The son of man is therefore an appropriate title for the essence of humanity, man in his essence. And it speaks ultimately of the Lord Jesus. 
Those who bring the "son of man" [Jesus] before the "ancient of days" [God] are surely the Angels. They received Him out of the sight of the disciples in Acts 1 and as it were introduced Him to Heaven. This ’coming of the Son of Man’ is clearly understood as the second coming (<a href='B:470 24:27'>Mat 24:27</a>; <a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a>; <a href='B:470 24:37'>Mat 24:37</a>; <a href='B:470 24:39'>Mat 24:39</a> etc:). Just as at His ascension, the Lord was introduced to the Father and in the court of Heaven, given all dominion; so at His second coming He is likewise given from God the moment and authority to now take this dominion unto Himself in actual terms on earth.</p>


text:
<p>There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed- Verses 13 and 14 could apply to both the Lord's ascension, and to His return at the last day. I suggest the ambivalence of the interpretation is because the Lord's ascension after His resurrection could indeed have led to His re-establishment of God's Kingdom on earth soon afterwards. That didn't happen, as Israel refused to repent and the Gospel wasn't taken to all the world. And so the kaleidoscope turned again, and all this became capable of fulfilment at the Lord's return in the last day. This is why the book of Revelation uses the language and images of Daniel in such a way that it applies them both to the situation in AD70 and to that of the last day. Because the Lord could indeed have re-established the Kingdom in AD70. The little horn, which was clearly Antiochus Epiphanes historically, is thus reapplied by Revelation to some latter day entity who will exist just before the Lord's return.
</p><p> There was "given him..." compares with how the Kingdom is given to the saints of the Most High (:27). The triumph of the "Son of Man" is shared with His people. This is an Old Testament foretaste of what it means to be "in Christ". "All the peoples, nations, and languages" is the very term used of the subjects of the kingdoms of men within the empires of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius (Dan. 3:4,7,29,33; 5:19; 6:26). The saints of the most high become as the supreme emperor was in the kingdoms of men- they the despised, persecuted Jewish exiles, refugees and asylum seekers. A similar inversion awaits this world.
</p><p> This is the equivalent of the little stone becoming God’s eternal Kingdom on earth in <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>. The purpose of the Kingdom becoming God’s is so that people from all nations, languages etc. should serve Him. It is not merely a taking power for the sake of it. The language here is therefore at the basis of the great commission, to even now make this same appeal to all nations. The Kingdom of God is a case of now but not yet. We proclaim it worldwide right now, in the spirit in which it shall be proclaimed at the Lord’s return. Because the Kingdom is to spread world-wide, we should therefore spread the Good News of this coming Kingdom world-wide. In prospect- and no more than that, let it be noted- the Kingdom has been established in that the Lord Jesus Christ has all power in Heaven and earth (<a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a>). This is the language of <a href='B:340 7:14'>Dan 7:14</a> concerning the future Kingdom. The believer must live the Kingdom life now, as far as possible (<a href='B:520 13:12-13'>Rom 13:12-13</a>). At the establishment of the Kingdom, we will be spreading the Gospel throughout this planet. In this life too we should live in the spirit of the Kingdom in this regard.</p><p>The great commission of&nbsp; Matthew 28 has evident reference to <a href='B:340 7:14'>Dan 7:14</a>, where the Son of Man is given authority and power over all so that people of all nations, races and languages should serve Him. We must remind ourselves that out of the 5,000 or so languages in the world, the vast majority have no true Christian representatives; and only about half of them have the Bible in their own language. And as of the year 2001, only 12% of the world have English as a first or second language; yet the majority of our community are English speaking. We have a long way to go in fulfilling this. Either that, or the scope of God’s acceptance of men from all these languages and nations over time and over space today is far wider than we as a community have thought. However, I personally am driven instead to understand that the Truth of Christ must be taken into literally all the world by our community in these last days:&nbsp; <a href='B:730 5:9'>Rev 5:9</a> presents us with the picture of men and women redeemed from every kindred [tribe / clan], tongue [glossa- language], people [a group of people not necessarily of the same ethnicity] and nation [ethnos- ethnic group, lit. ‘those of the same customs’]. This means that, e.g., not only redeemed ‘Yugoslavs’ will stand before the throne in the end; but Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrans, Bosnians…every ethnic group, with every custom, will have representatives who will have believed the Truth and been saved.</p>


text:
<p>As for me Daniel, my spirit was grieved in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me- In Dan. 6, Daniel had been calm and at peace in the den of lions / wild animals. And had been preserved. Now he reacts to he terrifying vision. But his reaction was particularly concerning the fourth beast and little horn; and it is a reaction of grief and concern, I suggest more because of what he sensed they were going to do to God's people. This is the acme of spiritual maturity- to be deeply grieved for God's people. It was this which in essence led the Lord to endure the cross.
</p><p> Daniel has so far been portrayed as the 'go to' person for dream interpretation (see Dan. 2:25-45; 4:19-27; 5:18-28). Now he has a dream and like the kings before him, was terribly worried about it and desperate for the interpretation. Life goes like this. We are made to realize how others' in our lives felt. We who were able and qualified in one area are made to understand how the unable and unqualified feel in that same area. All part of the education of the Spirit and God's way of teaching us. We tend to feel our experiences are unique but in fact they are in essence within a type of experience shared with others.
</p><p> Daniel was not merely relaying a Divine message. He was deeply concerned at the content. As the Psalmist was "pricked in my reins", so the grief of Daniel for his people was deeply internal; this was no passing feeling of ’Oh what a pity it is that more won’t hear the Truth’. He was grieved in the midst of his body. He had hoped for the restoration of the Kingdom of God in his lifetime; and now he feared that in fact it would be terribly delayed to well beyond his time. And he grieved for that. Even after he was given the interpretation, his spirit remained grieved (:28). So the grief was not because he didn’t have the interpretation, but essentially because he figured thatIsrael’s kingdom was not to be restored during his lifetime, and his people must yet suffer the more.</p>


text:
<p>I came near to one of those who stood by- Presumably an Angel. He was given the vision surrounded by Angels standing by him. In :10 we read of myriads of Angels and their charges ’standing by’; Daniel was as it were transported forward in time to the day of the Lord’s coming back to earth.</p><p>And asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things- We see here the basic principle, that God’s truth is revealed to those who wish to know it. It is not immediately apparent; hence the Lord used parables so that those who wanted a quick obvious message wouldn’t find it. But those who asked Him for the interpretation received it. This is why some find the Bible hard to understand- exactly because they do not truly seek to understand it, nor can they humble themselves to recognize that without Divine help, we cannot of itself properly understand the Divine words we read or hear.</p>


text:
<p>These great animals, which are four, are four kings, who shall arise out of the land- They dominated the land / eretz from which they arose. Their provenance was from the eretz. They are to be understood as powers which arise from within the territory of the land promised to Abraham, and come to dominate it. This makes many of the continuous historical interpretations of the beasts at best primary fulfilments. The major fulfilment is yet to come, and the situation within the eretz now helps us see that this can realistically happen soon. We note the beasts were "four kings" rather than ’kingdoms’. This would look ahead to four such rulers arising in the last days. Perhaps there was a potential fulfilment in three or four kings arising after Nebuchadnezzar, climaxing in the re-establishment of Israel’s Kingdom; and Daniel lived through the reigns of that many monarchs. But due to lack of repentance, that scenario didn’t happen. The final fulfilment is therefore in the last days. Seeing all the beasts exist together at the time of the end (:12), we need not think that there must be a chronological sequence of four leaders who arise. They are aspects of the same entity, viewed from different angles. The fact Daniel has to describe them in chronological order and saw them perhaps one after another doesn’t mean that they have a chronological fulfilment. This is the tendency of Greek, linear thinking. But here we are reading Hebrew apocalyptic, which places little stress upon linear chronology.</p>


text:
<p>But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever- Daniel would have understood these "saints" as God’s people, Israel, who would be the ones persecuted in the last days by the beast system (:25). "Come inherit the Kingdom prepared for you" perhaps alludes here. The same term is used of how Darius "took the kingdom" (<a href='B:340 5:31'>Dan 5:31</a>). Maybe even there, "the kingdom" refers to the kingdom of Israel. Because the prophetic theme in Daniel is that the various metals and beasts had dominion over the kingdom of Judah and the land promised to Abraham, and this was to be surrendered to Messiah at His appearing. Eternal possession naturally alludes to the promises to Abraham, that his seed would inherit the eretz for ever (<a href='B:10 17:8'>Gen 17:8</a>; <a href='B:10 22:17-18'>Gen 22:17-18</a>). That eretz was "the kingdom" they would eternally inherit.</p><p>"The saints of the Most High" may refer to the Angels; “the people of the saints of the Most High” (:27) would then refer to the believers, who had had guardian Angels. "The Most High" is actually plural; it could be a plural of majesty, or the most high ones would be the Angel. The term is likewise plural in :22,25,27. It would be Israel's guardian angels in view in Dan. 8:24 where "he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people". This is how closely connected the Angels are to their charges. In the court of heaven, they are as it were destroyed as they act out or reflect there the situation upon earth. Dan. 7:24,25 likewise: "another king shall arise... and he shall wear down the saints of the Most High". But the parallel is clear with :14, where the heavenly "one like a son of man" is given the everlasting kingdom. He is corporately "the saints". This could refer to the Angel Michael whom we read later in Daniel represents God's people (Dan. 12:1). As we will see in Dan. 10, the conflicts and issues on earth are played out before the throne of God by representative Angels. But there is also an obvious application to the believers "in Christ" in the latter day context; and to a similar Messiah like figure in the more immediate context of an application to Antiochus Epiphanes. In that context, the "saints" would have been the faithful Israelites at the time of the Maccabean revolt. But even they were a minority and too focused on immediate nationalism than the things of the Kingdom of God.</p>


text:
<p>Then I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was so different from all of them, exceedingly terrible, whose teeth were of iron, and its nails of brass; which devoured, broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet- The brass claws weren’t mentioned in the initial description. Iron and brass were metals within the image of Daniel 2. The idea is that this beast is a composite of all the previous beasts, just as the image as a whole is a composite of all the different metals which were within it. "The residue" is literally ’the remnant’ and is used of the remnant of Judah who had survived the Babylonian invasion (<a href='B:150 6:16'>Ezr 6:16</a> "the rest of the children of the captivity"; <a href='B:190 9:16'>Est 9:16</a>; <a href='B:290 10:20-22'>Isa 10:20-22</a>; <a href='B:290 11:11'>Isa 11:11</a>; <a href='B:290 11:16'>Isa 11:16</a>; <a href='B:290 28:5'>Isa 28:5</a>). But the more immediate reference in the context is to the "rest" or remnant of the previous beasts (:12 s:w:). The fourth beast tramples those who remain of the other beasts and those who remain of the Jews, and parts of them (the iron and brass) as it were stick to this fourth beast, becoming part of it. This produces the brief element of the image upon which the Lord returns- a weak mixture of clay and iron shards which has been trampled down. For breaking in pieces and trampling would be the only way to actually produce such a situation. We can expect an absolute bloodbath in the eretz promised to Abraham, and the scene for that is now set.</p><p>describes the fourth beast as having the iron and brass metals of the image of Daniel 2 in it. The fourth beast had feet and teeth, we are specifically told. The lion, representing the head of gold, had feet (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>); the bear, representing the breast of silver, had powerful teeth. The fourth beast has “claws of brass”, but brass referred to the third empire in the sequence of empires in the parallel Daniel 2. The point being, that the fourth beast has elements of the previous beasts in it. And likewise, the final entity which dominates Israel at the time of the Lord’s return in glory will have within it elements of all the previous dominators. Thus the fourth beast had all the characteristics of the other beasts. By it being destroyed through its ten horns being smitten by Christ’s return, it is as if the image of Daniel 2 is standing erect and complete in&nbsp; the last days, being hit on the ten toes (cp. the ten horns of the beast) by Christ’s return.</p><p>Various Possible Outcomes</p><p>The four beasts are described as “diverse” from each other (<a href='B:340 7:3'>Dan 7:3</a>). The Aramaic word translated “diverse” is used 21 times, and every time it distinctly means to be changed from one state to another. It is used about ‘altering’ a king’s word (<a href='B:150 6:11'>Ezr 6:11</a>; <a href='B:340 3:28'>Dan 3:28</a>), the face of a man being ‘changed’ from one appearance to another (<a href='B:340 3:19'>Dan 3:19</a>; <a href='B:340 5:6'>Dan 5:6</a>). The idea is not simply that there were four beasts which were different from each other; it’s surely axiomatic that four different beasts are going to be different from each other. The beasts of Daniel 7 are clearly related to the metals of the image in Daniel 2; but this is not to say that the same thing is being said simply through different symbolism. That would be relatively pointless. There is an extension of the ideas and a modification of the way in which the final end [the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth] will be achieved. I have suggested in the appendix that Daniel’s prophecies were conditional; a sequence of four kings could have arisen after Nebuchadnezzar, culminating in the establishment of the Kingdom on earth. Daniel’s long life spanned the 70 years captivity of Judah and the reign of at least four kings; the prophets repeatedly state that the intention of that captivity was that the captives might “know that I am Yahweh”; the experience was to be God’s pleading with His people to repent (<a href='B:330 20:36'>Eze 20:36</a>). Daniel wrote his visions for others to read, indeed it is specifically mentioned that he spoke out loud the Daniel 7 vision (<a href='B:340 7:1'>Dan 7:1</a>). The visions were part of that pleading with the captives to accept God’s perspective and join in on the side of His Kingdom. But Israel, as a whole, would not. Most of them preferred the soft life in Babylon and did not return at the time of the restoration. They would not “know Yahweh” nor did they repent- instead, as Ezekiel 18 makes clear, they blamed their captivity upon the sins of their fathers being visited upon them by an unjust God. Because of this lack of response, the possible outworking of the visions changed.</p><p>The passing of power from Babylon to the Medes could have continued according to the Daniel 2 vision; four kings could have arisen (note they are called ‘kings’ and not ‘kingdoms’ in <a href='B:340 7:17'>Dan 7:17</a>), and the Kingdom of God would have been established at the end of the 70 years captivity. But there were delays because of the Jews’ lack of response. Hence Daniel’s sorrow and shock throughout the book as he saw the final outworking being delayed. Therefore the fact the beasts are ‘changed’ or ‘altered’ is seamlessly in context with this idea of delayed and recalculated outcomes of the prophecies. This would explain why the further visions of the beasts in Daniel 8 suggests that in the time of the third kingdom [the Greeks], a charismatic leader would arise [clearly having Antiochus Epiphanes in view] who would be destroyed by the coming of God’s Son and the establishment of His Kingdom on earth. But that scenario also didn’t work out, and Antiochus Epiphanes became a prototype of the final antichrist, requiring a gap between that part of the prophecy and the last days. Perhaps this is why Daniel’s first vision in Daniel 7 is of the first three beasts, and then “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast” (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>)- as if the vision of the first three beasts was separate to that of the fourth beast. Likewise at the end of Daniel 11, the king of the north is clearly Antiochus Epiphanes throughout the chapter; but 11:40- 12:5 clearly envisages him standing up against “Michael” and being destroyed at the time of the resurrection of the dead. This didn’t happen, and so there arose a hiatus in fulfillment. This is not to say that God’s word is falsified; rather is it proved ultimately true in a way which takes on board human freewill. For otherwise, the very existence of God’s prophetic word would be deterministic of human behavior to an extent that human freewill is taken away by the very existence of the Divine word.</p><p>It’s noteworthy that the vision of Daniel 7 is presented as seven separate visions, each introduced by the rubric “I saw” (7:2,4,6,7,9,11,13). Revelation is an expansion upon Daniel’s visions, and there we find seven visions which are in turn subdivided into seven visions and some of those subdivisions even are subdivided into seven visions. Admittedly, these can be defined in various ways, but some of the more obvious ones are: 7 visions:</p><p>1) Revelation 4 to 8:1</p><p>2) <a href='B:730 8:2-11'>Rev 8:2-11</a></p><p>3) Revelation 12to14</p><p>4) Revelation 15, 16</p><p>5) Revelation 17, 18</p><p>6) Revelation 19</p><p>7) Revelation 20</p><p>The seven visions of conflict explaining the Establishment of God’s Kingdom between <a href='B:730 11:15'>Rev 11:15</a> to <a href='B:730 13:8'>Rev 13:8</a>:</p><p>1. The woman with child: the birth of Jesus, 12:1-2</p><p>2. The great red dragon: the enemy of Peace, 12:3-6</p><p>3. The war in heaven: the Cross, 12:7-12</p><p>4. The dragon, the woman, and her children: the struggle of God’s people, 12:13-17</p><p>5. The seven-headed beast from the sea: the power of Rome, 13:1-4</p><p>6. The war against the saints: persecutions, 13:5-10</p><p>7. The beast and his mark: corruption of the emperor and the dragon’s agents, 13:11-18</p><p>Then there are the Seven Visions of Mt. Zion, <a href='B:730 14:1-20'>Rev 14:1-20</a>; the Seven Bowls of the Wrath of God, <a href='B:730 15:1'>Rev 15:1</a> to <a href='B:730 16:21'>Rev 16:21</a>;the Seven Visions of the Fall of Babylon, <a href='B:730 17:1'>Rev 17:1</a> to <a href='B:730 19:10'>Rev 19:10</a>; the Seven Visions of Recompense, <a href='B:730 19:11'>Rev 19:11</a> to <a href='B:730 21:5'>Rev 21:5</a>.</p><p>The point is that the outline scenario of Daniel 7 is repeated in more detail in Revelation. But the primary reference remains the same- a prediction of a final time of trouble within the land promised to Abraham, which will come to term in the return of Christ to earth to establish His Kingdom upon the ruins of Israel’s enemies.</p><p>The Four Beasts and the Cherubim</p><p>It’s apparent that the four beasts are full of allusion to the cherubim vision seen by Ezekiel- also whilst in captivity in Babylon, just as Daniel was. The cherubim were likewise four separate living creatures [beasts] which somehow were also one. The four beasts of Daniel 7 become comprehended in the fourth beast and in the one composite beast of Revelation 13, which includes all elements of the previous beasts within it. Note that the Hebrew / Aramaic for “beast” means literally a living one- the living creature of the cherubim vision. The cherubim featured the faces of lion, ox, man and eagle (<a href='B:330 1:10'>Eze 1:10</a>), and lion, ox and eagle feature in the descriptions of the four beasts; the ‘man’ element is found in that the lion has the heart of a man, and the little horn of the fourth beast has the eyes of a man. The first living creature has wings which are lifted up from the earth (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>)- which is precisely the language of the cherubim wings being lifted up from the earth in <a href='B:330 1:19'>Eze 1:19</a>; <a href='B:330 1:21'>Eze 1:21</a>; <a href='B:330 10:16'>Eze 10:16</a>; <a href='B:330 10:19'>Eze 10:19</a>. As the first beast is made to stand on its feet (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>), so the cherubim caused Ezekiel to stand on his feet (<a href='B:330 2:2'>Eze 2:2</a>; <a href='B:330 3:24'>Eze 3:24</a>). The second creature had a “side” which was “lifted up” (<a href='B:340 7:5'>Dan 7:5</a>), as the cherubim likewise had ‘sides’ which were ‘lifted up’ (<a href='B:330 1:8'>Eze 1:8</a>; <a href='B:330 1:20'>Eze 1:20</a>). The third beast had four wings as each of the living creatures / cherubim did (<a href='B:340 7:6'>Dan 7:6</a>; <a href='B:330 1:23'>Eze 1:23</a>). The first and fourth beasts / living creatures have feet (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>; <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>) as the cherubim do (<a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>). The description of how these living creatures / beasts will be judged by the Lord Jesus includes language also used inEzekiel’s cherubim visions- One seated upon a throne, wheels of burning fire (<a href='B:340 7:9'>Dan 7:9</a>).</p><p>Ezekiel’s vision was surely well known to Daniel. The connection is surely that throughout the course of human history, especially the course of Gentile domination of the land of Israel, the glory of God shone through it all, it was all going according to His purpose; and the various beasts were in fact manipulated by the living creatures of the Angel cherubim. Daniel 7 says this in different terms by opening with the statement that the four spirits / Angels of Heaven were responsible for the uprising of the four beasts (<a href='B:340 7:2-3'>Dan 7:2-3</a>). Events were not just taking their course, with everything spinning out of control; but rather, God through the Angels was powerfully in control. And His glory shone through the apparent cruelty, shame and randomness of the events that appeared to be happening to His land and people.</p><p>The great comfort is that these four beasts are reflected in <a href='B:350 13:7-8'>Hos 13:7-8</a>, where God threatens that He will be to Israel like a lion, a leopard, a bear and a wild beast. All these beasts are significant because of what they do to Israel; that is the territory and arena of their domination. But they are all acting as it were on God’s behalf, like the four beasts of the cherubim. There is no radical evil, evil out of control in the cosmos, with God’s people at risk from being dominated by it. God is completely in control, and even the terrible things done to Israel by the beasts are under His total control.</p><p>If we are looking for a power or ideology within the land promised to Abraham which focuses upon the destruction of Israel, then we do not have far to look. Islam explicitly encourages Moslems to attack Israel and force Jews to either convert to Israel or be killed: Consider these passages from the Hadith: "You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him" (Book 41:6981). Book 19:4366 likewise: "I will expel the Jews and Christians from Arabia and will not leave any but Muslim". The ’Arabia’ here is often interpreted as the Arabian Peninsula, but that was probably not in Mohammed’s perceptual geography. By ’Arabia’ he meant ’the lands where the Arabs live’, and that area includes Israel, inhabited as it is by several million Palestinian Arabs.</p><p>The Eclipse of the West</p><p>However we interpret the fourth beast and its horns, the point has to be accepted that it is radically different to any entity or empire which has ever dominated the earth / land of Israel before. It was "terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong... it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it" (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>). It is this same beast which led John in Revelation to be staggered and amazed. For such an entity to dominate Israel in the last days, the current geopolitical situation must change. The West will be powerless to stop it. The historical support of Israel by the West, and their continual involvement on the ground in the Middle East to avert catastrophe and protect their interests there... will end. This could be because of their financial collapse, or an oil / energy stranglehold over them,&nbsp;or the uprise of domestic forces allied with Islam which leave them powerless to get involved; or maybe they genuinely turn against Israel.</p><p>Or perhaps the beast entity is in possession of military technology, just as Goliath was, which leads to the sense that nobody can make war with this beast: "Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?" (<a href='B:730 13:4'>Rev 13:4</a>). And if ’all’ that is required for peace is to let these guys have their way with Israel... well, that will be a price which will seem cheap compared to the unleashing of nuclear, germ, chemical or some other kind of technology against the West. "Who is like unto the beast?" suggests that it is felt that nobody is comparable with the beast in order to make war with it; there is a superiority of military ability which is perceived which results in recognizing that this entity cannot be challenged. The language is very much of David and Goliath. The current dependency of Israel upon military technology to maintain the upper edge over their enemies must therefore come to an end. All those scenarios are well on the way to development. Nuclear technology is already in the hands of Iran, and can spread easily to irresponsible hands. It would also be typical of Russian foreign policy to spite the West by arming the West’s enemies with such technology. Without the West as the power broker in the Middle East, such an entity will surely arise. The release of the restrained horsemen on the banks of the Euphrates may refer to this restraining influence being removed (Revelation 9, 16). The growth of the IS shows the potential for it, if nothing else. So the very prediction of such an entity arising in the land promised to Abraham has some radical implications for the West.</p><p>Judah’s invasion by the Babylonians is clearly a type of the latter day invasion by the Islamic entity or state. The Biblical record emphasizes Judah’s sense of betrayal, in that her lovers and friends [i:e. other nations] had not come to her aid as they had promised and as she had hoped (Lamentations is full of such language). This has its counterpart today, in that Israel depends upon the West to be the power broker deflecting any major strike against them by the Islamic powers around them. But that factor will be removed, the promises and undertakings will not come true- because the Biblical picture is of a huge state in power over Israel without opposition.</p><p>The Horns on the Beast</p><p>The ten horns represent ten kings- the reference may be to individual leaders rather than to nations (<a href='B:340 7:24'>Dan 7:24</a>). They arise out of the head of the beast, maybe implying they share the same overall ideology or thinking. That ideology would be that of hatred of Israel and a common desire to destroy her- which rather suggests Islam. That is the only appropriate ideology within the earth / land promised to Abraham which could be the candidate for the fulfilment of this prophetic requirement.</p><p>The overall picture presented by the descriptions of the horns is of conflict with each other, whilst at the same time dominating the earth / land of Israel. The little horn ‘subdues’ [to abase / humiliate / degrade] three of the horns, and according to <a href='B:730 17:16'>Rev 17:16</a>, the ten horns hate the whore, the individual riding the beast entity, and bitterly destroy and burn her. And the fortunes of the entire entity ebb and flow- one of the wounds has a deadly wound but revives, the beast itself has a deadly wound from a sword but revives (<a href='B:730 13:3'>Rev 13:3</a>; <a href='B:730 13:12'>Rev 13:12</a>; <a href='B:730 13:14'>Rev 13:14</a>), the beast was, is not and yet is (<a href='B:730 17:8'>Rev 17:8</a>), and we are beginning to see this ebb and flow of the fortunes of the entity developing in the land / earth. This is precisely the picture that has more recently unfolded in the land promised to Abraham- a series of increasingly powerful and aggressive leaders and powers, morphing together from the perspective of Israel and God’s people into a system of abuse such as has never been seen and never will be. And yet from another viewpoint, they are bitterly divided against themselves.</p><p>The tendency is to want to clearly identity each of the ten toes / ten horns of the fourth beasts, the wings of the lion, the three ribs in the mouth of the second beast, the four wings and four heads of the third beast, the three horns who are plucked up by the little horn of the fourth beast, and then in Revelation we have seven heads found on the beast, as well as the ten horns, who in Revelation “hate the whore” and burn her; and the whore who rides the beast sits on seven hills or kings. Each of these attributes [toes, horns, wings, heads] refer to kings / kingdoms. Looking at the scenarios through half closed eyes, as it were, not sweating the details, we have the impression of a latter day entity dominating the earth / land promised to Abraham, which is comprised of a bewildering array of smaller powers and charismatic leaders who are often pitted against each other. This is exactly the position we see developing in that geographical area. We don’t need to interpret the fine details ahead of time- that is not how prophecy functions. When it all happens, then it will be clear. What we are seeing is the general picture developing- an array of aggressive powers, some strong and some weak, broadly grouped into four groups, matching the four beasts who will exist in the last days. They are all united around a desire to dominate Israel. It’s not hard to imagine how they will destroy each other, which is God’s preferred method of judging His people’s enemies.</p><p>The Little Horn</p><p>The changing of times and laws by the antichrist figure of <a href='B:340 7:25'>Dan 7:25</a> sounds like the radical Islamist desire to impose the Islamic calendar and sharia law in the land promised to Abraham, which they see as their caliphate; and for sure, if Israel becomes part of an Islamic state, then the keeping of the Jewish calendar will be outlawed. The implementation of sharia law and changing legal structures to reflect it, is a major theme in their program. It’s clear that the three and a half year domination of Jerusalem and changing of the Jewish law and calendar had an initial fulfilment in the abuses of Antiochus Epiphanes, who desecrated the temple. There was a three and a half year period from the edict of Antiochus in June 168 BC to the rededication of the temple in December 165 BC:&nbsp; The little horn of Daniel 8 comes out of the Greek kingdom, but the horn of Daniel 7 out of the fourth kingdom. I suggest that this is because the prophecy could have been fulfilled totally at the time of Antiochus- Messiah could have come and destroyed him. But the various required preconditions weren’t met, and so there was another possibility of it coming true out of the Roman kingdom [another possibility is that the four beasts and metals refer to Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece rather than Babylon-Medo Persia-Greece-Rome]. Revelation uses the same imagery to describe the antiChrist of the last days, who will incorporate some elements of the previous historical fulfilments of the little horn in men like Antiochus Epiphanes.</p>


text:
<p>And concerning the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, and before whom three fell, even that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spoke great things, whose appearance was more aggressive than its fellows- This horn can be understood as vaguely relevant to Antiochus Epiphanes, and also Vespasian in AD70 (see on :24). The prophecies had various primary fulfilments over time, each of which pointed forward to the major fulfilment which is yet to come, where the latter day horn will have all the features of its previous historical incarnations. The great and blasphemous things spoken by this horn would be associated with the changing of Divine times and seasons by the same horn which we read of later.</p>


text:
<p> "The saints" can refer to both natural and spiritual Israel; natural Israel will be trampled along with many adherents to the earlier beasts (see on :19). The same word is used of Angels; those who represent God's people in the court of Heaven. The original translated "war" more carries the sense of "battle" than an ongoing war; the reference may be to the "battle" of Armageddon (Zech. 14:3 s.w.). This is the basis of Rev. 11:7; 12:17 and Rev. 13:7, where the beast makes war and prevails against God's people; but by doing so the beast effectively makes war against the Lamb, the returned Lord Jesus (Rev. 17:14; 19:19). 
</p><p> Here and in :22,25 the "saints" are spoken of as being destroyed and hurt by the little horn. In the sense they refer to the Jews, this judgment was because of their sins. But that is not mentioned, although in Dan. 8:12 the little horn judges the Jews "because of transgression". The perspective is very much that of final salvation. The saints or holy ones in :21,22,25 can also be seen as the Angels. Entities on earth can conquer them in the sense that the representative Angels of the saints, be they Israel or Christian believers, play out the scenes on earth before the throne of Heaven. 
</p><p> GNB gives: "While I was looking, that horn made war on God's people and conquered them". Daniel's desire to understand was answered by being shown something new. He saw the little horn conquering God's people. But this presupposes that Daniel saw "God's people" in the vision. For the little horn makes war with them. The only element of the vision which matches "God's people" is the picture in :10 of millions of people awaiting judgment. Those crowds of people are the only element that could match "Gods people" in what Daniel now sees. So they are attacked and conquered whilst awaiting judgment. This means that all God's people are awaiting judgment. We stand before His judgment seat, awaiting the start of the proceedings, and life happens to us as we are waiting. This gives an urgency to our living and thinking. We are awaiting judgment, standing there before the throne. Right now.
</p><p> Let’s not get caught up with the idea that Israel shall survive and defeat the invaders in her own strength. The beast must dominate Israel. Jerusalem will be taken. Dan. 7:7,21 speaks of how the beast made war with the saints and prevailed against them- Israel- until the Ancient of days came; in Dan. 7:23 he devours the whole land [as a beast] and shall tread it down. The beast of Revelation is so powerful in the earth / land that "the world" wondered at it and at the whore riding it (Rev. 13:3; 17:6,7), feeling unable to make war with it. This of itself requires the demise and degrading of America, Europe and the West generally. Dan. 11:41,45 are likewise clear about the latter day King of the North: “He shall also come into the glorious land… He shall plant the tents of his palace between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him”. 
</p><p> Later in Daniel we find Angels likewise representative of kings and kingdoms (<a href='B:340 10:13'>Dan 10:13</a>; <a href='B:340 10:20'>Dan 10:20</a>). The comfort is that God is aware of all that happens on earth, and in fact He orchestrates it. The situation on earth is therefore not ultimately spinning out of control. My point in this context is that the four beasts strive with each other and do not naturally bond with each other. This is the same situation as we find in the feet and toes made part of iron, part of clay, mixed with each other but not cleaving to each other. Just as the image stands erect in the last days in order for it to be destroyed, so the sequence of beasts which we have in Daniel 7 are not simply a historical outline of a sequence of empires. Each of them exists in some form in the last days, and are united together in their brief domination of the earth / land promised to Abraham. The first three beasts stand ’before’ the fourth one, the original meaning ’in the presence of’, rather than previously in chronological terms (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>). The fourth beast has its body destroyed, although the other beasts are also present there and have their lives prolonged "for a season" (<a href='B:340 7:11-12'>Dan 7:11-12</a>). The historical interpretation of the beasts is not irrelevant, however. The final entity dominating Israel will incorporate aspects of all the previous systems which have dominated the land promised to Abraham.</p><p>The Fourth Beast</p><p>The fourth beast with the ten horns equates with the legs or iron and ten toes of the image of Daniel 2. This entity will be in existence at the time of Christ’s return, because it is to be destroyed by His coming. And we have that same picture in Revelation. Historically, the legs of iron represent Rome, but the beast is not a historical entity, it exists in the last days. So although there are parallels and outline similarities between the metals of the image and the beasts, this is not to say that they are all one and the same. The final beast has elements of all the previous beasts, it is a composite entity including all the elements of the previous systems which have dominated the land and people of Israel. Just as the image stands complete in the last days, so the final beast stands complete. The whore sits on many waters, representing various languages and peoples; and yet she sits upon the beast (<a href='B:730 17:1'>Rev 17:1</a>; <a href='B:730 17:3'>Rev 17:3</a>; <a href='B:730 17:15'>Rev 17:15</a>). The latter day beast is therefore not one nation but an amalgam of peoples.</p><p>As the entire image was "terrible" (<a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>), so the fourth beast system is described with the same word (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>). As the image appeared “excellent” (<a href='B:340 2:31'>Dan 2:31</a>), so the strength of the fourth beast was ‘excellent’ (s:w. <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>). <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a> emphasizes that this final beast is altogether more aggressive than any previous beast / dominator of the land: "Dreadful, terrible, strong exceedingly... it was different from all the beasts that were before it". The original word translated “dreadful” suggests whoever sees it slinks away in fear- its strength and advantage over others is “exceeding”. This is the same awe we find in Revelation 13, where the world looks on at the beast, marvelling at this entity and feeling that nobody can even begin to make war with him. This speaks of an entity that is more aggressive and fear-inspiring than the aggressive Babylonians, Assyrians or abusive Nazis. It implies too the eclipse of the West as the dominant world power block and power broker. The Islamic jihadists may develop into an entity which fits this bill- a reign of terror involving cutting off children’s heads and parading their actions on videos, live crucifixion of any who don’t agree with them, but with a stranglehold advantage over any critics... The same radical difference between this final beast and all previous ones is brought out by the way in which John, after all he had earlier seen, was in shock at the way the beast drunk the blood of the saints, i:e. the people of God, Israel in their land (<a href='B:730 17:6'>Rev 17:6</a>). The whole world likewise is in shock horror at this beast (<a href='B:730 13:3'>Rev 13:3</a>; <a href='B:730 17:8'>Rev 17:8</a>). The Islamic jihadists haven’t yet struck so much fear into everyone, but the time is surely coming. <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a> puts it this way: "There shall be a time of trouble such as never was" for God’s people, and they will be saved from it by the standing up of Jesus for His people, the resurrection of the dead and the destruction of the "king of the north". The "time of Jacob’s trouble" from which he shall be saved (<a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a>) must be understood in the context of how the phrase "time of trouble" is used in the Bible to describe times of Israel’s invasion and suffering at the hands of their neighbours (<a href='B:290 33:2'>Isa 33:2</a>; <a href='B:300 2:27-28'>Jer 2:27-28</a>; <a href='B:300 8:15'>Jer 8:15</a>; <a href='B:300 11:12'>Jer 11:12</a>; <a href='B:300 11:14'>Jer 11:14</a>; <a href='B:300 14:8'>Jer 14:8</a>; <a href='B:300 14:19'>Jer 14:19</a>; <a href='B:330 7:7'>Eze 7:7</a>). "There shall be a time of trouble such as never was" therefore suggests a time of abuse of Israel such as has never been seen. And this includes the Nazi holocaust, the death camps of Europe, the Babylonian and Assyrian atrocities... It’s purely wishful thinking to hope that the IDF and Israel’s military technology will stave this off. It will not. Jerusalem is to be taken and the women raped (<a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a>). The beast is to dominate the earth / land of Israel.</p><p>The "iron teeth" of the beast (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>) can be connected with the way that "Damascus" tore the Israelites with teeth of iron (<a href='B:370 1:3'>Amo 1:3</a>). Damascus is a key player in the future Islamic state which is to be established in the land promised to Abraham. There will be an element of the historical Syrians in the entity which finally dominates Israel. And we can clearly see that in the Islamic jihadists. The same figure of a beast with huge teeth closing in upon Israel is to be found in <a href='B:360 1:6'>Joe 1:6</a>, describing the Babylonian and / or Assyrian invasion of the land. Teeth like lions are also mentioned in the picture of men with long hair arising like aggressive locusts out of the earth / land to torture to death those who live there for five months (<a href='B:730 9:4-8'>Rev 9:4-8</a>). This very much sounds like the long haired jihadist fighters of the IS briefly dominating the land at the end. But they are part of the beast system, which includes this element of teeth because it is a composite figure including all elements of Israel’s persecutors.</p><p>The beast will "devour" the land (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>), just as the historical Babylon ’devoured’ Jerusalem with fire (<a href='B:300 30:16'>Jer 30:16</a>; <a href='B:310 4:11'>Lam 4:11</a>; <a href='B:330 15:5'>Eze 15:5</a>; <a href='B:330 19:12'>Eze 19:12</a>; <a href='B:330 23:25'>Eze 23:25</a>; <a href='B:350 8:14'>Hos 8:14</a>; <a href='B:370 1:4'>Amo 1:4</a>; <a href='B:370 2:5'>Amo 2:5</a>) and the Assyrians devoured the land (<a href='B:300 50:17'>Jer 50:17</a>; <a href='B:350 11:6'>Hos 11:6</a>; <a href='B:350 13:8'>Hos 13:8</a>; <a href='B:360 1:4'>Joe 1:4</a>; <a href='B:360 1:19-20'>Joe 1:19-20</a>; <a href='B:360 2:3'>Joe 2:3</a>; <a href='B:360 2:5'>Joe 2:5</a>; <a href='B:360 2:25'>Joe 2:25</a>). All these verses use the same word translated ’devour’ in <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>. Clearly enough, the ’devouring’ of the fourth beast is a summation of all previous ’devourings’ of God’s land and people. Even in Old Testament times, this idea of a singular beast embodying all Israel’s enemies was not unknown. For <a href='B:330 34:28'>Eze 34:28</a> looked forward to the day when "Neither shall the beast of the land devour them [any more]". <a href='B:460 3:11'>Mal 3:11</a> likewise speaks of how "the devourer" will be rebuked by God when finally Israel respond to the Elijah prophet (<a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a>). This again suggests that the final devouring of Israel will be whilst the Elijah prophet is making an ongoing appeal for their repentance and acceptance of Jesus. Once they do so, the devourer is rebuked and Jesus returns to His desperately repentant people.</p><p>The beast stamps on others (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>); the same word is used for how Egypt did this to God’s people and others within the land promised to Abraham (<a href='B:330 32:2'>Eze 32:2</a>). Although Egypt doesn’t figure in the sequence of metals in the image of Daniel 2, the beast incorporates aspects of all Israel’s previous dominators- and they include Egypt. We can therefore expect the beast entity to include features of Nazi, Catholic and other historical persecutors of God’s people, even though those entities weren’t part of the Daniel 2 image. This is why the historical interpretations of 666 and the beast which apply them to Nero’s Rome and various Catholic persecutions are not per se incorrect. They were true for their time. But the final persecuting entity will include them all within what it is and what it does.</p><p>The Remnant</p><p>It is specifically stated that the beast "stamped the remnant" after it had torn and destroyed the land. This could refer to the remnant or “rest” of the beasts (7:12 s:w:). But it may mean that as a result of all the persecution and destruction of the majority of Jews in the land, the surviving remnant of God’s people is stamped underfoot, or subjected to despite. The very same metaphor is used of how the city of God will be "trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled". Those "times" may well refer to the period of 1260 days, three and a half years, spoken of in the prophecies of the tribulation. This trodden down and abused remnant are those who willfinally repent and accept Jesus. There are prophecies of how this "remnant" (same word translated "residue" in <a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a> AV) will finally repent (<a href='B:290 10:20-22'>Isa 10:20-22</a>; <a href='B:290 28:5'>Isa 28:5</a>). <a href='B:290 11:11'>Isa 11:11</a>; <a href='B:290 11:16'>Isa 11:16</a> speaks of the latter day gathering of this "remnant" from areas throughout the land promised to Abraham- as if there will be a literal taking captive of the surviving Jews left in the land, scattering them throughout the ’land’ promised to Abraham. The chronology fits well- the beast briefly dominates the land, the majority of Jews living there are killed, a remnant remains, who are stamped underfoot whilst Jerusalem likewise is trodden underfoot, and this leads to their repentance and therefore the return of the Lord Jesus to save them from the jihadists. It’s worth noting that the word "remnant" is used repeatedly of the remnant of Judah who were in captivity in Babylon at Daniel’s time and the remnant of them who returned to the land. This would’ve been how his first audience naturally understood the term- referring to Jewish people who had been taken out of their land by their neighbours (<a href='B:150 3:8'>Ezr 3:8</a>; <a href='B:150 4:3'>Ezr 4:3</a>; <a href='B:150 4:7'>Ezr 4:7</a>; <a href='B:150 4:9'>Ezr 4:9</a>; <a href='B:150 6:16'>Ezr 6:16</a>; <a href='B:160 10:28'>Neh 10:28</a>; <a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>; <a href='B:160 11:20'>Neh 11:20</a>; <a href='B:190 9:16'>Est 9:16</a> "the remnant of the Jews that were in the king’s provinces"):&nbsp;</p><p>Then shall come to pass the word of <a href='B:450 12:8'>Zec 12:8</a>: "He that is feeble among them [s:w. <a href='B:340 11:41'>Dan 11:41</a> about how many in the land of Israel will be overthrown or made feeble] in that day shall be as David". The suggested allusion is to David overcoming the Palestinian Goliath, who all else feared to make war with as he spoke his blasphemy against God and Israel- exactly the language of <a href='B:730 13:4-8'>Rev 13:4-8</a>.</p><p>The Beasts all Exist Together</p><p>There is a clear parallel between the four winds which strove with each other upon the sea, and the four beasts who came up out of the sea. The impression is that these beasts all exist at the same time, and their conflict with each other leads to the final appearance of a beast which represents all of them; and this entity dominates the earth / land promised to Abraham, and God’s people upon it. The appearance of this entity will therefore be brought about by massive conflict within the land promised to Abraham- and this is what we are seeing before our eyes. The only uniting issue between the powers in that area is a common hatred of Israel and desire to take Jerusalem. This will be the basis of the final beast arising. We can perhaps look to the development of four distinct power groups within the land promised to Abraham, giving rise to ten ‘kings’ or leaders, the horns of the beast, the ten toes of the image. The period of conflict between those groups could be very brief. We need not, therefore, think that the Lord’s coming isn’t near because we can’t currently identify those four entities or ten leaders. What we are seeing before our eyes is the winds blowing on the sea, striving between the peoples of the land / earth promised to Abraham, leaving millions dead and the entire region in bitter division. And this, according to Daniel 7, will give rise to the emergence of the final entity of abuse, probably an Islamic State, likely on the pattern of the entity now known as the Islamic State.</p><p>The beast of Revelation 13 has elements of all the other beasts. And so does the fourth beast of Daniel 7. It had iron teeth and brass nails (<a href='B:340 7:19'>Dan 7:19</a>), alluding to the brass of the third kingdom and the iron of the fourth kingdom. It had “eyes of a man” and a human eye on its horn, (<a href='B:340 7:8'>Dan 7:8</a>; <a href='B:340 7:20'>Dan 7:20</a>), just as the first beast, the lion, had a human heart and stood up like a man (<a href='B:340 7:4'>Dan 7:4</a>). The bear, the second beast, had three ribs in its mouth, representing its conquest of three other powers; the fourth beast features a little horn which conquers three other horns (<a href='B:340 7:8'>Dan 7:8</a>). The bear also ‘devoured much flesh’ (<a href='B:340 7:5'>Dan 7:5</a>); the fourth beast ‘devours’ the land (<a href='B:340 7:7'>Dan 7:7</a>). The third beast, the leopard, had four heads (<a href='B:340 7:6'>Dan 7:6</a>), rather like the fourth beast also has ten horns; and Revelation 13 explains that these are later located on seven heads. The fourth beast of Daniel 7 is therefore a composite beast; the other beasts merge into an entity which includes all of them, even though they still exist separately- for in the final Divine judgment, the fourth beast entity is destroyed, but the beasts have their dominion taken away although their lives are “prolonged for a season and time” (<a href='B:340 7:12'>Dan 7:12</a>). This may mean that the final entity is destroyed, but the individual components of it continue to exist “for a season and time”. The only other reference in Daniel to a period being “prolonged” is when the same word is used in <a href='B:340 4:27'>Dan 4:27</a> regarding the possibility of the king of the kingdom prolonging his life by repentance; it could be that the delay or prolonging is in order they repent:&nbsp; This may also explain why the first beast, representing Babylon, is pictured as having a man’s heart being given to it after its wings [power] are cropped. The historical king of Babylon had a beast’s heart (<a href='B:340 4:16'>Dan 4:16</a>), but his understanding [a human heart] returned to him on his repentance (<a href='B:340 4:34'>Dan 4:34</a>). So this feature of the first beast may be a hit at a repentance after the pattern of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel chapter 4.</p><p>The Revival of all the Beasts</p><p>On one hand, the metals of the image in Daniel 2, and the sequence of beasts which parallel them in Daniel 7, speak of a series of kingdoms in history which dominated Israel. And yet on the other hand, they must all exist in the last days, under the headship of a latter day Babylon. I suggest this will be fulfilled by the latter day entity which dominates Israel including elements of all the previous empires which dominated Israel. The other prophecies in Daniel contain more detail about these various empires in their historical fulfilment. Elements of those prophecies will therefore also have some application in a latter day sense; various characteristics of those empires will be seen in the final entity which dominates Israel. It will be not only Assyria redivivus &nbsp;but also Persia, Greece and Rome redivivus. This kind of thing is seen elsewhere in the Scriptures- for often Israel’s enemies are described in terms of their previous oppressors, especially Egypt. Take <a href='B:290 52:4'>Isa 52:4</a>: “My people went down into Egypt to live there, and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause”. It was the Egyptians who oppressed Israel in Egypt, but they are here called the Assyrian- because at Isaiah’s time, the Assyrians were the threat to Judah, but they are cast by Isaiah in terms of the Egyptians of previous centuries.</p><p>Daniel 7 depicts the various metals of the image as various beasts. The final beast of the last days incorporates all the elements of the previous beasts. But her head will be Babylon, replete with a latter day Nebuchadnezzar. Note that the first three of the empires of Daniel’s image had Babylon as their capital. It is appropriate that the latter day revival of the image and beast has Babylon likewise as its capital. It surely cannot be accidental that in Babylon today, “the ancient temple of Ishtar has been rebricked, replastered and whitewashed… carved into the bricks are reliefs of oxen and a mythical beast called the mushrishu, with the head of a serpent, body of a fish, front legs of a lion, and back legs of an eagle” (Chattanooga New Free Press, April 5, 1987). Latter day Babylon chooses to identify itself as an amalgam of beasts!</p><p>The various beasts and metals must all be in existence at the time of Christ’s return in order for him to destroy them by his coming. The little stone hits the image on its ten toes- corresponding to the ten horns of the fourth beast of Daniel 7. The ten horns must in a sense be in existence at the time of Christ’s coming. But so also is the fourth beast, corresponding to the legs of iron- because it is at the coming of Christ that “the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame” (<a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>). Likewise at this same time, “the rest of the beasts… had their dominion taken away” (<a href='B:340 7:12'>Dan 7:12</a>). The other beasts, corresponding to the earlier metals in the image, are ‘alive’ at the coming of Christ. Just as the image stands complete, so all the beasts are alive in order to receive judgment. The horns are presented as part of the fourth beast; their destruction is part and parcel of the fourth beast’s destruction.</p><p>Daniel sees the four beasts (corresponding with the four metals of the image of Daniel 2) all come up together after the waves of the sea are troubled (<a href='B:340 7:3'>Dan 7:3</a>), connecting with the Lord’s description of the last day powers around Israel in the same way (<a href='B:490 21:25'>Luk 21:25</a>). The fact they all come up together shows that he was not only seeing a continuous historic vision. The way he sees the beast representing Babylon come up when historical Babylon at the time of the vision had already ’come up’ shows it was not a historical description of those powers. The beasts all exist again in the last day, just as all the metals of the image exist together in order to be destroyed together by the Lord’s return. Yet the ’traditional’ interpretation of the beasts as depicting the various empires which dominated Israel in the past still holds true; the point is, the final beast incorporates elements of all those powers which once dominated Israel. It is in this sense that the whole image of Daniel 2 stands complete in the last days; the latter day Nebuchadnezzar has beneath him all the elements of Israel’s previous persecutors.</p>


text:
<p>Until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom- These are the same "saints" who are prevailed against in :21. I have mentioned at several points in expounding Revelation that it could well be that those of God’s people slain during the final tribulation are resurrected separately, and are used to judge their latter day abusers.</p>


text:
<p>Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on the land- The land in view is that promised to Abraham. This is parallel with the fourth power in the image vision reigning over "all the earth" or land.</p><p>Which shall be different from all the kingdoms, and shall devour the whole land, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces- In :19, the fourth beast devours, treads down and breaks in pieces "the remnant", both of Israel and of the earlier beasts, just prior to being destroyed by the Lord’s return to earth. All the beasts are therefore in existence together in the last days. Any attempt to find historical fulfilments of these things is therefore doomed, and at best only vague fulfilments can be suggested. Instead of devouring persons, "the remnant", here the fourth beast devours and abuses "the whole land". This is clearly the land promised to Abraham. No very satisfying fulfilment of this can be found in the various historicist interpretations. It is the "land" which is from where the beasts arise, it is that same land where they have dominion and are devoured by the fourth beast. It is the picture of a total bloodbath in the entire eretz promised to Abraham, and the scene is now set for that to happen. It is the sheer scale of the evil, aggression, torture and bloodletting which makes this final beast "different" from all others in history. The same word is used in Daniel for how the face of Nebuchadnezzar was "changed" because of the extreme wrath he felt towards the Jews (<a href='B:340 3:19'>Dan 3:19</a>). Whilst all the beasts ’differed’ from each other (:3), there was something radically different in how this beast was different to all of them (:7,19). Any attempt to apply this to historical Rome fails to account for this radical difference required by the text.</p>


text:
<p>As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise: and another shall arise after them; and he shall be different from the former, and he shall put down three kings- Zech. 1:19-21 specifically uses the language of horns to describe those Gentile entities who had scattered Judah and were to be judged. The behaviour of the horns on the fourth beast must be understood in terms of the persecution of natural Israel, not the Christians down the centuries. Seeing the little horn that arises out of the ten horns is so similar to Antiochus Epiphanes, it would seem one reasonable interpretation to be that they refer to the number of Greek rulers over Palestine. But the events of Antiochus Epiphanes didn't lead to the re-establishment of God's Kingdom, although that was potentially possible. And so the kaleidoscope turned again, and a fulfilment in AD70 became possible. But again, the preconditions required weren't fulfilled- Israel didn't repent. And so there will be the final fulfilment in the last days. </p><p> The language used in Daniel 7 about "the little horn" matches that of <a href='B:340 11:36-45'>Dan 11:36-45</a> about "the king of the north", who was Vespasian in the AD70 context. The shadowy primary fulfilments help us to imagine the kind of latter day fulfilment which is the primary burden of these prophecies. Vespasian directed war against the Jews and Jerusalem in particular for three and a half years, from the battle of Ptolemais in April AD67 to September AD70 when Jerusalem fell (Josephus, The Jewish War 3:29; 6:407; 435). He was made emperor in AD69, a year which saw three emperors in one year: Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. One cannot deny an initial fulfilment here; but Vespasian was in Palestine and Egypt all that time, and it is hard to say that he ’put them down’ in the terms required by the language here. So we have to accept that this was but a primary fulfilment, looking ahead to a greater one when antichrist is established in the last days, presiding over the three and a half year tribulation of Israel and the Jews. Kenneth Gentry points out that if Julius Caesar is counted as the first emperor of Rome,&nbsp; then Vespasian would have been the tenth emperor, the tenth horn who was also the little horn (Kenneth L. Gentry Jr:, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (San Francisco: Christian Universities Press, 1997) pp. 154–159). But this horn, different from the others just as the fourth beast differs from the other beasts (:7,19) is something radically different and unprecedented in human history. It points, as noted on :24, to a radically abusive destruction within the eretz promised to Abraham; it will truly be the unprecedented time of Jacob’s trouble (<a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a>; <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>). The Nazi holocaust will pale into insignificance before it.</p><p> But Dan. 7:23,24 stress how the fourth beast was radically different to the preceding beasts, and the little horn was also radically different to the other horns. The beasts were different from each other (:3), but the fourth beast was different from all the other beasts (:7). The point is surely that although the previous empires were different to each other, they were effectively all in the same category when compared with the fourth beast. Because he was so totally different to them. Three times (:7,19,23) it is stressed that the fourth beast was different to all the other beasts. We note how just as the fourth beast was diverse from the other beasts, so the little horn is to be diverse from the other horns. We are given the impression of an ever more concentrated form of evil. The Roman empire was not so radically different to the preceding empires. Josephus describes that they did to Jerusalem and the Jews in AD67-70; the Old Testament prophets and Lamentations describe what Babylon did to Jerusalem and the Jews. Whilst it could be argued that what the Romans did was even worse than the Babylonians, it was not of such a totally different order as implied by Daniel's prophecies of the fourth beast. This is what leads us to think that what is in view is a latter day entity of a nature never seen before. We get the impression that this is indeed what Daniel will later call a time of trouble such as never was for God's people. It will be of an altogether more awful nature than anything done to God's people, including by the Nazis, Babylonians and Romans. Lamentations speaks of the horrors performed by the Babylonians in Jerusalem, but this latter day entity will be of a totally different order. Hence Daniel's fixation upon the fourth beast and little horn, and the Angel only really giving an explanation of those two entities. And Daniel becoming pale with fear and physically ill after seeing what the fourth beast would do to the Jews.
</p><p> The ten horns represent “ten kings” which shall “arise” (Dan. 7:24); and although it is not stated specifically, we are to assume that they arise also out of the same area, the “earth” / land.  We should therefore be looking for a group of four kings / kingdoms, out of which arise ten kings / kingdoms; and out of them arises one “little horn” in particular. Revelation’s take on the beasts adds more detail- there are also seven heads, a false prophet acting as publicity agent for the beast, a whore riding the beast, sitting on seven hills / kings. The four beasts / kings are initially in conflict, striving with each other upon the sea, and arising from that comes the fourth beast entity, the composite beast including elements of all the previous ones. And from that there arises the ten horns and one little horn. We should not, however, think of these situations as having to be chronological developments, i.e. first the four, then the fourth beast, then the ten horns, then the little horn. It may work out like that, but not necessarily. The precise details need not concern us ahead of time; the picture is of a series of leaders and powers involved in the domination of the land promised to Abraham. The fact is, the beasts will all exist together in the last days, just as the metals of the image will. These various entities will “arise” from the land. And this is what we see happening already- in the last few years there has been what is called the Arabic, and particularly Sunni, sahwa, ‘awakening’. Powers and kings have risen up out of the scrubland and desert of the eretz, united in their hatred of Israel, but bitterly divided against each other.
</p><p> We are for sure in the stage of the winds / ruach / Angel controlled nations ‘striving’ with each other- the eretz is full of conflict as never before, not just between Israel and her neighbours, but between those neighbours. There are currently four non-Jewish nations within the eretz- Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. But they exist just on paper as lines on the map; there are other significant entities within the area, e.g. Kurdistan, the Islamic State, Gaza, parts of Egypt and Turkey [depending how one defines the northern border of Israel], parts of Saudi Arabia [depending how the eastern border is defined]. In total they make ten kingdoms, but the number ten may not be literal. We would then be awaiting for the “little horn” to arise- a charismatic, antiChrist leader, or perhaps another very small entity. For the horn is called the little horn, and yet it is the most powerful in the very last days. However, the Hebrew and Aramaic words translated “little” can mean ‘short’ in terms of time as well as size. The idea may be that it lasts a very short time indeed, maybe literally days or hours in the very last day, and is the human representative of the beast / horns who personally challenges the Lord Jesus and is destroyed by the brightness of His coming.   
</p>


text:
<p>He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear down the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time- These things have a clear potential possible application to Antiochus Epiphanes. There was a three and a half year period of abuse of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, beginning in June 168 BC with the edict of Antiochus (1 Macc., 1:20-53); and ending with the re-dedication of the Temple on the 25th of Chisel [December], 165 BC (1 Macc. 4:52). But a three and a half year period can also be reckoned from the erection of the heathen altar in the court of the Temple, on the 15th of Chisleu 168 BC, to the death of Antiochus about the middle of 164 (as in Dan. 8:14).
</p><p> We must note that we read of times and not years. The idea of a time being one year and times being two years has become an assumed truth. There are other options. "Times" could as well be translated "seasons". The same word is used in Is. 64:6 for a woman's menstrual "season" or "time", in which case we could even force an interpretation of a "time" as something between 28 and 35 days. Goldingay "posits that the sequence of elements in this expression refers to an unspecified “time that threatens to extend itself longer,” which is “brought to a sudden termination”. This fits admirably with the open, flexible, non-determinate approach to these prophecies which I am suggesting. "The time" is ultimately the point when the Lord returns and establishes God's Kingdom: "for the time had come, and the holy ones took possession of the kingdom" (Dan. 7:22 NJPS).
</p><p> The little horn thought to change the times. The "times" surely connects with the various "times" or time periods found in Daniel's prophecies. They were flexible- the little horn sought to change them. This surely doesn't mean that the "little horn" knew the time periods of Daniel and consciously tried to change them. It may mean that he acts in such a way that God considers changing the time periods. God alone ultimately can change the time periods: "He changes the times and the seasons" (Dan. 2:21). Surely Acts 1:7 alludes to this: "It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father has set within his own authority". The connection with Dan. 2:21 would mean 'set within His own authority to change'. This is why predicting things according to the time periods of Daniel must be overshadowed by an awareness that God changes the times. He can shorten the days for the sake of the elect. 
</p><p> The rabbis translate "Until the time of two times and half a time". There were 480 years from the founding of Israel at Sinai to the building of the temple, followed by 410 years from the building of the temple to its destruction. This makes 890 years, and half of that time is 445 years. Together this makes the figure of 1335 found in Dan. 12:12. Which would then be a cipher for the sanctuary being restored rather than a literally time period of days. We note that 1335 is the numerical value of "And I will hide My face" (Dt. 31:18). The "times" are in God's hands and He changes times and seasons. The length of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were flexible. Their "tranquility" could have been lengthened and in Belshazzar's case it was shortened. So attempts to work out time periods and fix their calendar end point is in fact not at all the spirit of what we see about God in Daniel.
</p><p> This little horn tries to do what the previous human kings in Daniel had failed to do- change laws. We have just read of Darius' failure to change his own laws. 
</p><p> The changing of times / seasons and law, as well as deposing three kings (:24), is all God's behaviour (removing kings and setting up kings, Dan. 2:21 and note the possibility of the "end" coming after God deposes three reigns in Dan. 8). This entity therefore acts as does the "man of sin" in 2 Thess. 2, showing himself as God. The fulfilment in Antiochus Epiphanes didn't lead to the Kingdom of God as was potentially possible, but 2 Thess. 2 and Revelation helps us see that the prophecy has been reapplied and reinterpreted to come true in its essence in the last days.   The initial reference of this would be to the attempt by Antiochus IV to change the Jewish calendar and feasts in BC167. In contrast, Dan. 2:20,21 says that God alone "changes seasons and times"; He established the heavenly bodies for these times and seasons (Gen. 1:14). Yahweh alone has dominion over time, in all its aspects. It is relative only to Him. </p><p>The little horn seeks "to change times and laws"; but we go straight on to read that God’s people are given into his power for "a time and times and the dividing of time" (<a href='B:340 7:25'>Dan 7:25</a> AV). It could therefore be that the time period of time, times and half a time [three and a half years?] is in fact defined and chosen by the little horn, as part of him seeking to establish "times". This could explain why there is some variableness in this period- Daniel 12 mentions 1260,1290 and 1335 days. If Israel repent, or other preconditions are met, then the time of intended abuse is changed. Israel were to be punished "seven times" for their sins (<a href='B:30 26:18'>Lev 26:18</a>; <a href='B:30 26:21'>Lev 26:21</a>; <a href='B:30 26:24'>Lev 26:24</a>; <a href='B:30 26:28'>Lev 26:28</a> etc:). Perhaps those seven times are halved to three and a half times, due to God’s desire to shorten the days of this awful tribulation. It may be that the little horn power or ruler decrees a time of abuse for the remaining Jews. Or it may be that the new caliph seeks to change some tenets of Islam, as he already is doing by shifting the focus of Islam from Mecca (which is in Saudi Arabia, who are officially against the Islamic jihadists currently)- to Jerusalem. Or it may be that they seek to change GMT time to Mecca time- something radical Moslems already live by, and seek to spread to the entire planet. Indeed, the biggest clock in the world has been built in Mecca in a bid to enforce Mecca time on all Moslems rather than GMT. The Mecca Clock Tower has been designed in purposeful contrast to Big Ben.</p><p>The little horn of Daniel 7 is the beast of Revelation 13 :</p><table><tr><td></p><p>Daniel 7</td><td>Revelation 3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"... a mouth speaking great things" (verse 8) "And he shall speak great words against the most High ..." (verse 25)</p><p>"I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them" (verse 21)</td><td>"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies . . . And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven" (verses 5,6) "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them" (verse 7)</td><td></td></tr></table><p>Notice that the little horn of Daniel 7 is actually called "the beast": "I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame" (<a href='B:340 7:11'>Dan 7:11</a>).</p><p>The little horn is also to be connected with the “King of the north” of Daniel 11, which is historically based upon Antiochus and the leaders of the northern part of the Greek empire, from Syria. The fact the Islamic jihadists and their leadership have emerged from Syria is maybe significant in this context:</p><table><tr><td></p><p></td><td>Daniel 7</td><td>Daniel 8</td><td>Daniel 11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.</td><td>The little horn</td><td>The little horn</td><td>"The king"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>At the end</td><td>At the end</td><td>At the end</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>of the times</td><td>of the times</td><td>of the times</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>of the Gentiles</td><td>of the Gentiles</td><td>of the Gentiles</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Very aggressive</td><td>Very aggressive</td><td>Very aggressive</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>"A look more stout than his fellows"</td><td>Magnifies himself</td><td>Magnifies himself</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>A mouth speaking</td><td></td><td>Speaks marvellous</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>great thingsagainst</td><td></td><td>things against the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the Most High</td><td></td><td>God of gods</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>Makes war against the saints and prevails</td><td>Destroys the holy people</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td>Destroyed by the</td><td>Destroyed by the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ancient of days</td><td>Prince of princes</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table><p>We note further that the little horn of Daniel 8 is connected with the beast of Revelation:</p><table><tr><td></p><p>". . . it cast down some ... of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them"</td><td>"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and did cast them to the earth"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(<a href='B:340 8:10'>Dan 8:10</a>)</td><td>(<a href='B:730 12:4'>Rev 12:4</a>)</td><td></td></tr></table></p><p>We also see the similarities between the "little horn" and the "king of the north" (Dan. 7:25 cp. Dan. 11:36). </p>


text:
<p>But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away- The "they" refers to "the saints", who shall judge the world. The saints refer to natural and spiritual Israel as well as the Angels. <a href='B:530 6:2-3'>1Co 6:2-3</a> seems to have this passage in mind: "The saints shall judge the world. And if the world is to be judged by you... You shall judge Angels". This could therefore mean that the "saints", the Christian believers, shall along with Angels judge as Angels. For that is the idea here in Daniel 7, which was clearly in Paul’s mind. The ’taking away’ of the dominion is the same word as in <a href='B:340 2:21'>Dan 2:21</a> - God "removes kings". The image vision shall come ultimately true at the hands of God’s once oppressed people.</p><p>His dominion, to consume and to destroy it to the end- Just as the fourth beast consumed and destroyed, so it shall be consumed and destroyed. This is a major theme of Revelation- the judgments poured out upon the earth / land of Abraham by the latter day abusers are then given to them. Babylon drinks her own cup. </p><p> "To the end" connects with the proclamation of Darius which we have just read in Dan. 6:26: "His dominion shall remain to the end". The connection with Dan. 6:26 suggests this entity will be in existence immediately prior to the establishment of God's eternal Kingdom. At first blush, this is where the application to Antiochus Epiphanes breaks down. Until we realize that the Kingdom of God could have come at that time, but various preconditions weren't met. And so the kaleidoscope turned again, the same basic elements were rearranged into another possible fulfilment through the Romans and then through the latter day beast.</p>


text:
<p>The kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole Heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him- "Under the whole Heaven" now moves the focus further than "the land" which has been in view so far in this chapter. The kingdoms of the entire world shall be given to the saints. "The people of the saints" may suggest that "the saints" are Angels, and their "people" are those amongst natural and spiritual Israel whom they have represented before the court of Heaven. This is the moment when the kingdoms of this world become those of God and His Christ (<a href='B:730 11:15'>Rev 11:15</a>). This is fair evidence that the Kingdom of Godshall be established on earth, for it is on planet earth that present human kingdoms and "dominions" [empires] exist.</p>


text:
<p>Here is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me, and my appearance was changed: but I kept the matter in my heart- I suggested on :15 that Daniel was troubled and upset, to the point of his appearance changing, because he realized that the prophetic program was no longer to restore the Kingdom of God in Judah during his lifetime. "But I kept the matter..." may suggest that like Moses, he considered that possibly God’s purpose may yet be changed by fervent prayer and repentance.</p><p> Literally, his colours changed. The book opens with Daniel’s face colour improving as he stuck to his conscience before God. We get an impression of calm assurance. Now he seems to lose that. Possibly because he (like so many) was too set on the idea of the Kingdom of God and his own prophecies being fulfilled in his lifetime.</p>


text:
<p>In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, even to me, I Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first-
</p><p> We know from Dan. 5 that Belshazzar is about to be judged and destroyed for blaspheming the temple. But Daniel is now shown that beyond his time would come a "little horn" who would do the same and suffer the same. He is being set up to learn what we all need to, that Divine history repeats according to patterns and we are to learn those patterns.
</p><p> The vision of Dan. 8 I suggest gives yet another possible outcome or schema leading to the re-establishment of God's Kingdom. The image of Dan. 2 spoke of four kings / empires followed by an unstable mixed period before the "end". Dan. 7 has four beasts, the fourth of which has ten horns and a little horn, who arises from among the ten horns against God and His people for a defined number of days and is destroyed by the "end". Dan. 8 has two beasts, Persia and Greece, led by Alexander the Great. Out of Alexander's four generals or four [not ten] "horns" comes a little horn, clearly Antiochus Epiphanes, who abuses God's people for a defined number of days and is destroyed by the "end". But that "end" didn't happen to Antiochus Epiphanes. These different scenarios do not perfectly map onto each other as is often suggested. There are similarities; the second beast of Dan. 7 [Persia?] has three ribs in its mouth, and the ram [Persia] of Dan. 8:4 butts in three directions. The "little horns" are described in very similar language and do the same things. 
</p><p> But the differences are significant. The fourth beast of Dan. 7, from which the little horn comes, has no equivalent in Dan. 8. The little horn arises from Greece, the third empire of Dan. 7. The little horn in Dan. 7:25 abuses God's people for "a time, times and a half", 1260 days; the little horn of Dan. 8:14 does so for 2300 evening-mornings. I suggest these are all different potential scenarios. Had the Jews repented at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, had Judas Maccabeus been a true spiritual leader, "the end" could then have come. The little horn of Dan. 8 would have been that of Dan. 7, making the sequence there and in Dan. 2 Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece. Indeed had Cyrus of Persia lived up to his potential as a Messiah figure, and had the Jews returned obediently to the land and rebuilt Zion as commanded, then none of these scenarios need have come true. The failure at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes meant that the kaleidoscope turned again, the fourth beast of Dan. 7 could then have been Rome, the Lord Jesus could have returned in AD70. That didn't happen and so the kaleidoscope turned again, and maybe it will again, until we come to the time when the Lord Jesus returns and establishes His Kingdom. Immediately prior to that, all these prophecies will have their final iteration. All the beasts and metals of the image will exist at the same time; as discussed on :17, the ram, goat and little horn of Dan. 8 will also all exist at the same time. And will all be judged together by His final return. That will be the final picture of the kaleidoscope. The failure of the earlier possibilities only led to something even greater- not merely the re-establishment of God's Kingdom as it was in the time of David, but the establishment of the eternal Kingdom of God on the whole earth under the rulership of the Lord Jesus. 
</p><p> Belshazzar could have repented, but didn't- as made clear in Dan. 5. And so therefore another outworking of prophecy became possible. Belshazzar only reigned three years so this vision was given around the time of the events of Daniel 5, when Belshazzar was slain and "Darius" took the kingdom. This was the first year of Darius, the time of the visions and events of Dan. 9:1 and Dan. 11:1. So the events of Dan. 5,8,9,11 all occurred within the same year. If Darius and Cyrus were separate kings but co-reigned and overlapped with each other, it's also possible that the third year of Cyrus in Dan. 10:1 was in fact this same year- the first year of Darius. Dan. 1:21 could be read as meaning that Daniel died in the first year of Cyrus; but that may mean the third year of his total rule, if he co-reigned with Darius for the first two or three years. In this case then Dan. 5,8,9,10 and 11 were all within the same year or so.</p><p> Belshazzar only reigned a few years, so the vision was given about a year before he died and his deposition by Darius the Mede recorded in Daniel 5. Perhaps as with Nebuchadnezzar, this prophecy was as it were a serving of notice upon him, and he had like Nebuchadnezzar one year in which to repent and altar the otherwise prophesied and inevitable chain of events. Belshazzar was aware of what had happened to Nebuchadnezzar and was condemned by Daniel for not having learnt the lesson from it. We too are expected to learn from situations going on in the lives around us or in our families. This is one channel of God’s word of communication with us.</p><p>"To me, even to me" is a phrase picked up by Peter when he says that the vision of beasts and Gentile inclusion was given even to him (<a href='B:510 11:5'>Act 11:5</a>). He read Daniel as we should- not as mere history alone, but as a living pattern to be followed.</p>


text:
<p>I saw in the vision; now it was so, that when I saw, I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was by the river Ulai- This could mean that he was in Susa when he had the vision, although that is unlikely as he worked for Belshazzar of Babylon (:27) and the Persians were his enemies; or that he was transported in the vision to Susa. Daniel was seeing the vision of Medo-Persian power, viewing in vision the citadel or palace, just a year before that power would conquer Babylon. If he relayed the vision to Belshazzar, this was similar to his revelation of a dream of downfall to Nebuchadnezzar a year before he fell. So Daniel was having a repeat experience, just as circumstances repeat in our lives. Perhaps he was seeing what Elam, once a province of the Babylonian empire, was to soon turn into- a citadel epitomizing Persian and not Babylonian power. </p><p> I have discussed on Ps. 137 how Jews sat by the rivers / canals of Babylon like the Ulai and Chebar, and some like that Psalmist were caught up in bitterness, endlessly playing the tape of their own experiences and the bitter words spoken to them. Failing to accept that Ezekiel by the Chebar and Daniel by the Ulai had seen visions of restoration and victory over their oppressors. Those canals were dug by slave labour, including the Jewish exiles. But at those very places there was given the hope of glory in the midst of their workaday lives and experience. </p>


text:
<p>Then I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high- Ulai was a canal joined to the Euphrates, so "the river" can have reference to that. We have the impression of a ram about to no longer be restrained by a river [Euphrates] and surge toward Babylon. This is the picture we have in <a href='B:730 9:14'>Rev 9:14</a>; <a href='B:730 16:12'>Rev 16:12</a>. Again, the historical application to Medo-Persia must be seen as only a pointer towards the fulfilment in the last days, when Babylon falls as a result of hordes of Islamists bursting across the Euphrates into the eretz promised to Abraham which is the focus of Bible prophecy. The ram was a symbol of Persia, embossed on their medallions and on the crown of their kings.</p><p> There is no word for "two" in the original. We wonder if in fact there was potential for this beast entity to have had more horns. It's just that two are mentioned. </p><p>But one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last- The power of the Medes was far less than that of the Persians who followed them under Cyrus. All the beasts and horns in Daniel are observed coming or growing up, and then being destroyed. When a power or individual are in the ascendancy, observers tend to think that they are unstoppable and invincible. Daniel’s prophecies make the simple point that they too shall fade and fall, unlike the things of God’s Kingdom.</p><p> The horns are uneven; just as the second beast of Dan. 7:5 was "raised up on one side". The second beast of Dan. 7 rampages in three directions; the beast of Dan. 8 has three ribs in its mouth. </p>


text:
<p>I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward; and no beasts could stand before him, neither was there any who could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and magnified himself- This is language elsewhere used about Yahweh, who alone does His own will to the ultimate term, and is alone to be magnified, and before whom none can stand nor be delivered from. All the monarchs and empires considered in Daniel are all guilty of playing God, and are punished accordingly. The compass points recall Abraham being bidden look to them all, and being told that all he saw was to be part of the land eternally promised to him, the eretz. The ram didn’t push East in the vision because the Persians came from the East, and their conquests Eastwards to India were irrelevant to the prophetic focus upon the eretz promised to Abraham. This small detail is strong confirmation of our position that the prophetic dominion of the beasts is over eretz Israel and not anywhere beyond that.</p><p> The beasts of Dan. 7 are supernatural, having elements of natural animals such as lions. The beasts of Dan. 8 are rams and goats- usually harmless animals, clean animals, at best only using force in defence; but they are presented here as being stirred up to uncharacteristic flights of aggression. We are left to infer God's influence upon them. On :17 I will comment upon the similarities between Ezekiel and Daniel. The people of Judah are likened to rams and goats in Ez. 34:17-19,21,25. And they too become aggressive. Their behaviour is described in the same language as that of the aggressive rams and goats of Dan. 8. They gore (Ez. 34:21 = Dan. 8:4) and trample others (Ez. 34:18 = Dan. 8:7,10). The simple takeaway is that as the people and leaders of Judah had done, so the beasts were doing to them. And Ez. 34:25 actually calls them "bad beasts". 
</p><p> There is a repeated theme of pride being the reason for the fall of the kings / empires. The ram "did as he pleased and grew arrogant" (Dan. 8:4), in turn "the goat grew more and more arrogant" (Dan. 8:8). In Dan. 8:25 The little horn "will be proud of himself", "the little horn bragging and boasting" (Dan. 7:11), "it had eyes and a mouth and was boasting proudly" (Dan. 7:20). Out of all the things they could be condemned for, pride is the number one issue. God is so sensitive to it. See on Dan. 7:11.
</p>


text:
<p>As I was considering- It was Daniel’s desire to understand which led to further revelation and understanding. This recalls how those who enquired further about the Lord’s parables were given further understanding "in the house".</p><p>Behold, a male goat came from the west over the surface of the whole land, and didn’t touch the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes- The speed of the goat speaks of the lightning speed of Alexander’s conquest. The "notable horn" was Alexander. Alexander’s son was named Alexander Aegus, "Son of the Goat". The other horns in the visions can also be seen as individuals; the notable little horn we encounter on the fourth beast is therefore an individual who makes great and amazingly fast conquests, something like that seen by the jihadists taking large swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria overnight in 2015. The "male goat" was a symbol for the leadership of the flock.</p>


text:
<p>He came to the ram that had the two horns, which I saw standing before the river, and ran on him in the fury of his power- Alexander defeated the Persian Darius at the river&nbsp; Granicus in 334 BC, his forces plunging in swimming across the stream, and rushing on the enemy. Hence the appropriacy of seeing the ram before a river. . His fury was from his desire to revenge the Persian domination of Greece.</p>


text:
<p>I saw him come close to the ram, andhe was moved with anger against him- Persia had previously cruelly dominated Greece, and this was the anger of bitter revenge by Alexander the Great.</p><p>And struck the ram, and broke his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him; but he cast him down to the ground, and trampled on him; and there was none who could deliver the ram out of his hand- Perhaps a specific reference to the burning and trampling of the Persian city of Persepolis. The trampling and casting down is exactly the language of the later abusers of God’s people, the horn of <a href='B:340 7:8'>Dan 7:8</a>. The clear historical fulfilment in how Alexander of Macedon / Greece treated the Persians is intended to explain how the latter day little horn shall act. Alexander was characterized by small forces winning amazingly quick victories against much larger forces due to their speed and military technology; and we can imagine this being repeated in the latter day little horn. This is already the feature of organized Jihadist groups. The two horns broken refer to the ending of the Medo Persian empire.</p><p> There is a repetition of how likewise Medo-Persia had been the same: "neither was there any who could deliver out of his hand" (:4). The point is that what seems invincible is replaced by something else that seems invincible. This is all the ebb and flow of human prowess and dominion, as taught in the vision of Dan. 2. And in this case the point is made that what man does to his fellow man, is in turn done to him. "There was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand" in that the other peoples whom the Persian empire called to its aid couldn't save them from Alexander.
</p><p> Even before Babylon conquered Judah, Isaiah and Jeremiah had foretold that Babylon would be punished by Persia [Elam, a word similar to "the ram"] for being too cruel to the Jews (Is. 13:3,5,17; 47:6). But Jeremiah stated that Elam / Persia would "be dismayed before their enemies and before them that seek their life" (Jer. 49:37); God would "set His throne in Elam" and "destroy the king and the princes" (Jer. 49:38). This would be because He would "break the bow of Elam" by bringing "the winds from the four quarters of heaven" (Jer. 49:35,36). These four winds surely refer to the four generals of Alexander the Great that helped him to overcome the Medo-Persian empire. But they were raised up by God, by His winds / spirits / Angels which were seen whipping up the sea in Dan. 7 so that the beasts arose from it as a result. All was under God's control. This was just as God had earlier "raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes [to destroy Babylon]: for His device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple" (Jer. 50:28). Likewise Jer. 51:28, "Prepare against her [Babylon] the nations [Media and Persia] with the kings [Darius and Cyrus?] of the Medes". They were 'prepared', far above the time and tide of human history and aspiration there was this higher, controlling hand of God.
</p>


text:
<p>The male goat magnified himself exceedingly- <a href='B:450 9:5'>Zec 9:5</a>; <a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a> foretells Alexander’s attack on Gaza and Palestine and paints him as the arrogant antithesis of the humble Messianic King of Israel, who was to ride a donkey rather than Alexander’s charger. Alexander is thereby set up as a fake, imitation Christ, an antiChrist.</p><p>And when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and in the place of it there came up four notable horns toward the four winds of the sky- The notable horn was an individual, Alexander the Great. The horns elsewhere in these visions likewise refers to individuals, not to any organization like the papacy. The horn was broken in that Alexander had no dynasty. His brother Philip Aridaeus, and his two sons, Alexander Aegus and Hercules, failed to continue it. This refers to the untimely death of Alexander the Great and his kingdom being divided amongst his four generals. "Lysimachus ruled over part of Thrace, Asia Minor, part of Cappadocea, and the countries within the limits of Mount Taurus. Casander possessed Macedonia, Thessaly and part of Greece. Ptolemy obtained Egypt, Cyprus, Cyrene, and ultimately Coele-Syria, Phoenicia and Judea. Seleuchus obtained Phoenicia, Syria, Babylonia to the Indus". Daniel 11 focuses upon the two of them, the kings of the north and south, who dominated God’s people and land of Israel. Again we see that the focus of the prophecies are upon them and not upon any other geographical area. But they were directed "toward the four winds of the sky / heaven", as if to say that they were under the domination of heaven, or perhaps opposed against heaven; the "four winds" may refer to the four cherubic Angels, as God makes His Angels spirits or winds (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>). See on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Out of one of them came forth a little horn, which grew exceedingly great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the glorious land- All the history of Seleucus ["one of them"] is passed over up to Antiochus Epiphanes, because these visions are about what was done to the land and people of Israel. They are not a general prediction of history in advance. 
</p><p> The push toward the South refers as in :5 to Egypt. Dan. 11:21 ff. provides us with the history and shows that this is clearly Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He attacked Egypt (1 Macc. 1:16-20; 2 Macc. 5:51; Dan. 11:29,30) and then Persia to the east (1 Macc. 6:1-6; 2 Macc. 9:1-28). It's hard to apply this attack of the South and then the East to any 'Roman' or Catholic entity. If this is the same little horn as in Dan. 7, then it surely has to be conceded that there was another primary intended fulfilment of that prophecy in relation to Greece and Antiochus Epiphanes. "Toward the east" references the expedition of Antiochus led an expedition into Elymais (on the East of Babylonia); and again we have this alluded to in Dan. 11:40. We note that like Dan. 8, the visions of Dan. 10 and 11 refer only to Persia and Greece existing before the final establishment of God's Kingdom. This is definitely an alternative to the four kingdom scenario of Dan. 2 and 7- it was another possible future that didn't happen.
</p><p> The little horn of Dan. 8:9 pushes in three directions. Possibly this matches the little horn of Dan. 7:8 uprooting three horns.
</p><p> The connection between the Angels and the people of God in their land is shown by how the horn extends horizontally on earth until it comes to the "glorious land"; and then it rises up vertically to the host of Heaven, the stars, and to the commander of the host.
</p><p> Many historicists like to understand this "little horn" as Rome and the Papacy. But this little horn came out of one of the four generals who succeeded Alexander the Great. The reference seems without doubt to Antiochus. Israel even then was the land of glory- potentially. It was their legalism and apostasy which meant that the Messianic kingdom was not then established, but potentially it could have been. Rather like apostate believers are still&nbsp; given exalted titles in the New Testament because of the potential status they had.</p><p>The little horn of Dan. 8:9 is clearly related to the little horn that arises from the fourth empire in Dan. 7. And the little horn of Dan. 8 is clearly Antiochus Epiphanes. But that doesn't at all fit the 'Roman' interpretation of the beast of Dan. 7 from which the little horn arises. I suggested on Dan. 2 that this is an example of how there were possible, potential fulfilments. The little horn of Dan. 8 could have been destroyed by the coming of a Messiah figure. But that didn't happen. And so the kaleidoscope was turned, and the same images [in this case, of a little horn] meshed to produce a different picture. Greek step logic wants to see a simple correspondence between statement and fulfilment over time. But that is to misunderstand or ignore the genre of apocalyptic. This genre takes the images and realigns them, mixing them with others, to produce various possible pictures. A rigid step logic will fall down in making sense of the two 'little horns', and will fail even worse when it comes to the horns and heads of Revelation. </p>


text:
<p>It grew great, even to the army of Heaven; and some of the army and of the stars it cast down to the ground, and trampled on them- These are defined in :24 as "the mighty and holy people", the army of Yahweh (<a href='B:20 12:41'>Exo 12:41</a>). And yet the language sounds applicable to Angels. As <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a> explains, Israel have an Angel superintending them, and perhaps we are to understand each individual member of God’s people as having an Angel representing them. Hence the language here refers to both individual Jews as well as their representative Angels. The stars are specifically a symbol of the faithful Israelites in <a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>. The language also recalls that of <a href='B:290 14:13-14'>Isa 14:13-14</a> regarding the desire of Babylon to take the temple mount.</p><p>Angels can represent political powers before God; see on :8. This has interesting implications in Daniel 8 : "Four notable ones toward the four winds of Heaven (the number four and"winds"both have Angelic connections). And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which... waxed great, even to the host of Heaven (the Angels controlling the Jewish people); and it cast down some of the host and of the stars (both"host"and"stars"are Angelic words), and stamped upon them; Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host (the"Most High"Angel, the Angel of Jesus, who was the real prince of the Angel hosts), and by him... the place of His sanctuary (i. e. the temple, where the"Most High"Angel dwelt) was cast down. And an host (of Angels controlling the soldiers of Antiochus) was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the Truth to the ground". "The Truth" here does not necessarily refer to a set of doctrines or people holding them which comprises the true Gospel. This can never be thrown down, and in any case "the Truth" in this sense was not thrown down after the sacking of the temple. "The truth"&nbsp; being thrown down may parallel the host and stars being cast to the ground in :10- in which case "the truth" represents the Jews in covenant relationship- or it may hint at the Mosaic Law being "thrown down" by the Angelic destruction of the temple and the Mosaic system. "Thy Law (of Moses) is the Truth" (<a href='B:230 119:142'>Psa 119:142</a>). This all lays the basis for Revelation 12 describing the conflicting groups of Angels in Heaven at the time of the final abolition of the Mosaic system.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, it magnified itself, even to the prince of the army- "The prince of the host" was initially Onias the high priest of the host, the army, of priests and of Israel. But clearly it also refers to Michael the representative Angel of Israel. In Daniel, nine times "prince" [shar] is used of men and nine times of an Angel, reflecting the theme of how men have representative Angels matching them in the court of Heaven. We note that the term elohim is used of priests, of Angels and of God Himself. Michael was apparently defeated (see on :10) but arises in eternal victory in Dan. 12.
</p><p> The Hebrew words for "host / army" [ts'bah] and "glorious / pleasant / beautiful" [ts'bee] in :9 are very similar. The little horn 'grows exceedingly great' towards the glorious / pleasant land of Israel in :9, and likewise towards the host / army of heaven and the prince of the host in :10,11. The heavenly host are the host of the land of Israel. We note that the "host" is not specifically defined here as the Jews. Because although these things clearly had a primary fulfilment in the abuses of Antiochus against the Jews, they will have a final latter day fulfilment against God's people however they are defined. The prince of the host / army has the burnt offering 'taken away from him', and "the place of his sanctuary was cast down"- all by a mere man. This is the degree to which God's mighty Angel, representing Himself, can have things taken away from Him by man. 
</p><p> Indeed "the prince of the host" could be read as God Himself. "Even unto the prince of the host it magnified itself" speaks of showing greatness against God, just as the king of Babylon did in Is. 14. The word for "place" is used mostly of God’s abode, whether on earth (Ex. 15:17, 1 Kings 8:13), or in heaven (Is. 18:4, 1 Kings 8:39,43,49; Ps. 33:14). This is how far God allows human freewill, and how far He is sensitive to human behaviour. Man can, in the short term, take something away from God. The continual burnt offering was to be 'taken away' from "the prince" by the little horn. "Taken away" can mean to steal. From the God who in another sense owns everything. But He has given it to us. "Will a man rob God?", Malachi asks. And Malachi answers this shocking question "Yes". They were robbing God in not paying tithes and giving sacrifices. He is a God near at hand and not afar off, which is why He feels this things so closely and personally. This explains the strange statement in Dan. 12:7 that "the power of the holy people" will, for a time, be smashed or broken. That power is surely God. And in this light we must imagine how Daniel felt when he heard in Dan. 9:26 that the Messiah whom he was looking for as the saving answer was "to be cut off". Jerusalem and the sanctuary were again to be destroyed...
</p><p> The army is the host of God’s people and their representative Angels (see on :10). Their prince is "the prince of princes" (:25), "the God of gods" (<a href='B:340 11:36'>Dan 11:36</a> cp. <a href='B:340 7:8'>Dan 7:8</a>). So God Himself could be in view. But the prince could equally refer to the high priest. And the language of "prince of princes" is applied to the Lord Jesus in <a href='B:730 1:5'>Rev 1:5</a>. So whilst this prophecy may have application to the rage of Antiochus against Israel’s God, it clearly is recorded because all the previous abusers of God’s people point forward to the final entity which shall abuse hem, which will incorporate features of all Israel’s previous abusers. As Antiochus magnified himself against God and the Jerusalem temple, so shall the latter day antiChrist against the real Christ, the prince of princes. The little horn makes himself as if he is “the prince of the host” (<a href='B:340 8:11'>Dan 8:11</a> Heb:); he sets himself up as an alternative Christ, an antiChrist. God is presented in Daniel as being able to depose kings and change or decree the times and seasons; the decree of Nebuchadnezzar to kill all the Babylonian wise men was “changed” by the revelation of His prophetic word through Daniel. The same words are used for how the little horn will change times and laws [s:w. ‘decrees’] (<a href='B:340 7:25'>Dan 7:25</a>). In terms of 2 Thessalonians 2, he declares himself as God enthroned in the temple of God, after the historical pattern of Antiochus.</p><p>And it took away from him the continual burnt offering- This was specifically ordered by Antiochus (1Ma_1:20; 1Ma_1:47; 1Ma_1:54; 1Ma_1:59). Such a command was not specifically made by the Romans. The requirements of the text here fit Antiochus very well, but are a very imperfect fit to the events of AD67-70.</p><p> There are many connections between the historical chapters of Daniel and the visions. Daniel is noted for serving God "continually" (Dan. 6:11,14,17,21) His morning and evening prayers were surely when the sacrifices would have been offered (1 Chron. 23:30). The Jews recognized the connection between the daily sacrifices and prayer, the prayer times in the temple were at the same time as the daily sacrifices (Acts 3:1). In Dan. 9:21 Daniel prayed “about the time of the evening sacrifice", seeing his prayer as the sacrifice. The connection is presumably to teach that despite the continual burnt offerings being ended, the essential offering to God was of prayer made toward Jerusalem as Daniel had done. There was no actual need for a sanctuary in order to offer to God. For the holy place is your own room and heart. We read here literally of "the continual", "burnt offering" is added by many versions in explanation but the corresponding words aren't in the original.</p><p>And the place of his sanctuary was cast down- This speaks of "the prince of the Host" living in the temple, a phrase recalling the Angel captain of the Lord’s host in <a href='B:60 5:15'>Jos 5:15</a>. See on <a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a>. The prince of the army was therefore God manifest through the Angel superintending Israel. The casting down of the temple was not specifically done by Antiochus, but his abuse of the sanctuary is thus described because this history points forward to the latter day antiChrist who shall do this.</p><p>&nbsp;The LXX of <a href='B:340 8:9-11'>Dan 8:9-11</a> would imply that only at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the captivity of Judah would be "delivered": "And out of one of them came forth one strong horn, and it grew very great toward the south, and toward the host: and it magnified itself to the host of heaven; and there fell to the earth some of the host of heaven and of the stars, and they trampled on them. And this shall be until the chief captain shall have delivered the captivity". Thus the period of only70 years in captivity was lengthened; and even then, this is not how things worked out in practice. Likewise the time for the restoration of the temple from the hands of pagan abomination is redefined in <a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a> LXX as now no longer being in Daniel’s time, nor any time close to it, but rather at the time of the Kingdom of God: "on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation". </p><p>It is stressed that the sanctuary of God was "cast down" (Dan. 8:11), "trampled under foot" (Dan. 8:13). "destroyed / wasted / spoiled" along with His capital city (Dan. 9:26), "made desolate" (Dan. 9:27). If the city and sanctuary of a god was destroyed in this way, so publically, then that god had lost and had been slain by the god of the army who did this. God as it were emphasizes His own apparent destruction. He recognizes by all this repeated language that indeed, it does look as if "the death of God" has validity, it is how it seems, it is what it looks like. He gets that. The purpose of the prophecies is to show that in fact He exists and is hugely active beyond that. Clearly enough, God doesn't care for His 'image'. He allows people to think as they do about Him, without rushing in to correct impressions. We think of His apparent silence and lack of involvement and engagement at the time of tragedies. It is all a test of our spiritual perception, and we are guided by His word in this. And yet Jeremiah had lamented, using the same word for "cast down", that "He has cast down from heaven to the earth the beauty of Israel, and hasn’t remembered His footstool in the day of His anger" (Lam. 2:1). As ever, God was ultimately behind this casting down by the little horn.
</p><p> The LXX reads very differently: "And this shall be until the chief captain shall have delivered the captivity: and by reason of him the sacrifice was disturbed, and he prospered; and the holy place shall be made desolate". This may be a legitimate reading, in that there was the potential for the Angel Michael, the "chief captain" of Israel (Dan. 12:1), to end the captivity / exile at this time. We note Daniel is next recorded as wondering why the captivity hadn't ended (Dan. 9:3). 
</p>


text:
<p>The army was given over to it- AV "And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice". This hints that it was God who gave the little horn a "host" or "army". Such hints are common in the visions of Daniel. Beasts are raised up, "given" things etc.- by God. But the host "given" was in order to overthrow the "host" or army of God's people and their Angelic representatives: "the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them" (:10). We would see here the way that representative hosts of Angels act out in Heaven the conflicts upon earth, host against host. We see here how all the conflicts ultimately have God in control over them.
</p><p> However the GNB is likely not far wrong in offering: "People sinned there instead of offering the proper daily sacrifices, and true religion was thrown to the ground". It was abuses in the temple that led the little horn to desecrate it. This would fit the time of Antiochus and the Romans, but makes no sense if applied to the Papacy. The reference may be to how Antiochus installed an armed garrison in the ‘city of David’ with the object of overawing the worshippers and stopping any Jewish religious rites there (1 Macc. 1:33-38; 8:51; 2:15,31; 4:41).
</p><p> This could be translated as AV "A host / army was given him". As in :13 and elsewhere, it is emphasized that all power is "given" to these horns and beasts. See on :24. Ultimately they were given power by God. The world is not radically out of control; there is no radical evil in the cosmos. All is finally under God’s control, and this Divine giving of power to Israel’s was "on account of [their] disobedience".</p><p>Along with the continual burnt offering on account of disobedience- Most expositors note the paganism of some of the Jews who returned from Babylon, and quote 1 Maccabees 1 : "In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the pagan that are round about us; for since we departed from them we have had much sorrow... Whereupon they built a place of exercise (a school) at Jerusalem, according to the customs of the pagan; and made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the pagan, and were sold to do mischief". This is true, but specifically the opportunity to offer the daily burnt offering was taken away because of "disobedience". Many of the Jews who returned from Babylon were proud of their obedience; but the prophets repeatedly warned them that their daily burnt offerings were a provocation to God because of their hypocrisy and legalism (<a href='B:290 43:23'>Isa 43:23</a>; <a href='B:290 66:3'>Isa 66:3</a>; <a href='B:370 5:22'>Amo 5:22</a>; <a href='B:460 3:3'>Mal 3:3</a>)</p><p>And it cast down the truth to the ground, and it did according to its will and prospered- See on :10. <a href='B:290 59:14'>Isa 59:14</a> had lamented that amongst the restoration community, "truth is fallen in the street". Antiochus merely confirmed in physical terms the blasphemy of the sanctuary which they had committed in spiritual terms.</p><p> "Truth" may refer to the law of Moses (Ps. 43:3; 119:4). But we can perhaps understand "the truth" in the sense it is used in John's writings and in Dan. 9:13, for a life lived in fellowship with God: "we have not entreated the favour of Yahweh our God, that we should turn from our iniquities, and accept Your truth". The result of the destruction of the sanctuary was that it severely damaged the walk of God's people with Him.
</p><p> Another possibility, given the various potential fulfilments of the prophecies, is that "the truth" refers to what "the truth" usually refers to in Daniel- the prophecies (Dan. 8:26; 9:13; 10:1,21; 11:2). The visions of Dan. 2 and Dan. 7 had shown a fourth entity arising after Greece, which would be the prelude to the re-establishment of God's Kingdom. But this "truth" was deposed or cast aside ["down" isn't necessarily implied in the original] in that Antiochus Epiphanes would behave in such an awful way, that the re-establishment of the Kingdom was made possible then. Because his sins were so extreme that he filled up the required level of sin, and this could've triggered the final judgment [see on :23].
</p>


text:
<p>Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who spoke- The tribulations which come upon God’s people are described as being under the control of a "certain one", "Palmoni", or the ’wonderful numberer’ as that can be translated, implying that there is one powerful Angel who co-ordinates the timing of all things, and other Angels ask this Angel for information concerning the time periods worked out for the saints in their charge, as here in Daniel’s case. Job seemed to have sensed very keenly the "appointed time" for his trials to end and for his "change" of nature to occur. We have seen that the phrase "appointed time" is the same word as "host" used regarding the Angels. But like Job, because we can’t see the Angel physicallyit’s easy to get bitter about the trials brought upon us by them, as Balaam got bitter with the ass until he physically saw the Angel causing the trial (<a href='B:40 22:23'>Num 22:23</a>). See on <a href='B:220 14:5'>Job 14:5</a>; <a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>.</p><p>How long shall be the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, and the abomination that makes desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the army to be trodden under foot?- The desolation caused by transgression (the Jews’ transgression, see on :12) is clearly initially that done by Antiochus (<a href='B:340 11:31'>Dan 11:31</a>). He erected a heathen altar erected in place of the altar of burnt-offering in the Temple court. But there is a 1290 day period between the end of the continual burnt offering and the placing of the desolation (<a href='B:340 12:11'>Dan 12:11</a>). But here the period for both is 2300 evening-mornings. The time periods definitey are variable. The 1290 period may possibly have been true in the time of Antiochus, but it was not true in AD67-70; the daily sacrifices were offered then right up to AD70.  It could have come true then- the LXX of Dan. 8:13 is quoted by the Lord in Mt. 24:15 about the AD70 situation. So these were but incipient fulfilments- the last days will see the final fulfilment. <a href='B:340 9:26-27'>Dan 9:26-27</a> require the city of Jerusalem to be taken, and the abomination of desolation placed there; and this is quoted by the Lord Jesus as requiring fulfilment in the last days just prior to His return (<a href='B:470 24:14-15'>Mat 24:14-15</a>; <a href='B:470 24:29-31'>Mat 24:29-31</a>). Any previous fulfilments were incipient at best; they did not immediately herald the Lord’s visible return as required by the Oliver prophecy. <a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a> adds: "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled". The allusion is to <a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a>: "The transgression of desolation gave both the sanctuary and the host (i:e. the people of Israel) to be trodden underfoot".</p><p>Daniel's question "How long...?" was answered. The exiles had lamented that they had no prophet who knew "How long": "There is no longer any prophet, nor is there any among us who knows how long" (Ps. 74:9,10). He was thus assured that he was indeed a prophet. Even though the answer was not to his liking [as he was expecting an immediate re-establishment of the Kingdom of God], and therefore he struggled to understand it. So often our difficulty in understanding the Bible is because we subconsciously don't want to accept the truth that we see there, again, subconsciously.
</p><p> We enquire who exactly are "the army" or "host". It is used of Angels, but also of the ministers in the sanctuary or priests (Num. 4:23,30,35,39,43; 8:24,25). Again we have the Angels representative of their charges on earth. 
</p>


text:
<p>He said to me- aniel has heard two Angels talking in :13. One has asked the other how long the desolation would continue. But the other Angel now speaks directly to Daniel. The first Angel was Daniel's representative in the court of heaven. Daniel naturally had the question in his mind, as to how long this would continue for. And his Angel asks another Angel that question, and that Angel then answers Daniel directly. Our questions and situations are likewise represented in Heaven. Truly man is not alone. In :13, Daniel has as it were overheard a discussion between two Angels. Daniel has within him the obvious question: "In that case, how long…?". One of the Angels asks that very question, and then the answer is directed to Daniel. We are to understand that our representative Angel carries our questions and fears before the court of Heaven, and answers are given. Note the parallel between Angels and God’s people discussed on :11.</p><p>To two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed- The phrase "evening-mornings" refers to the daily sacrifices, which were offered twice daily, morning and evening. 2300 evening-morning sacrifices were therefore 1150 days. The various time periods in Daniel all seem around this number- 1260, 1290, 1335 days, and three and a half times [years?] which is 1260 days. Perhaps the variations are because the final periods are flexible, depending upon how quickly Israel repent in the last days, and how intense are our prayers and longing for "the end". Or it could be that the 2300 is the period from the beginning of the tribulation until the time when the abomination is ended. Perhaps the days of the elect’s tribulation are shortened from 2300 to 1260 (<a href='B:470 24:22'>Mat 24:22</a>).</p><p>Antiochus is clearly the "little horn" of Daniel 8, but this is the same little horn which arises from the fourth beast in Dan. 7. Consider the similarities: Dan. 7:8= Dan. 8:23; Dan. 7:20 = Dan. 8:9; Dan. 7:21,25 = Dan. 8:10; Dan. 7:25 = Dan. 8:11,25; Dan. 7:25 changing times and seasons = Dan. 8:11,12, and 1 Macc. 1:44-51 records how Antiochus forced the Jews to stop offering the daily sacrifice and Jewish feasts, and desecrated the altar with pigs' blood. The period in which the daily sacrifices were stopped is described as 2300 mornings and evenings (Dan. 8:13,14), that is 1150 days when the twice daily [morning and evening] sacrifices were stopped. According to the dates given in 1 Macc. 1:41-59; 6:1-17, this is the exact period between when Antiochus began forbidding the daily sacrifices in Autumn of BC167 to the day of his death in the spring of BC163. There is no other very compelling fulfilment of the 2300 mornings and evenings. </p><p> Dan. 9:27 says that "for half a week he will put a stop to the sacrifice and the meal offering". Dan. 8 gives a period of 2300 evening-mornings, i.e. 1150 days, for the cessation of sacrifices. In Dan. 9:27 the time period is different- three and a half days, possibly meaning three and a half years or 1260 days. So often in Daniel we find the time periods are flexible. Which they are, because there are various possible and potential fulfilments of the prophecies, and the range of them is because God takes into account human freewill. For prophecy doesn't make God deterministic. Possibly these 1260 days are reduced to 1150 because the "days are shortened for the elect's sake". We must also factor in that 1 Maccabees gives a period of exactly 3 years for the desecration of the altar by Antiochus Epiphanes [1080 days if we take a 360 day year, 1095 days if a 365 day year]. This again could be because there was a shortening of the days. Josephus however claims it was exactly three and a half years (Wars 1.32). We could simply suppose that the time periods in Dan. 7:25; 8:14; 9:27; 12:7,11,12 all designate a period of roughly three and a half years and refer to the same time. The differences are because "the days" are shortened or lengthened in accordance with human freewill responses. And another simple takeaway is that all the suffering of God's people is only for a period foreknown by God. There comes a time of the end, a time when the days of suffering end.
</p><p> The phrase 'evening-mornings' naturally recalls the account of creation, "There was evening and there was morning, a [e.g. second] day" (Gen. 1:8). The hint may be that through that long period [humanly speaking] of darkness, blasphemy and destruction, there was arising a new creation. Likewise in Dan. 7 we have the ferocious beasts arising out of the sea, with the winds / Spirit of God hovering over the waters. Those terrifying beasts and their evil work was in fact part of a new creation. The appearance of the "son of man" at the end then connects with the creation of man.
</p><p> Perhaps the 'evening-morning' idea is used because we have noted the parallel with Daniel's continual evening and morning prayers, paralleled with the sacrifices. The message may be that the end will come if there is continued prayer during the period. And prayer is one of the human freewill responses that shortens or lengthens fulfilment of prophecy. Possibly there is an allusion to how the punishment for Israel's disobedience would be a longing for morning at evening, and a longing for evening at the morning (Dt. 28:66,67).
</p>


text:
<p>It happened when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, that I sought to understand it; and behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man- This is clearly an Angel. The Angels are called those who stand by in Zech. 3:7.
</p><p> Daniel sees the vision but doesn't understand it; but he wants to. Previously, it was the kings who had seen visions and wanted to understand, and Daniel had explained to them. Now the roles are reversed. Daniel is being made to feel himself into the place of those kings. Likewise he is described several times as awestruck and visibly sick and distressed because of the visions or their interpretations; just as the kings had been. Here we have a major feature of the Biblical histories, and of our lives as believers: we are made to experience and feel that which other people do. People who are in our lives, as believers or unbelievers. This is such a common theme in the Bible, and in life, that we conclude that this is what God does oftentimes with man, at least with believers. To bring us to greater human understanding, and to place our own apparently unique experiences within the wider context of society and people around us.
</p><p> "Man" is geber, suggesting the name Gabriel (:16). Daniel sought to understand the meaning of a vision; but two verses earlier, an Angel had asked another Angel for understanding of the same vision. Here surely we have the practical meaning, in Angelic terms, of God knowing our prayers and arranging the answers before we even ask them. Perhaps it was Daniel’s guardian Angel who asked a more senior Angel for the interpretation of the vision, knowing Daniel was going to be asking for it. Yet it was the second Angel who actually gave the answer to Daniel (<a href='B:340 8:14'>Dan 8:14</a>). Verse 16 describes the one Angel standing at the Ulai river calling out: “Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision”. Yet at this time, Daniel himself was in vision at the Ulai river (:2). His guardian Angel was there, right in front of him. And He had foreknown Daniel’s feelings and arranged for another Angel to respond to them…and so the second Angel (Gabriel) also comes near where Daniel was standing (:17). His guardian Angel had literally called Gabriel to come over to Daniel... And all this is going on for you and me hourly in the court of Heaven! There’s another example of this in Daniel 12. There are two Angels with Daniel by the river (:2). One of them asks the other: “How long shall it be to the end…?” (:6; cp. 8:13). Yet this was exactly the spirit of Daniel! And then the other Angel gives Daniel the answer. His guardian Angel knew his unexpressed questions and desires, and passed them on to another Angel to answer. See on <a href='B:450 1:12'>Zec 1:12</a></p><p>8:16 If our Angel has not the strength or authority to give us a blessing which He sees we need, He can ask another Angel to bring this about- thus Daniel’s guardian Angel had to ask Gabriel to help Daniel understand the vision which He knew Daniel so desperately wanted to have interpreted (<a href='B:340 8:16'>Dan 8:16</a>). It may be that this request by the guardian Angel was not for the best for Daniel, because it seems to have been denied by God- v. 27 says that at the end of the interpretation or "understanding" being given by Gabriel, "I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding" (v. 27 N:I:V:). In that case, it would seem that when Gabriel said "Understand, O son of man" (v. 17), Gabriel Himself either did not appreciate that giving Daniel the understanding would not help him, or He obeyed the request from the guardian Angel unquestioningly. Or alternatively, was Gabriel saying in v. 17 that Daniel was to understand that the vision would not be fully understood till the last days, as in <a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a>? This would mean that it is in the hands of the Angels as to at what time, both individually and as the body of God’s people generally,&nbsp; we gain spiritual understanding of certain parts of the word, in the same way as the Angels debated "Shall I hide from Abraham the thing which I do?". This may&nbsp; be&nbsp; very&nbsp; relevant&nbsp; to the various interpretations of Revelation held by God’s true people down through the years, each interpretation giving great encouragement to a certain group of saints, despite&nbsp; their details varying considerably. This process would then be seen to be under the direct control of the Angels.</p>


text:
<p>I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision- Gabriel is El-Gibbor, a title of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>). Hebrews 1 labours the point that the Lord was not an Angel. This Angel was not the Lord Jesus, but just as Michael represented Israel (<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>), so this Angel was the representative of the Messiah. I have noted on :11 the theme in Daniel of men and entities having Angelic representatives. It is only through reading the Old Testament in the light of the Lord Jesus that we can come to any correct understanding.</p>


text:
<p>So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was frightened, and fell on my face: but he said to me, Understand, son of man; for the vision concerns the time of the end- Daniel was face down (:18), the manner of the Jews to bury. He experienced a symbolic death and resurrection, because the vision concerned "the time of the end". Although the vision clearly concerned Antiochus and Alexander, clearly the essential fulfilment was not in them but in the events of the last days. This makes any other primary fulfilments of the prophecy no more than that- primary fulfilment. "The end" is the "end" is the final cleansing of the sanctuary (:14), "the end" of <a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a>; <a href='B:530 15:23'>1Co 15:23</a>, the visible return of the Lord Jesus to earth to destroy the blasphemous edifice and system then enthroned in Jerusalem.</p><p> Being addressed as "son of man" would have reminded Daniel of his contemporary prophet [and possibly acquaintance] Ezekiel, who over 90 times was addressed as "son of man". Just as Daniel falls on his face and is restored upright by an Angel (Dan. 8:17,18), so was Ezekiel: "When I saw it, I fell on my face... He said to me, son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak with you. The spirit entered into me when He spoke to me, and set me on my feet; and I heard Him who spoke to me" (Ez. 1:28; 2:1,2). These parallels between believers are common in spiritual life, and are often recorded in Biblical history. We are intended to see such connections, and this becomes the basis of being "in fellowship" in practice. No theological creed creates this fellowship; "doctrine divides; experience unites", as Paul Tournier put it long ago. 
</p><p> "For at the time of the end shall be the vision" (Dan. 8:17) would suggest that the things of the little horn etc. have their main fulfilment at the very end, before the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth, and not in any other time historically. Indeed we could fairly define "the vision" as the entire vision of the ram and goat (:1). This would then require the ram, goat and little horn to all have a specifically latter day interpretation. The obvious historical references to Persia and Greece were therefore merely the immediate potential fulfilment, which didn't fully come about in that there was no direct Divine intervention to re-establish God's Kingdom and eternally save His people. Just as all the metals of Dan. 2 and beasts of Dan. 7 exist in the last day, despite their clear historical references. 
</p>


text:
<p>Now as he was speaking with me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face toward the ground; but he touched me, and set me upright- See on :17; <a href='B:340 9:21'>Dan 9:21</a>. Clearly enough, as noted on :17, the time of Daniel’s resurrection was to be the time of the end, when these things would have their fulfilment. Any historical interpretations of the horn and desolation of the sanctuary are therefore not the essential fulfilments.</p>


text:
<p>He said, See, I will make you know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it concerns the appointed time of the end- This is as clear a statement as we could wish that the events described in the vision speak of the last days, and the historical fulfilments were only incipient, clear as they were.</p>


text:
<p>The ram which you saw, that had the two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia- It has just been stressed in :17,19 that the vision is of the time of the end. The obvious historical fulfilments in the kings of Media and Persia were therefore only primary fulfilments. There must be a latter day equivalent, but in the very last days, the times when Daniel would be resurrected (see on :17,18).</p>


text:
<p>The rough male goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king- Philip was king of Macedon before Alexander; this may be an example of where the prophecy will only have its ’best fit’ fulfilment in the last days (:17,19). Or "first" may simply mean ’greatest’. Their great leader, Alexander the great, was “the great horn” on the goat (<a href='B:340 8:21'>Dan 8:21</a>); this was broken, and four kingdoms arose out of that (<a href='B:340 8:22'>Dan 8:22</a>). But out of them arose “a king of fierce countenance” who was to be “broken without hand” (<a href='B:340 8:25'>Dan 8:25</a>). This is the very language of the entire image being broken by the stone cut out without hands, which speaks of the return of Christ to earth (<a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>). But at first blush, this seems out of chronological sequence- that a fierce king arising out of the breakup of the Greek empire [surely referring to Antiochus in its historical sense of fulfilment] should be broken by the second coming of Christ- many centuries later. But the problem is solved once we understand that the image stands erect and complete in the last days, in the sense that elements of all the previous empires and leaders would be incorporated in the final entity which shall be destroyed “without hand” by the return of the Lord Jesus. Daniel 7 has spoken of the fourth beast having a little horn which is destroyed by the coming of Christ and the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth. But Daniel 8 speaks of the third beast, the third kingdom of the image of Daniel 2, as having a “little horn” which is destroyed by the Kingdom of God. The conclusion would seem to be that at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, to whom the little horn of Daniel 8 clearly refers, there could have been the coming of Christ and establishment of the Kingdom. But this didn’t happen, and so Antiochus Epiphanes became a prototype of the latter day little horn, which will emerge from the fourth beast; and there is a large gap or delay in fulfilment between his time and that of Christ’s coming</p>


text:
<p>As for that which was broken, in the place where four stood up, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power- The four generals who took power after the death of Alexander the Great did not have "his power". But as laboured in :17,19, these historical events were not the ultimate fulfilment; they point forward to events specifically around the "time of the end", the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth, when Daniel shall be resurrected. We can look therefore for the arising of an individual like Alexander, who shall be broken before the Lord’s return.</p>


text:
<p>In the latter time of their kingdom- The idea could be that the historical kingdoms and related events of Greece, Antiochus, Medo-Persia etc. are to have their latter day fulfilment, as stressed in :17,19.</p><p>When the wicked have come to the full, a king of fierce appearance and understanding mysteries shall stand up- "When the wicked have come to the full" could mean "when the transgressors have completed (their guilt)", a similar idea to the iniquity of the Amorites becoming full, i.e. judgment came after a specified period. And why like that? Because that period was their opportunity for repentance. We marvel that a hardened blasphemer like Antiochus could be given a hope of repentance. We think of how God likewise tried to get Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar to repent and gave them a specific time period. It's the same idea of God elsewhere waiting until "the cup of iniquity was full" before judging as in Gen. 15:16: “The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full”. Likewise Mt. 23:32: “fill you up then the measure of your fathers” and 1 Thess. 2:16: “to fill up their sins”. This is the time of Dan. 9:24 "To make an end of sins". But that verse in Dan. 9 is in the midst of a quite different chronology, of the 70 weeks prophecy. Again we have to conclude that there were various chronological schemes that were potentially possible, such is God's sensitivity to human freewill, and His refusal to make His prophecies simply determinate predictions that rob man of his freewill.
</p><p> The same words for a king of fierce face are found in Dt. 28:49,50, describing the nation that will be brought upon a disobedient Israel in judgment: "Yahweh will bring a nation against you from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle flies; a nation whose language you will not understand; a nation of fierce face". That nation was embodied in this individual king. Just as there is confusion between king and kingdoms in all the visions. Dt. 28:50 can be understood on one hand as Rome, but as discussed on :1, the initial possible iteration of the vision concerned Antiochus Epiphanes. When that didn't work out, the kaleidoscope turned and it became relevant to Rome, and then it turned again, becoming relevant to the latter day antichrist. The whole vision of Dan. 8 is described as "the vision of the evenings and mornings" (:26) and this may also allude to Deuteronomy 28 and the curses for disobedience: : "In the morning you will say 'If only it was evening!' and in the evening you will say 'If only it was morning!' because of the great fear your heart will feel and because of the sight your eyes will see" (Dt. 28:67). 
</p><p> Antiochus Epiphanes is characterized by "understanding mysteries" in Dan. 8:23; he is a fake Daniel, who did understand (Dan. 1:4,17,20; 8:5,15; 9:2; 10:1). Just as he seeks to act as God. 
</p><p> This person arises in the time of the end- and this phrase in Daniel always has some reference to the time of the Lord’s return and Daniel’s personal resurrection (:17,19). He is to arise out of the Syrian Kingdom, i:e. part of the divided empire of Alexander the Great. Historically, this must refer to Antiochus who arose in the latter time of the kingdom of the four generals; Rome just doesn’t fit here. Some Protestant expositors seem to wish to see the Papacy here, and so have ignored the obvious application to Antiochus and tried to force everything into a Roman context. The individual king of fierce countenance applies so much better to Antiochus than to any of the Roman generals involved in the events of AD67-70. But whether Antiochus or Rome, the vision specifically refers to the very last days. The time when he will arise will be the time when “iniquity is come to the full”- which fits most comfortably with the very last days. The iniquity is that of :12, the sin of Israel in rejecting Jesus as Messiah. <a href='B:340 8:17'>Dan 8:17</a>; <a href='B:340 8:19'>Dan 8:19</a> make it clear: “The vision pertains to the time of the end... the final period of indignation... the appointed time of the end”. This is the time when Israel’s wickedness (:12) has come to its full point, when final judgment and deliverance will come. Such a point of the final filling up of Israel’s sin is envisaged in <a href='B:470 23:32'>Mat 23:32</a>; <a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a>. "Understanding mysteries" can mean that he would use deceit, as explained on :25. This makes sense when applied to Antiochus: "The king sent his chief collector of tribute, who came unto Jerusalem with a great multitude, and spake peaceable words unto them; but all was deceit: for when they had given him credence, he fell suddenly upon the city, and smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel... Antiochus sent also that detestable ringleader, Apollonius, with an army of two and twenty thousand, commanding him to slay all those that were in their best age, and to sell the women and the younger sort; who, coming to Jerusalem, and pretending peace, did forbear until the holy day of the Sabbath, when, taking the Jews keeping holyday, he commanded his men to arm themselves, and so he slew all them that were gone to the celebrating of the Sabbath" (1Ma_1:30; 2Ma_5:24). Dan. 11:27 provides the history; he would "obtain the kingdom by smooth sayings". The deceit of Antiochus was seen in how he deceived and destroyed his nephew, Ptolemy Philometor, in order to get power.</p><p>The manifestation of a Kingdom in its leader is to be found in the way the antiChrist is called "the king of fierce countenance" in <a href='B:340 8:23'>Dan 8:23</a>. But the entire nation or entity which persecute Israel in the last days is a "nation of fierce countenance" (the same words are used- <a href='B:50 28:50'>Deu 28:50</a>). Their leader is an embodiment of them.</p>


text:
<p>His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; he shall be very destructive, and shall prosper and do his own will- "But not by his own power" is yet another reminder that these powerful men and empires had actually no power of themselves, it was all given by God, as in Jn. 19:11; Is. 10:5 etc. We note that the interpretation in :24,25 differs somewhat from the original vision, which spoke of the desecration and destruction of the sanctuary. There is not reference to this in the interpretation. Possibly because the potential for Antiochus Epiphanes to do this wasn't realized. He did desecrate the sanctuary, but he didn't destroy the temple to the extent implied in the vision. The interpretation also makes no reference to the "host" or army given him in the vision. These aspects were unfulfilled in him; but did and will come true in future possible fulfilments of the prophecy. </p><p>See on <a href='B:730 21:12'>Rev 21:12</a>. The Lord was intensely intellectually conscious throughout His sufferings. Often it is possible to see in His words allusions to even seven or eight OT passages, all in context, all relevant. Reflect how His response to Pilate “thou couldest have no power against me"(<a href='B:500 19:11'>Joh 19:11</a>) was a reference to the prophecy of Daniel 8, about the persecutors becoming mighty “but not by his own power". The apparent mightiness was due to God giving him the power; that is the point. See on :12. God only gives power to the Gentile persecutors of Israel because of their sins and His desire for their repentance. This is why the repentance of Israel is such an important precondition for the Lord’s return, and we ought to be preaching it to them right now.</p><p>The reference however may also be to how the beast is given power not of himself but from the entity known as "the dragon" (<a href='B:730 13:2'>Rev 13:2</a>), an earlier entity which has arisen.</p><p>And he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people- Or, "the people of the holy ones". As noted on :10,11, each of God’s people have a representative Angel. What is done to them is effectively done to the Angels who represent them before the court of Heaven. The "holy ones" of :12,13 are clearly Angels. Again we have confirmed that in Daniel we are being invited to see God's host or people on earth as having representative Angels in Heaven. Hence the Lord Jesus will return with His holy ones or Angels with Him, in order to judge His holy ones on earth.</p>


text:
<p>Through his policy- "Policy" is the word elsewhere translated "wisdom" and it is used of Daniel himself in Dan. 1:17; 5:11,12,14. Likewise the little horn 'understands riddles', AV "understanding dark sentences" (:23), just as Daniel is described as doing (Dan. 5:12). Daniel repeatedly said that his wisdom was not from him, just as for the little horn "his strength will be mighty, but not with his own strength" (:23). "And so Daniel prospered" (Dan. 6:29) is the word thrice used of the little horn prospering (Dan. 8:12,24,25). The little horn is an anti-Daniel. Not simply evil, but actually a mimic of what is true and Godly; a veritable anti-Christ.</p><p> The singular "his" clearly refers to the latter day antiChrist individual in view. It appears somewhat of a twist to make this apply to generations of Roman Catholic leaders, as historicists do. It is the official policy of Islam to use deceit to bring down their enemies and to destroy under the banner of peace. The individual would fit a radical Islamist in the last days.</p><p>He shall cause deceit to prosper; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in their security shall he destroy many- Again, the initial application was to Antiochus. "In (time of) security he will destroy many" is the language used of him when we read the Biblically provided history of him in Dan. 11:21,24. Again we note that for all the reasons God could judge the little horn, the one given is his pride "in his heart", an internal attitude that God is so sensitive to.</p><p> The fierce king "by peace shall destroy many" (AV); perhaps alluded to in the prophecy that the sudden destruction wrought by the Lord’s return will be when men are saying "peace and safety" (<a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a>). This certainly sounds like the result of jihadist Islam, the [supposed] religion of peace. The Semitic consonants S-L-M are at the root of the words Islam and also Shalom, Salaam [Hebrew and Arabic for ’peace’]. There were no vowels in ancient Hebrew and Arabic. The connection is in that peace [’salaam’ in Arabic] is believed to come from ’islam’, submission. Muslim apologists frequently justify their religion by claiming that Islam is a religion of peace [even if they believe in murdering anyone who disagrees]. As we survey the atrocities being performed in the name of Islam today in the territory of the land promised to Abraham... we are seeing this being fulfilled. By peace / salaam / Islam, many are being destroyed. What however we are still waiting to see is more focus upon the leader of the jihadists, for these prophecies focus upon ’kings’ and ’horns’ [kings] more than more abstract ’kingdoms’. This may partly be because God attaches much importance to the responsibilities of leaders, but also because there must arise prominent leaders, especially an antiChrist figure who is the "fierce king" orchestrating this destruction of many by his religion of ’peace’.</p><p>The latter day beast of Revelation and his publicity agent likewise do apparent miracles; the little horn of <a href='B:340 8:24'>Dan 8:24</a> will destroy by miracles (AV “wonderfully”, but the Hebrew is elsewhere translated as ‘miracles’ or ‘performing miracles’). The Koran claims that God will perform miracles in support of Moslem activity and judgment of unbelievers, especially Israel. The prophet Mohammad is the pattern and “aim” of Islam and their leaders. The miracles attributed to Mohammad in the Hadith are similar to latter day judgments upon Israel. It may be that the Islamists bring these judgments in a manner which appears miraculous:</p><p>Multiplying bread and water Volume 4, Book 56, Numbers 779, 780</p><p>Making animals speak Volume 3, Book 39, Number 517</p><p>Splitting the moon Volume 6, Book 60, Number 388</p><p>Making stars appear Volume 1, Book 8, Number 454</p><p>Making rain Volume 8, Book 73, Number 115</p><p>Making a dead body arise Volume 4, Book 56, Number 814</p><p>Ascended into the sky and thence to Heaven</p><p>All these things are spoken of as happening in the various seal or trumpet judgments. It may be that the Caliph of the final jihadist Islamic entity does indeed appear to be able to do miracles, and he consciously does these things because he wishes to impersonate Mohammad. Remember article 8 of the Hamas Covenant: "Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model”- also quoted by the jihadists today.</p><p>The coming of the"wicked one"is"after the working [Gk. energeia] of the Satan". The Satan of the last days is as defined in Revelation 12 - the beast of the last days. But God sends "strong delusion that they should believe a lie"(<a href='B:600 2:9'>2Th 2:9</a>; <a href='B:600 2:11'>2Th 2:11</a>)."Strong delusion"again uses the same term, energeia. The energy in the whole thing is from God, not some ’satan’ in the orthodox sense of radical evil in the cosmos. The satan-beast of the last days is under God’s direct Angelic control, as made clear in Revelation. Due to the false miracles, the masses will flock to believe in this individual. We are already seeing something of the sort in the land promised to Abraham, where the Islamic extremism and its caliph is being believed and followed in a way which is strange and unbelievable to the rational observer. God will confirm these people so that they believe this individual and the beast-satan system behind him.</p><p>He shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human hand-&nbsp; </p><p> "The prince of princes" could initially refer to Michael the chief prince (Dan. 10:13), "the commander of the [Angelic] host of Yahweh" of Josh. 5:14,15. This was in view in earlier potential fulfilments through Antiochus Epiphanes. But in the last days, it applies to the Lord Jesus. "He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes" ultimately refers to God ("the God of gods" Dan. 11:36; "God of gods and Lord of kings", Dan. 2:47). The parallel "little horn" in Dan. 7 exalts himself against "the most high" (Dan. 7:8,11,20,25). In the latter days, this refers to God manifest in the Lord Jesus, the prince of the kings of the earth. But this didn't happen, because the Antiochus application was a potential that didn't happen. Just as in Dan. 11 everything fits so well, until we come to a sudden point when it no longer does. The application failed, but in essence will come true with a latter day Antiochus, another time of peace and safety, and the Lord Jesus. </p><p> The Lord Jesus is called"Messiah the Prince"in <a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a> in order to contrast with how the anti-Christ, the fake Christ, is also called"the prince of the host"in <a href='B:340 8:11'>Dan 8:11</a>."It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host"(ESV). This prince "shall stand up against the Prince of princes", the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:730 1:5'>Rev 1:5</a>; see on :11). There will be a final showdown between these two princes, and their respective followers and Kingdoms. The armies of the earth /land will be gathered together against those of the Lord Jesus. And the Moslems will eagerly rush into this final conflict, believing that this is"the Day of Discrimination, the day when the two armies met"(Sura 8:41). Being broken without human hand is clearly the language of the Lord’s return to destroy the king of the north and the entire image system he personifies (<a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan 2:34</a>; <a href='B:340 11:45'>Dan 11:45</a>). This individual therefore exists at the time of the Lord’s return and shall be destroyed thereby. It cannot therefore majorly refer to any system or individuals before that time. The historical fulfilment would have been in Antiochus dying not in battle but of a mysterious illness. It is hard to see any possible application to the destruction of any Roman entity associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.</p><p>The little stone cut out without human hand in Dan. 2 is the very phrase used of the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes, who "shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human hand" (Dan. 8:25). Clearly there was a possible potential fulfilment of the Dan. 2 prophecy at his time. But again, it didn't happen and the prophecy was again reapplied and reinterpreted. Antiochus died suddenly of a stroke. But the Kingdom of God didn't come, perhaps because Judas Maccabeus failed to be the potential Messiah figure. And above all, because the Jews were not spiritually ready and wanted their own kingdom rather than God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true: but seal up the vision; for it belongs to many days to come- Again we see emphasized, as in :17,19, that the obvious historical fulfilment in the likes of Alexander and Antiochus was only the incipient fulfilment; these things belong to the very last days, the time of Daniel’s personal resurrection (:17-19). The simple statement that the vision is true is lifted from <a href='B:340 2:45'>Dan 2:45</a>. As noted on :25, the destruction of the image system and the beasts is the same as the destruction of this latter day arrogant individual who will personify them. The vision was to be sealed until the time of the end, which <a href='B:340 12:9'>Dan 12:9</a> explains as meaning that it would not be understood until the time of the Lord’s return; as <a href='B:730 13:10'>Rev 13:10</a>. The unsealing of the scroll in Revelation therefore also majorly refers to the events of the very last days before the Lord’s return. Only then, when prophecy is being fulfilled before the eyes of the faithful, will the ultimate interpretation be apparent. All we can do now is muse over the primary fulfilments, and get some broad picture of how things shall unfold at the end. The purpose of prophecy is not to predict the future, but so that the generation that sees the fulfilment will realize that this was all foretold and all is going wonderfully according to plan. And the traumas of the last days will mean that this is vital encouragement.</p><p>
Daniel's prophecies, specifically those with potential for fulfilment under Antiochus, were "sealed". The implication may be that no matter how men go to and fro to find knowledge, the fulfilment will remain hidden. The text of the prophecies were possibly literally sealed but opened in the time of Antiochus. And they were written in Aramaic so that the Jews of the time clearly understood. But Is. 29 speaks of prophetic words being sealed, impossible of interpretation by learned and unlearned alike, as a result of Israel's sin and refusal to realize their potential. The sealing of the prophetic book there referred to a judgment in consequence of Judah's sins. Daniel's prophecies about the Antiochus period were sealed because they were only to come to fulfilment if the seals were removed by the fulfilment of various preconditions. This didn't happen. And so the concept is repeated in Revelation, where the scroll of the book of life, the ultimate sealed book, is unsealed by the Lamb after the seal events of the very last days.</p>


text:
<p>I Daniel, fainted, and was sick for some days; then I rose up, and did the king’s business: and I wondered at the vision- Daniel's trauma may be because he had lived through the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon, and was expecting restoration. But now he is given a vision of an even worse destruction of the temple and even more abuse of his people. For as yet he has not received the prophecies of Messiah and eternal restoration of Dan. 9 and 11. He had clearly under estimated the sin and impenitence of his people, and was still struggling to accept the conditional and flexible nature of Divine prophecy, as we see also in Dan. 9:1-4. And perhaps all God's children have struggled with these same things, especially those who come to accept they will likely die before their Lord returns; having lived their lives in expectation of His imminent coming. I suggest that it was Daniel's reflection upon these things at this point that led him to make the prayer of confession of sin of Dan. 9.
</p><p> Why the mention that after seeing these things, Daniel got up and went back to work doing the King's work? The idea is that like us, we understand clearly that kings and empires shall all pass away and we always even know some details about events leading up to that. But for now, we must go on with our workaday lives. Although doing what we do in the knowledge that all this shall pass away and is as light as the chaff that shall be blown away and known no more.
</p><p> This is the same kind of conclusion to Daniel 7; Daniel feels sick after the interpretation is given, having realized that the fulfilment was not until"many days to come"(:26). As noted on <a href='B:340 7:15'>Dan 7:15</a>, he had the welfare of God’s people so deeply in his heart that he felt actually ill because he realized that their restoration was not going to happen as had been potentially possible when Jeremiah first uttered the restoration prophecies and mentioned a 70 year period.</p><p>But none understood it- This may mean that he discussed it with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, but they too did not totally understand it. This lack of understanding was likely because he knew little about Greece.  "But none understood it" suggests Daniel shared it with others, but no one was able to explain it. Thus his experiences again repeat those of the kings for whom he had interpreted dreams. Just as we have experiences which enable us to understand the feelings of others in our lives. Likewise "fainted" means to be exhausted or sleepless, the verb used in Dan 2:1 for how the king's sleep fainted from him. Again by this Daniel was allowed to enter into the experiences of a man who had been in his life many years ago. We may pass through experiences which help us understand how someone felt with whom we intersected decades ago. 
</p><p> Daniel didn't understand the 2300 evening-morning period (Dan. 8:27), and in Dan. 9 he is given understanding (Dan. 9:2,22,23). The answer was in the 70 weeks prophecy. "Understand the vision" (Dan. 9:23) prefaces the 70 weeks prophecy, and the vision in view is that of Dan. 8, repeatedly called "the vision" (Dan. 8:1,2,13,15,17,26). The issues of Dan. 9:24 are exactly those of Dan. 8:12-14: transgression will be finished, everlasting righteousness will be brought, and a holy of holies anointed. But just as the 2300 period differs from the 1260 day period of Dan. 7, so the interpretation in Dan. 9 differs. Because the 70 weeks period is not 2300 evening-mornings. Likewise the 1260,1290 and 1335 day periods of Dan. 12 seem to offer yet another scenario. The language of Dan. 12:10,11 is that of Dan. 11:31-35, initially about the possible fulfilment in Antiochus Epiphanes. Surely we have to conclude that the time periods are flexible and changeable, as God factors in all the possible fulfilments in line with human freewill decisions. This really has to be the case, for otherwise Divine prophecy would be simply deterministic and rob man of any freewill.
</p>


text:
<p>In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans- Daniel would have known Isaiah's prophecies that Cyrus would or could have been the Messiah figure to save Judah. "Darius" was likely his general or another title for Cyrus. The 70 years prophecies of Jeremiah were all about 70 years dominance of Babylon ending with the restoration. Now was the time... but it wasn't happening. The end of the Babylonian domination of Judah spurred Daniel to study and pray for the restoration of the kingdom of God in the form of Judah. He had seen the first part of the image and beast prophecies come true, at least in its historical form. He obviously thought that in some sense, the"end"could come- if there was sufficient repentance. And his prayer of repentance was an attempt to demonstrate that. He didn’t merely resign himself to there having to be a further sequence of kings and kingdoms dominating the land before the end came. He was open to the idea of God’s flexibility and ability to change a predicted set of events, in line with human repentance and spirituality. Or perhaps he understood the image as standing complete under the headship of Babylon, and now being ready for destruction by the little stone, seeing that the Babylonian headship had now been removed.</p>


text:
<p>In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by the books- Not by vision and direct revelation, but by his own studies. Hence his deep disappointment when he received the visions of Daniel 7, 8 about how the end was not going to be after the 70 years of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but there had been delays incorporated into the Divine program because of Judah’s sin and refusal to fully repent. The record of this prayer is in the past tense (:4). It could be that after realizing at the end of Daniel 8 that things were not going to work out as had been potentially possible, Daniel recalls his previous prayer of his, and recognizes that it has not been answered as he had wished; it would be answered, but not within the time frame he had expected. And so was fulfilled <a href='B:330 14:14'>Eze 14:14</a>, which had stated that even Daniel could not avert the calamity to befall Judah.</p><p>It could be argued that in fact Daniel misunderstood. He was calculating 70 years from the first deportations from Judah, which he had been part of. But a fair case can be made that those 70 years should have been calculated from the destruction of the temple. Yet still God responds to Daniel's prayer and misunderstanding, doesn't point out where he had miscalculated, and instead responds by refocusing Daniel upon the final ultimate fulfilment of the restoration after the 70 weeks leading to Messiah's Kingdom. </p><p>The number of the years about which the word of Yahweh had come to Jeremiah the prophet for the accomplishing of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years- God has intentions that He has placed in history. But this doesn't mean that man is predetermined beyond his freewill. Always there is a flexible element in prophecies, to allow for the human response element. No new vision appears after Dan. 8- what we have in  Dan. 9-12 is explanation and further development of that vision. The explanations are in Dan. 8:17,19-26; 9:24-27 and Dan. 11:2-12:3. Clearly the kaleidoscope was turning and the elements being rearranged to give different scenarios as the primary possibilities were precluded by various human failures to meet the preconditions. Daniel understood that after 70 years Jerusalem must be restored; but he earnestly prayed for their forgiveness so that this would happen (<a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a> cp. 19). Perhaps he opened his window and prayed towards Jerusalem exactly because he wanted to fulfil 2 Chronicles 6 : “If they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn, and pray unto thee… toward their land… and toward the city which thou hast chosen”. He knew that repentance was a precondition for the promised restoration to occur.</p><p>In the context of the returning exiles, Daniel was aware that the 70 years of desolation had to be fulfilled, and yet he asks God not to defer the promised restoration(<a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a> cp. 19), as if he understood that the predicted revival of Israel could still be delayed by God on account of their unpreparedness, even though it was prophesied. Daniel understood from Jeremiah’s prophecies that Jerusalem’s fortunes would be revived after the 70 year period was ended. Yet he goes on to ask God to immediately forgive His people, as if Daniel even dared hope that the period might be shortened. Daniel lived into the reign of Cyrus (<a href='B:340 6:28'>Dan 6:28</a>), and so he would have witnessed “the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” (<a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a>; <a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>). But it seems to me that whilst the prophecy of the 70 years came true in one sense, the Jews didn’t respond as they should, and so the time of Zion’s true freedom in the Messianic Kingdom was delayed. Daniel had been petitioning the Father to not delay beyond the 70 year period in doing this. But in another sense, the prophecy was re-interpreted; Daniel was now told that there was to be a “seventy weeks of years” (<a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a> RSV) period involved in order to gain ultimate forgiveness for Israel as Daniel had just been praying for. The 70 years had become “seventy weeks of years”. The command to rebuild Jerusalem was given in the first year of Cyrus (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>); but Daniel must have watched in vain for any sign that Zion’s glad morning had really come. And so it is recorded that in the third year of Cyrus Daniel was given a vision that confirmed to him that “the thing was true, but the time appointed was long [Heb. ‘extended’; the word is also translated “greater”, “more”]: and he understood the thing” (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>). What was “the thing” that was true, which Daniel sought to understand? Surely it was the vision of the 70 years that he had sought to “understand” in <a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a>. The Hebrew “dabar”, translated “thing”, is usually translated “word”. He was comforted that the word of prophecy would come true; it was “noted in the scripture of truth” (<a href='B:340 10:21'>Dan 10:21</a>). It was just that it had been extended in its fulfilment; “for yet the vision is for many days” (<a href='B:340 10:14'>Dan 10:14</a>). And this was how he came to “understand the thing / word”. The essential and ultimate fulfilment of the 70 years prophecy would only be after a long time, involving 70 “weeks of years”. Thus Daniel came to “understand” the vision (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>); hence he was so shocked, depressed and disappointed that the fulfilment would not be in his days. But he is set up as a representative of those of us in the very last days who shall likewise “understand” (s:w. <a href='B:340 12:10'>Dan 12:10</a>) the very same prophecies which Daniel studied. Daniel is described as both understanding, and also not understanding (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>; <a href='B:340 12:8'>Dan 12:8</a>). Surely the idea is that he understood the principle of deferment and the outline meaning of the prophecy; but he didn’t understand the details. And so perhaps it is with us who will, or do, likewise “understand” as Daniel did.</p><p>The prophecy of 70 years exile in Babylon is specifically stated as having been fulfilled in the first year of Cyrus (2 Chron. 36:20-22, "till seventy years were completed... in the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, when the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah was fulfilled"). But it is also said to have been fulfilled in the second year of Darius: "O Yahweh of Armies, how long will You not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which You have had indignation these seventy years?" (Zech. 1:12; the rest of Zech. 1 shows that God has indeed had mercy on Jerusalem). Daniel 9 could be reinterpreting the 70 years as 70 'sevens'; or, adding another 70 'sevens' to the 70 years. Clearly fulfilment of time periods can be delayed or made open to various starting and ending points. Such is the open ended nature of such prophecies.  Another possibility is that the taking of Babylon by "Darius" [unknown in secular history] was effectively by Cyrus. Daniel would have known Isaiah's prophecies, that had in advance named Cyrus as the Messiah. But that hadn't quite happened as envisaged in Isaiah- hence Daniel's concern.</p><p> The end of the exile and the restoration was the time when the prophecies of Jeremiah about 70 years would be fulfilled. It should be noted that Jer. 25:11 specifically states that the 70 years would be the length of the Babylonian kingdom: "And those nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years". Jer. 29:10 is explicit: "When Babylon’s seventy years are over". I suggested on Dan. 2 that the initial possible fulfilment of the image prophecy was in the Babylonian kingdom from Nebuchadnezzar onwards until its fall. The beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is often dated to 605 BC; and so the defeat of Babylon in BC 538 roughly 70 years later would mean that Darius was Cyrus [or his army general], and this was when the Jews were intended to return. But Cyrus failed to be the intended Messiah figure and the Jews generally preferred the soft life in Babylon rather than the restoration of Zion. And so there had to be the prophecy of Daniel 9 to provide another path forward.</p><p> I suggest that having read of the 70 year period in Jer. 29:10, Daniel went on to Jer. 29:12-14, which predicate the prophecy coming true upon Israel's prayer- and therefore he prays the prayer we have here: "When you call to Me and come and pray to Me, I will give heed to you. You will search for Me and find Me, if only you seek me wholeheartedly. I will be at hand for you – declares the Lord – and I will restore your fortunes. And I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places to which I have banished you – declares the Lord – and I will bring you back to the place from which I have exiled you". The time period was conditional upon Israel's prayer- just as prayer plays a huge part in the realisation of the final time periods. Daniel understood it was conditional and therefore he prays. Daniel is in fact praying hoping against hope; for he surely was aware of the words of his contemporary prophet Ezekiel, who had stated that even if Noah, Job and Daniel were to intercede for the remnant, they could save none but themselves (Ez. 14:12-20). But like Moses, he prays for what he has been told was impossible; or we think of Jeremiah, praying when God had told him not to pray any more for Judah. The problem was that one man's prayer could not be counted for all Israel. But Daniel gallantly tries- and fails. The Lord Jesus set His face to Jerusalem as Daniel set his face to Jerusalem to pray. And He succeeded where Daniel as a good but imperfect man had to fail. However his prayer did elicit Angelic response (:21-23)- the essence of the prayer would be even more gloriously answered, but not immediately, as Daniel clearly hoped. We see the same with the Lord's request not to actually have to die on the cross and to be saved from that death. In one sense the 70 years prophecies were fulfilled (2 Chron. 36:21) but in another they weren't. But even the response to the prayer, in the 70 weeks prophecy, was open to adjustment. Even the word for "weeks" is literally 'sevens' and could apply to seven periods of things other than days. For it is hard to find a clear historical interpretation of the 7 - 62 - 1 week program outlined. Finding credible starting points is very difficult. Any interposition of a 'gap' within the 70 weeks [e.g. placing the final half week in the last days] surely is at variance with the whole idea of a 70 week period. The 'anointed one' initially could have been Cyrus (Is. 45:1), Zerubbabel or Joshua the High Priest. They all failed in their potentials. Cyrus was the best initial fulfilment option, appearing 49 years [7 'weeks'] after the destruction of the temple. But he failed in his potential, being distracted by worldly power and paying too much attention to the pressure from his princes and his son Cambyses. The rest of the 70 weeks prophecy goes awry after that point; just as Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled so much about the little horn and "king of the north" in Dan. 7,8,11, but failed to fulfil to the end. Various other preconditions, especially the spiritual state of God's people, were not met. And so the kaleidoscope turns again, and we have these things deferred until the last days. This is the genre of apocalyptic. All attempts to view these scriptures as simple linear predictions of events will fail. With the possible exception of the Lord's Olivet Prophecy, which is about events solely in the very last few days before His coming, Bible prophecy in the apocalyptic genre is not intended to have a single simple linear, chronological fulfilment. We naturally enquire why we have so much detail about scenarios that didn't come true; the same question as to why we have all the detail of Ez. 40-48 about the commands relating to a temple the exiles should have built but didn't. It is to bring us to the spirit of David in Ps. 139, marvelling at how much knowledge God has. Not only of our thoughts and actions before we do them, but of all our multiple potentials that didn't come true. And those of His collective people. The result of the 70 weeks was "to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness" (:24). This ultimately was not in practice achieved by the 70 weeks prophecy; it finally comes true through the work of the Lord Jesus coming to its full term at His return.</p><p> Another possibility is that there is an intentional ambiguity in how Jer. 25:11,12 speaks of "seventy years". The Hebrew word for "Seventy" is composed of consonants which with different vowel points could read "weeks". After 'weeks of years', the restoration would come. The difference is between shav’uim [weeks] or shiv’im [seventy]. And Daniel is being told that Israel's impenitence and the failure of the Messiah figures meant that God was now reading this as weeks of years, not 'seventy years'. 
</p><p> We note that Daniel was reading and responding to God's word through Jeremiah. In response, he has a word from God (Dan. 9:25). This is a more dramatic instance of what happens in the life of every believer. Our hearing of God's word leads to His word in response to us, in that His word is a living word.  
</p><p> Jeremiah's prophecies against Babylon were sent to Babylon when Zedekiah visited Babylon in the fourth year of his reign (Jer. 51:59-61). Quite possibly it was from this that Daniel became aware of Jeremiah's prophecies. </p>


text:
<p>I set my face to the Lord God- Daniel prayed with his windows open toward Jerusalem. Yet he was praying to God, not Jerusalem as a city or the temple as a material place. The physical praying toward Jerusalem was merely to focus him upon the essence, that God was still somehow present in ruined, Divinely judged Jerusalem. If however the idea is that he prayed heavenwards, this could be read as him recognizing that as Ezekiel had described, the glory of the Divine presence had indeed now left Jerusalem.</p><p>To seek by prayer and petitions, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes- He recognized that Bible prophecy isn’t just automatically fulfilled. He realized that the idea of revival after 70 years required prayer and deep repentance. Or maybe that 70 year period had already expired, and so Daniel begs for the restoration to happen. We see here the openness of God, which is a function of His extreme sensitivity to human prayer and repentance. This is why the 70 year period was understood by Daniel to be flexible, and why there are various time periods in Daniel which apparently reflect the varying possibilities in fulfilment. This is why we can never construct an exact chronology of latter day events in advance. So much is open.</p><p> "Petitions", Heb. hanan, is a form of the common word for 'grace'. He was looking for grace, realizing, as he clearly states, that Israel have sinned, broken the covenant and didn't deserve anything from God. </p>


text:
<p>I prayed to Yahweh my God, and made confession, and said, Oh Lord- The Hebrew for "prayed" is strictly 'to make intercession'. Daniel wasn't simply asking for something. He saw himself as interceding for Israel, based on his own rightness with God, and begging God to show grace to His impenitent people who had broken His covenant. He failed and His prayer as it stood went unanswered, in the short term. But the answer was the revelation of the Messiah, who would successfully mediate and make an end of all sin.</p><p> John Collins has observed that the prayer"flows smoothly, full of traditional phrases and free of Aramaisms"(Daniel p. 347). This is what we would expect when a native Hebrew speaker prays in Hebrew to his God; we can have every confidence that we are reading the actual words prayed by a man many centuries ago. The Hebrewtranslated"confession"is the common word used for praise or worship. To confess sin in such true penitence is the ultimate worship; we too easily associate worship with musical performance, but this is not the idea in Hebrew thought. God may be worshipped upon or using musical instruments, but the essence of worship is within the heart.</p><p>The great and dreadful God- The phrase is used to distinguish God from the gods of the nations (<a href='B:50 7:21'>Deu 7:21</a>; <a href='B:50 10:17'>Deu 10:17</a>; <a href='B:130 16:25'>1Ch 16:25</a>; <a href='B:230 96:4'>Psa 96:4</a>; there are many allusions to Deuteronomy in this prayer). Daniel realized that idolatry was the essence of Israel’s sin. That there is only one God has such huge implications in human life. This title of God is also used by Nehemiah (<a href='B:160 1:5'>Neh 1:5</a>; <a href='B:160 4:14'>Neh 4:14</a>; <a href='B:160 9:32'>Neh 9:32</a>). Nehemiah was also influenced in his prayer of penitence by Daniel’s prayer. We too should reflect Biblical influence in our words and reasoning; in this sense the Bible becomes a living word, a word for our lives.</p><p>Who keeps covenant and loving kindness with those who love Him and keep His commandments- Daniel accepts that covenant relationship requires obedience, and yet he is going to confess that Israel have been disobedient; and he has faith that despite their continued disobedience, his singular repentance and prayer might be accepted by God, so that the covenant blessings might be restored to Israel. This speaks to the issue of whether God’s grace is conditional or not. As Daniel states, the grace of"loving kindness"of the new covenant is conditional upon obedience; and yet that grace is such by its nature that we can hope to receive this grace despite personal disobedience, through the mediation of another (the Lord Jesus, in our case). If Daniel had not understood that, he would not have prayed this prayer as he did.</p><p>It has been well argued that the prayers of Dan. 9 and Neh. 9 alludes heavily to Zechariah and Haggai's calls for repentance in order that the Kingdom be reestablished. "In both we see the key role of the prophets in warning the earlier generation (Zech 1:4, 5, 6; 7:7, 12; cf. Neh 9:26, 30; Ezra 9:10–11; Dan. 9:6, 10) and the use of the construction of ביד to speak of the agency of these prophets (Zech 7:12; cf. Neh 9:30; Ezra 9:11; Dan 9:10). In both we see the function of the law as the standard rejected by the earlier generation (Zech 7:12; cf. Neh 9:16, 29, 34; Ezra 9:10, 14; Neh 1:7; Dan 9:5, 10–11) and the near identity of the words of the prophets and the law (Zech 7:12; 1:6a; cf. Neh 9:29, 34; Dan. 9:10–11). In both the earlier generation is identified as אבות (Zech 1:2, 4, 5, 6; 8:14; cf. Neh 9:2, 9, 34, 36; Ezra 9:7; Neh 1:6; Dan 9:16; Ps 106:6, 7) and the sin of that generation is linked with the present generation (Zech 1:6b, 8:14; cf. Neh. 9:32–37; Ezra 9:6–7; Neh 1:6–7; Dan 9; Ps 106:6). Finally, in both there is an admission of the justice of God (Zech 1:6b; cf. Neh 9:33; Ezra 9:15; Dan 9:6,14)".</p>


text:
<p>We have sinned and have dealt perversely, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even turning aside from Your precepts and from Your ordinances- The prayers of Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9 are similar to this prayer, with the faithful individual taking upon himself the guilt of the nation. Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel were likely inspired and encouraged by the examples of each other in doing so. It is the very opposite of the guilt by association mentality which is so strongly within human nature, and which has been wrongly glorified in so many religious communities. These men eagerly accepted the guilt by association, because they so loved God’s people and were themselves part of that people. The Lord Jesus on the cross exemplified this attitude. As stated in :4, covenant relationship and the related blessings were conditional upon obedience; Israel had been disobedient, and were impenitent on an individual level. And yet as noted on :4, that grace is such by its nature that we can hope to receive this grace despite personal disobedience, through the mediation of another (the Lord Jesus, in our case). If Daniel had not understood that, he would not have prayed this prayer as he did.</p><p>"Done wickedly"translates the word usually understood as ’condemned’, and the word for"ordinances"[literally ’verdicts’] continues the legal language. Israel had sinned and been condemned. And yet Daniel even at this stage pleads for their restoration and salvation. Paul develops this in Romans; we are condemned sinners, the verdict has been given; and yet even in our dire situation we can still be not only forgiven but counted righteous, thanks to the new covenant in Christ. The essence of the new covenant was what was promised to Abraham, so it was in operation at Daniel’s time.</p><p>The triple mention of "sin... iniquity... and wickedness" is answered in :24. These were to be dealt with [and in a more permanent and more glorious way] by the work and cutting off of Messiah. The very thought of which initially would have struck desperation and bitter disappointment into Daniel's heart. Likewise :16,18 and :20 speak of the city, temple and people. Dan. 9:24 says these will suffer- but be restored by the 'cut off' Messiah. For us too, the very things that strike deep into our hearts with desperation, illness, death itself etc., are in the end all part of a far more glorious and eternal salvation than any immediate answer to our prayers could ever achieve. </p>


text:
<p>Neither have we listened to Your servants the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land- The prophetic ministry is not described in such detail in the historical accounts. This verse implies that they spoke not simply occasionally to kings and leaders, but to absolutely everyone in Israelite society. Daniel was himself a prophet and yet he identifies himself here with the disobedient people, whom"we"had not listened to. This deep self-identity with sinners when not having sinned personally in that way is the essence of the work of the Lord Jesus and of all those in Him.</p>


text:
<p>Lord, righteousness belongs to You, but to us shame of face, as at this day- As explained on :5, Israel had sinned and were in shame. Confession of sin involves an acceptance that Yahweh is righteous, and we are not. We see the same in David’s confessions of sin after the Bathsheba incident. One title of the Lord Jesus is"the Lord our righteousness"; our confessed sin is a declaration that the Lord is righteous, and through imputed righteousness, all those in the Lord Jesus are therefore and thereby declared as righteous. If righteousness"belongs to You", then we are to identify with that righteousness rather than our own sinfulness. On a psychological level, the essence of repentance and indeed Christianity is a question of identity; despite our past and ongoing sinfulness, with whom and with what do we essentially self-identify? With our sin, or His righteousness?</p><p>To the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, who are near and who are far off, through all the countries where You have driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against You- Daniel and Judah were in captivity, but the ten tribe kingdom of Israel had been scattered by the Assyrians much earlier. But Daniel’s vision was that repentance by himself and the remnant of Judah could lead to a total restoration of all Israel, in line with the prophecies of the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>Lord, to us belongs shame of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against You- This repeated emphasis upon"shame of face"(:7) or ’blushing’ reflectshow deeply Daniel felt the presence of God. In that presence, he as it were blushed with shame. This is how close we can realize God’s presence. In :6, Daniel has spoken of the shame of the same categories, the kings, princes, fathers and common people. Daniel was a prince (<a href='B:340 1:9'>Dan 1:9</a>), but here he identifies himself with the common people. He speaks of"us", and then the kings, princes and fathers. He is a powerful example of identifying with people in order to try to save them, just as God did in His very human Son. And our outreach to the world is likewise at its best when we identify with our target audience. He had learnt all this from Jeremiah, whose prophecies he was now considering: "righteousness belongs unto You, but unto us [Jeremiah included] confusion of faces" (Jer. 7:19).</p>


text:
<p>To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgiveness; for we have rebelled against Him- The term"mercies and forgiveness"is only used twice, and each time about how the punished exiles could receive mercy and forgiveness if they repented (<a href='B:110 8:50'>1Ki 8:50</a>; <a href='B:290 55:7'>Isa 55:7</a>). But they had not repented, yet Daniel seeks to as it were do this for them."Rebelled"is the word and idea used of how Israel rebelled against God in the desert and therefore didn’t return to the promised land (<a href='B:40 14:9'>Num 14:9</a>), and the word is repeatedly used about those who apparently rebelled in not wanting to inherit the land intended for them (<a href='B:60 22:16'>Jos 22:16</a>; <a href='B:60 22:18-19'>Jos 22:18-19</a>; <a href='B:60 22:29'>Jos 22:29</a>). The same had happened with the exiles; they had rebelled, and most of them preferred to remain in Babylon rather than enter the promised land (<a href='B:160 9:26'>Neh 9:26</a>; <a href='B:330 2:3'>Eze 2:3</a>; <a href='B:330 20:38'>Eze 20:38</a>). Daniel is aware of the situation, and yet has the spiritual vision to believe that in the spirit of Moses influencing God to all the same save Israel, so he could perhaps alter the nation’s condemnation and bring about the immediate restoration of the Kingdom in his lifetime. God didn’t agree to this, giving the 70 weeks prophecy as His response; after all, most of Judah had remained in Babylon and didn’t want the good news of the restored Kingdom. The essence of Daniel’s request would come true, but not the timing. It seems he was too strongly influenced by his personal desire not to die and to see the restored Messianic Kingdom in his own lifetime.</p>


text:
<p>Neither have we obeyed the voice of Yahweh our God to walk in His laws, which He set before us by His servants the prophets- We note that the words of the prophets were still counted as God’s"law"(:11); this means that the"law"could be ammended, added to, and also subtracted from. Many of the laws were only really applicable to Israel in the wilderness; and this affects the issue of the Sabbath. The laws were not eternal but flexible, even in Old Testament times; and this paves the way for understanding the abrogation of those laws by the Lord’s death.</p><p>Another take is that the "laws" in view were those given by the prophets, not those mediated to Israel by the priests as the law of Moses was. Possibly what is in view are the laws for the restoration given in Ez. 40-48 and the offer of a new covenant by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. All this had been unresponded to by God's people. God had offered to write His laws in the hearts of the exiles. And they had refused to be open to that.</p><p>
Daniel's confession in :10-12 is full of allusion to Deuteronomy. He is admitting that Israel broke the old covenant and are receiving the results of doing so. Yet he still asks for forgiveness and restored relationship with God. This is his way of asking that the promised new covenant be put into operation by God. This request was answered in the 70 weeks prophecy, which speaks of Messiah being cut off and the ultimate ending of sin and its consequences. It was just that the timing was not going to be immediate, as Daniel hoped. But the essence of his prayer was to be gloriously answered, on a scale far beyond what he could have then imagined.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, all Israel have transgressed Your law- Again Daniel focuses upon the ten tribes as well as Judah,"all Israel", because his vision was for the fulfilment of the prophecies of Israel’s total restoration from wherever they had been scattered.</p><p>Turning aside, that they should not obey Your voice- The"turning aside"was in order that they should not obey; the idea is that they turned their ears away so that they didn’t hear what they had to obey. I suggest that the psychological basis for all apparently intellectual failure to understand God’s voice is because we subconsciously fear that if we understand rightly, we shall have to obey. See on :18.</p><p>Therefore the curse and the oath written in the law of Moses the servant of God has been poured out on us; for we have sinned against Him- The Mosaic curse for disobedience to the oath was punishment"seven times". Daniel seems to have thought that the sacking of the temple and Babylonian exile was that"seven times"punishment. The prophecy of the 70 weeks seems to be saying that the time of punishment was not yet over, not least because Israel had not repented, and most of the Jews preferred to remain in Babylon rather than participate in the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>He has confirmed His words which He spoke against us, and against our judges who judged us, by bringing on us a great evil- The term"great evil"is exactly that used about the"great evil"of Judah’s sins (<a href='B:150 9:13'>Ezr 9:13</a>; <a href='B:160 13:27'>Neh 13:27</a>; <a href='B:300 44:7'>Jer 44:7</a>). The sin was in effect its own punishment; the"great evil"of their sin was matched with the"great evil"of the Babylonian invasion and exile (<a href='B:300 16:10'>Jer 16:10</a>; <a href='B:300 32:42'>Jer 32:42</a>).</p><p>For under the whole Heaven such has not been done as has been done to Jerusalem- Daniel would have been unable to legitimately say this if he referred to the whole planet; for all he knew, similar desolations had been wrought in other laces and times."The whole Heaven"in view was as it were the sky over the land promised to Abraham, the earth-heaven system in Daniel refers specifically to that area, as I have explained on Daniel 2 and Daniel 7.</p>


text:
<p>As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil has come on us: yet have we not entreated the favour of Yahweh our God, that we should turn from our iniquities, and accept Your truth- Daniel doesn’t say ’We have not prayed for forgiveness’, rather does he say ’We have not prayed that we might be turned away from our sins’. The promised blessing of the Spirit, that which was promised to Abraham, was not simply forgiveness but a being turned away from our sins, the same phrase is used in <a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a>. Daniel realized likewise that the gift of a holy spirit can be received from God; He can give us a new worldview, a new pair of eyes, a psychological acceptance of Divine truth. Daniel recognizes that sin is addictive, and we need to pray for direct Divine action upon the human heart so that we might turn away from sin and accept His Truth. Although Judah had not turned away from their sins, Daniel uses the same word to ask God to turn away His judgment of Zion (:16). He clearly had the spiritual vision to believe in the power of God’s grace to accept the mediation of just one person, on behalf of those who are impenitent. We think of how the Lord accepted the faith of the friends on behalf of their friend (<a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>)."The truth"which they should accept would be the great truth that they had sinned, and that God through His grace could save them out of that sin to restoration through the Spirit."Mercy and truth"is a common phrase for the promises to Abraham, and according to <a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a> the turning away from sins is part of this covenant promise. The greatest, final truth is that we hopeless sinners have been forgiven by grace. And will surely be saved.</p><p>
"Accept your truth" can be rendered as RV "have discernment in Thy truth". Meaning to acquire insight into God’s revealed will, and to think and act in accordance with it. This is the meaning of "understand" in Dan. 9:25; 11:33,35; 12:3,10. Daniel repeatedly does not understand these later visions of God's word. He feels this is because of how closely identified he is with Israel in their sinfulness and judgment for it.
</p>


text:
<p>Therefore has Yahweh watched over the evil, and brought it on us- The idea of God 'watching' to fulfil His word in Dan. 9:14 is also taken from Jeremiah, who begins his prophecy speaking of the almond tree, the tree of watching over or hastening (Jer. 1:11,12). The idea was that God watches for the moment to make His word come true, whether for good or evil. This of itself shows us the nature of Bible prophecy. The prophetic words are not determinate, meaning that certain things will happen regardless of human freewill. God has stated His intentions, and is waiting for the right time to fulfil it. Hence Daniel alludes to this idea, because He wants God to in one sense hasten His plan to re-establish His Kingdom, and wants Him there and then to seize the opportunity to fulfil it. In other words, God watches eagerly for human behaviour and required  preconditions which enable Him to judge or save. Thus He waits until a certain amount of iniquity has built up before judging sinners; and waits in Daniel's case [or, as Daniel then understood it] for a certain amount of prayer and penitence before fulfilling His word of final salvation.</p><p> The implication could be that the evil is pronounced, but there is a period of time after that during which repentance is possible. This was clearly seen in the lives of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. But because Judah refused to repentant, God watched over the evil and brought it upon them. The idea may be that the Angels who are the eyes of Yahweh watched upon it, i:e. they brought it about.</p><p>For Yahweh our God is righteous in all His works which He does, and we have not obeyed His voice-&nbsp; Again we see that repentance involves the declaration of God as right and ourselves as wrong (<a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a> etc:).</p>


text:
<p>Now, Lord our God, You who brought Your people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and has gotten Yourself renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly- Daniel wished God to bring Judah back from Babylon to the land just as He had brought Israel out of Egypt to the same land. But the reality was that most of Jewry remained in Babylon and didn’t want to restore the kingdom themselves.</p>


text:
<p>Lord, according to all Your righteousness, please let Your anger and Your wrath be turned away- The spirit of this prayer is that God has rightly decreed judgment upon Israel, but the course of that projected history can be changed or ammended in outworking by prayer and repentance. This is similar to what Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar experienced, both being given the chance to repent in order to avoid stated judgments. The openness of God is seen clearer in Daniel than anywhere else. Jeremiah prayed at this point because <a href='B:300 29:10-14'>Jer 29:10-14</a> had predicted that after the 70 years, Judah would pray to God and the kingdom be restored; and Daniel saw himself as representative of Judah, reasoning that the prayer of just one man could be counted as that of the nation. Although in this case God didn’t accept that, the principle was valid and is exemplified in the work and mediation of the Lord Jesus for us:"For thus says Yahweh, After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you and perform My word of grace towards you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, says Yahweh, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you hope and a future. You shall call on Me, and you shall go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You shall seek Me and find Me, when you shall search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you, says Yahweh, and I will turn again your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places where I have driven you, says Yahweh; and I will bring you again to the place from where I caused you to be carried away captive".</p><p>From Your city Jerusalem, Your holy mountain; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Your people have become a reproach to all who are around us- The same word for"reproach"is repeatedly used in Nehemiah of the"reproach"of Judah even after the exiles returned. The end of Judah’s"reproach"was associated with the projected restoration from Babylon and reestablishment of God’s Kingdom in the form of Judah under a Messianic ruler (<a href='B:290 54:4'>Isa 54:4</a>; <a href='B:330 36:15'>Eze 36:15</a>; <a href='B:330 36:30'>Eze 36:30</a> cp. <a href='B:360 2:19'>Joe 2:19</a>). But while God’s word was a"reproach"to Judah, so their reproach would continue (<a href='B:300 6:10'>Jer 6:10</a> s:w:). Judah’s reproach was to be"eternal"(<a href='B:300 23:40'>Jer 23:40</a>), but Daniel believed that the restoration prophecies about the removal of reproach would reverse this. So to pray for the"reproach"to end was tantamount to asking for the prophecies of the restoration to come true. Daniel certainly had spiritual ambition and vision in praying for this, when the spiritual preconditions in Judah were simply not there. He had learnt from the example of Moses and his own life, that God is prepared to bless a spiritually weak majority for the sake of a righteous minority and their intercession. And this is the essence of what was achieved in the Lord Jesus, as Romans 1-8 makes clear.</p><p>The"great mountain"ofGod’s Kingdom fills the whole earth, but the mountain initially begins at one point on the planet. Elsewhere in Daniel, the mountain is defined superficially as Jerusalem:"Your city Jerusalem, even Your holy mountain". The toes are therefore specifically dominating Jerusalem at the initial point of impact of the stone upon the land. And this is what we would expect from an Islamist confederacy dominating the land of Israel- Jerusalem is the key issue for them. And we know from Zechariah that"the city shall be taken".</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, our God, listen to the prayer of Your servant, and to his petitions- Daniel had the vision to believe that"just"for the sake of his singular intercession, this restoration of God’s Kingdom in Judah could occur. He clearly understood ’the power of one’, as Peter Stringer put it to me some years ago. This is the spirit of Christ in Daniel; for our redemption as condemned sinners is on account solely of His work for us, the just for the unjust.</p><p>And cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake- The 70 weeks prophecy, given in response to this prayer, speaks of the placing of an abomination which desolates, using the same word as used here for"desolate". The answer was that indeed the desolation would finally be removed, but not when Daniel hoped, i:e. immediately, in his lifetime. The word is repeatedly used in the curses of <a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a>; <a href='B:30 26:31-32'>Lev 26:31-32</a>; <a href='B:30 26:34'>Lev 26:34</a>. <a href='B:30 26:35'>Lev 26:35</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a> mention that the desolation of the land would be to cover all the Sabbaths and jubilees that had not been kept. The prophecy of seventy sevens of continued desolation until the final cleansing could refer to 70 weeks or Sabbaths or jubilee years. The shining of God’s face upon Zion is the language of Isaiah’s prophecies of the restoration; Daniel was praying that the Messianic, restored kingdom would then be reestablished on account of his prayer.</p>


text:
<p>My God, turn Your ear, and hear- As noted on :11, Israel had turned away their ears from God’s word lest they understood it and had to obey it. Daniel recognizes this, but had such an insight into the depth of God’s grace and His willingness to accept the intercession of just one man, that he asks God all the same to turn His ear to Judah’s desolation.</p><p>Open Your eyes, and see our desolations, and the city which is called by Your name: for we do not present our petitions before You for our righteousness, but for Your great mercies’ sake- Daniel has admitted that Judah have turned their ear away from God (:11) and were impenitent. But he doesn’t therefore assume that God will not respond to them. He realizes that grace means that God can cover even that, for the sake of the intercession of the faithful. And so he appeals to God’s great grace, admitting that Judah had absolutely no righteousness of their own, and that despite their sins, Zion was still called by God’s Name, claimed as His own because He had an eternal purpose with it. This is the great significance of being baptized into that Name and thereby also becoming those claimed as God’s very own, whom He will continue to work with according to His purpose even if we turn away from Him.</p><p>Daniel speaks of presenting the prayers of others, as if he were a priest. When he was from the royal family, and therefore from Judah. Likewise the whole work of intercession with God for Israel's sins was what the High Priest did on the Day of Atonement. He was forced by circumstance and lack of a visible high priest to do this, just as many who feel unqualified are forced by circumstance to pastor their families or other flocks of God's people. </p>


text:
<p>Lord, hear; Lord, forgive; Lord, listen and do; don’t defer, for Your own sake, my God, because Your city and Your people are called by Your name- As noted on :18, this appeal was for God to hear a people who didn’t hear Him (see on :11), to forgive those who were impenitent, to listen to those who didn’t listen to God. It was an appeal to His absolute grace and willingness to accept intercession. And that grace was ’God’s own sake’, it is at the very heart of God and is the quintessence of all He is and stands for."Don’t defer"reflects Daniel’s understanding that the purpose of God can be delayed or deferred; the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah appeared to him to be being delayed in fulfilment, and the answer he receives in the 70 weeks prophecy is effectively a deferment. <a href='B:290 46:13'>Isa 46:13</a> could mean that at the final restoration, Zion’s redemption will no longer be delayed (s:w:); and Rev 106 is clear that in the last days, there will be"delay no longer". We may appeal against it, as Daniel does here, knowing that God is open to dialogue. But He also knows best and operates His delays and hastenings with a justice and grace beyond our comprehension.</p><p>The climax of the prayer is in this verse, which has seven Hebrew words in it. And the climax of those words is "Do not defer". This is what Daniel was leading up to. Daniel perceived the idea of God prolonging and delaying the final restoration, in that in Daniel 9 he begs that God will not in fact delay; for the visions of Dan. 7 and Dan. 8 all spoke of a delay in the restoration compared to his time. He was heard in that an Angel was caused to fly swiftly (:21), implying a speeding up of the Angelic processes; but still the delay remained in place because despite that, Israel refused to adequately repent. One could argue that the prayer wasn't answered- in fact there was a further delay, and the request for the current "delay" to be ended wasn't answered at all. Yet it was certainly 'heard'; and an Angel was caused to fly swiftly in response. But as with the Lord's unanswered prayer for deliverance from actual death on the cross, the answer in the end was the more glorious. The answer that Messiah would come but be killed and that Jerusalem would yet again be trashed... would have struck at the core heart of Daniel, dashing all his short term hopes. But that was to be the world's redemption. And it is the same with our apparently unanswered prayers...</p>


text:
<p>While I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel- Daniel was aware that he too was a sinner, although the record presents him as almost spotless. Or it could be that he felt so identified with the sin of Israel that he felt personal guilt because of it. This helps us understand how the absolutely perfect Lord Jesus could be made a sin offering for us, could be identified with sinners to such an extreme extent that He died the death of a criminal on a Roman cross. I will note on <a href='B:340 10:17'>Dan 10:17</a> that Daniel had yet to be even deeper convicted of his own sins and also those of Judah.</p><p>And presenting my supplication before Yahweh my God for the holy mountain of my God- Note the personal pronouns. As I have repeatedly noted, he believed in ’the power of one’, that ’just’ one righteous man interceding for a sinful nation could cause their restoration and salvation. This is immense encouragement to us in our intercession for others who currently are far from God; see on <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>.</p><p>The language of prayer and supplication is what Daniel did in Dan. 6, when the king's men "found Daniel making petition and supplication before his God" (Dan. 6:11). His regular habit of prayer continued, resulting in the deeper insight he now experienced in it.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, while I was speaking in prayer- We are to imagine Daniel praying out loud.</p><p>The man Gabriel- Gabriel was an Angel, but was clearly portrayed as a man and perceived in that way by Daniel. Angels represent men and nations in Daniel, and are strongly identified with those they represent; so it is appropriate to call this Angel a "man".</p><p>Whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning- Gabriel had first appeared in <a href='B:340 8:16'>Dan 8:16</a>; but the vision of Daniel 8 was given before the events of Daniel 9 (<a href='B:340 8:1'>Dan 8:1</a> cp. <a href='B:340 9:1'>Dan 9:1</a>). So the idea is ’the vision I had seen earlier’. But"beginning"means just that. Perhaps the idea is that the vision of Daniel 8 was the beginning of the motivation Daniel received to pray that events might work out differently, and God’s purpose be hastened. Gabriel came to explain the vision of Dan. 8 [no other vision had occurred between then and Dan. 9]. Daniel's desire to understand the 2300 period was answered now- with a different time period. The kaleidoscope of fulfilment had turned again.</p><p>Being caused to fly swiftly- See on :19. God’s purpose and response was indeed hastened; although the chronological hastening of events was not granted to Daniel, he was assured that God was not therefore indifferent, and had immediately responded. The implication is that Gabriel had been sent forth from Heaven to earth by God to explain the vision to Daniel. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>. An alternative reading is that Gabriel was caused to"fly with weariness"(<a href='B:340 9:21'>Dan 9:21</a> AVmg. ); this would then be an example of the Bible’s ‘language of limitation’ which may refer to the Angels rather than God personally. The Angel flying swiftly should be compared with the passages which talk about running swiftly in order to understand and obey God’s word (<a href='B:420 2:2'>Hab 2:2</a>; <a href='B:370 8:11-12'>Amo 8:11-12</a>; <a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a>; <a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a>; <a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a>). <a href='B:340 8:18'>Dan 8:18</a> also describes how the Angel gave Daniel spiritual revelation.</p><p>Touched me about the time of the evening offering- The daily offerings were presumably not made in captivity, but Daniel’s heart was very much in the land of promise and in the hope of the restoration of Israel’s kingdom. He therefore calculated time according to the time of the offerings. Daniel understood his prayers as an offering to God (as in <a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a>), and Gabriel therefore responded appropriately, answering prayer at the time of the evening sacrifice. In <a href='B:340 8:18'>Dan 8:18</a>, the touch of Gabriel, literally ’laying the hand upon’, is a sign of Daniel’s acceptance. And so we learn that even if our prayers aren’t answered as we wish, this is not to say that we are not acceptable with God. Gabriel seems to have been at pains to help Daniel understand this.</p><p>We note Daniel prayed at the time of the evening offering, as if his morning and evening prayers were the equivalent of the daily burnt offerings. See on Dan. 8:11. David in the Psalms often talks of praying in the morning, probably because he saw prayer as his morning sacrifice. Indeed it seems that the time was told by reference to the morning and evening sacrifices (1 Kings 18:29,36; 2 Kings 3:20). Regularity in prayer is critically important. Our natures are so weak that we need this kind of discipline. </p>


text:
<p>He instructed me, and talked with me, and said, Daniel, I am now come forth to give you wisdom and understanding- This isprophetic of the faithful community in the very last days. The Lord says that when the abomination of desolation appears, then His people should flee Jerusalem; and “let him that reads,&nbsp; understand” (<a href='B:470 24:15-17'>Mat 24:15-17</a>). Whatever application this had to the events of the three and a half years tribulation of AD67-70 was at best a sketchy and incomplete fulfilment. The tell tale phrase is “let him that reads, understand”. This is inviting us to be like Daniel in <a href='B:340 9:22-25'>Dan 9:22-25</a>, who also wanted to understand the meaning of the “abomination” prophecy. But he was told that the meaning of that vision about the abomination that desolates would only be revealed in the very last days, i:e. at the time of its fulfilment (<a href='B:340 8:17'>Dan 8:17</a>; <a href='B:340 8:26'>Dan 8:26</a>; <a href='B:340 12:9'>Dan 12:9</a>). The implication of all this is that there will be believing Jews living in the Jerusalem area at the time of the setting up of the abomination; and they will have special understanding of this prophecy which will lead them to flee. The importance of this for our present study is that this indicates that there will be believers in Israel just before the Lord returns. They will have “understanding” and will be motivated by this to respond. “Let him… understand” is paralleled with “let him that is on the housetop [flee immediately]… let him that is in the field not return”. Understanding leads to action- both then and now.</p>


text:
<p>At the beginning of your petitions the commandment went forth, and I have come to tell you; for you are greatly beloved: therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision- Daniel’s prayer, at least as it is recorded here, doesn’t ask for understanding. Instead it is a request for God to act immediately, to not defer the fulfilment of Jeremiah’s ’70 years until the restoration, if you pray’ prophecy. But God sees through to the essence of our prayers, just as the Lord saw that the essence of the tears and intercessions of Martha and Mary was effectively asking ’Raise Lazarus right now’. And so the essence of Daniel’s heart was that he wanted to understand, and this therefore was the answer given. As explained on <a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a>, we know not what to pray for as we ought, but the hidden spirit of our deepest heart is read and understood as our request. We also note in this context that as soon as Daniel prayed, the essence of his heart was read and Gabriel dispatched immediately; he was heard immediately. See on <a href='B:340 10:12'>Dan 10:12</a>.</p><p>Daniel didn't understand the 2300 evening-morning period (Dan. 8:27), and in Dan. 9 he is given understanding (Dan. 9:2,22,23). The answer was in the 70 weeks prophecy. "Understand the vision" (Dan. 9:23) prefaces the 70 weeks prophecy, and the vision in view is that of Dan. 8, repeatedly called "the vision" (Dan. 8:1,2,13,15,17,26). The issues of Dan. 9:24 are exactly those of Dan. 8:12-14: transgression will be finished, everlasting righteousness will be brought, and a holy of holies anointed. But just as the 2300 period differs from the 1260 day period of Dan. 7, so the interpretation in Dan. 9 differs. Because the 70 weeks period is not 2300 evening-mornings. Likewise the 1260,1290 and 1335 day periods of Dan. 12 seem to offer yet another scenario. The language of Dan. 12:10,11 is that of Dan. 11:31-35, initially about the possible fulfilment in Antiochus Epiphanes. Surely we have to conclude that the time periods are flexible and changeable, as God factors in all the possible fulfilments in line with human freewill decisions. This really has to be the case, for otherwise Divine prophecy would be simply deterministic and rob man of any freewill.</p>


text:
<p>Seventy weeks are decreed on your people and on your holy city, to finish disobedience, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy- The end point of the 70 weeks was to be the time when they would no longer be punished for their sins and would be reconciled to God. All prophecy would then be sealed or finished. Any other end point apart from the Lord’s second coming is therefore not going to fit the requirements perfectly. We will discuss various intriguing possibilities, but these were all potential fulfilments which didn’t work out.</p><p>The rabbis teach that "The number of seven weeks is four hundred and ninety years. The Babylonian exile was seventy [years] and the Second Temple stood four hundred and twenty" (Rashi). In this case the coming of Messiah would have been at the destruction of the temple in AD70, and that is exactly when the Lord could have come- but didn't. A prophecy of 70 weeks means 70 weeks or sevens- any interpretation that supposes a gap within the weeks is problematic. Because it takes away the obvious meaning of a time period. If I promise to come to your home after exactly seven weeks, my promise is falsified if I come to you exactly ten weeks later- explaining that in fact I had come after seven weeks, it's just that I inserted a gap of three weeks into my calculation of what "seven weeks" means. I would therefore suggest that the seventy sevens had various potential fulfiments that didn't come about, and may [at least in essence] have a final fulfilment at some later point in the actual "last days".</p><p>
This prophecy is God's response to Daniel's request that Israel's sin would be overlooked and forgiven, so that they could be restored and judgment would end. Despite the fact they were largely impenitent. Daniel was totally identified with Israel in their sinfulness, and hoped that he could be accepted as their representative, so that his devotion to God and bearing of Israel's sin would be accepted by God. The answer was in the prophecy of the anointed one, the Christ, doing this job and playing this role- through His death. So Daniel's perception was correct and the essence of his prayer was heard- in the work and death of the Lord Jesus.
</p><p> The chapter begins with Daniel praying for Jeremiah’s prophecy of the 70 years desolation of Judah to be brought to an end. But Daniel and those who lived after him in the Maccabean period would have struggled to understand how this prophecy had been fulfilled, with Jerusalem still not liberated. I suggest that the 70 weeks prophecy is a reinterpretation of the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah. The preconditions for the restoration were not met. Most of Judah preferred the soft life in Babylon, and as the restoration prophets make clear, the few who did return failed to fulfil the prophecies of restoration. They did not build nor operate the temple according to the requirements of Ezekiel 40-48, and so that prophecy was revealed as conditional, and was perhaps reapplied in a purely spiritual sense, or delayed in fulfilment. And the prophecy of 70 years desolation is now extended and tweaked by this prophecy of 70 sevens. But the simple takeaway point was and is that the period of Gentile domination of God’s people is limited, an end will come, however delayed. The day for a year interpretation doesn’t have to be pushed; the"sevens"could refer to"seven weeks of years". The idea of seven weeks of years, i:e. 49 years, must make every Jewish mind think of the year of Jubilee. 70 x 49 = 3430 years; but the problem is fixing when the first Jubilee was kept after Israel entered the land of Canaan under Joshua. And then there is the problem of the significance of the 7, 62 and final 1 week, which on this basis do not yield any particularly significant chronological points. It is significant that one of the few indirect references to the year of Jubilee in Scripture is in the time of Hezekiah, where it would appear that the great invasion of the land by the Assyrians was in a Jubilee year (<a href='B:290 37:30'>Isa 37:30</a> and context). That invasion and its dramatic destruction by God’s direct intervention would therefore typify the events at the end of the final half week, 3:5 year period of suffering.</p><p>The language of the ending of sin and bringing in eternal righteousness naturally has some application to the Lord’s finished work upon the cross. The whole prophecy was in prospect ulfilled then, but only in the ’now but not yet’ sense that we encounter continually throughout the Bible. God for the sake of that prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross [“Father forgive them”] forgave us all our sins then (<a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a>), the whole concept of sin was ended in prospect (<a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a>), one final sacrifice was offered for sins (<a href='B:650 10:12'>Heb 10:12</a>). The result of this is that we should repent, search ourselves and confess as many of our sins as possible, knowing they have been conquered. And we too should forgive each other in the same manner as we have been forgiven (<a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a>), not waiting for repentance, but learning the spirit of the Lord Jesus and the attitude of our Father.</p><p>"I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do", ultimately finished when Christ cried"It is finished"(<a href='B:500 17:4'>Joh 17:4</a>; <a href='B:500 19:30'>Joh 19:30</a>), alludes to several Old Testament passages. <a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a> had prophesied that Messiah’s sacrifice would"finish transgression... make an end of sins... make reconciliation for iniquity…bring in everlasting righteousness... and to anoint the Most Holy", as if a new sanctuary were being inaugurated. In prospect, the whole concept of sin was destroyed at the point of Christ’s death, the devil (sin) was destroyed, the opportunity for us to have the everlasting righteousness of Christ imputed to us was opened up."It is finished"may well have been uttered with an appreciation of this passage (for surely Daniel 9 was in the mind of our dying Lord). In this case, Christ died with the final triumphant thought that our sinfulness had now been overcome. Surely this should inspire us to a fuller and more confident, joyful faith in this.</p><p>But when we come to try to fit this in to the chronology of the 70 weeks prophecy, it is clear that the 70 weeks do not end on the cross. There are no significant events in the week and half week before this, nor 62 weeks before that last week. We must look to the last days for a complete, best fit fulfilment.</p><p>"To make an end of sins" is the same idea [in different words] to what we have in Dan. 8:23, when Antiochus or the little horn arises when "the wicked [or, wickedness] have come to the full", or "when the transgressors have completed (their guilt)", a similar idea to the iniquity of the Amorites becoming full, i.e. judgment came after a specified period. And why like that? Because that period was their opportunity for repentance. We marvel that a hardened blasphemer like Antiochus could be given a hope of repentance. We think of how God likewise tried to get Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar to repent and gave them a specific time period. It's the same idea of God elsewhere waiting until "the cup of iniquity was full" before judging as in Gen. 15:16: “The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full”. Likewise Mt. 23:32: “fill you up then the measure of your fathers” and 1 Thess. 2:16: “to fill up their sins”. This is the time of Dan. 9:24 "To make an end of sins". But that verse in Dan. 9 is in the midst of a quite different chronology, of the 70 weeks prophecy. Again we have to conclude that there were various chronological schemes that were potentially possible, such is God's sensitivity to human freewill, and His refusal to make His prophecies simply determinate predictions that rob man of his freewill. </p><p>
Bringing in everlasting righteousness was the message of the new covenant offered to the exiles. There would be a future king named Yahweh Our Righteousness (Jer. 23:5,6; 33:15,16). This is the same as the anointed one, the Christ, the Lord Jesus. No such king-Messiah appeared before Him; but this was the potential in Cyrus and perhaps others. This provision of righteousness was the answer to the prayer in :16: "according to all Your righteousness, please let Your anger and Your wrath be turned away from Your city Jerusalem". The answer to that was in the provision of "The Lord our righteousness", the Lord Jesus. Every aspect and request of Daniel's prayer was answered not as he hoped for [immediate restoration of the Kingdom and forgiveness of Israel by God, yet again]- but in a far more glorious way. In the work of the Lord Jesus, a permanent end being made to sin, and the Kingdom of God being re-established eternally and far more wonderfully than Daniel had in mind. And so it is for so many of our apparently unanswered prayers. </p><p>
The conditional, potential nature of the 70 weeks prophecy is perhaps hinted at by the use of the word "decreed". The Hebrew word is unusual in that it occurs only here, and is hard to define. It is unclear whether this period was set in stone or not. The period had been cut out [one possible meaning of the Hebrew word], but that doesn't mean it had to be fulfilled literally. </p><p>
The Lord seems to have had His mind on the idea of seventy sevens when He taught that this is how much forgiveness we must give people. Babylon was given 70 years until judgment; Israel were given 70 sevens, unlimited patience and forgiveness. That was His take on the prophecy.</p>


text:
<p>Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem- The commandment that went forth could refer to the commandment issued in response to Daniel's prayer (:23 "At the beginning of your petitions the commandment went forth, and I have come to tell you"). The anointed one / Messiah was to come seven sevens from this point. In seven literal weeks, or seven 'sevens', be they days or something else, with a day possibly standing for a year- Messiah was to come. No significant point can be found historically, whatever starting point we choose- but perhaps Cyrus [or some other figure] was potentially enabled to do something then. Which he didn't.</p><p> Or this commandment to restore Jerusalem could refer to that of Jeremiah, who in 605 / 604 BC predicted restoration after 70 years. But the natural objection is that a command to restore could hardly be given before Jerusalem had been destroyed. So the reference could be to the word for restoration given right at this time by Gabriel in :23. Or perhaps the decree of Cyrus is in view (539 BC), or that of Artaxerxes (458 BC) or that given to Nehemiah (445 BC). But again, as noted on :24, no starting point yields significant events after 7, 62 and 69:5 weeks. And one has to imagine an inserted hiatus even if we wish to apply the last 3:5 years to the last days. And this does violence to the whole idea of a 70 week period. A case can be made that perhaps the decree to restore Jerusalem refers to that of Artaxerxes I in Ezra 7:24. If we date that decree as being given in 457 BC, then 69 weeks / 483 days / years takes us to the beginning of the Lord's ministry in AD 27.</p><p>To the Anointed One, the prince- The "people of the prince" in :26 would destroy the sanctuary, and in :27 "he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease". One clear possible initial fulfilment would have been in Antiochus Epiphanes. There would have been an exact match with the account of Josephus that “the daily offerings which they [the Jews] offered to God according to the law, he forbade them from offering". And yet still this didn't bring about "the end". And so there were other alternatives, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 with "the prince" being the Lord Jesus at the head of the Roman armies. This would fit better than Antiochus, who defiled but didn't destroy the temple. There were various possible fulfilments for the anointed one, and somehow the prophecy would have worked out for each of them. It could have been Zerubbabel (Ezra 5:2; Hag. 1:1; Zech. 4:6-10) or Joshua the High Priest (Zech. 6:11,12). According to <a href='B:290 45:1'>Isa 45:1</a>, this prince potentially could have been Cyrus. But it could have many other referents (Joshua, Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah or Sheshbazzar), or to the Angelic prince Michael who stood for Israel (<a href='B:340 10:21'>Dan 10:21</a>). I suggest below that it could refer to the Lord Jesus and His work on the cross. But the chronological problems stubbornly remain. Just as Jeremiah’s 70 years prophecy was recalculated and reapplied into this 70 weeks prophecy, so this 70 weeks prophecy itself has to be recalculated, and shall come true in perfection in the last days, perhaps during a literal 70 week or 70 ’sevens’ period within the final 3:5 year tribulation.</p><p>Shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times- The Lord Jesus is called"Messiah the Prince"in <a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a> in order to contrast with how the anti-Christ, the fake Christ, is also called"the prince of the host"in <a href='B:340 8:11'>Dan 8:11</a>."It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host"(ESV). This prince"shall stand up against the Prince of princes", the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:340 8:25'>Dan 8:25</a>). There will be a final showdown between these two princes, and their respective followers and Kingdoms. The rebuilding of the temple coincides with the appearance of the"Anointed One". And he is"cut off"then (:26). This just doesn’t fit with an application to the Lord Jesus in the first century, although on :26 I give a possible attempt to make it fit. But the coincidence with the rebuilding of the temple is definitely problematic. So I feel confirmed in repeating that just as the 70 years prophecy was conditional and was reinterpreted and reapplied in the 70 weeks prophecy, so that too didn’t work out as potentially possible because of Judah’s impenitence. It will in essence come true in the last days, perhaps in a literal period of 70 weeks during the three and a half year tribulation.</p><p>"Seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks" is a poor attempt to reflect the Hebrew. There is a distinct break after the "seven weeks"; so we could translate "seven weeks, and [then after that] sixty-two weeks". It has been observed: "the 'athnach, the strongest disjunctive Masoretic accent mark between verse dividers, separates the "seven weeks" from the "sixty-two weeks," rather than joining them into a corporate entity equaling "sixty-nine"". It is hard to find specific points of fulfilment after the seven weeks. Likewise there was no time historically when Jerusalem was rebuilt with streets or squares- spaces for forum, market and justice court; as well as ‘moats’, referring to a defence system of canals like Babylon had. This is a stubborn problem for those who wish to argue that this part of the 70 weeks prophecy has already been fulfilled. It was surely a conditional prophecy, and it too has had to be reinterpreted, reapplied and recalculated.</p>


text:
<p>After the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One shall be cut off- The Hebrew of :26 and :27 is very difficult and ambiguous in places. Thus nagid [ruler, prince] is used rather than melek, the standard word for king. I suggest this was purposeful. Just as I noted above that the words of the "seventy years" prophecy of Jer, 25:11,12 were ambiguous as to whether "seventy years" were meant, or an undefined period of "weeks of years". All this is because God's plan was open-ended and conditional, and has [and had] various possible fulfilments and iterations.</p><p>
I discussed on Dan. 8:11 how shocking this would have been to Daniel. It fits into a major theme that God is apparently defeated, the apparent salvation in Messiah was going to be "cut off". But still God would win in the end.
</p><p>The reference could be to the killing of the High Priest Onias III in 171 BC as recorded in 2Ma_4:23-28 (also mentioned in <a href='B:340 11:22'>Dan 11:22</a>). This would have been 62 weeks / 434 years after the prophecy of Jeremiah about the 70 years in BC 605. That would require the initial seven week / 49 year period to run concurrently with the 62 week period. But the temptation is to apply it to the murder of the Lord Jesus, the Christ / anointed one. The prophecy clearly had multiple possible applications, but none of them seem to fit exactly. This is not due to some prophetic miscalculation; just as the 70 year period to restoration didn’t happen because of Judah’s lack of repentance, and had to be recalculated and reapplied, so the reapplication was likewise a potential that Judah’s lack of repentance precluded from happening.</p><p>And shall have nothing: and the people of the prince who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and its end shall be with a flood, and even to the end shall be war; desolations are determined- This appears to have similarities with the desolations of Antiochus IV; the"people / troops of the prince"would then be the Seleucid soldiers who settled in Jerusalem (<a href='B:340 11:31'>Dan 11:31</a>; 1Ma_1:29-40). But Antiochus didn’t destroy the sanctuary; he desolated Jerusalem and defiled the temple (1Ma_1:46; 2Ma_6:2) but didn’t destroy it quite to the extent required by the language here. There are of course similarities with the Roman destruction in AD70, but this Roman approach fails to make any sense in :27. And both references to Antiochus and the Romans run into difficulties in fitting in to the required chronology of the 7, 62 and final one week. The prince to come points to a specific individual, whose people or troops destroy the city and temple. He is an anti-Christ, an imitation of the One who is the true Prince of the kings of the earth (<a href='B:730 1:4-5'>Rev 1:4-5</a>).</p><p>However, a case can be made that the anointed one is the Lord Jesus, the Christ [Messiah, anointed one]. But again, the chronology is problematic, unless the periods are given big gaps between them, especially between the 62 weeks and the last half week. Such gaps seem to do violence to the whole concept of 70 weeks. But some may still find the idea attractive.</p><p>In reply to Daniel’s prayer, God promises that:</p><p>- In the short term, there will be a decree made to enable the rebuilding of Jerusalem;</p><p>- A time for the ending of Israel’s iniquity does lie ahead; their cleansing will be through the coming of their Messiah;</p><p>- To enable this, a new kind of covenant would be established with them;</p><p>- The means to forgiveness would involve a doing away of animal sacrifices and a destruction of the temple, with abominable idols standing there making it" desolate".</p><p>- Eventually this desolation would be done away with.</p><p>Thus Daniel’s prayer for the forgiveness of Israel and his enquiry about the fortunes of the temple is given a complex answer; very soon a command would go forth to rebuild the temple, but the full judgment for Israel’s iniquity still had to come. This would be through the death of their Messiah, great desolation of the temple and other times of trouble. However, ultimately the death and work of their Messiah would enable the eventual cleansing of Israel from their iniquities in a permanent fashion, so that never again would God’s House lie desolate. After 69 weeks from the decree to rebuild the temple Messiah was to be"cut off". This ought to silence once and for all the constant Jewish objection to a suffering Messiah; he was to be"cut off". The decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem was given in BC457. Commentators have frequently multiplied 69 by 7 to give a period of 483 day/years that were to elapse before Messiah’s death. However, Jewish time is often reckoned in Lunar cycles rather than Solar, as Europeans are accustomed to. On the basis of Lunar time, 69 weeks of years comes out at 486:5 Lunar years. Allowing for a BC/AD calendar inaccuracy of 4 years, this brings us to AD33:5 for the time of Messiah being cut off; which is exactly when Jesus was crucified, 33:5 years after his birth.</p><p>The 69 weeks being split into 7 weeks and 62 weeks is understandable once it is appreciated that most Bible prophecy has some immediate reference to the period around which it was given. 7 weeks of years would come to around 50 years. According to the records of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Ezra, Nehemiah and Haggai it would appear that the bulk of the work was done in the 50 years after the issuing of the decree for rebuilding. This mini time period would doubtless have been of great encouragement to the Jews of the time as they laboured in the rebuilding work amidst so much opposition.</p>&nbsp;<p>The description of the sacrifices ceasing and the temple being desecrated by an"abomination"can comfortably apply to the final destruction of the temple in AD70. Application to the time of the Maccabees is difficult because despite the disruption of the temple services, the sacrifices did not"cease"permanently. The Hebrew word for"cease"is also translated in the Old Testament as"to cause to fail","suffer to be lacking","put down","to rid","to take away", showing that the sacrifices in the second temple were to be ended permanently. The placing of abominations in the temple sounds like the Roman desecration of it with the idols of their legions after its final capture in AD70. Jesus also interpreted this part of Daniel 9 with reference to the events of AD70 (<a href='B:470 24:15'>Mat 24:15</a>).</p><p>The abomination that caused desolation in AD70 can also be referred to the abomination of Israel’s sins, which finally resulted in the desolation of both the land and the temple. <a href='B:340 8:11-13'>Dan 8:11-13</a> (R:V:) has many connections with this prophecy of Daniel 9 :"The daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down... an host was given against the daily sacrifice by reason of (Israel’s) transgression... the transgression of (’making’) desolation". Israel’s sins reached the maximum degree to which God was willing to let them accumulate without intervening in judgment. If the Jewish crucifixion of Jesus a few years earlier was indeed their rejection of God’s Messiah, then this is understandable. Deuteronomy chapters 28-31 consistently link the ideas of desolation and Israel’s disobedience. Josephus (Wars of the Jews, 4:6:6-8) records how the Jewish Zealots made the temple a garrison in AD70 and thoroughly desecrated it by their actions even before the Romans tookit.</p><p>If the middle of the 70th week was the destruction of the temple in AD70, then it follows that from BC457 to AD70 is 69:5"weeks". Therefore, if AD70 was the middle of the 70th week, it follows that there was a gap in the fulfilment of the prophecy. Thus it should not appear unreasonable to say that the first 69 weeks had a chronological fulfilment from BC457 to AD33, and that the first half of the 70th week ended in AD70. Now it is of the utmost significance that the Jewish wars which culminated in the sacking of Jerusalem in AD70 began 3:5 years previously in AD66/67. Thus the first half of the 70th week of the judgments upon Jerusalem started at this time. We must ever remember that the 70 weeks prophecy was concerning the judgments upon Jerusalem and how God was going to deal with their sins, which formed the burden of Daniel’s initial prayer.</p><p>This gap in the 70 weeks between AD33:5 and AD66:5 must be significant. It could imply that something happened in AD33:5 which gave Israel the opportunity to repent, and that during that time the judgments to come upon them were suspended, although being resumed in AD66:5-70, presumably due to Israel’s failure to do anything in the former period to avert those judgments? The Christian reasoning surely sounds uncannily true, that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah who was crucified in AD33:5, and that due to Israel’s failure to repent as they should have done the judgments continued. It is noteworthy that the judgments on Jerusalem in the first half of the 70th week were to be by Messiah’s armies (<a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>). Having been given control of all things on earth (<a href='B:470 28:18'>Mat 28:18</a>) after His resurrection, the Lord Jesus was able to send the Roman armies, effectively His armies, against Jerusalem in judgment. Indeed, He foretold the future destruction of Jerusalem by God’s armies (<a href='B:470 22:1-7'>Mat 22:1-7</a>); which became His when God gave Him all power after His resurrection.</p><p>The final half (i:e. 3:5 day/years) of the 70th week is difficult by anyone’s standards. Masada, the last outpost of Jewish resistance to the Roman re-invasion, fell in AD73:5, which could suggest that the final part of this week and indeed the whole prophecy, finished then. But we wonder why that point should be the end of Judah and Jerusalem’s sufferings and the introduction of eternal righteousness. It was surely not that significant. This would mean that by AD73"reconciliation for iniquity... everlasting righteousness"as promised in <a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a> would have been brought in. But surely that was achieved 40 years before, on the cross. The idea of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice which permanently overcame sin, thus doing away with the need for animal sacrifices, seems to fit what happened on the cross, not in AD73. The (new) covenant of Messiah was"confirmed"(the Hebrew implies violently, with strength) during the 70th week (<a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a>), and therefore the Old Covenant of the law (<a href='B:50 4:13'>Deu 4:13</a>) was finally done away then; yet surely this was achieved on the cross (<a href='B:580 2:14-17'>Col 2:14-17</a>). The"vision and prophecy"being"sealed"(<a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a>) at this stage may hint that it was by AD70 or just after that the Holy Spirit gift of prophecy was taken away, and inspired writing ceased. There is ample internal evidence that the whole New Testament canon was written before AD70. But again, this doesn’t seem a totally comfortable, best-fit interpretation.</p><p>However, it is also possible to argue that the second half of the 70th week refers to a time yet future. The new covenant of Messiah must be powerfully confirmed to Israel, and finally an end of all Israel’s punishment for sin must be made, with the result that an end (i:e. a permanent end) must be made to the powers that desolate Jerusalem (:24,27). Such an end clearly did not come in AD73, and the final deliverance of Israel from God’s judgment and desolators of the temple mount must be yet future. Other scriptures suggest that there will be a final 3:5 year downtreading of Jerusalem during which time Messiah’s covenant will be confirmed mightily to Israel, and at the end of which time there will be a final end to Israel’s sufferings and the destruction of their desolator. There are other references to a 3:5 year period of trouble for God’s people in Daniel:"A time (a year), times (two years) and an half", i:e. 3:5 years (<a href='B:340 7:25'>Dan 7:25</a>; <a href='B:340 12:7'>Dan 12:7</a>; <a href='B:730 12:14'>Rev 12:14</a>). The New Testament speaks of a similar period: 1,260 days -also 3:5 years (<a href='B:730 12:6'>Rev 12:6</a>; <a href='B:730 11:3'>Rev 11:3</a>); 42 months (3:5 years) (<a href='B:730 11:2'>Rev 11:2</a>; <a href='B:730 13:5'>Rev 13:5</a>). It seems fair to assume that they are all speaking of an identical or associated period of time. We have stressed that during the 70th week, the covenant of Messiah will be powerfully confirmed. Therefore we should see this happening during this final 3:5 years; and <a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a> describes the coming of the future Elijah prophet as"The messenger of the covenant", i:e. he will preach Messiah’s covenant to Israel. It is thrilling to find that Jesus and James mention that Elijah’s first ministry lasted 3:5 years (<a href='B:490 4:25'>Luk 4:25</a>; <a href='B:660 5:17'>Jas 5:17</a>; it would be so fitting in the light of this for Elijah’s second ministry to last the same period of time. Given the present world situation, this 3:5 year downtreading of Israel by those who would take every delight in desecrating Jerusalem and the temple area with their anti-Jewish abominations could begin any moment now.</p><p>This interpretation is not without problems. But we can note that the cutting off of Messiah and the temple’s destruction do not have to be simultaneous, although they both occurred at some stage after the end of the 62 weeks; Messiah’s death resulted in the abolition of the temple, seeing that on account of his death the Old Covenant had been done away.</p><p>Josephus describes how the Jews at the time of Jesus were looking for Messiah to come at that time due to their study of Daniel 9 and other such prophecies:"That which chiefly excited them (the Jews) to war was an ambiguous prophecy, that at that time, someone within their country should arise that should obtain the empire of the whole world. This they had received, that it was spoken by one of their nation". This is confirmed by the New Testament recording that"all men were musing in their hearts"about Messiah at this time. Daniel 9 could indicate that Messiah was to have two comings: firstly as a prince, and then returning as a King who has received his Kingdom. This is how the Lord Jesus saw himself in the parable of the nobleman (<a href='B:490 19:12'>Luk 19:12</a>). The time period of 69 weeks from the command to rebuild the city ended in both"Messiah the Prince"(<a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a>) and also in him being"cut off"(<a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>), i:e. killed. Thus it would appear that it was at His death that Messiah became"the prince", the definite article suggesting that this was the specific Messiah and the greatest ever prince. This is all fulfilled by Jesus Christ’s triumphant death/sacrifice being rewarded by His being exalted to God’s right hand in Heaven, and being made a"Prince and a Saviour"by Him (<a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a>), so that due to His death and subsequent glorification in resurrection he became"the prince of (i:e. over) the kings of the earth"(<a href='B:730 1:5'>Rev 1:5</a>). Messiah’s making of"the sacrifice and oblation to cease"was at the end of His 3:5 year ministry. The exposition offered above applies this to His death bringing about the destruction of the temple in AD70.</p>


text:
<p>He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease- Literally, "for half a week he will put a stop to the sacrifice and the meal offering". Dan. 8 gives a period of 2300 evening-mornings, i.e. 1150 days, for the cessation of sacrifices. In Dan. 9:27 the time period is different- three and a half days, possibly meaning three and a half years or 1260 days. So often in Daniel we find the time periods are flexible. Which they are, because there are various possible and potential fulfilments of the prophecies, and the range of them is because God takes into account human freewill. For prophecy doesn't make God deterministic. Possibly these 1260 days are reduced to 1150 because the "days are shortened for the elect's sake". We must also factor in that 1 Maccabees gives a period of exactly 3 years for the desecration of the altar by Antiochus Epiphanes [1080 days if we take a 360 day year, 1095 days if a 365 day year]. This again could be because there was a shortening of the days. Josephus however claims it was exactly three and a half years (Wars 1.32). </p><p>The application to the Lord Jesus in the first century runs into problems here. It is hard to make the 69 weeks end at the beginning of the Lord’s ministry. The covenant He made was eternal and not just for a week. And if the midst of the week when sacrifices were ended by Him refers to the cross, then it is out of decorum with the idea of 70 weeks that there should be a 2000 year delay until the fulfilment of the second half of the week. The historical fulfilment could have been in the"covenant"reported in 1Ma_1:11 between the Jewish hellenizers and Antiochus, which led to the sacrifices being stopped for three and a half years. This certainly fits the 1260 day [three and a half year] period mentioned in Daniel. There was no such covenant made after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. So</p><p>And on the wing of abominations shall come desolation- This"abomination that makes desolate"is applied by the Lord Jesus to the events of the very last days; it is this desolation which shall be removed by His literal return to Zion. The phrase is used in <a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a>; <a href='B:340 11:31'>Dan 11:31</a>; <a href='B:340 12:11'>Dan 12:11</a> [see notes there]. In each case, it has discernible fulfilments at the time of Antiochus, when the temple was rededicated to Zeus and pigs sacrificed upon it, and the Romans who placed idolatrous symbols in it; but the context always required that it have a latter day fulfilment, and the earlier fulfilments are never without problems when compared to the text. It’s the same here in <a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a>. The outline fulfilments in Antiochus and the Romans don’t fit perfectly with the prophetic language, nor do they fit the specific required chronology of the various weeks and days. Any references to the abominations placed in the temple by Antiochus and the Romans in AD70 are at best incipient fulfilments. A Messiah figure could have come then and restored Judah’s kingdom, but the final, perfect-fit fulfilment shall be at the Lord’s return.</p><p>Even to the full end, and the wrath that is determined shall be poured out on the one who makes desolate- This"full end"and total destruction of the desolator never came true of the Romans, and it is the language of the last days. Any applications to Antiochus and Rome are therefore at best incipient fulfilments. The chronology of the 7,62 and 1 weeks didn’t work out; but it shall do so, in the last days. This final period of 70 weeks [and they may be literal weeks or some other form of"sevens"] will culminate in"the full end"and the full establishment of God’s Kingdom. That was what Daniel longed to see happening and it forms the context of the 70 weeks prophecy. It could have come true at the time of Antiochus and the Romans, but Judah’s lack of repentance precluded it. And so it shall come true in the last days.</p><p>Daniel 9 speaks of a coming “prince”, an emir or caliph, in Arabic terms, who will lead Israel’s enemies in desecrating the temple area and capturing Jerusalem. This figure had incipient fulfilments in Antiochus Epiphanes and the AD70 Roman desecration of the temple mount. The final conflict with a true Messiah figure and the establishment of God’s Kingdom could have come at these points, but it was delayed, so that these became but shadows of the final fulfilment in the last days.</p><p>It is however significant that the Roman desecration of the temple is used by the Lord Jesus in the Olivet prophecy as a prototype of that which shall be done in the last days. The Roman empire began as the republic of the city of Rome; but there were simply not enough literal ‘Romans’ to dominate the large area of the Roman empire. The majority of Roman soldiers were not Romans, but mercenaries or nationals of other areas apart from Rome. What’s interesting is that the legions which destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in AD70 were largely comprised of Arabs, Syrians and other neighbouring nations who bitterly hated the Jews.</p><p>Tacitus explains: “Titus Caesar… found in Judaea three legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th… To these he added the 12th from Syria, and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria. This force was accompanied… by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbours…” (Tacitus, The History, New Ed edition Book 5:1. Editor: Moses Hadas, Translators: Alfred Church, William Brodribb (New York: Modern Library, 2003)). This Arab / Syrian destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, albeit under the control of a larger ‘beast’ entity, is a detailed prototype of that which is yet to come. Josephus confirms the record of Tacitus by saying that the Roman troops were gathered in Syria, i:e. the army was gathered together from Syrian recruits: “"So Vespasian sent his son Titus [who], came by land into Syria, where he gathered together the Roman forces, with a considerable number of auxiliaries from the kings in that neighborhood"(Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Book III, Chapter 1, Paragraph 3)”. Josephus also mentions that at least 6000 Arabs were sent by just one Arab king: “"Malchus also, the king of Arabia, sent a thousand horsemen, besides five thousand footmen, the greatest part of which were archers; so that the whole army, including the auxiliaries sent by the kings, as well horsemen and footmen, when all were united together, amounted to sixty thousand"(Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Book III, Chapter 4, Paragraph 20)”.</p><p>This picture of a Syrian / Arab desecration of Jerusalem in AD70 is supported by other discoveries and reports. “Legions based in Cappadocia, Syria, and Egypt were made up of recruits from Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt”, Nigel Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria (University of Michigan Press,&nbsp; 2000) p:15. Josephus claims that in the siege of Jerusalem, “the whole army, including the auxiliaries sent by the kings, as well horsemen and footmen, when all were united together, amounted to sixty thousand” (Flavius Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus, The Wars of the Jews or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Book III, Chapter 4, Paragraph 20). A legion contained around 5,000 soldiers and he says there were four full legions and two partial legions involved in the attack- around &nbsp;25,000 &nbsp;legionaries. This means that the remaining 35,000 were auxiliaries, relatively local men. Josephus confirms this when by noting that the auxiliaries were “sent by the kings” from “the neighbourhood” of Syria, Asia Minor and Arabia. Pollard gives more reason to think of there being many Syrians involved:"Other evidence that Syrian legions of the Flavian period were characteristically ’Syrian’ in some way comes from Tacitus’ reference to Legion 3 Gallica saluting the rising sun ‘according to the custom of Syria’ [ita in Syria mos est]… in A:D. 69"(op cit p. 116). Josephus is quite explicit about this:"The greatest part of the Roman garrison was raised out of Syria; and being thus related to the Syrian part, they were ready to assist it"(The Wars of The Jews, History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, by Flavius Josephus. Trans. William Whiston, Book II: Chapter, Para. 7).</p><p>What we do know from <a href='B:340 11:31'>Dan 11:31</a> is that the “vile person” is also called “the king of the north”, and this is a common title for the ruler of Assyria- present day Iran / Iraq / Kurdistan / Syria. And we’ve shown above that Old Testament passages about the ruler of Assyria are the basis for other ‘antichrist’ prophecies of the New Testament. The phrase “vile person” is interesting in itself. If the first usage of a word in Scripture is significant, then <a href='B:10 25:34'>Gen 25:34</a> is indeed helpful here- because it is used of Esau, father of many of the Arab tribes. And it recurs in describing Edom in <a href='B:380 1:2'>Oba 1:2</a>, Goliath the Philistine / Palestinian (<a href='B:90 17:42'>1Sa 17:42</a>), “Tobiah the Ammonite and Geshem the Arabian” (<a href='B:160 2:19'>Neh 2:19</a>), and Haman the persecutor of the Jews (<a href='B:190 3:6'>Est 3:6</a>). All these men were Arab prototypes of the “vile person”, the ruler of Assyria, who is to again persecute God’s people. Note that “the man of sin” of 2Th2:8 alludes to “the wicked one” of <a href='B:290 11:4'>Isa 11:4</a> LXX, who is, again, “the Assyrian”! So it would appear very likely that the antichrist figure comes from ‘Assyria’. And what’s going on in Iraq and the territory of ‘Assyria’ right now is gripping the whole world’s attention:&nbsp; Note how the Assyrian is described in <a href='B:290 30:31-33'>Isa 30:31-33</a> as being thrown into a lake of fire- just as the future beast will be (<a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20</a>).</p><p>A Jewish-Muslim Antichrist Covenant?</p><p>The “prince that shall come”, who finally stands in opposition to “Messiah the Prince”, will “confirm the covenant with many for one week”, during which he places the abomination of desolation (<a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a>). The same language is used here as about the “little horn” of Daniel 7, 8. This individual is characterized in <a href='B:340 8:24-25'>Dan 8:24-25</a> as being politically crafty: “He shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand”. Note that amad translated “stand up against” is a word also found in Arabic, and is one of the names of the prophet Mohammad (Sura 61:6). The latter day caliph or “prince of the [Moslem] faithful” will (like all good Moslems) be the emulation of Mohammad. I have explained in commenting on Revelation chapters 6 and 7 that radical Islam has a special theological interest in forcing Jewish people to convert to Islam. And they will feel justified in brutally punishing those who resist- all as predicted in those chapters of Revelation. The idea of Antichrist making a covenant with the Jews is in fact required by the Koran in Sura 3:64: “Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah”. It would seem that a covenant is made whereby the Jews accept Islam in return for mercy; but then this covenant is broken and the Jews are butchered. Such agreements featured in Israel’s Old Testament history. Sura 4:154,155 and commentary upon it justifies the fiercest punishment of the Jews by Moslems because"We took from them a firm covenant. But because of their breaking of their covenant…". We can imagine how things will develop: The downtrodden people of Israel will enter a covenant with the radical Muslims or jihadist Islamic Beast / State, then they will be accused of breaking it, and this will justify the Moslems in embarking upon a policy of totally destroying them, believing they are being obedient to the Koran by doing so. Sura 5:14,15 likewise: “And because of their [O children of Israel] breaking their covenant, we have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context [in distorting the Torah to contradict the Koran] and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished… Therefore we have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection”. This “enmity and hatred” is the kind of hatred against God’s people in the land that is described in the prophecies of the latter day beast, venting “the old hatred” (<a href='B:330 25:15'>Eze 25:15</a>) against Israel.</p><p>The Koran frequently complains that Israel broke their covenant with God and were punished, and the commentaries on the Koran passages about this urge that Muslims should in God’s Name punish Jews for doing the same: Sura 7:12"We found no [loyalty to any] covenant in most of them. Nay, most of them we found wrong-doers". Sura 7:134-136 is relevant:"And when the terror fell on them they cried: O Moses! Pray for us unto thy Lord, because He hath a covenant with thee. If thou removest the terror from us we verily will trust thee and will let the Children of Israel go with thee. But when we did remove from them the terror for a term which they must reach, behold! they broke their covenant. Therefore we took retribution from them; therefore we drowned them in the sea: because they denied our revelations and were heedless of them". Jihadists believe that they must punish Israel, and then make a covenant with them in order for the punishment and terror to be lifted; but Israel will break that covenant and therefore be totally destroyed. This is precisely the picture we get from Daniel 9, speaking of how the Antichrist will make a covenant with Israel after abusing them first, and then attempt to totally destroy them for breaking that covenant. Sura 33:7,8 and commentaries thereon almost revel in the pain to be exacted upon Israel for breaking the covenant:"We took from them [O children of Israel] a solemn covenant; that He may ask the loyal of their loyalty. And He hath prepared a painful doom for the unfaithful".</p>


text:
<p>In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia something was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar- "Something" is Heb. dabar, the standard word translated "word". "Revealed" is literally 'made naked', the covering or clothing was taken off it. The vision he will not have, which continues into Dan. 12, presents a somewhat different outworking of events to that revealed in Dan. 2 and Dan. 7. The 'word' of another possible scenario was already set up and spoken by God, but it had not been revealed or denuded because a chance had to be given for the earlier potential scenarios to work out.</p><p> Belshazzar only reigned three years so the vision of Dan. 8 given in his "third year" was given around the time of the events of Daniel 5, when Belshazzar was slain and "Darius" took the kingdom. This was the first year of Darius, the time of the visions and events of Dan. 9:1 and Dan. 11:1. So the events of Dan. 5,8,9,11 all occurred within the same year. If Darius and Cyrus were separate kings but co-reigned and overlapped with each other, it's also possible that the third year of Cyrus in Dan. 10:1 was in fact this same year- the first year of Darius. Dan. 1:21 could be read as meaning that Daniel died in the first year of Cyrus; but that may mean the third year of his total rule, if he co-reigned with Darius for the first two or three years. In this case then Dan. 5,8,9,10 and 11 were all within the same year or so.</p><p>According to <a href='B:150 3:12'>Ezr 3:12</a>, some old men returned to Judah when the possibility was created in the first year of Cyrus. Why not Daniel? Admittedly he was very old at this time. Is this one of the few indications of spiritual weakness in Daniel? Note his confession of personal sin in <a href='B:340 9:20'>Dan 9:20</a>. Others would be in Daniel 3, where the obvious question is ‘Where was Daniel’? Another would be the consideration from <a href='B:340 10:4'>Dan 10:4</a> cp. <a href='B:20 12:18'>Exo 12:18</a> that he didn’t keep Passover (see on :4). The thirdyear of Cyrus meant 72 years after the captivity. Daniel therefore was wondering why there had been no successful restoration according to Jeremiah’s 70 years-to-restoration prophecy- he’d been over 70 years in Babylon. He may also have been distressed that the majority of Jews in Babylon had chosen not to return to Judah; and he would’ve heard that those who had returned had faced huge opposition, indeed the rebuilding of the temple was halted until the second year of Darius (<a href='B:150 4:24'>Ezr 4:24</a>):&nbsp;Jewish tradition has it that Daniel did return, finally. He would however have been very elderly, at least in his 90s. And we note that the names of Daniel's friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah occur in the list of names of those exiles who returned. 
The LXX says the first year of Cyrus, and that a "decree" was issued to Daniel. This would agree with Dan. 1:21 saying that Daniel continued until the first year of Cyrus. It's as if in one strand of the Divine working, the decree of Cyrus fulfilled Bible prophecy. But Daniel asks why it hadn't been fulfilled, and is shown in Dan. 10-12 that in fact there will be a great delay in fulfilment. Because clearly Judah were not obedient to the terms of the new covenant which Jeremiah and Ezekiel had proposed. The return from captivity was only to be when Judah returned to God. And they didn't. So it seems Dan. 10-12 is God telling Daniel privately that in fact the apparent restoration wasn't the real thing. It could've been, but God foresaw Judah wouldn't do their part. Daniel surely sensed that. And so he is shown that the plan of restoring the Kingdom would happen, but with a deferred and re-worked fulfilment.  
</p><p>And it was true, even a great warfare: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision- The"great warfare"is that between the kings of north and south described in chapter 11, which forms part of this vision Daniel now receives. Or we can read as AV"But the time appointed was long", alluding to Daniel’s deep disappointment that prophetic timetables were not going to lead to the restoration of the Kingdom during his lifetime. This is a recurrent theme in Daniel.</p><p>The long warfare is that which is said to have been ended when the exiles returned (Is. 40:2). But most didn't return, and Cyrus wasn't the Messiah he could have been. So the warfare was as it were extended. Time and again we find God being flexible in response to human freewill. For His prophecies are not determinate of human action to the extent that man is robbed of his freewill. And yet the word was and is true although the warfare was long or prolonged: "the word (is) true, and a great warfare".</p><p>
Another option is to translate “but it was a great struggle to understand the word”. It was hard for Daniel as it is for so many today to accept the Lord may not return in their lifetimes, despite all their lives having eagerly struggled to match Bible prophecy to geopolitcs.
</p>


text:
<p>In those days I Daniel was mourning three whole weeks-  Daniel's mourning may have been for the fact Israel's sin was precluding the immediate reestablishment of God's Kingdom. Or we can take the "mourning" as also meaning that he was praying for the restoration to happen, seeing it was already the third year of Cyrus and he had not turned out to be the Messiah which Isaiah had prophesied he would be, nor had the restoration gone according to the prophetic possibility. In <a href='B:340 9:23'>Dan 9:23</a>, Daniel had experienced praying and then being told that the moment he started to pray, the answer had been given. And now he has another example of it. His fasting we can assume was associated with prayer; three weeks of prayer makes 21 days, and in :12 Daniel is told by the Angel that"from the first day…your words were heard, and I am come for thy words". So because of his prayer ("words"- perhaps put like that to emphasize the power of the ’mere’ words uttered in prayer),&nbsp; an&nbsp; Angel&nbsp; was&nbsp; sent&nbsp; from&nbsp; God&nbsp; to&nbsp; give&nbsp; him the&nbsp; understanding he had asked for. His very first prayer for this was answered- but the actual answer came three weeks later. The reason for this was that the Angel had been withstood by the prince of Persia for 21 days (:13). Three weeks is 21 days. So Daniel’s first prayer was answered, but it took the Angel three weeks to work out the answer in practice; but during this time Daniel kept on praying, although at the time it must have seemed to him that no answer was forthcoming. So let us be prepared to persevere in prayer, as those saints in Revelation 8 did and were rewarded by the incense finally being offered by the Angel to the Lord Jesus Christ, and thence to God. It may just be possible that there is a mighty Angel of answered prayer (Gabriel?), in the same way as there is a ’wonderful numberer’ co-coordinating the timing of God’s purpose, and an Angel specifically representing Jesus and Israel (do these four make up the four forms of Angel manifestation in the cherubim and four living creatures?). This Angel would co-ordinate the presentation and answering of prayers. The Angel then describes&nbsp; how he confirmed and strengthened Darius (<a href='B:340 11:1'>Dan 11:1</a>) to the same end to enable the prayer to be answered- as if when our Angel sees someone set in a course of action which will lead to the answer of our prayer, they are confirmed and strengthened in it. The wonder of all this needs some reflection. Our words, the thoughts within human brain cells, call forth the Angels from the court of Heaven. “When we cried unto the Lord, he heard our voice, and sent an angel [from the myriads standing on the right and left hands of His throne] and brought us forth out of Egypt” (<a href='B:40 20:16'>Num 20:16</a>). Yet the voice that Angel responded to was the voice not so much of specific prayers but of the situation of the people. And the same is with us... See on <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zec 3:1</a>; <a href='B:450 6:8'>Zec 6:8</a>; <a href='B:440 1:2'>Hag 1:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine into my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, until three whole weeks were fulfilled- This was not only fasting, but an expression of genuine sadness over the Passover period (see on :4). His sadness was clearly that the prophetic program was going to be seriously delayed beyond the 70 years-to-restoration prophecy of Jeremiah, and this was because of the weakness of Judah. Daniel had prayed in Daniel 9 for the restoration to happen anyway, but had been answered by the 70 weeks prophecy. And he would have been so sad that the opportunity to return to the land given in the first year of Cyrus had been responded to by so few Jews; and at the time of the third year of Cyrus (:1) the rebuilding of the temple had been delayed.</p><p>Perhaps he had in view the anointing before the Messianic feast of Is. 61:3. Daniel's fasting may mean that he didn't keep Passover (:4, he had been fasting from the 3rd to the 24th of the first month). Both the Passover (on the 14th day) and feast of Unleavened Bread (15th–21st; Ex. 12:1-20) fell within the period of Daniel’s fast. We have here an example of where principles are often in conflict in our lives, and this is intentionally so. The law of Moses contained many such conflicts- disobedience to one law in order to be obedient to another. This is structured into our lives by God so that our obedience is consciously thought out. </p><p>Daniel apparently was used to eating meat and drinking wine. We recall how he initially refused to eat the meat and wine that came from the king. Seeing he still lived in the court, we wonder whether his meat and wine still came from the king. Possibly his conscience changed over time. And yet he remained a man much beloved by God.
</p>


text:
<p>In the twenty fourth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river which is Hiddekel- This means that for 21 days before this, he had been fasting, throughout the Passover period. So Daniel didn’t keep Passover- he kept the eating of unleavened bread but if he didn’t eat any meat, he didn’t eat the Passover lamb. Was his faith in God’s deliverance of His people fading? Or was he spiritually so on another plane that it was OK for himnot to keep the Passover, even though the person who didn’t keep it was to be cut off from amongst God’s people? See on :1.</p>


text:
<p>I lifted up my eyes, and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, whose thighs were adorned with pure gold of Uphaz- A man clothed with linen represents both a priest and an Angel (Mk. 16:5; Rev. 15:6). Ezekiel the priest and prophet saw himself thus represented (Ez. 9:2,3,11) yet he also saw the man dressed in linen representing an Angel who was involved with the awesome cherubim system (Ez. 10:2,6,7). He had a guardian, representative Angel that was part of the glorious cherubim. Possibly likewise the Angel of Dan. 10:5 represented Daniel. </p><p>
The "man clothed in linen" of Dan. 10:5 reappears in Dan. 12:6,7 who is over the waters of the river. This was an Angel in Dan. 8:16, "between the banks of the Ulai [river]". Linen was worn by the priests especially the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:4). We note that the term "prince", used in Daniel of Angels, is used of the High Priest in Ezra 8:24 and of a priest in 1 Chron. 24:5. These Angels of Daniel were ministering in the heavenly sanctuary. Michael "stands" for God's people (Dan. 12:1) as the High Priest stood for them on the Day of Atonement; to stand before God is to intercede (Dt. 10:8; Jud. 20:28). The Angel does indeed represent the Lord Jesus and Michael perhaps played His role in the court of Heaven before He came into existence and ascended to His Heavenly role and intercession. The idea is that Michael in previous possible iterations of the prophecy, and the Lord Jesus in the last day fulfilment of it, intercedes for Israel before God in the very last days, leading to their salvation.</p><p>
The very same Hebrew phrase "lifted up the eyes and saw" is found twice in the record of Abraham lifting up his eyes and seeing the place of sacrifice of his son, and also seeing the ram caught in the thicket there (Gen. 22:4,13). This sets us up to expect that Daniel likewise will see something prefiguring the Lord Jesus. The very same three Hebrew words are used in Isaiah's prophecies of how men would lift up their eyes and see the restoration of Zion (Is. 49:18 "lift up your eyes and behold... the Lord shall restore again Zion"; 52:8; 60:4). This was what Daniel had lived his life expecting to see, but instead he sees something more wonderful- a vision of the future Lord Jesus. This was exactly what happened to him in Dan. 9; he had been expecting the fulfilment of the restoration prophecies in his lifetime, but instead is given an extended vision of the death of the future Messiah and the resultant eternal life of God's Kingdom. Something far more wonderful than he had envisaged.
</p><p>See on <a href='B:730 1:13'>Rev 1:13</a>; this appears to be a vision of an Angel representing the Lord Jesus in glory. The white linen represented righteousness (<a href='B:730 19:8'>Rev 19:8</a>), and yet the visions of Zechariah present the leaders of Israel as clothed in"filthy garments". This therefore was the Messianic Saviour who was perfect. It connects with the prophecy of <a href='B:290 11:5'>Isa 11:5</a> about the Messiah who would restore Judah:"Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins and faithfulness the girdle of his reins". The gold therefore represents His faith and truth (<a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a>). This awesome vision of an Angel representing the then-future Lord Jesus was to encourage Daniel that although his life was ending not as he wished, and things hadn’t worked out as he had hoped, yet God’s purpose remained sure, and there would be a wonderful Messianic redeemer figure who would save him and all God’s people from their hopeless lethargy and sin, and bring about the restoration promised, which in their own strength Israel could not bring about.</p>


text:
<p>His body also was like the beryl- This stone in the breastplate represented Dan, meaning ’judgment’ (<a href='B:20 28:17-21'>Exo 28:17-21</a> cp. <a href='B:40 2:25'>Num 2:25</a>). But Dan is absent from the list of the tribes in <a href='B:730 7:5-8'>Rev 7:5-8</a>. Perhaps the idea is that this is the future Lord Jesus in judgment; and yet also identifying with Dan, the condemned excluded from the Kingdom. We could maybe conclude that this spoke of the Lord Jesus carrying our condemnation in His own body.</p><p>And his face as the appearance of lightning- This was the feature of the Angel cherubim who are presented as present at Judah’s exile and being the source of their potential restoration (<a href='B:330 1:13'>Eze 1:13</a>). But the vision is ultimately of the Lord Jesus. The final restorer and Saviour of Israel is Him and not Angel cherubim, and so we note the connection with the vision of the glorified Lord Jesus with a face like the sun, the beams of which could be compared to lightning (<a href='B:730 1:16'>Rev 1:16</a>).</p><p>And his eyes as flaming torches- The Angels are as it were God’s eyes, and they are associated with the potential work of restoring Judah through the activity of the cherubim (<a href='B:330 10:12'>Eze 10:12</a>; <a href='B:450 4:10'>Zec 4:10</a>). But this is a vision of the future Lord Jesus, who was to take over the work of Angels and personally enable the ultimate restoration of God’s people. It is He who has eyes as a flame of fire (<a href='B:730 1:14'>Rev 1:14</a>). Hebrews 1 labours the point that the Lord is not and was never an Angel. Here an Angel is used to represent Him to Daniel, in His then future glory.</p><p>And his arms and his feet like burnished brass- The idea of a man who had passed through a furnace [the idea of"burnished"] would have reminded Daniel of the experience of his three faithful friends. This Messianic Saviour was truly human, and representative of all the faithful. Again, this is the language of the cherubim (<a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>) who were associated with Judah’s exile and restoration. But their role and ministry for God’s people was to be replaced by the Lord Jesus who likewise is presented as having such feet and arms (<a href='B:730 1:15'>Rev 1:15</a>).</p><p>And his voice like the voice of a multitude- This likewise is the language of the cherubim associated with the exile and restoration (<a href='B:330 1:24'>Eze 1:24</a>), but this is also the voice of the Lord Jesus in <a href='B:730 1:15'>Rev 1:15</a>. He has taken over their work, and the potential restoration of Judah to their land by the cherubic Angels has now become reworked as the narrative of the Lord Jesus ultimately restoring and eternally saving all God’s true people from bondage to sin.</p><p>This individual is the embodiment of the cherubim which Ezekiel had recently seen active for the exiles. Both visions were received by a river of Babylon; and there are so many connections: "His body" = Ez. 1:11,23; "the beryl" or LXX "the chrysolith" was a flashing stone = Ez. 1:16; 10:9; "as the appearance of lightning... as torches of fire" = Ez. 1:13 (R.V. mg.) "‘In the midst of the living creatures was an appearance like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches... and out of the fire went forth lightning". "Like the gleaming of burnished brass" = Ez. 1:7 where the feet of the cherubim "sparkled like the gleaming of burnished brass". "Gleaming" is literally 'as an eye' and connects with Ez. 1:4,16,22,27; 10:9. "Like the voice of a multitude" = Ez. 1:24 (R.V.). The vision of Ezekiel was contemporary with Daniel; he was being encouraged that despite the long delay, God was hugely active, the cherubim were still there endlessly churning away towards the final glory of God. Ezekiel's prophecy opens with the cherubim visible by the rivers of Babylon, having left Jerusalem; but the cherubim of glory are seen returning to the rebuilt temple in Ez. 43. In the first year of Cyrus, the decree had been given for the Jews to return and rebuild the temple. But now in his third year (:1), the cherubim of glory had not returned. They were still in exile as it were. The message was clear- the few Jews who had returned had not obeyed the commands of Ezekiel to rebuild the temple as commanded in Ez. 40-48, and therefore the cherubim of glory had not returned. Nor would they. Instead, the final visions of Daniel give a far more glorious resolution- although it would be at a point far in the future. Michael would stand up for God's people, there would be the resurrection of the dead and eternal life for God's true people. A scenario far more glorious than the glory returning to a rebuilt temple in this life.</p><p>
The figure ultimately looks ahead to the Lord Jesus who likewise was the bodily image of the Father's glory (Col. 2:9). Hence the description of the risen Lord in Rev. 1:14 has many similarities.</p>


text:
<p>I Daniel alone saw the vision; for the men who were with me didn’t see the vision; but a great trembling fell on them, and they fled to hide themselves- There are evident similarities with Saul’s encounter with the glorified Jesus in a vision (<a href='B:510 9:7'>Act 9:7</a>; <a href='B:510 22:11'>Act 22:11</a>). We are to understand this vision as being of an Angel who was not Jesus, not represented Him in His then future glory. The Lord Jesus, the future Messiah, was the answer to all Daniel’s concerns aboutthe when, where and how of the restoration of the Kingdom. Their trembling and fleeing into hiding is Biblically associated with the reaction of those who feel unworthy and who are condemned. Daniel’s faith in God’s saving grace was apparently stronger than theirs at this time.</p>


text:
<p>So I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me; for my moisture was turned in me into corruption- Daniel was to undergo a figurative death and resurrection. Perhaps this is why he had to be"left alone", to experience the totally personal issues and feelings of death and resurrection.  Daniel was disappointed that the Messiah and His Kingdom wouldn't come in his lifetime. So he is given this experience of death and glorious resurrection to encourage him that truly, the best is ahead. At the resurrection, all human strength and glory will be as nothing. No beauty, wealth or human success will have any significance. The Hebrew behind "moisture" is that of dignity of face. Majesty, glory, is the idea of the word (s.w. Ps. 8:1; 45:3; Jer. 22:18; Hos. 14:6; Hab. 3:3). But thereby we will come to identity with the Lord Jesus. For when we read that therefore all that glory ["moisture" "was turned in me into corruption" it means he was disfigured; and the same word is used of how the Lord's face on the cross was "marred" (Is. 52:14). The repeated statement that Daniel was left alone may seem to state the obvious. But this too is an aspect of how we shall be at the resurrection and judgment. All social connections, church, family and friends will not figure at all. We will meet the Lord as we are. And it is for us to develop that personal relationship with Him now. Seeing that's the intention, it's no surprise that human relationships and social connections often go wrong in the lives of those the Lord has chosen as His very own. Being "left alone" with God is a repeated feature in the life of God's children. We think of how Jacob was "left alone" with the Angel (Gen. 32:24), as was Benjamin when his brothers all went to Egypt (Gen. 42:38), the suffering servant (Is. 49:21), Martha left alone in the kitchen (Lk. 10:40), the woman caught in adultery left alone with the Lord (Jn. 8:9), the Lord Himself left alone apart from having the Father (Jn. 8:29), Elijah feeling "left alone" in apostate Israel (Rom. 11:3), Paul left alone at Athens (1 Thess. 3:1).  Daniel later tells the Angel how he feels (:16). Likewise every tongue shall confess how we are nothing. But we must get there in this life.</p><p> And I retained no strength- As in <a href='B:340 11:6'>Dan 11:6</a>. Often in Daniel we read of “power” coming from God and being given to and taken from men. Daniel learnt in his own personal experience what this felt like, to enable him to better understand the prophecies he was giving. His mortality and weakness, and ours, is the whole world’s mortality and weakness. The Hebrew word for “power” is that used in <a href='B:340 1:4'>Dan 1:4</a> - Daniel had ability [power] to stand before the earthly King; now he is unable to stand and has no power, before the Heavenly King. All his human strength was being shown to be nothing. Not by [human] power but by God’s Spirit would the restoration be achieved (<a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yet heard I the voice of his words; and at the time I heard the voice of his words, I had fallen into a deep sleep on my face, with my face toward the ground- This alludes to how in Persian courts, the accused lay prostrate with their face to the ground until the verdict was given; they were raised up if they were innocent. <a href='B:340 10:9-11'>Dan 10:9-11</a> describes in parabolic form the judgement, with Daniel representing the saints, rising from the grave (as he rose from"deep sleep"on the ground) in great fear and sense of unworthiness, but being comforted by the Angel with news of how pleasing we have been to them ("O Daniel, a man greatly beloved"). This indicates that the Angels will have a large part to play in the judgement; the Lord Jesus returns from Heaven with the Angels with Him, and they are sent forth to gather the responsible to judgment.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, a hand touched me, which set me on my knees and on the palms of my hands- Heb. "set me tottering upon my knees". Presumably this was a repeat of how Gabriel had twice touched him in reassurance before (<a href='B:340 8:18'>Dan 8:18</a>; <a href='B:340 9:21'>Dan 9:21</a>). Daniel’s great fear and weakness was because the whole vision was a foretaste of the final judgment, when he was to be resurrected and stand before the saviour Messiah of Israel- and be accepted. This was the final answer to all his concerns, and the disappointment of a life that had not turned out as he had expected by witnessing the restoration of the Kingdom as prophesied.</p>


text:
<p>He said to me, Daniel, you man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright; for I am now sent to you. When he had spoken this word to me, I stood trembling- "Greatly beloved" is literally "greatly desired". God has and will have a desire to the work of His hands, as Job finally figured. He desires us, although the extent of that will only be fully felt by us at that wonderful moment. He now is likewise to be the desire of our soul. </p><p> Daniel’s figurative resurrection was appropriate, because he was so heartbroken that his life was not going to conclude as he had expected, in seeing the restoration of God’s Kingdom in Judah. But he is comforted through the vision of the Lord Jesus in His future glory that there would be the sure hope of personal resurrection. Gabriel says that"I am now sent", after the three weeks delay from the first prayer of Daniel being answered. Gabriel came so that Daniel might"understand", but from the end of Daniel 12 it’s clear that Daniel didn’t understand all the details. But there is no need to understand all the prophetic details to"understand"the essential picture- that God’s Kingdom purpose shall come finally true through the Lord Jesus. Or maybe Daniel’s final lack of apparent ’understanding’ was because he didn’t want to finally accept that, and still hankered for Kingdom now.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said to me, Don’t be afraid, Daniel- Whenever Angels appear to God’s people, they urge them not to fear. Angels will be sent to gather us to judgment, and meeting them will be the first we know that"He’s back!". And surely we can expect the same words in that great day.</p><p>For from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard- Daniel’s prayer for Israel’s restoration was above all a desire to"understand"; but his prayer was surely for the forgiveness and immediate restoration of Israel, as he had prayed in Daniel 9. But God sees to the core. In essence, Daniel was struggling to understand, and God saw this and read this as his prayer. As explained on <a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a>, weknow not what to pray for as we ought, but the hidden spirit of our deepest heart is read and understood as our request. See on <a href='B:340 9:23'>Dan 9:23</a>.</p><p>And I have come for your words’ sake-  Another proof that prayer is immediately heard, though the answer may be long delayed. And is often more glorious than what we had first intended or envisaged.  This is the extreme sensitivity of God Almighty to the words of prayer, the words meant in our hearts. Human words call forth an Angel to be sent from Heaven all the way to a man on earth, struggling for three weeks to human obstacles to the fulfilment of the wish. We see the same thing in Revelation, where human prayer and actions on this earth call forth Angels to leave Heaven and do mighty things on earth- all for our sakes. We could have no greater encouragement towards seriousness and intensity in prayer. One word of prayer can result in Angels being sent all that ‘distance’ from Heaven to earth to assist us, as in <a href='B:40 20:16'>Num 20:16</a> “when we cried unto the LORD, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt”.</p>


