15 Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed.
16 Then the king commanded, and they brought a Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake, and said unto Daniel, Thy God, whom thou servest con tinually, he will deliver b thee.
ing verse that the king was pressed by by three in breadth. The head has been his counsellors to carry the decree into j lately knocked off; but when Mr. Rich execution, and it is probable that the king j saw it, the statue was in a perfect state, saw that the case was a perfectly clear! and he remarks that "the mouth had a one, and that nothing could be hoped for! circular aperture into which a man might from delay. The law was clear, and it i introduce his fist." The second is from was equally clear that it had been vio- 1 an engraved gem, dug from the ruins of lated. There was no way then but to | Babylon by Captain Mignan. It exhibits suffer it to take its course. j a man standing on two sphinxes, and en-
15. Then these men assembled unto the gaged with two fierce animals, possibly king. The Chaldee here is the same as intended for lions. The third is from a in ver. 6, ' they came tuumltuously.' 5 block of white marble found near the They were earnest that the law should i tomb of Daniel at Susa, and thus debe executed, and they probably appre- I scribed by Sir Robert Ker Porter in his hended that if the king were allowed to 4 Travels/ (vol. ii. p. 416). "It does not dwell upon it, the firmness of his own i exceed ten inches in width and depth, mind would give way, and that he would \ measures twenty in length, and is hollow release Daniel. Perhaps they dreaded! within, as if to receive some deposit, the effect of the compunctious visitings j Three of its sides are cut in bas relief, which he might have during the silence two of them with similar representations of the night, and they, therefore, came ' of a man apparently naked, except a tumultuously to hasten his decision, i sash round his waist, and a sort of cap ^Know, 0 king, that the law, &c. That | on his head. His hands are bound beis a settled matter about which there can hind him. The corner of the stono be no debate or difference of opinion. It forms the neck of the figure, so that its would seem that this was a point so well head forms one of its ends. Two lions settled that no question could be raised; in sitting postures appear on either side in regard to it, and, to their minds, it; at the top, each having a paw on the was equally clear that if this were so, it! head of the man." See Pict. Bible in was necessary that the sentence should! loc. «[ Now the king spake and said unto be executed without delay.! Daniel, Thy God, &c. What is here stated
16. Then the king commanded, <fcc. Sec i is in accordance with what is said in Notes on ver. 7. Some recent discoveries j ver. 14, that the king sought earnestly among the ruins of Babylon have shown | to deliver Daniel from the punishment, that the mode of punishment by throwing; He had entire confidence in him, and he offenders against the laws to lions was expressed that to the last. As to the actually practised there, and these dis- question of probability whether Darius, coveries may be classed among the nu-! a heathen, would attempt to comfort merous instances in which modern inves- j Daniel with the hope that he would be detigations have tended to confirm the state- livered, and would express the belief that ments in the Bible. Three interesting this would bo done by that God whom he figures illustrating this fact may be seen in served, and in whose cause he was about the Pictorial Bible, vol. iii. p. 232. The to be exposed to peril, it may be remarked first of those figures, from a block of stone, (1) That it was a common thing among was found at Babylon near the great ] the heathen to believe in the interposimass of ruin that is supposed to mark i tion of the gods in favour of the rightethe site of the grand western palace. It \ ous, and particularly in favour of their represents a lion standing over the body i worshippers. See Homer, passin. Hence «»f a prostrate man, extended on a pedes- j it was that they called on them; that lal which measures nino feet in length! they committed themselves to them in
17 And a stone a was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed b it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords, that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.
battle and in peril; that they sought their aid by sacrifices and by prayers. No one can doubt that such a belief pre vailed, and that the mind of Darius, in accordance with the prevalent custom, might be under its influence. (2) Darius, undoubtedly, in accordance with the pre vailing belief, regarded the God whom Daniel worshipped as a god, though not as exclusively the true God. He had the eamo kind of confidence in him that he had in any god worshipped by foreigners — and probably regarded him as the tute lary divinity of the land of Palestine, and of the Hebrew people. As he might consistently express this belief in refer ence to any foreign divinity, there is no improbability that he would in reference to the God worshipped by Daniel. (3) He had the utmost confidence both in the in tegrity and the piety of Daniel; and as he believed that the gods interposed in human affairs, and as he saw in Daniel an eminent instance of devotedness to Jiis God, he did not doubt that in such a case it might be hoped that he would save him.
17. And a stone was brought) and laid upon the mouth of the den. Probably a large flat stone sufficient to cover the mouth of the cave, and so heavy that Daniel could not remove it from within and escape. It was usual then, as it is now, to close up the entrance to sepul chres with a large stone. See John xi. 38; Matt, xxvii. 60. It would be natural to endeavour to secure this vault or den in the same way — on the one hand so that Daniel could not escape from within, and on the other so that none of his friends could come and rescue him from without. ^[ And the king sealed it with his own signet. With his own seal. That is, he affixed to the stone, probably by means of clay or wax, his seal, in such a way, that it could not be removed by any one without breaking it, and conse quently without the perpetration of a crime of the highest kind — for no greater offence could be committed against his
18 fl Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fast ing: neither were c instruments of music brought before him; and his sleep went from him.
authority, than thus to break his seal, and there could be no greater security! that the stone would not be removed, i On the manner of sealing a stone in such | circumstances, comp. Notes on Matt.; xxvii. 66. ^[ And with the signet of his \ lords. That it might have all the security I which there could be. Perhaps this was i at the suggestion of his lords, and the j design, on their part may have been so to guard the den that the king should I not release Daniel, f That the purpose! might not be changed concerning Daniel.! By the king. Probably they feared that if there was not this security, the king might release him; but they presumed that he would not violate the seal of the great officers of the realm. It would seem that some sort of concurrence between the king and his nobles was required in mak ing and executing the laws.
18. Then the king went to his palace, and patted the night fasting. Daniel was | probably cast into the den soon after the going down of the sun, ver. 14. It was not unusual to have suppers then late at night as it is now in many places. The great; anxiety of the king, however, on account i of what had occurred, prevented him from participating in the usual evening i meal. As to the jirobability of what ig ': here affirmed, no one can have any doubt who credits the previous statements. In! the consciousness of wrong done to a worthy officer of the government; in the deep anxiety which he had to de liver him; in the excitement which must have existed against the cunning and j wicked authors of the plot to deceive the i king and to ruin Daniel; and in his soli citude and hope that after all Daniel! might escape, there is a satisfactory rea- | son for the facts stated that ho had no! desire for food; that instruments of music j were not brought before him; and that j he passed a sleepless night. ^Neither I were instruments of music brought before i him. It was usual among the ancients to have music at their meals. This cus tom prevailed among the Greeks and
19 Then the king arose very early | vant of the living God, is thy God, in the morning, and went in haste whom thou servest continually, able unto the den of lions. to deliver thee from the lions?
20 And when he came to the den, j 21 Then said Daniel unto the he cried with a lamentable voice king, 0 king, live forever.
unto Daniel: and the king spake j 22 My God hath sent his * angel, and said to Daniel, O Daniel, ser- i a(, 3 28
Romans, and doubtless was common in the Oriental world. It should be oblerved, however, that there is consider able variety in the interpretation of the reord hero rendered instruments of music — l)Cn. The margin is table. The Latin Vulgate, ' He slept supperless, neither was food brought before him.' The Greek renders it food — cdor/iara. So the Syriac. Bertholdt and Gesenius render it concu bines, and Saadias dancing girls. Any of these significations would be appro priate; but it is impossible to determine which is the most correct. The word does not occur elsewhere in the Scrip tures.
19. Then the king arose very early in the morning, &c. No one can doubt the probability of what is here said, if the previous account be true. His deep anxiety; his wakeful night; the re morse which he endured, and his hope that Daniel would be after all preserved, all would prompt to an early visit to the place of his confinement, and to his earn estness in ascertaining whether he were gtill alive.
20. He cried with, a lamentable voice. A voice full of anxious solicitude. Liter ally 'a voice of grief.' Such a cry would be natural on such an occasion. ^ 0 Daniel, servant of the living God. The God who has life; who imparts life; and who can preserve life. This was the appellation, probably, which he had heard Daniel use in regard to God, and it is one which he would naturally employ on such an occasion as this, feeling that the question of life was entirely in his hands. ^f Whom thou servest continually. At all times, and in all circumstances: as a captive in a distant land; in places of honour and power; when surrounded by the great who worship other gods; and when threatened with death for your de votion to the service of God. This had been the character of Daniel, and it was aatural to refer to it now.
\king, live forever. The common form of i salutation in addressing the king. See! Notes on ch. ii. 4. There might be more than mere form in this, for Daniel may have been aware of the true source of the calamities that had come upon him, and of the innocence of the king in the mat ter; and he doubtless recalled the interest, which the king had shown in him when, about to be cast into the den of lions, and his expression of confidence that his God would be able to deliver him (ver. 16), i and he could not but have been favour ably impressed by the solicitude which the monarch now showed for his wel fare in thus early visiting him, and by his anxiety to know whether he were; still alive.
22. My God hath sent his angel. It was common among the Hebrews to attri bute any remarkable preservation from danger to the intervention of an angel sent from God, and no one can demon strate that it did not occur as they sup posed. There is no more absurdity in supposing that God employs an an gelic being to defend his people, or to impart blessings to them, than there is in supposing that ho employs one human being to render important aid, and to convey important blessings to an-! other. As a matter of fact, few of the favours which God bestows upon men are conveyed to them directly from him self, but they are mostly imparted by the instrumentality of others. So it is in the blessings of liberty, in deliverance from bondage, in the provision made for our wants, in the favour bestowed on us in infancy and childhood. As this principle prevails everywhere on the earth, it is not absurd to suppose that it may prevail elsewhere, and that on important occasions, and on instances above the rank of human intervention, God may employ the instrumentality of higher beings to defend his people in trouble, and rescue them from danger. Comp. Ps. xxxiv. 7, xci. 11; Dan. ix. 21; Matt
and hath shut the a lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: foras much as before him innoeency b was found in me; and also before thee, 0 king, have I done no hurt.
23 Then was the king exceeding glad for him, and commanded that
they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was takon up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God.
241J And the king commanded, and they brought those men c which had
xviii. 10; Luke xvi. 22; Heb. i. 14. Daniel does not say whether the angel was visible or not, but it is rather to bo presumed that he was, as in this way it would bo more certainly known to him that he owed his deliverance to the inter vention of an angel, and as this would be to him a manifest token of the favour find protection of God. ^[ And hath shut the lion*' mouths. It is clear that Daniel supposed that this was accomplished by a miracle; and this is the only satisfac tory solution of what had occurred. There is, moreover, no more objection to the supposition that this was a miracle than there is to any miracle whatever, for (a) there is no more fitting occasion for the divine intervention than when a good man is in danger, and (6) the object to be accomplished on the mind of the king, and through him on the minds of the people at large, was worthy of such an interposition. The design was evi dently to impress the mind of the mon arch with the belief of the existence of the true God, and to furnish in the court of Babylon proof that should be convincing that he is the only God. ^[ Forasmuch as before him innocency icas found in me.
(1) Absolute innocency in reference to the question of guilt on the point in which ho had been condemned — he having done only that which God approved; and
(2) general integrity and uprightness of character. We need not suppose that Daniel claimed to be absolutely perfect (comp. ch. ix.), but we may suppose that he means to say that God saw that ho was what he professed to be, and that his life was such as he approved. 1[ And also before thee, 0 ki»<j, have I done no hurt. That is, he had in no man ner violated his duty to the king; he bad done nothing that tended to over throw his government, or to spread dis affection among his subjects.
23. Then the king was exceeding glad for him. On account of Daniel. That is, he was rejoiced for the sake of Daniel that he had received no hurt, and that he might be restored to his place, and, be useful again in the government.
24. And the Icing commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Dan- \ iel, &c. It would seem probable that the | king had been aware of their wicked de- | signs against Daniel, and had been satis- | fied that the whole was the result of a I conspiracy, but he felt himself under a I necessity of allowing the law to take its ] course on him whom he believed to be i really innocent. That had been done. All | that the law could be construed as requiring | had been accomplished. It could not be | pretended that the law required that any \ other punishment should be inflicted on • Daniel, and the way was now clear to deal with the authors of the malicious plot as they deserved. No one can rea sonably doubt the probability of what is here said in regard to the conspirators against Daniel. The king had arbitrary power. He was convinced of their guilt. His wrath had been with difficulty re strained when he understood the nature of the plot against Daniel. Nothing, therefore, was more natural than that he should subject the guilty to the same pun ishment which they had sought to bring upon the innocent; nothing more natural than that a proud despot who saw that, by the force of a law which he could not control, he had been made a tool in sub jecting the highest officer of the realm, and the best man in it, to peril of death, that he should, without any delay, wreak his vengeance on those who had thus made use of him to gratify their own malignant passions. 1[ Them, and their children, and their wives. This was in accordance with Oriental notions of jus. tice, and was often done. It is said ex pressly by Ammianus Marcellinus (23. 6. 81,) to have been a custom among the Persians: ' The laws among them [th«
accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their * children, and their wives; and the lions had the b mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den.
Persians] are formidable: among which those which are enacted against the un grateful and deserters, and similar abom inable crimes, surpass others in cruelty, by which, on account of the guilt of one, all the kindred perish' — per quas ob noxam unius omnis propinquitas perit. So Curtius says of the Macedonians: 'It is en- Rcted by law that the kindred of those who conspire against the king shall be put to death with them.' Instances of this kind of punishment are found among the Hebrews (Josh. vii. 24; 2 Sam. xxi. 5, eeq.), though it was forbidden by the law of Moses, in judicial transactions. Deut. xxiv. 16. Comp. also Ezek. xviii. Mauer, in loc. In regard to this transaction, we may observe fa) that nothing is more pro bable than that this would occur, since, as appears from the above quotations, it was often done, and there was nothing in the character of Darius that would prevent it, though it seems to us to be so unjust. (b) It was the act of a heathen monarch, and it is not necessary in order to defend the Scripture narrative, to vindicate the justice of the transaction. The record may be true, though the thing itself was evil and wrong, (c) Yet the same thing substantially occurs in the course of Pro vidence, or the administration of justice now. Nothing is more common than that the wife and children of a guilty man should suffer on account of the sin of the husband and father. Who can recount the woes that come upon a family through the intemperance of a father? And in cases where a man is condemned for crime, the consequences are not con- 1 fined to himself. In shame, and mortifi- j cation, and disgrace; in the anguish ex- 1 perienced when he dies on a gibbet; in; the sad remembrance of that disgraceful death; in the loss of one who might have j provided for their wants, and been their! protector and counsellor, the wife and j Children always suffer; and, though this look another form in ancien/ times, and
25 ^ Then c king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.
26 I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men d trem ble and fear before the God of Dan-
when adopted as a principle of punish ment, is not in accordance with our sense of justice in administering laws, yet it is a principle which pervades the world — for the effects of crime cannot and do not terminate on the guilty individual him self. ^| And the lions had the mastery of them. As the divine restraint furnished for the protection of Daniel was with drawn, they acted out their proper nature. ^[ And brake all their bones in pieces or ever, &c. Literally, ' they did not come to the bottom of the den until the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones.' They seized upon them as they fell, and destroyed them.
25. Then kiny Darius wrote unto all people, &c. Comp. Notes on chs. ii. 47, iii. 29, iv. 1. If there is a probability that Nebuchadnezzar would make such a pro clamation as he did, there is no less pro bability that the same thing would be done by Darius. Indeed, it is manifest on the face of the whole narrative that one great design of all that occurred was to proclaim the knowledge of the true God, and to secure his recognition. That object was worthy of the divine interposi tion, and the facts in the case show that God has power to induce princes and rulers to recognize his existence and per fections, and his government over the earth.
26. I make a decree. Comp. ch. iii. 29. ^[ That in every dominion of my kingdom. Every department, or province. The en tire kingdom or empire was made up of several kingdoms, as Media, Persia, Ba bylonia, &c. The meaning is, that he wished the God of Daniel to be honoured and reverenced throughout the whole em pire. ^[ Men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel. That they honour and reverence him as God. There is no cer tain evidence that he meant that he should be honoured as the only God, but the pro bability is, that he meant that he should be recognized as a God of great power and iel: for » he is the living God, and in heaven and in earth, \vho hath steadfast for ever, and his kingdom delivered Daniel from the e power *that which shall not be destroyed, of the lions.
28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of f Cyrus the Persian.
and his dominion shall be even unto the end.
27 He c delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh d signs and wonders
glory, and as worthy of universal rever- far above all human power. If he had How far this heathen monarch done it on earth in the case of Daniel, it might still regard the other deities wor shipped in the empire as gods, or how far his own heart might be disposed to hon our the God of Daniel, there are no means of ascertaining. It was much, however, that so great a monarch should be led to make a proclamation acknowledging the God of Daniel as having a real existence, and as entitled to universal reverence. 5f For he is the living God. An appella tion often given to God in the Scriptures, and probably learned by Darius from Daniel. It is not, however, absolutely certain that Darius would attach all the ideas to these phrases which Daniel did, or which we would. The attributes here ascribed to God are correct, and the views expressed are far beyond any that pre vailed among the neathen, but still it would not be proper to suppose that Da rius certainly had all the views of God which these words would convey to us now. ^[ And steadfast forever. That is, he is always the same. He ever lives; he has power over all; his kingdom is on an im movable foundation. He is not, in his government, to cease to exist, and to be succeeded by another who shall occupy his throne. ^ And his kingdom that which thall not lie destroyed, &c. See Notes on ch. iv. 3, 34. The similarity between the language used here, and that employed by Nebuchadnezzar, shows that it was probably derived from the same source. It is to be presumed that both monarchs expressed the views which they had learned from Daniel.
27. He delivereth and rescueth. As in the case of Daniel. This attribute would of course be prominent in the view of Da rius, since so remarkable an instance of his power had been recently manifested in j rescuing Daniel. ^[ And he worketh signal xrom luis uuapier we may tind wonders, &c. Performs miracles I following instructive practical was fair to infer that he did it also in hand is the instrument of power. The word paw would express the idea here, and would accord with the meaning, as it is usually with the paw that the lion strikes down his prey before he de vours it.
28. So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius. That is, to the end of his reign. It is fairly implied here that he was restored to his honours. ^[ And in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. Cyrus the Great, the nephew and successor of Darius. For an account of Cyrus, see Notes on Isa. Ixi. 2. How long during the reign of Cyrus, Daniel 'prospered' or lived is not said. During a part of the reign of Darius or Cyaxares, he was occupied busily in securing by his influence the welfare of his own people, and making arrangements for their return to their land; and his high post in the nation to which, under divine Providence, he had doubtless been raised for.this purpose, en abled him to render essential and invalu able service at the court. In the third year of Cyrus, we are informed (ch. x — xii.), he had a series of visions re specting the future history and sufferings of his nation to the period of their true redemption through the Messiah, as also a consolatory direction to himself to proceed calmly and peaceably to the end of his days, and then await patiently the resur rection of the dead, ch. xii. 12, 13. From that period the accounts respecting him are vague, confused, and even strange, and little or nothing is known of the time or circumstances of the death. (Cotnp. Intro. § 1.)
From this chapter we may derive tb»
(1) We have an instance of what often occurs in the world — of envy on account ( ' the excel lency of others, and of the honours which they obtain by their talent and their worth, vs. 1 — 4. Nothing is more frequent than such envy, and nothing more common, as a consequence, than a determination to degrade those who are the subjects of it. Knvy always seeks in some way to humble and mortify those who are distinguished. It is the pain, mortification, chagrin, and regret which we have at their superior excellence or prosperity, and this prompts us to endea vour to bring them down to our own level, or below it; to calumniate their characters; to hin der their prosperity; to embarrass them in their plans; to take up and circulate rumours to their disadvantage; to magnify their faults, or to fasten upon them the suspicion of crime. In the instance before us, we see the effect in a most guilty conspiracy against a man of incorrupti ble character; a man full in the confidence of his sovereign; a man eminently the friend of virtue and of God.
Envy will merit, as its shade, pursue;
But like a shadow, proves the substance true.
Base envy withers at another's joy,
And hates that excellence it cannot reach.
Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow,
Thou shalt not escape calumny. [Shakespeare.
That thou art blamed shalt not be thy defect;
For slander's mark was ever yet the fair;
So thou be good, slander doth yet approve
Thy worth the greater. [Shakespeare.
(2) We have in this chapter (vs. 4 — 9), a striking illustration of the nature and the evils of a conspiracy to ruin others. The plan here was deliberately formed to ruin Daniel — the best man in the realm — a man against whom no charge of guilt could be alleged, who had done the con spirators no wrong; who had rendered himself in no way amenable to the laws. A ' conspiracy* is a combination of men for evil purposes; an agreement between two or more persons to commit some crime in concert, usually treason, or an insurrection against a government or state. In this case, it was a plot growing wholly out of envy or jealousy; a concerted agreement to ruin a good man, where no wrong had been done or could be pretended, and no crime had been committed. The essential things in this conspiracy, as in all other cases of conspiracy, were two: (a) that the
Purpose was evil; and (b) that it was to be accomplished by the combined influences of numbers. he means on which they relied, or the grounds of calculation on the success of their plot, were the following: (1) that they could calculate on the unwavering integrity of Daniel — on his firm and faithful adherence to the principles of his religion in all circumstances, and in all times of temptation and trial; and (2) that they could induce the king to pass a law, irrepealable from the nature of the case, which Daniel would be certain to violate, and to the penalty of which, there fore, he would be certainly exposed. Now in this purpose there was every element of iniquity, and the grossest conceivable wrong. There were combined all the evils of envy and malice; of perverting and abusing their influence over the king; of secresy in taking advantage of one who did not suspect any such design; and of involving the king himself in the necessity of exposing the best man in his realm, and the highest officer of state, to the certain danger of death. The result, however, showed, as is often the case, that the evil recoiled on themselves, and that the very calamity overwhelmed them and their families which they had designed for another.
(3) We have here a striking instance of what often occurs, and what should always occur, among the friends of religion, that ' no occasion can be found against them except in regard to the law of their God' — on the score of their religion, ver. 5. Daniel was known to be upright. His character for integrity was above suspicion. It was certain that there was no hope of bring ing any charge against him that would lie, for any want of uprightness or honesty; for any failure in the discharge of the duties of his office; for any malversation in administering the affairs of the government; for any embezzlement of the public funds, or for any act of injustice towards his fellow-men. It was certain that his character was irreproachable on all these points; and it was equally certain that he did and would maintain unwavering fidelity in the duties of religion. Whatever consequences might follow from it, it was clear that they could calculate on his maintaining with faithfulness the duties of piety. Whatever plot, therefore, could be formed against him on the basis either of his moral integrity, or his piety, it was cer tain would be successful. But there was no hope in regard to the former, for no law could have been carried prohibiting his doing what was right on the subject of morals. The only hope, therefore, was in respect to his religion; and the main idea in their plot — the thing which con stituted the basis of their plan was, that it was certain that Daniel would maintain his fidelity to his God irrespective of any consequences whatever. This certainty ought to exist in, regard to every good man; every man professing religion. His character ought to be so well-understood; his piety ought to be so firm, unwavering, and consistentMbatit could be calculated on just as certainly as we calculate on the stability of the laws of tuBnrev that ho will be found faithful
/o his religious duties and obligations. There are such men. and the character of every mat should be such. Then indeed we should know what to depend on in the world; then religion would be respected as it should be.
(4) "We may learn what is our duty when we arc opposed in the exercise of our religion, or when we arc in any way threatened with loss of office, or of property, on account of our religion, ver. 10. We arc to persevere in the discharge of our religious duties, whatever may be the conse quences. So far as the example of Daniel goes, this would involve two things: (a) not to swerve from the faithful performance of duty, or not to be deterred from it; and (b) not to change our course from any desire of display. These two things were manifested by Daniel. lie kept steadily on his way. He did not abridge the number of times of his daily devotion; nor, as far as appears, did he change the form or the length. He did not cease to pray in an audible voice; he did not give up prayer in the day time, and pray only at night; he did not even close his windows; he did not take any precautions to pray when none were near; he did not withdraw into an inner chamber. At the same time, he made no changes in his devotion for the sake of ostentation. He did not open his windows before closed; he did not go into the street; he did not call around him his friends or foes to witness his devotions; he did not, as far as appears, either elevate his voice, or prolong his prayers, in order to attract attention, or to invite perse cution. In all this he manifested the true spirit of religion, and set an example to men to be followed in all ages. Not by the loss of fame or money; by the dread of persecution, or con tempt of death; by the threatenings of law or the fear of shame, are we to be deterred from the proper and the usual performance of our religious duties; nor by a desire to provoke perse cution, and to win the crown of martyrdom, and to elicit applause, and to have our names bla zoned abroad, are we to multiply our religious acts, or make an ostentatious display of them, when we are threatened, or when we know that our conduct will excite opposition. We are to ascertain what is right and proper; and then we are modestly and firmly to do it, no matter what may be the consequences. Comp. Matt. v. 16; Acts iv. Ib — 20, v. 29.
(5) We have, in the case of Darius, an instance of what often happens, the regret and anguish which the mind experiences in consequence of a rash act, when it cannot be repaired, ver. 14. The act of Darius in making the decree was eminently a rash one. It was done without deliberation, at the suggestion of others, and probably under the influence of some very im proper feeling — the desire of being esteemed as a god. But it had consequences which he did not foresee — consequences which, if he had foreseen them, would doubtless have prevented his giving a sanction to this iniquitous law. The state of mind which he experienced when he saw how the act involved the best officer in his government, and the best man in his realm, was just what might have been expected, and is an illustration of what often occurs. It was too late now to prevent the effects of the act; and his mind was overwhelmed with remorse and sorrow. lie blamed himself for his folly; and he sought in vain for some way to turn aside the conse quences which he now deplored. Such instances often occur: (a) many of our acts are rasJt. They are performed without deliberation; under the influence of improper passions; at the suggestion of others who would be thought to be our friends; and without any clear view of the consequences, or any concern as to what the result may be. (b) As an effect, they often have consequences which we did not anticipate, and which would have deterred us in each in stance had we foreseen them, (c) They often produce regret and anguish when too late, and when we cannot prevent the evil. The train of evils which has been commenced it is now too late to retard or prevent, and they now inevitably come upon us. We can only stand and weep over the effects of our rashness and folly; and must now feel that if the evil is averted, it will be by the interposition of God alone.
(6) We have in this chapter an affecting instance of the evils which often arise in a human government from the want of something like an atonement, ver. 14, seq. As has been remarked in the Notes, cases often arise when it is desirable that pardon should be extended to the vio lators of law. See Notes on ver. 14. In such cases, some such arrangement as that of an atone ment, by which the honour of the law might be maintained, and at the same, time the merciful feelings of an executive might be indulged, and the benevolent wishes of a community grati fied, would remove difficulties which are now felt in every human administration. The difficulties in the case, and the advantage which would arise from an atonement, may be seen by a brief reference to the circumstances of the case before us: (a) the law was inexorable. It demanded punishment, as all law does — for no law in itself makes any provision for par don. If it did it would be a burlesque on all legislation. Law denounces penalty; it does not pardon, or show mercy. It has become necessary indeed to lodge a pardoning power with some man intrusted with the administration of the laws, but the pardon is not extended by the law itself. (/y)The anxiety of the king in the case is an illustration of what often occurs in the administration of law, for, as above observed, there are cases where, on many accounts, it would *eem to be desirable that the penalty of the law should not be inflicted. Such a case was that of Dr. Dodd, in London, in which a petition, signed by thirty thousand names, was presented, praying for the remission of the penalty of death. Such a case was that of Major Andre, when Washington shed tears at the necessity of signing the death-warrant of so young and so accom plished an officer. Such cases often occur, in which there is the deepest anxiety in the bosom of an executive to see if there is not some way by which the infliction of the penalty of the law may be avoided, (c) Yet there was^n the case of Darius no possibility of a change, and this too is an illustration of what often occurs. The law was inexorable. It could not be repealed. Bo now there are instances where the penalty of law cannot be avoided consistently with the •welfare of a community. Punishment must be inflicted, or all law become a nullity. An instance of this kind was that of Dr. Dodd. He was convicted of forgery. So important had it been deemed for the welfare of a commercial community that that crime should be prevented, that no one ever had been pardoned for it, and it was felt that no one should be. Such an in stance was that of Major Andre. The safety and welfare of the whole army, and the success of the cause, seemed to demand that the offence should not go unpunished. Yet (c) there arc difficulties in extending pardon to the guilty: (I) if it is done at all, it always does HO much to weaken the strong arm of the law, and if often done, it makes law a nullity, and (2) if it is never done, the law seems stern and inexorable, and the finer feelings of our nature, and the benevo lent wishes of the community, are disregarded, (d) These difficulties are obviated by an atone ment. The things which are accomplished in the atonement made under the divine govern ment, we think, so far as this point is concerned, and which distinguishes pardon in the divine administration from pardon everywhere else, relieving it from all the embarrassments felt in other governments, are the following: (1) there is the utmost respect paid to the law. It is honoured (a) in the personal obedience of the Lord Jesus, and (fc)in the sacrifice which he made on the cross to maintain its dignity, and to show that it could not bo violated with impunity — more honoured by far than it would be by the perfect obedience of man himself, or by its pen alty being borne by the sinner. (2) Pardon can be offered to any extent, or to any number of offenders. All the feelings of benevolence and mercy can be indulged and gratified in the most free manner — for now that an atonement is made, all proper honour has been shown to the law and to the claims of justice, and no interest will suffer though the most ample proclama tion of pardon is issued. There is but one government in the universe that can safely to itself make an unlimited offer of pardon — that is the government of God. There is not a human government that could safely make the offer which we meet everywhere in the Bible, that all offences may be forgiven; that all violators of law may be pardoned. If such a procla mation were made, there is no earthly administration that could hope to stand; no com munity which would not soon become the prey of lawless plunder and robbery. The reason, and the sole reason, why it can be done in the divine administration is, that an atonement has been made by which the honour of the law has been secured, and by which it is shown that, while pardon is extended to all, the law is to be honoured, and can never be violated with Impunity. (3) The plan of pardon by the atonement secures the observance of the law on the part of those who are pardoned. This can never be depended on when an offender against human Laws is pardoned, and when a convict is discharged from the penitentiary. So far as the effect of punishment, or any influence from the act of pardon is concerned, there is no security that the pardoned convict will not, as his first act, force a dwelling or commit murder. But in the case of all who are pardoned through the atonement, it is made certain that they will be obedient to the laws of God, and that their lives will be changed from sin to holiness— from disobedience to obedience. This has been secured by incorporating into the plan a provi sion by which the heart shall be changed before pardon is granted: not as the ground or reason of pardon, but as essential to it. The heart of the sinner is renewed by the Holy Ghost, and ho becomes in fact obedient, and is disposed to lead a life of holiness. Thus every hindrance which exists in a human government to pardon is removed in the divine administration: the honour of law is secured; the feelings of benevolence are gratified, and the sinner becomes obedient and holy.
(7) \Ve have in this chapter (ver. 16) an instance of the confidence which wicked men are con strained to express in the true God, Darius had no doubt that the God whom Daniel served was able to protect and deliver him. The same may be said now. Wicked men know that it is safe to trust in God; that he is able to save his friends; that there is more security in the ways of virtue than in the ways of sin; and that when human help fails, it is proper to repose Dn the Almighty arm. There is a feeling in the human heart that they who confide in God are safe, and that it is proper to rely on his arm; and even a wicked father will not hesitate to exhort a Christian son or daughter to serve their God- faithfully, and to confide in him in the trials and temptations of life. Ethan Allen of Vermont, distinguished in the American revo lution, was an infidel. His wife was an eminent Christian. When he was about to die, he was asked which of the two he wished his son to imitate in his religious views — his father or his mother. He replied, ' His mother.'
(8) The righteous may look for the divine protection and favour (ver. 22); that is, it is an advantage in this world of danger, and temptation, and trial, to be truly religious; or, in other words, those who are righteous may confidently expect the divine interposition in their behalf. It is, indeed, a question of some difficulty, but of much importance, to what extent, and in what forms we are authorized now to look for the divine interposition in our behalf, or what is the real benefit of religion in this world, so far as tho divine protection is concerned; and on this point it seems not inappropriate to lay down a few principles that may be of use, and that may be a proper application of the passage before us to our own cir cumstances:
(A) There is then a class of Scripture promises that refer to such protection, and that lead us to believe that we may look for the divine interference in favour of the righteous, or that there is, in this respect, an advantage in true religion. In support of this, reference may be made to the following, among other passages of Scripture: Ps. xxxiv. 7, 17 — 22; Iv. 22; xci. 1 — 8; Isa. xliii. 1, 2; Luke xii. 6,7; Heb. i. 14, xiii. 5, 6.
(B) In regard to the proper interpretation of these passages, or to the nature and extent of the divine interposition which we may expect in behalf of the righteous, it nuy be remarked
J. That vre fire not to expect now the following things:
(a) The divine interposition by miracle. It is the common opinion of the Christian -world that the age of miracles is past, and certainly there is nothing in the Bible that authorizes us to expect that God will now interpose for us in that manner. It would be a wholly illogical inference, however, to maintain that there never has been any such interposition in behalf of the righteous — since a reason may have existed for such an interposition in former times -which may not exist now.
(6) \Ve are not authorized to expect that God will interpose by sending his angels visibly to protect and deliver us in the day of peril. The fair interpretation of those passages of Scripture •which refer to that subject, as Ps. xxxiv. 7, Heb. i. 14, does not require us to believe that there •will be such interposition, and there is no evidence that such interposition takes place. This fact, however, should not be regarded as proof, cither (1) that no such visible interposition has ever occurred in former times — since it in no way demonstrates that point; or (2) that the angels may not interpose in our behalf now, though to us invisible. For any thing that can be proved to the contrary, it may still be true that the angels may be, invisibly, 'ministering spirits to those who shall be heirs of salvation,' and that they may be sent to accompany the souls of the righteous on their way to heaven, as they were to conduct Lazarus to Abraham's bosom. Luke xvi. 22.
(c) We are not authorized to expect that God will set aside the regular laws of nature in our behalf— that he -will thus interpose for us in regard to diseases, to pestilence, to storms, to mil dew, to the ravages of the locust or the caterpillar — for this would be a miracle, and all the interposition which we are entitled to expect must be consistent with the belief that the laws of nature will be regarded.
(d) We are not authorized to expect that the righteous will never be overwhelmed with the •wicked in calamity — that in an explosion on a steamboat, in a shipwreck, in fire or flood, in an earthquake or in the pestilence, that they will not be cut down together. To suppose that God would directly interpose in behalf of his people in such cases, would be to suppose that there would be miracles still, and there is nothing in the Bible, or in the facts that occur, to justify such an expectation.
II. The divine interposition which we are authorized to expect, may be referred to under the following particulars:
(a) All events, great and small, are under the control of the God who loves righteousness — the God of the righteous. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without his notice; not an event happens without his permission. If, therefore, calamity comes upon the righteous, it is not because the world is without control; it is not because God could not prevent it; it must be because he sees it best that it should be so.
(b) There is a general course of events that is favourable to virtue and religion; that is, there is a state of things on earth which demonstrates that there is amoral government over men. The essence of such a government, as Bishop Butler (Analogy) has shown, is, that virtue, in the course of things, is rewarded as virtue, and that vice is punished as vice. This course of things is so settled and clear as to show that God is the friend of virtue and religion, and the enemy of rice and irreligion — that is, that, under bis administration, the one, as a great law, has a tendency to promote happiness; the other to produce misery. But if so, there is an advantage in being righteous; or there is a divine interposition in behalf of the righteous.
(c) There are large classes of evils which a man will certainly avoid by virtue and religion, and those evils are among the most severe that afflict mankind. A cours* of virtue and reli gion will make it certain that those evils will never come upon him or his family. Thus, for example, by so simple a thing as total abstinence from intoxicating drinks, a man will certainly avoid all the evils that afflict the drunkard — the poverty, disease, disgrace, wretchedness, and ruin of body and soul which are certain to follow from intemperance. By chastity, a man will avoid the woes that come, in the righteous visitation of God, on the debauchee, in the form of the most painful and loathsome of the diseases that afflict our race. By integrity, a man will avoid the evils of imprisonment for crime, and the disgrace which attaches to its committal. And by religion — pure religion — by the calmness of mind which it produces: the confidence in God; the cheerful submission to his will; the contentment which it causes, and the hopes of a better world which it inspires, a man will certainly avoid a large class of evils which unsettle the mind, and which fill with wretched victims the asylum for the insane. Let a man take up the report of an insane asylum, and ask what proportion of its inmates would have been saved from so fearful a malady by true religion — by the calmness which it produces in trouble; by its influence in moderating the passions and restraining the desires; by the acquiesence in the will of God which it produces, and he will be surprised at the number which would have been saved it from the dreadful evils of insanity. As an illustration of this, I took up the Report of the Pennsylvania Hospital for the Insane for the year 18,50, which happened to bo lying before me, and looked to see what were the causes of insanity in regard to the inmates of the Asylum, with a view to the inquiry what proportion of them would probably have been saved from it by the proper influence of religion. Of 1599 patients whose cases were referred to, I found the following, a large part of whom, it may be supposed, would have been saved from insanity if their minds had been under the proper influence of the gospel of Christ, re straining them from sin, moderating their passions, checking their desires, and giving them calmness and submission in the midst of trouble:—
Dread of poverty,..... -2
(d) There are cases where God seems to interpose in behalf of the righteous directly, ia answer to prayer, in. times of sickness, poverty, and danger — raising them up from the bor ders of the grave; providing for their wants in a manner which appears to be as providential as when the ravens fed Elijah, and rescuing them from danger. There are numerous such cases which cannot be well accounted for on any other supposition than that God does directly interpose in their behalf, and show them these mercies because they are his friends. These are not miracles. The purpose to do this was a part of the original plan when the world was made, and the prayer and the interposition are only the fulfilling of the eternal decree.
(e) God does interpose in behalf of his children in giving them support and consolation; in fiustaining them in the time of trial; in upholding them in bereavement and sorrow, and in granting them peace as they go into the valley of the shadow of death. The evidence here is clear, that there is a degree of comfort and peace given to true Christians in such seasons, and given in consequence of their religion, which is not granted to the wicked, and to which the de votees of the world are strangers. And if these things are so, then it is clear that there is an advantage in this life in being righteous, and that God does now interpose in the course of events, and in the day of trouble, in behalf of his friends.
(9) God often overrules the malice of men to make himself known, and constrains the wicked to acknowledge him, vs. 25 — 27. Darius, like Nebuchadnezzar, was constrained to acknowledge him as the true God, and to make proclamation of this throughout his vast empire. So, often by his providence, God constrains the wicked to acknowledge him as the true God, and as ruling in the affairs of men. His interpositions are so apparent; his works are so vast; the proofs of his administration are so clear; and he so defeats the counsels of the wicked, that they cannot but feel that he rules, and they cannot but acknowledge and proclaim it. It is in this way that from age to age God is raising up a great number of witnesses even among the wicked to acknowledge his existence, and to proclaim the great truths of his government; and it is in this way, among others, that he is constraining the intellect of the world to bow before him. Ultimately all this will be so clear, that the intellect of the world will acknowledge it, and all kings and people will see, as Darius did, that 'he is the living God, and steadfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be unto th« end.'
THIS chapter contains an account of a remarkable prophetic dream which Daniel had in the first year of the reign of Belshazzar, and of the interpretation of the dream. After a brief state ment of the contents of the chapter, it will be proper, in oMer to its more clear exposition, to state the different methods which have been proposed for interpreting it, or the different views of its application which have been adopted. The chapter comprises the following main points: the vision, vs. 1 — 14, and the explanation, vs. 15 — 28.
I. The vision, vs. 1 — 14. The dream occurred in the first year of the reign of Belshazzar, and was immediately written out. Daniel is represented as standing near the sea, and a violent wind raged upon the sea, tossing the waves in wild commotion. Suddenly he sees four monpters emerge from the agitated waves, each one apparently remaining fora little time, and then disappearing. The first, in its general form, resembled a lion, but had wines like an eagle. On this ho attentively gazed, until the wings were plucked away, and the beast was made to stand upright as a man, and the heart of a man was given to it. Nothing is said as to what became of the beast after this. Then there appeared a second beast, resembling a bear, raising itself up on one side, and having three ribs in its mouth, and a command was given to it to arise and devour much flesh. Nothing is said further of what became of this beast. Then there arose another beast like a leopard, with four wings, and four heads, and to this beast waa given wid« dominion. Nothing is said as to what became of this animal. Then there arose a fourth beast more remarkable still. Its form is not mentioned, but it was fierce and strong. It had great iron teeth. It trampled down everything before it, and devoured and brake in pieces. This beast had at first ten horns, but soon there sprang up in the midst of them another — a smaller horn at first, but as this increased three of the ten horns were plucked up by the roots — appa rently either by this, or in order to give place to it. What was more remarkable still, in this smaller horn their appeared the eyes of a man — emblematic of intelligence and vigilance, and a mouth speaking great things — indicative of pride and arrogance. Daniel looked on this singu lar vision till a throne was set up or established, and then the Ancient of Days did sit — till the old forms of domination ceased, and the reign of God was introduced and established. Ha contemplated it till, on account of the great words which the ' horn spake,' the beast was c-lain, and his body was destroyed, and given to burning flame. In the meantime the dominion was taken away from the other beasts; though their existence was prolonged for a little time. Then appeared in vision one in the form of man, who came to the Ancient of Days, and there was given to him universal dominion over all people — a kingdom that should never bo destroyed.
II. The interpretation of the vision, vs. 15 — 28. Daniel was greatly troubled at the vision which he had seen, and he approached one who stood near, and asked him the meaning of it, vs. 15, 16. The explanation with which he was favoured, was, in general, the following: That those four beasts, which he had seen, represented four kings or kingdoms which would exist on the earth, and that the great design of the vision was to state the fact that the saints of the Most High would ultimately possess the kingdom, and would reign forever, vs. 17, 18. Tho grand purpose of the vision was to represent the succession of dynasties, and the particular character of each one, until the government over the world would pass into the hands of the people of God, or until the actual rule on the earth should bo in the hands of the righteous. The ultimate object, the thing to which all revolutions tended, and which was designed to be indicated in the vision, was the final reign of the saints on the earth. There was to be a time when the kingdom under the whole heaven was to be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; or, in other words, there would be a state of things on the earth, when 'all dominions,' or all ' rulers' (Magin, ver. 27) would obey him. This general announcement in reference to the ultimate thing contemplated, and to the three first kingdoms, repre sented by the three first beasts, was satisfactory to Daniel, but he was still perplexed in regard to the particular thing designed to be represented by the fourth beast, so remarkable in its structure, so unlike all the others, and undergoing so surprising a transformation, vs. 19 — 22. The sum of what was stated to him, in regard to the events represented by the fourth beast, is as follows: (1) that this was designed to represent a fourth kingdom or dynasty which would arise upon the earth, in many respects different from the three which would precede it. It was to be a kingdom which would be distinguished for oppressive conquests. It would subdue the whole earth, and it would crush, and prostrate, and trample down those whom it invaded. The description would characterize a dominion that would be stern, and mighty, and cruel, and successful; that would keep the nations which it subdued under its control by the terror of arms rather than by the administration of just laws, ver. 23. (2) The ten horns that Daniel saw spring out of its head, denoted ten kings that would arise, or a succession of rulers that would sway the authority of the kingdom, ver. 24. (3) The other horn that sprang up among the ten, and after them, denoted another dynasty that would arise, and this would have pecu liar characteristics. It would so far have connection with the former that it would spring out of them, but in most important respects it would differ from them. Its characteristics may be Bummed up as follows: (a) it would spring from their midst, or be somehow attached, or con nected with them — as the horn sprang from the head of the beast — and this would properly denote that the new power somehow sprung from the dynasty denoted by the fourth beast — as the horn sprang from the head of that beast; (/>) though springing from that, it would be ' diverse' from it, having a character to be determined, not from the mere fact of its origin, but from some thing else: (c) it would ' subdue three of these kings;' that is, it would overcome and prostrate a certain portion of the power and authority denoted by the ten horns — perhaps meaning that it would usurp something like one-third of the power of the kingdom denoted by the fourth beast; (d) it would be characterized by arrogance and haughtiness — so much so that the fair con struction of its claims would be that of 'speaking against the Most High;' (e)it would ' wear out the saints of the Most High' — evidently referring to persecution; (/) it would claim legis lative authority so as to ' change times and laws' — or clearly referring to some claim set up over established laws, or to unusual authority, vs. 24, 25. (4) Into the hand of this new power, all these things would be given for ' a time, and times, and half a time:' implying that it would not be permanent, but would come to an end, ver. 25. (5) After that there would be a judg ment — a judicial determination in regard to this new power, and the dominion would be taken away, to be utterly destroyed, ver. 26. (6) There would come a period when the whcle do minion of the earth would pass into the hands of the saints; or, in other words, there would be a universal reign of the principles of truth and righteousness, ver. 27.
In the conclusion of the chapter (vcr. 28), Daniel says that these communications deeply affected his heart. He had been permitted to look far into futurity, and to contemplate vast Changes in the progress of human affairs, and even to look forward to a period when all the nations would be brought under the dominion of the law of God, and the friends of the Most High would be put in possession of all power. Such events were fitted to fill the mind with solemn thought, and it is not wonderful that he contemplated th«m with deep emotion.
It is hardly necessary to say that there have been very different methods of interpreting this chapter, and that the views of its proper interpretation are by no means agreed on by exposi tors. It may be useful to refer to some of those methods before we advance to its exposition, that they may be before the mind in its consideration. We shall be the better able to ascer tain what is the true interpretation by enquiring which of them, if any, accords with the fair exposition of the language employed by the sacred writer. The opinions entertained may be reduced to the following classes:
I. Hardt supposes that the four beasts here denote four particular kings — Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Belshazzar, and Cyrus.
II. Ephraem, who is followed by Eichhorn, supposes that the first beast referred to the Baby lonish-Chaldean kingdom; the second the Medish empire under Cyaxares II., the three 'ribs' of which denote the Medish, Persian, and Chaldean portions of that empire; the third the Per sian empire, the four heads and wings of which denote the spread of the Persian empire to wards the four regions under heaven, or to all parts of the world; the fourth to the Grecian:>mpire under Alexander and his successors, the ten horns of which denote ten eminent kings among the successors of Alexander, and the 'little horn' that sprang up among them, Antiochus Epiphanes. The succeeding state of things, according to Ephraem and Eichhorn, refers to the kingdom of the Messiah.
III. Grotius, representing another class of interpreters, whom Iletzel follows, supposes that the succession of the kingdoms here referred to is the Babylonish-Chaldean; the Persian; the kingdom of Alexander and his successors. The fifth is the Roman empire.
IV. The most common interpretation which has prevailed in the church is that which sup poses that the first beast denotes the Chaldean kingdom; the second the M edo- Persian; the third the Greek empire under Alexander and his successors; the fourth the Roman empire. The dominion of the saints is the reign of the Messiah and his laws. But this opinion, particu larly as far as pertains to the fourth and fifth of these kingdoms, has had a great variety of modifications, especially in reference to the signification of the ten horns, and the little horn that sprang up among them. Some, who under the fifth kingdom, suppose that the reign of Christ is referred to, regard the fourth kingdom as relating to Rome under the Caesars, and that the ten horns refer to a succession of ten regents, and the little horn to Julius Caesar. Others, who refer the last empire to the personal reign of Christ on the earth, and the kingdom which he would set up, suppose that the ten horns refer to ten kings or dynasties that sprang out of the Roman power — either a succession of the emperors; or those who came in after the inva sion of the northern hordes; or certain kingdoms of Europe which succeeded the Roman power after it fell, and by the little horn, they suppose that either the Turkish power with its various branches is designated, or Mohammed, or the Papacy, or Antichrist.
V. The Jews, in general, suppose that the fifth kingdom refers to the reign of the Messiah; but still there has been great diversity of views among them in regard to the application of particular parts of the prophecy. Many of the older interpreters among them supposed that the ten horns denoted ten Roman Caesars, and that the last born referred to Titus Vespasian. Most of the later Jewish interpreters refer this to their fabulous Gog and Magog.
VI. Another interpretation which has had its advocates is that which supposes that the first kingdom was the Chaldean; the second the Persian; the third that of Alexander; the fourth that of his successors, and the fifth that of the Asmonean princes who rose up to deliver the Jewish nation from the despotism of the Syrian kings.
VII. As a specimen of one mode of interpretation which has prevailed to some extent in the church, the opinion of Cocteius may be referred to. lie supposes that the first beast, with the eagle's wings, denoted the reign of the Christian emperors in Rome, and the spread of Chris tianity under them into remote regions of the East and West; the second, with the three ribs in his mouth, the Ariam Goths, Vandals, and Lombards; the third, with the four heads and four wings, the Mohammedan kingdom with the four Caliphates; the fourth, th« kingdom of Charlemagne, and the ten horns in this kingdom, the Carolingians, Saxons, Salish, Swedish, Hollandish, English, &c., princes and dynasties or people; and the little horn, the Papacy as the actual Antichrist.
The statement of these various opinions, and methods of interpretation, I have translated from Bertholdt, Daniel, pp. 419 — 4215. To these should be added the opinion which Bertholdt himself maintains, and which has been held by many others, and which Bertholdt has explained and defended at length, pp. 426 — 446. That opinion is, substantially, that the first kingdom is the Babylonish kingdom under Nebuchadnezzar, and that the wings of the first beast denote the extended spread of that empire. The second beast, with the three 'ribs.' or fangs, denotes the Median, Lydian, and Babylonish kingdoms, which were erected under one sceptre, the Per sian. The third beast, with the four wings and four heads, denotes the Grecian dynasty under Alexander, and the spread of that kingdom throughout the four parts of the world. The fourth beast denotes the kingdom of the Lagidas and Seleucidae, under which the Hebrews suffered so much. The statement respecting this kingdom (ver. 7). that ' it was diverse from all that went Before it,' refers to the 'plurality of the fourth kingdom,' or the fact that it was an aggregate made up of many others — a kingdom in a collective sense. The ' ten horns ' denote ten suc cessive princes or kings in that kingdom, and Bertholdt enumerates them in the following order: 1. Seleucus Nicator; 2. Antiochus Soter; 3. Antiochus Theos; 4. Seleucus Kallinicus; 6. Seloucus Keraunus: 6. Antiochus the Great; 7. Selrmcus Philopatcr: 8. Heliodorus; 9. Pto lemy Philometer; 10. Demetrius. The eleventh — denoted by the little horn— was Antioehus JSpiphanes, who brought so many calamities upon the Hebrew people. His rtign lasted, ac cording to Bertholdt, ' a time, and times, and half a time ' — or three years and a half; and then the kingdom was restored to the people of God to be a permanent reign, and, ultimately, under the Messiah, to fill the world and endure to the end of time.
The interpretation thus stated, supposing that the ' little horn ' refers to Antioehus Epiphancs, is also maintained by Prof. Stuart. Hints on prophecy, 2d. ed. pp. 85 — 98. Compare also Com- Tientary on Daniel, pp. 17" — 194, and 205 — 211.
Amidst such a variety of views, the only hope of arriving at any satisfactory conclusion respect ing the meaning of this chapter is by a careful examination of the text, and the fair meaning of the symbols employed by Daniel.
1 In the first year of Belshazzar I his bed: then he wrote the dream, king of Babylon, Daniel » had a and told the sum of the c matters.
b dream and visions of his head upon
1. In the first year of Belshazzar, Icing of Babylon. On the character and reign of Belshazzar, see Intro, to ch. v. # 2. He was the last of the kings of Baby lon, and this fact may cast some light on the disclosures made in the dream. f Daniel had a dream. Marg. as in Heb. saw. He saw a series of events in vision when he was asleep. The dream refers to that representation, and was of such a nature that it was proper to speak of it as if he saw it. Comp. Notes on ch. ii. 1. ^f And visions of his head upon his bed. Notes on ch. iv. 5. Then he wrote the dream. He made a record of it at the time. He did not commit it to tradition, or wait for its fulfillment before it was re corded, but long before the events referred to occurred he committed the prediction to writing, that when the prophecy was fulfilled they might be compared with it. It was customary among the prophets to record their predictions, whether commu nicated in a dream, in a vision, or by words to them, that there might be no doubt when the event occurred that there had been an inspired prediction of it, and that there might be an opportunity of a careful comparison of the prediction with the event. Often the prophets were com manded to record their predictions. See Isa. viii. 1, 16, xxx. 8, Hab. ii. 2. Com pare Rev. i. 19, xiv. 13, xxi. 5. In many instances, as in the case before us, the record was made hundreds of years before the event occurred, and as there is all the evidence that there could be in a case that the record has not been altered to it to the event, the highest proof is thus furnished of the inspiration of the pro phets. The meaning here is, that Daniel wrote?wf the dream as soon as it occurred. f And told the sum of the mattert. Chal.,
•' And spake the head of the words.' That is, he spake or told them by writing. He made a communication of them in this manner to the world. It is not implied that he made any oral communication of them to any one, but that he communica ted them — to wit, in the way specified. The word sum here — fc!iO — means head; and would properly denote such a record as would be a heading up, or a summary — as stating in a brief way the contents of a book, or the chief points of a thing with out going into detail. The meaning here seems to be that he did not go into de tail — as by writing names, and dates, and places; or, perhaps, that he did not en ter into a minute description of all that he saw in regard to the beasts that came up from the sea, but that he recorded what might be considered as peculiar, and as having special significancy. The Codex Chisia. renders this, sypatyev tit K£0dAaia \6yuv — 'He wrote in heads of words/ that is, he reduced it to a sum mary description. It is well remarked i by Lengerke, on this place, that the pro phets, when they described what was to occur to tyrants in future times, conveyed j their oracles in a comparatively dark and j obscure manner, yet so as to be clear when j the events should occur. The reason of this is obvious. If the meaning of many of the predictions had been understood by those to whom they referred, that fact
*° d«fe.nt them, and as the \ fulfilment depended on their voluntary j agency, the prophecy would have been void. It was necessary, therefore, in general, to avoid direct predictions, and the mention of names, dates, and places, and to
2 Daniel spake and said, I saw I the four winds of the heaven strove in my vision by night, and behold,! upon the great sea.
make use of symbols whose meaning would storms, would be a natural emblem to be obscure at the time when the predic- j denote a nation, or nations, agitated with tion was made, but which would be plain internal conflicts, or nations in the midst when the event should occur. A com- j of revolutions. Among the sacred poets parison of vs. 4, 9, 11, 14, will show that only a nummary of what was to occur was recorded. If Matters. Marg., as in Chald., words. The term words, however, is of ten used to denote things.
and the prophets, hosts of armies invad ing a land are compared to overflowing waters, and mighty changes among the nations to the heaving billows of the ocean in a storm. Coinp. Jer. xlvi. 7, 8, in the previous verse. It was by a record made at the time, and thus he might be said to speak to his own generation and to all future times, f" I saw -in my vision by niyht. I beheld in the vision; that ' Qua data portaruunt,et terras turbine perflant.
is, he saw represented to him the scene j Incubuere mari, totumque a sedibus imis reader will be reminded in the descrip tion here of the words of Virgil, I. 82, seq.
which ho proceeds to describe. He seemed to see the sea in a tempest, and these monsters came up from it, and the strange succession of events which fol lowed. ^[ And behold, the four winds of
UnaEurus, Notusque ruunt, creberquc procellii Africus, et vastos volvunt ad littora fluctus.
Com. also Ovid, Trist. I. 2, 25, seq. It was from this agitated sea that the beasts
"the Aeavcn." '?he*windV "that" blow under I kingdoms, seemed to rise; and the fair the heaven, cw that seem to come from ' interpretation of this part of the symbol the heaven— or the air. Comp. Jer. j is> that there was» °r would be, as it apxlix. 36. The number of the winds is peared in vision to Daniel, commotions hero referred to as four as they are now,! among the nations resembling the sea as blowing mainly from the four quarters | driven b7 storms, and that from these of the earth. Nothing is more common! commotions there would arise succesnow than to designate them in this man- sive kingdoms having the characteristics ner, as the East, the South, the West, specified by the appearance of the four the North wind. So the Latins— Eu- | beasts. We naturally look, in the fulfilrus, Auster, Zephyrus, Boreas, f Strove. \ ment of this, to some state of things in JTOD. Burst, or rushed forth; seemed \ wh.icl\ th.e nat'on,s ™r« agitated and con- 11: _.... I vulseu; in which they struggled aerainst me«t on the sea, throwing it into wild the rige of thege foi£ succeggiv; king. commotion. The Hebrew word — no — doms. Without now pretending to de means to break or burst forth, as a foun- termine whether that was the time tain or stream of waters, Job xl. 23; an j denoted by this, it is certain that all infant breaking forth from the womb, I that is here said would find a coun- Job xxxviii. 8; a warrior rushing forth I terpart in the period which immedito battle, Ezek. xxxii. 2. Hence the j ately preceded the reign of Nebuchad- Chaldean to break forth; to rush forth as | nezzar, or the kingdom which he founded the winds. The symbol here would na- j and adorned. His rapid and extensive turally denote some wild commotion | conquests; the agitation of the nations among the nations as if the winds of hea- in self-defence, and their wars against ven should rush together in confusion, one another, would be well denoted by ^f Upon the great sea. This expression j the agitation of the ocean as seen in would properly apply to any great sea or! vision by Daniel. It is true that there ocean, but it is probable that the one. have been many other periods of the that would occur to Daniel would be the ': world to which the image would bo appli- Mediterranean sea, as that was best known cable, but no one can doubt that it was to him and his contemporaries. A hea ving ocean — or an ocean tossed with applicable to this period, and that would bo all that would be necessary if the de-
3 And four great beasts came « up from the sea, diverse one from another. * Re. 13. 1. bJo. 4. 7.
The first was like a blion, and eagle's c wings: I beheld till wings thereof were plucked.
sign was to represent a series of king doms commencing with that of Nebu chadnezzar.
3. And four great beasts came up from the sea. Not at once, but in succession. See the following verses. Their parti cular form is described in the subsequent verses. The design of mentioning them here, as coming up from the sea, seems to have been to show that this succession of kingdoms sprang from the agitations and commotions among the nations re presented by the heaving ocean. It is; not uncommon for the prophets to make use of animals to represent or symbolize kingdoms and nations — usually by some animal which was in a manner peculiar to the land that was symbolized, or which abounded there. Thus in Isa. xxvii. 1, leviathan, or the dragon, or crocodile, is used to represent Babylon. See Notes on that passage. In Ezek. xxix. 3 — 5, the dragon or the crocodile of the Nile is put for Pharaoh; in Ezek. xxxii. 2, Pharaoh is compared to a young lion, and to a whale in the seas. In Ps. Ixxiv. 13, 14, the kingdom of Egypt is compared to the dragon and the leviathan. So on ancient coins, animals are often used as j emblems of kingdoms, as it may be added, I the lion and the unicorn represent Great! Britain now, and the eagle the United j States. It is well remarked by Lengerke,! (in loc) that whm the prophets design to represent kingdoms that are made up of other kingdoms, or that are combined by j being brought by conquest under the j power of others, they do this, not by any! single animal as actually found in na ture, but by monsters — fabulous beings that are compounded of others, in which j the peculiar qualities of different animals, are brought together — as in the case of j "the lion with eagle's wings. Thus in Rev. xiii. 1, the Romish power is repre sented by a beast coming out of the sea having seven heads and ten horns. Comp. ii. Ezra (Apocry.) xi. 1, where an eagle is represented as coming from tho sea with twelve feathered wings and three heads. As an illustration of the attempts made in the apocryphal writ ings to imitate the prophets, the whole of ch. xi. and ch. xii. of the second book of Ezra may be referred to. ^ Diverse one from another. Though they all came up from the same abyss, yet they differed from each other — denoting doubtless that though the successive kingdoms referred to would all rise out of the nations re presented by the agitated sea, yet that in important respects they would differ from each other.
4. The first was like a lion. It is to be assumed in explaining and applying these symbols, that they are significant — that is, that there was some adaptedness or propriety in using these symbols to de note the kingdoms referred to; or that in each case there was a reason why the particular animal was selected for a sym bol rather than one of the others; that is, there was something iu the lion that was better fitted to symbolize tho kingdom referred to, than there was in the bear or the leopard, and this was the reason why this particular symbol was chosen in the case. It is to be further assumed that all the characteristics in the symbol were significant, and we are to expect to find them all in the kingdom which they were designed to represent, nor can the symbol be fairly applied to any kingdom unless something shall be found in its character or history that shall correspond alike to the particular circumstances referred to in the symbol, and to the grouping or succession. In regard to the first beast, there were five things that entered into the symbol, all of which it is to be pre sumed were significant: the lion, the eagle's wings — the fact that the wings were plucked — the fact that the beast was lifted up so as to stand up as a man — and the fact that the heart of a man was given to it. It is proper to consider these in their order, and then to enquire whether they find a fulfillment in any known state of things.
(a) The animal that was seen: — the lion. The lion, 'the king of beasts,' is the sym bol of strength and courage, and becomes the proper emblem of a king — as when the Mussulmans call Ali, Mohammed's son-in-law, 'The Lion of God, always victorious.' Thus it is often u*0d in tho
» and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a
Scriptures, Gen. xlix. 9, "Judah is a guished for his power, his dominion, hi« lion's whelp; from the prey, my son, art keeping other animals in awe — his spring, thou gone up; he stooped down, he i and the severity of his blow — is not recouched as a lion, and as an old lion:; inarkable for his speed, nor for going forth who shall rouse him up?" The warlike to conquest. He does not range far to character, the conquest, the supremacy, j accomplish his purpose, nor are his movcof that tribe are here undoubtedly de- j ments eminent for fleetness. Hence there noted. So in Ezek. xix. 2, 3. "What is were attached to the lion the wings of an thy mother? A lioness: she lay down: eagle. A cut may give a more distinct among lions, she nourished her whelps j impression of the image as it appeared to among young lions." Here is an allu- J Daniel. The proper notion, therefore, of sion, says Grotius, to Gen. xlix. 9. Judea was among the nations like a lioness among the beasts of the forest; she had strength and sovereignty. The lion is an emblem of a hero: 2 Sam. xix. 20, "He slew two lion-like men of Moab." Com. Gesenius zu Isa. i. 851. So Her cules and Achilles are called by Homer SityioXtoj/ra, or Aeovrodu/jov — lion-hearted. II. «. 639, i,. 288, Odys. X. 766. See the character, the intrepidity, and the habits j of the lion fully illustrated in Bochart, Hieroz. Lib. iii. c. 2, pp. 723—745. Credner, der Prophet Joel, s. 100, f. Compare also the following places in Scrip- | thls symbol, would be that of a dominion or ture, Ps. vii. 3, xxii. 22, Ivii. 4, Iviii. 7, 1 conquest rapidly secured, as if a. lion, the Ixxiv. 4; 1 Sam. xvii. 37; Job iv. 8; I kinS of beasts, should move, not as he Jer. iv. 7, xlix. 19; Joel i. 6; Isa. xxix. 2. | commonly does, with a spring or bound, The proper notion here, so far as the i confining himself to a certain space or emblem of a lion is concerned, is that of I ranSe> but should move as the eagle does, a king or kingdom that would be dis-! Wlth raPld and prolonged flight, extendtinguished for power, conquest, dominion;! mS his conquests afar. The meaning of that would be, in relation to other kings! the symbol may be seen by comparing and kingdoms, as the lion is among the! this Passage with Isa, xlvi. 11, where Cybeasts of the forest— keeping them in rus is compared to 'a ravenous bird'— awe, and maintaining dominion ' " callin" * ravenous bird f™™ «,« «n«t.
(b) The eagles' wings: — and had ea gle*' wings. Here appears one peculi arity of the emblem — the union of things which are not found joined together in nature — the representation of things or qualities which no one animal would re-
' calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsels from a far country." The eagle is an emblem of swiftness: Jer. iv. 13, " his horses are swifter than eagles;" xlviii. 40, " Behold, he shall fly as an eagle, and shall spread his wings over Moab." See also ch. xlix. 22, Lam. iv. 19, Hab. i. 8.
present. The lion would denote one thing, j titt the win98 thereof were plucked. The or one quality in the kingdom referred h word used — to^n — means to pluck or pull, to — power, dominion, sovereignty — but! as to pull out the beard, comp. Neh. xiii.
there would be some characteristic in that king or kingdom which nothing in the lion would properly represent, and which could be symbolized only by at taching to him qualities to be found in some other animal.
25, Isa. 1. 6, and would here be properly applied to some process of pulling out the feathers or quills from the wings of the eagle. The obvious and proper meaning of this symbol is, that there was some as there would be to an eagle by pluck ing off the feathers from his wings; that is, the rapidity of his conquests would cease. The prophet says, that he looked on until this was done, implying that it was not accomplished at once, but leaving the impression that these conquests were extended far. They were, however, checked, and we see the lion again with out the wings; the sovereign who has ceased to spread his triumphs over the earth.
(d) The lifting up from the earth:— and it ivas lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man. That is, the lion, with the wings thus plucked off, was made to stand upright on his hind feet — an unusual position, but the meaning of the symbol is not difficult. It was still the lion — the monarch — but changed as image here may be well represented by the preceding cut. It is indeed an im age which does not occur in nature, but it will, therefore, all the better represent the great change referred to. In ch. iv. 16, it is said of Nebuchadnezzar, that ' his heart should be changed from man's, and a beast's heart should be given to him;' here, if the symbol refers to him, it does not refer to that scene of humiliation when ho was compelled to eat grass like a beast, but to the fact that he was brought to look at things as a man should do; he ceased to act like, a ravenous beast, and was led to calm reflection, and to think and speak like a man — a rational being. Or, if it refers to the empire of Babylon, instead of the monarch, it would mean that a change had come over the nation under the succession of princes, so that if the lion was changed to a man; that | the fierceness and ferocity of the first is, as if the ferocity, and the power, and | princes of the empire had ceased, and the the energy of the lion had given place j nation had not only closed its conquests, to the comparative weakness of a man. but had actually become, to some extent, There would be as much difference in the moderate and rational, case referred to as there would be if a | Now, in regard to the application of lion so fierce and powerful should be made so far to change his nature as to stand upright, and to walk as a man. This this symbol, there can bo but little diffi culty, and there is almost no difference of opinion among expositors. All, or nearly would evidently denote some remarkable j all, agree that it refers to the kingdom of change — something that would be unu- | Babj'lon, of which Nebuchadnezzar was sual — something where there would be a j the head, and to the gradual diminution diminution of ferocity, and yet perhaps a of the ferocity of conquest under a succhange to comparative weakness — as a cession of comparatively weak princes.
(e) The giving to it of a man's heart: — and a man's heart icas given to it. The
Whatever view may be taken of the Book of Daniel — whether it be regarded as in spired prophecy composed by Daniel him- word heart in the Scriptures often has a self, and written at the time when it closer relation to the intellect or the un- \ professes to have been, or whether it be derstanding than it now has commonly j supposed to have been written long afwith us; and here perhaps it is a general j ter his time by some one who forged it term to denote something like human na ture — thatis, there would be as great a change in the case as if the na ture of the lion should be transformed to that of a man; or, the mean ing may be that this mighty empire, carrying its arms with the ra pidity of an eagle, and the fierceness of a lion through the world, would be checked in its career; its ferocity would be tamed, and it would be jharactarized by coinpa- 'ative moderation and humanity, in his name, there can be no doubt that it relates to the head of the Babylonian empire, or to that to which the 'head of gold/ in the image referred to in ch. iL, represents. The circumstances all so well agree with that application that, although in the explication of the dream (vs. 16 — • 27) this part of it is not explained — for the perplexity of Daniel related pnrticu jlarly to the fourth beast (ver. 19), yet i there can be no reasonable doubt as to! what was intended. For (a) the lion — i the king of beasts — would accurately symj bolize that kingdom in the days of Nebu- 1 chadnezzar — a kingdom occupying tho same position among other kingdoms which the lion does among other beasts, and well represented in its power and
5 And behold another a beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised
ferocity by the lion. See the character and position of this kingdom fully illus trated in the Notes on ch. ii. 37, 38.
up b itself on one side, and it had that is, the character of wildness and fierceness denoted by an untamed beast was succeeded by that which would be
(6) The eagles' wings would accurately i better represented by a human being. It El™. A! L«SJ ~, „«• «..* w,«: is not the character of the lion changed j to that of the bear, or the panther, or the dom-its leaving, as it were, its own na-, lg d nQr.g ifc man considered as a tive domain, and flying abroad. The lion | warrior or conqueror, but man as he is alone would have represented the char acter of the kingdom considered as already having spread itself, or as being at the head of other kingdoms; the wings of distinguished from the wild and ferocious beast of the desert. The change in the character of the empire, until it ceased under the feeble reign of Belshazzar, the eagle, the rapidity with which the j would be well denoted by this symbol.
Palestine, Egypt, Assyria, Ac. It is true j njfe to a bear. That is, q/Verthe lion had that tliis symbol alone would not desig- j appeared, and he had watched it until it nate Babylon any more than it would the { had undergone these surprising transferconquests of Cyrus, or Alexander, or mations. There are several circurn- Cassnr, but it is to be taken in the con- stances, also, in regard to this symbol, nection in which it is here found, and! a\\ Of which, it is to be supposed were no one can doubt that it has a striking! significant, and all of which demand exapplicability to Babylon, (c) The clip- j plication before it is attempted to apply them. In regard to this symbol, also, it may aid in the explanation to have a cut that shall represent it.
ping or plucking of these wings would denote the cessation of conquest; as if it would extend no farther; that is, we see a nation once distinguished for the invasion of other nations, now ceasing its conquests; and remarkable, not for its victories, but as standing at the head of all other nations as the lion stands among the beasts of the forest. All who are acquainted with history know that, af ter the conquests of that kingdom under Nebuchadnezzar, it ceased characteristi cally to be a kingdom distinguished for (a) The animal seen: — the bear. For conquest, but that, though under his sue- ] a full description of the bear, see Bochart, cessors, it held a pre-eminence or head-; Hieroz. Lib. iii. c. ix. The animal is ship among the nations, yet that its vie-! well-known, and has properties quite distories were extended no farther. The j tinct from the lion and other animals, successors of Nebuchadnezzar were com-: There was doubtless some reason why paratively weak and indolent princes — 'this symbol was employed to denote a as if the wings of the monster had been; particular kingdom, and there was someplucked, (rf) The rising up of the lion j thing in the kingdom that corresponded on the feet, and standing on the feet as a with these peculiar properties, as there man, would denote, not inappropriately, was in the- case of the lion. The the change of the kingdom under the sue- i bear might, in some respects, have cessors of Nebuchadnezzar. See above in been a proper representative of Babythe explanation of the symbol, (e) The Ion, but it would not in all nor in the giving of a man's heart to it would not main respects. According to Bochart be inapplicable to the change produced in (Hieroz. vol. i. p. 812), the bear is disthe empire after the time of Nebuchad-; tinguished mainly for two things, cunnezzar, and under a succession of com- j ning and ferocity. Aristotle says that paratively weak and inefficient princes, j the bear is greedy as well as silly and Instead of the heart of the lion — of being; foolhardy. (Wemyss, key to the symbolic •lion-hearted' — it had the heart of a man; j language of Scripture.) The name in
The bear is noted as especially fierce when hungry, or when robbed of its whelps, marks, studied the nature of wild beasts, that none among them is more ferocious than the bear when deprived of its young, or when hungry.' Comp. 2 Sam. xvii. 8; Prov. xvii. 12; Hos. xiii. 8. The cha racteristics of the kingdom, therefore, that would be denoted by the bear, would be ferocity, roughness, fierceness in war — especially when provoked; a spirit less manly and noble than that denoted by the lion; severe in its treatment of ene mies, with a mixture of fierce and sav age cunning.
(6) Its rising up on one of its sides: — and it raised up itself on one side. The Chaldee word here used — ~\<2& — occurs nowhere else. It means side (Gcsenius), and would be applied here to the side of an animal — as if he lifted up one side before the other when he rose. The Latin Vulgate renders it, in parte stetit. The Greek (Walton), els pipes?" iordSr, — 'it stood on one part;' or, as Thompson fenders it, 'he stood half erect.' The Codex Chisi. — inl TOU £«% n\evpov £<mi3»7 ' it stood upon one side.' Maurer renders this, 'on one of its forefeet it was re cumbent, and stood on the other,' and says that this is the figure exhibited on one of the stones found in Babylon, an engraving of which may be seen in Munter, Religion d. Babyl. p. 112. The ani mal referred to here, as found in Babylon, the animal was in the act of raising itself up from a recumbent posture, aud rested on one of its forefeet while the other was reached out, and the body on that side was partially raised. This position would naturally denote a kingdom that had been quiet and at rest, but that was now rous ing itself deliberately for some purpose, as of conquest or war — as the bear that had been couching down would rise when hungry, or when going forth for prey.
(c) The ribs in its mouth: — and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it. Bertholdt understands this of fangs or tusks — or fangs crooked or bent like ribs, p. 451. But the proper meaning of the Chaldee y^ is the- same as the Hebrew J^X — a rib. (Gesenius.) The Latin Vulgate is tres ordines — three rows; the Syriac and the Greek, three ribs. This would be sufficiently charac teristic of a bear, and the attitude of the animal here seems to be, that it had killed some other animal, and had, in devour ing it, torn out three ribs from its side, and now held them in its mouth. It was slowly rising from a recumbent posture with these ribs in its mouth, and about to receive a command to go forth and devour much flesh. The number three, in this place, Lengerke supposes to be a round number, without any special significancy; others suppose that it denotes the number of nations or kingdoms which the people here represented by the bear had overcome. Perhaps this latter would be the more obvious idea as suggested by the symbol, but it is not necessary in order to a proper understanding of a sym bol to press such a point too closely. The natural idea which would bo sug gested by this part of the symbol would be that of a kingdom or people of a fierce and rough character having already sub dued others, and then, after reposing, rising up with the trophies of its former conquests to go forth to new victories, or
Bays Lengerke, « lies kneeling on the I to overcome others. The symbol would be a very striking one to represent a conquering nation in such a posture. (d) The command given to this beast: —.
right forefoot, and is in the act of rising on the left foot.' Bertholdt and IlJivernick understand this as meaning that the animal stood on the hindfeet, with the forepart raised, as the bear is said to do; but probably the true position is that re ferred to by Maurer and Lengerke, that and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. That is, it was said to it; or some one having authority said it. A voice was heard commanding it to go forth and devour. This command is | as compared with the lion, see Notes wholly in accordance with the nature of the bear. The bear is cabled by Aristotle viii. 5), and no better description could be given of it. As a. symbol, this would properly bo applicable to a nation, about
God to go forth to wider conquests than it had already made; to arouse itself from its repose and to achieve new triumphs.
The application of this symbol was not explained by the angel to Daniel; but if the former appertained to Babylon, there can be little difficulty in understanding to what this is to be applied. It is evi dently to that which succeeded the Baby lonian — the Medo-Persinn, the kingdom ruled successively by Cyrus, Cambyse?, Smerdis, Darius, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and Darius Nothus, until it was overthrown by Alexander the Great. The only en quiry now is, as to the pertinency of the symbol here employed to represent this kingdom.
(a) The symbol of the bear. As on ch. ii. 39. No one acquainted with the history of that nation can doubt the propriety and applicability of the emblem. (L>) The rising up on its side — or from a recumbent posture, as if it had been in a state of repose, and was now arousing itself for action. Different interpreta tions have been adopted of this emblem as applicable to the Medo-Persians. The ancient Hebrew interpreters, as Jerome remarks, explain it as meaning that that kingdom was 'on one side' in the sense of separate; that is, that this kingdom kept itself aloof from Judea, or did not inflict injury on it. Thus also Grotius ex plains it as meaning that it did not injure Judea — Judese nihil nocuit. Ephrene, the Syrian, and Theodorit, explain it as meaning that the empire of the Medo- Persians was situated on tie side of Judea, or held itself within its proper bounds, in the sense that it never ex tended its dominion like Babylon over the whole earth. Rosen iniiller explains it as meaning that in relation to the kingdom represented by the lion, it was at its side, both occupying the regions of already seen, the bear would denote any the East. J. D. Michselis understands fierce, rough, overbearing, and arbitrary it as denoting that, as the bear was raiskingdom, and it is clear that while it ing itself up, one part being more raised miyhthave applicability to any such king- | than the other, the Medo-Persian empire dorn, it would better represent that of Medo-Persia than the lion would — for while, in some respects, either symbol would be applicable to either nation, the Medo-Persian did not stand so decidedly at tho head of nations as the Babylonian. As to its character, however, the bear was not an inappropriate symbol. Taking the whole nation together, it was fierce and rough, and unpolished, little disposed to friendliness with the nations, and dis satisfied while any around it had peace or prosperity. In the image seen in ch. ii., this kingdom, denoted by the breast and arms of silver (ver. 32), is described in the explanation (ver. 39) as 'inferior to thee;' that is, to Nebuchadnezzar. For a sufficiently full account of this kingdom — of the mad projects of Cambyses, and his savage rage against the Ethiopians — well represented by the fero city of the bear; of the ill-starred expe dition to Greece under Xerxes — an expe dition in its fierceness and folly well conquests.
was composed of two kingdoms, one of which was more exalted or advanced than the other. Comp. Lengerke. The true meaning, however, is that, as seen by Daniel, the nation that had been in a state of repose was now preparing itself for new conquests — a state descriptive in every way quite applicable to the condition of the Medo-Persian empire, after the conquests by Cyrus, as he overran the kingdom of Lydia, &c., then reposing, and now about arousing to the conquest and subjugation of Babylon. The pre cise time, therefore, indicated would be about B. C. 544 (Calmet), when having overcome tho Medes, and having secured the conquest of Lydia, and the dethrone ment of Croesus, he is meditating the destruction of Babylon. This interval of repose lasted about a year, and it is this time that the united empire is seen, under the image of the bear rising on its side, arousing itself to go forth to new goneracy of the national character after j This, as above remarked, would properly Xerxes — well represented by the bear I refer to some previous conquest — as a 25*