Notes on the Old and New Testaments

6 After this I beheld, and lo an- other, like a leopard, which had

bear appearing in that manner would in dicate that some other animal had been j overcome and slain by him, and torn in j pieces. The emblem would be fulfilled j if the power here symbolized had been j successful in former wars, and had rent kingdoms or people asunder. That this; description would apply to the Medo- Persian power before its attack on Baby lon, or before extending its dominion | over Babylon, and its establishment as] the Medo-Persian kingdom, no one can i doubt. Comp. the Notes on ch. ii. 39. j It has been commonly supposed that I Cyrus succeeded to the throne of Media without war. But this is far from being the case — though so represented in what may be regarded as the romance of the Cyropgedia.. In the Anabasis of Xeno- j phon, however, the fact of his having • subdued Media by arras, is distinctly | admitted, iii. 4, 7, 12. Herodotus, Ctesias, Isocrates, and Strabo, all agree also in the; fact that it was so. The Upper Tigris! was the seat of one campaign, where the 1 cities of Larissa and Mespila were taken; by Cyrus. From Strabo we learn that j the decisive battle was fought on the spot [ where Cyrus afterwards built Pasar- 1 gardae, in Persia, for his capital. See j Kitto, Cyclo. Art, Cyrus. In addition to j this, we are to remember the well-known j conquests of Cyrus, in Lydia and else- j where, and the propriety of the emblem; will be apparent. It may not be certain I that the number three is significant in the emblem, but it is possible that there may have been reference to the three kingdoms of Persia, Media, and Lydia, that were actually under the dominion | of Cyrus when the aggressive movement was made on Babylon.

(d) The command to 'arise and devour j much flesh.' No one can fail to see the appropriateness of this, considered as addressed to the Medo-Persian power —! that power which subdued Babylon; I which brought under its dominion a con- j siderable part of the world, and which, j under Darius and Xerxes, poured its mil-! lions on Greece. The emblem here used is, therefore, one of the most striking and! appropriate that could be employed, and j it cannot be doubted that it had reference j to this kingdom, and that, in all the par- i ticulars, there was a clear fulfillment.

6. After this I beheld, and lo another, lilce a leopard. That is, as before, after the bear had appeared — in indicating tha* this was to be a succeeding kingdom or power. The beast which now appeared was a monster, and, as in the former cases, so in regard to this, there are several circumstances which demand ex planation in order to understand the symbol. It may assist us, perhaps, in forming a correct idea of the symbol here introduced to have before us a represen tation of the animal as it appeared to Daniel. The following cut will furnish a sufficiently correct representation.

(a) The animal itself: — a leopard. The word hero used — ">~3 — or in Heb. 11:3 — denotes a panther or leopard, so called from his spots. This is a well known beast of prey, distinguished for blood-thirsti ness and cruelty, and these characteris tics are especially applicable to the female panther. The animal is referred to in the Scriptures as emblematic of the following things, or as having the following charac teristics: (1) As next in dignity to tho lion — of tho same general nature. Comp. Bochart, Hieroz. P. I. Lib. iii. c. vii. Thus the lion and the panther, or leopard, are often united in the Scriptures. Comp. Jer. v. 6, Hos. xiii. 7. See also in the Apocrypha, Ecclesias. xxviii. 23. So also they are united in Homer, II. p.

'Neither had tho leopard nor tho lion such strength.' (2) As distinguished for cruelty, or a fierce nature, as contrasted with the gentle and tame animals. Isa. xi. 6, "And the leopard shall lie down with the kid." In Jer. v. 6, it is com pared with the lion and the wolf: "A lion out of tho forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evening shall spoil them, a upon the back of it four wings of a leopard shall watch over their cities." Comp. Hos. xiii. 7. (3) As distinguished for swiftness or fleetness. Habuk. i. 8: " Their horses are swifter than the leop ards." Comp. also the quotations from the classics in Bochart as above, p. 788. His fleetness is often referred to; the celerity of his spring or bound espe cially, by the Greek and Roman writers. (4) As insidious, or as lying in wait and springing unexpectedly upon the unwary traveller. Comp. Hos. xiii. 7: "As a leopard by the way will I observe them;" that is, I will icatch — -ni!'N — them. So Pliny says of leopards: Insidunt pardi condensa arborum, occultatique eantm ramis in prcetereuntia desiliunt. (5) They are characterized by their spots. In the general nature of the animal there is a strong resemblance to the lion. Thus, an Arabic writer quoted by Bochart, de fines the leopard to be ' an animal resem bling the lion, except that it is smaller, and has a skin marked by black spots.' The proper idea in this representation, when used as a symbol, would be of a nation or kingdom that would have more noble ness than the one represented by the bear, but a less decisive headship over others than that represented by the lion; a na tion that was addicted to conquest, or that preyed upon others; a nation rapid in its movements, and springing upon others unawares, and perhajwin its spots denoting a nation or people made up, not of homogeneous elements, but of various different people. See below in the appli cation of this.

(b) The four wings: — ichicli had upon the back of it four icings of a fowl. The first beast was seen with the wings of an eagle, but without any specified number; this appears with wings, but without spe cifying any particular kind of wings, though the number is mentioned. In both of them celerity of movement is undoubt edly intended — celerity beyond what would be properly denoted by the animal itself—the lion or the leopard. If there is a difference in the design of the repre sentation, as there would seem to be by mentioning the kind of wings in the one case, and the number in the other, it is probable that the former would denote a Hore bold and extended flight; the latter a flight more rapid, denoted by the four wings. We should look for the fulfil ment of the former in a nation that ex tended its conquests over a broader space; in the latter, to a nation that moved with more celerity. But there is some dan ger of pressing these similitudes too far. Nothing is said in the passage about tho arrangement of the wings, except that they were on the back of the animal. It is to be supposed that there were two on each side.

(c) The four heads: — the beast had also four heads. This representation must have been designed to signify either that the one power or kingdom denoted by the leopard was composed of four sepa rate powers or nations now united in one; or that there were four successive kings or dynasties that made up its history; or that the power or kingdom actually ap peared, as seen in its prevailing character istic, as a distinct dominion, as having four heads, or as being divided into so many separate sovereignties. It seems to me that either one of these would be a pro per and natural fulfilment of the design of the image, though the second sug gested would be less proper than either of the others, as the heads appeared on the animal not in succession — as the lit tle horn sprung up in the midst of the other ten, as represented in the fourth beast — but existed simultaneously. The general idea would be, that in some way the one particular sovereignty had four sources of power blended into one, or actually exerted the same kind of do minion, and constituted, in fact, the one kingdom as distinguished from the others.

(d) The dominion given to it: — and dominion teas given to it. That is, it was appointed to rule where the former had ruled, and until it should be succeeded by another — the beast with the ten horns.

In regard to the application of this, though the angel did not explain it t( Daniel, except in general that a kingdom was represented by it (ver. 17), it would seem that there could be little difficulty, though there has been some variety in the views entertained. Maurer, Lengerke, and some others, refer it to the Modo- Persian empire — supposing that the se.

cond symbol referred to the kingdom of r with the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, Media. But the objections to this are so and the other with those of Alexander, obvious, and so numerous, that it seems j (c) The four heads united to one body.

t is well known that when Alexander died, his empire was left to four of his to me the opinion cannot be entertained; for (1) the kingdom of Media did not, in any proper sense, succeed that of Baby- generals, and that they came to be at the Ion; (2) the representation of the bear j head of as many distinct dominions, yet with three ribs has no proper applica-: all springing from the same source, and bility to Media; (3) the whole descrip- j all, in fact, but the Macedonian empire, tion, as we have seen above, of the j This fact would not be so well represented second beast, accords entirely with the j by four distinct and separate animals as history of the Medo-Persian empire. If j by one animal with four heads; that is, this be so, then we naturally look for the I as the bead represents authority or do- fulfilment of this symbol — the third head — in the kingdom or dynasty that fol lowed directly that of Medo-Persia — the Macedonian dynasty or kingdom founded by Alexander the Great, extending over minion, one empire in fact now ruling by four distinct authorities. The one empire considered as Macedonian continued its sway till it was swallowed up by the Ro mans; that is, the Macedonian power or the same countries before occupied by dominion as distinct from that of Baby-

Babylon and the Medo-Persian empire, and continuing till it was swallowed up in the conquests of Rome. We shall find that all the circumstances agree with this compai'ative nobleness of the animal; a beast of prey; the celerity of its move ments; the spring or bound with which it leaps upon its prey, all agree well with the kingdom of which Alexander was the founder. Indeed there was no other kingdom among the ancients to which it could bo better applied; and it will be admitted that, on the supposition that it was the design of Daniel to choose a sym bol that would represent the Macedonian empire, he could not have selected one that was better adapted to it than the leopard. All the characteristics of the animal that have been noticed — (1) as next in dignity to the lion; (2) as distin guished for a fierce nature; (3) as charac terized by fleetness; (4) as known for

Ion or Medo-Persia; as having charac teristics unlike these; as introducing a new order of things, continued, though that power was broken up and exercised under distinct manifestations of sove reignty. The fact was, that, at the death of Alexander, to whom the founding of this empire was owing, " Philip Aridteus, brother of Alexander, and his infant son by Roxana, were appointed by the gen erals of the army to succeed, and Perdiccas was made regent. The empire was divided into thirty-three governments, distributed among as many general offi cers. Hence arose a series of bloody, desolating wars, and a period of confu sion, anarchy and crime ensuerl, that is almost without a parallel in the history of the world. After the battle of Ipsus, 301 B. C., in which Antigonus was defeated, the empire was divided into four king doms — Thrace and Bythinia under Lysimachus; Syria and the East under Seleucus; Egypt under Ptolemy Soter, and lying in wait, and springing suddenly j Macedonia under Cassandar." Lyman, upon its prey; and (5) in the point to be no- | Hist. Chart. It was these four powers, ticed soon — their spots — all agree with j thus springing out of the one empire the characteristics of Alexander, and his j founded by Alexander, that was clearly movements among the nations, and with j represented by the four heads, (d) The the kingdom that was founded by him in i dominion given to it. No one can doubt the East, (b) The four wings. These ' that a dominion was given to Alexander represent well the rapidity of the con- j and the Macedonian dynasty, which would quests of Alexander, for no more rapid j fully correspond with this. In fact the conquests were ever made than were his | dominion of the world was practically in the East. It was noticed that the conceded to that kingdom, (c) There is leopard had four wings, as contrasted with the first beast, in reference to which the number is not mentioned; the one de noting a broader flight, and the other a wore rapid one; and the one agrees well only one other circumstance to be noticed, though perhaps we are not to seek an ex act accomplishment for that in any spe cific events. It is the fact that the leop ard is marked by spots — a circumstance

7 After this 1.saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth a beast,

ment in the fact that numerous nations, not homogeneous, were found in the em pire of Alexander. So Bochart, Hieroz. P. i. Lib. iii. c. vii. p. 789, says: 'The spots of the leopard refer to the different of the beast, and the long duration of its dominion upon the earth, at tracted and fixed the attention of Dan iel, led him into a more minute explana tion of the appearance of the animal, and customs of the nations over which he induced him particularly to ask an exruled. Among these, besides the Mace- planation of the angel of the meaning of donians, Greeks, Thracians, and Illyrians, this part of the vision, ver. 19. in Europe, there were in Africa the Ly- j behold a fourth beast. This beast had bians, Egyptians, and Troglodites; in \ peculiar characteristics, all of which were Asia almost all the nations to the Ganges.' j regarded as symbolical, and all of which But, without insisting on this, no one can j demand explanation in order that we compare the other particulars which were I may have a just view of the nature and clearly designed to be symbolical, with- I design of the symbol. As in the cases out perceiving that they had a full ac- of the other beasts, so in this we may complishment in the Macedonian em- be assisted in the explanation by having before us a cut representing in

7, 8. After this I saw in the night vi- general its appearance. It is indeed in siont. The other beasts were seen also some degree imaginary, for we are not in a dream (ver. 1), and this probably in | told as to the exact appearance of the the same night, though as a subsequent! beast — whether it was a lion or some other part of the dream, for the whole vision j form, but it is sufficiently accurate to evidently passed before the prophet in a j furnish the main idea in the vision. The single dream. The succession, or the fact that he saw one after the other, in- first cut represents the animal as he first appeared with the ten horns; the second as he may have appeared with another upon the earth, but one was to arise after j As in reference to the three former

The particulars of this symbol are more numerous, more striking, and more im- fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and portant than in either of the previous strong exceedingly. The form or nature Dnos. These particulars are the follow- of the beast is not given as in the pro-

exceedingly; and it had great iron I the feet of it: and it was diverse teeth: it devoured and brake in from all the beasts that were before pieces, and stamped the residue with! it; and it had ten a horns.

leopard — but it is left for the imagination | godly;" Ivii. 4, "whose teeth are spears to fill up. It was a beast more terrific ' and arrows;" Iviii. 6, "break their teeth in its appearance than either of the others, | in their mouth; break out the great teeth and was evidently a monster such as | of the young lions." could not be designated by a single name. (c) The stamping with the feet (ver. The terms which are used here in de- 7): — it devoured and brake in pieces, and scribing the beast — dreadful, terrible, ex- stamped the residue with the feet of it. ceedingly strong, are nearly synonymous, I That is, like a fierce monster, whatever and are heaped together in order to give it could not devour it stamped down and an impressive view of the terror inspired by the beast. There can be no doubt as to the general meaniny of this, for it is explained (ver. 23,) as denoting a king dom that 'should devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and break it in crushed in the earth. This indicates a disposition or purpose to destroy, for the sake of destroying, or where no other purpose could be gained. It denotes rage, wrath, a determination to crush all in its way, to have universal dominion;

pieces/ As a symbol, it would denote and would be applicable to a nation that some power much more fearful and much; subdued and crushed others for the mere more to be dreaded; having a wider: sake of doing it, or because it was undominion; and more stern, more oppres- j willing that any other should exist and sive in its character, more severe in its j enjoy liberty — even where itself could exactions, and more entirely destroying i not hope for any advantage, the liberty of others; advancing more j (d) The fact that it was different from by power and terror, and less by art and \ all that went before it (ver. 7): — and it cunning, than either. This character- j was diverse from all the beasts that were istic is manifest throughout the symbol, i before it. The prophet does not specify, (b) The teeth (ver. 7): — and it had great j particularly, in what respects it was difiron teeth. Not only teeth or tusks, such ferent, for he does not attempt to give as other animals may have, but teeth j its appearance. It was not a lion, a made of iron. This is characteristic of a! bear, or a leopard, but he does not say monster, and shows that there was to be I precisely what it was. Probably it was something very peculiar in the dominion | such a monster that there were no anithat was here symbolized. The teeth are nials with which it could be compared, of use to eat or devour; and the symbol j He states some circumstances, however, here is that of devouring or rending — j in which it was different — as in regard to as a fierce monster with such teeth might j the ten horns, the little horn, the iron be supposed to rend or devour all that! teeth, &c., but still the imagination is was before it. This too would denote a nation exceedingly fierce; a nation of savage ferocity j a nation that would be signally formidable to all others. For illustration, comp. Jer. xv. 12; Micah left to fill up the picture in general. The meaning of this must be, that the fourth kingdom, represented by this beast, would be materially different from those which preceded it, and we must look for iv. 13. As explained in ver. 23, it is said \ the fulfilment in some features that that the kingdom denoted by this would j would characterize it by which it would ' devour the whole earth.' Teeth — great; be unlike the others. There must be teeth, are often used as the symbols of j something marked in the difference — cruelty, or of a devouring enemy. Thus! something that would be more than the in Prov. xxx. 14, "There is a generation j common difference between nations, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw (e) The ten horns (ver. 7): — and it had *eeth are as knives, to devour the poor ten horns. That is, the prophet saw on from off the earth, and the needy from it ten horns as characterizing the beast, among men." So David uses the word The horn is a symbol of power, and is to denote the cruelty of tyrants: Ps. iii. 7. | frequently so used as an emblem or sym- " Thou hast broken the teeth of the un- j bol in Daniel (vii. 7, 8, 20, 24, viii. 3 — 9,

8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them

20—22), and Revelation v. 6, xiii. 1, 11, xvii. 3, 12, 16. It is used as a symbol because the great strength of horned the same general characteristic would remain, there would spring up ten kings, or dynasties, or kingdoms, in which the animals is found there. Thus in Amos! ld b concentratcd.

(f) The springing up of the little i horn (ver. 8): — / considered the horns,

Ye that rejoice in a thing of nought

tremities of the land, Such are the ten thousands of Ephraim, Such the thousands of Manasseh. Wcnyss.

So in 1 Kings xxii. 11, wo find horns another little horn. There are several points to be noticed in regard to this: (1) The fact that he 'considered the horns;' that is, he looked on them until another sprang up among them. This implies that when he first saw the mon ster, it had no such horn, and that tho horn sprang up a considerable time after used in a symbolical action on the part he first s™ it-intimating that it would of the false prophet Zedekiah. " He | occur Perhaps far on in the history of the made him horns of iron, and said, Thus kingdom that was symbohzed. It is implied that it was not an event which the Syrians, until thou have consumed would so»n occur- (2) Ifc sPranS UP that are seen by the prophet are said to from the same source, and appertaining be the four great powers which had scat- to the same animal, and, therefore, a de- doubt as to the meaning of the symbol the precise place which it occupied, but here, for it is explained in a subsequent it would seem that the others stood close part of the chapter (ver. 26), 'the ten together, and that this sprang out of the horns are the ten kings that shall arise.' It would seem, also, from that explana tion, that they were to be ten kings that would 'arise' or spring out of that king dom at some period of its history. " And the ten horns, out of this kingdom, are centre, or from the very midst of them, implying that the new dominion sym bolized would not be a foreign dominion, but one that would spring out of the kingdom itself, or that would eeem to grow up in the kingdom. (3) It was a ten kings that shall arise;" that is, not I little horn; that is, it was small at first, that the kingdom itself would spring out ' though subsequently it grew so as to be of ten others that would be amalgamated j emblematic of great power. This would or consolidated into one, but that out of denote that the power symbolized would that one kingdom there would spring up be small at first — springing up gradually.

would be ultimately lodged. Though Dan- j nor in a change of dynasty, nor in a sudiel appears to have seen these horns as ap- j den change of a constitution, but in some pertaining to the beast when he first saw power that had an obscure origin, and him, yet the subsequent explanation is,: that was feeble and small at the beginthat these horns were emblems of the, ning, yet gradually increasing, till, by its manner in which the power of that one j own growth, it put aside a portion of the kingdom would be finally exerted; or [ power before exercised, and occupied its lhat ten kings or dynasties would spring • place. We should naturally look for the out of it. We are, then, naturally to fulfilment of this in the increase of some look for the fulfilment of this in some one power within the state that had an humble great kiagdom of huge power that would j origin, and that slowly developed itself crush the nations, ind from which, while i until it absorbed a considerable portion

there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and be hold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of aman, and a mouth b speak ing great things.

-and a month speaking great A mouth indicating pride and of the authority that essentially resided j means that the object referred to would in the kingdom represented by the mon- j be a man, ' as the eyes of men are keener ster. (4) In the growth of that 'horn,' land sharper than those of other animals.' three of the others were plucked up by • But the more correct interpretation is that the roots. The proper meaning of the above referred to — that it denotes intelliword used to express this— np^ — gence, shrewdness, sagacity. (6) The is, that they were rooted out — as a tree is overturned by the roots, or the roots are turned out from the earth. The process arrogance. This is explained in ver. 2o, by which this was done seems to have j as meaning that he to whom it refers been by growth. The gradual increase i would ' speak great words against the of the horn so crowded on the others i Most High; 'that is, would i be guilty of that a portion of them was forced out, j blasphemy. There would be such arroand fell. What is fairly indicated by this | ganc.e» and such claims set up and such was not any act of violence, or any sud- a *V"l\ evinced, that it would be m fact den convulsion or revolution, but such a i a speaking against God. We naturally gradual growth of power that a portion i }°ok *°r th® fulfilment of this to some of the original power was removed, and baughty and blaspheming power: some this new power occupied its place. There I P?wer that 1would r,ea"y blaspheme rehwas no revolution, properly so called; 'l Slon> and that would be opposed to its no change of the whole dynasty, for Pr,°Srf% and prosperity m the world a large portion of the horns remained, | The SePt m Cod' Uus' adds here», and but the erndual rise of a new power that sha11 mak,e ™* "gainst the saints; but would wield a portion of that formerly! these words are not found in the original wielded by others, and that would now Chaldee. They accord, however, well wield the power in its place. The num-! ™th the explanation in yer. 2o. What ber three would either indicate that three has been here Considered embraces all parts out of the ten were absorbed in this '• that pertains pi iperly to this symbolway, or that a considerable, though an | tbe s/mbo1 of, the four,th beast— except indefinJke portion, was thus absorbed. the fact stated in ver 11, that the beast (5) The *ycs:— a»d behold, in this hornl™ slam> and *liat "£*£ was?lven were eyes like the eyes of a man. Eyes *? tbe burning flame. The inquiry as to denote intelligence, as we see objects by the fulfilment will be appropriate when their aid. The rims of the wheels in we come J° consider the explanation Ezekiel's vision were full of eyes (Ezek. Slven at the request of Daniel, by the i. 18), as symbolic of intelligence. This; anfelVin 7s; 7 Tr.- ^,, • would denote that the power here re- u9' **•«* 'I continued looking on ferred to, would be remarkably sagacious.! tjese stran/e sights, and contemplating We should naturally look for the fulfil- | these transformations This implies that ment of this in a power that laid its plans! f_ome time elaPs«d before all these things wisely and intelligently; that had large I bad occurred He looked on till he saw and clear views of policy; that ^g a solemn judgment passed on this fourth shrewd and far-seeing in its counsels | beasfc particularly as,/ God had come and purposes; that was skilled in diplo- i forth in his maJesty and glory to pro- rfstoodTaione, would" find"i ts ^fulfilment I end' f Til1 the throne* were cast down" in any wise and shrewd administration; j The Chaldee word— np^— means pro as it stands here, surrounded by others, j perly thrones — seats on which monarchs it would seem that this, as contrasted sit. So far as the word is concerned, it with them, was characteristically shrewd would apply either to a throne occupied and far-seeing in its policy. Lengerke, following Jerome, supposes that this by an earthly monarch, or to the throne of God. The use of the plural here would oast a down, and the Ancient b of white d as snow, and the hair of his days did sit, whose garment cwas head like the pure wool: his throne

*eem to imply, at least, that the reference ' divine judgment was to be passed on the <>s not to the throne of God, but to some | ' beast,' or when some events were to other throne. Maurer and Lengerke sup- i take place, as if such a judgment were pose that the allusion is to the thrones | pronounced. The events pertaining to on which the celestial beings sit in the I the fourth beast were to be the last in the solemn judgment that was to be pro- serie spreparat ory to there! gn of the saints, nounced-the throne of God, and the, or the ^ of thfl £ dom of tbe' thrones or seats of the attending inhabit-, Messiah an J ti£rcfore it is introduced in ants of heaven, coming with him to the this ma ^.f ft golemn jud fc itself might be properly applied to the thrones of earthly monarchs as well as to of judgment. The phrase 'Ancient of J — is one that denotes an the throne of God. The phrase ' were elderly or old person; meaning, he who would seem to suppose that there ™*\ The Eternul It occurs only in this chapsome throwing down, or overturning of! (Q 13 22) d. representation of thrones, at this period and that the so- | one Venerable in years, sitting down for lemn judgment would follow this, or be; tfae scs of ju-;]gment. T°he appella- consequent on this. The Chaldee word- | tionpdoel8 not of jtseff denoto eter,J(^ but N??n — means, as explained by Gesenms, it js employed, probably, with reference to cast, to throw, Dan. iii. 21, 24 j vi. 17; J to the fact that God is eternal. God is to set, to place, e. g. thrones; to impose often represented under some such appeltribute, Ezra vii. 24. The passage is ren-; lation, as he that is ' from everlasting to dered by the Latin Vulgate, throni positi ' everlasting' (Ps. xc. 2), 'the first and the eunt — 'thrones were placed;' by the Greek, j last' (Isa. xliv. 6), <fcc. There can be no ircSwai' — ' were placed.' So Luther, stiilile \ doubt that the reference here is to God as gesetzt; and so Lengerke, stithle aufyes- j a judge, or as about to pronounce judgtellet — the thrones were placed, or set up. j ment, though there is no necessity of sup- The proper meaning, therefore, of the, posing that it will be in a visible and phrase would seem to be — not, ns in our literal form, any more than there is translation, that the 'thrones would be! for supposing that all that is here repcast down' — as if there was to be an over- j resented by symbols will literally take turning of thrones on the earth to mark! place. If it should be insisted on that this particular period of history— but that the proper interpretation demands that there was, in the vision, a setting up, or there will be a literal and visible judga placing of thrones for the purpose of ad- ment, such as is here described, it may be ministering judgment, <fcc., on the beast, replied that the same rigid interpretation The use of the plural is, doubtless, in ac-! would demand that there, will be a literal cordance with the language elsewhere em-; ' slaying of the beast, and a giving of his ployed, to denote the fact that the great body to the flame' (ver. 11), and more Judge would be surrounded with others generally still, that all that is here rewho would be, as it were, associated in forred to by symbols will literally occur, administering justice — either angels or The fact, however, is, that all these redeemed spirits. Nothing is more com- events are referred to by symbols — syinmon in the Scripture than to repre- bols which have an expressive meaning, sent others as thus associated with God but which, by their very nature and dein pronouncing judgment on men. —; sign, are not to be literally understood. Comp. Matt. xix. 28, Luke xxviii. 30, All that is fairly implied here is, that 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3, 1 Tim. v. 21, Rev. ii. 26, events would occur in regard to this fourth iv. 4. The era, or period, therefore, beast aa if God should sit in solemn judgtuarked here, vould be when a solemn j merit on it, and should condemn it in the

*was like the fiery flame, and his wheels b as burning fire.

manner here referred to. We are, doubt less, in the fulfilment of this, to look for some event that will be of so decisive and marked a character that it may be regarded as a divine judgment in the case, I or that will show the strongly-marked divine disapprobation — as really as if the judgment-seat were formally set, and God should appear in majesty to give sen tence. Sitting was the usual posture among the ancients, as it is among the moderns, in pronouncing judgment. — Among the ancients the judge sat on a throne or bench while the parties stood before him (comp. Zech. i. 3), and with the Greeks and Romans so essential was the sitting posture for a judge, that a sen tence pronounced in any other posture was not valid. Lengerke. It was a maxim, Animus sedendo magis sapit, or as Servius on the JE,n. i. 56, remarks, Est enim CHrantis ct sol/iciti sedere. ^ Whose gar ment was white as snow. Whose robe. The reference here is to the long flowing robe that was worn by ancient princes, noblemen, or priests. See Notes on Isa. vi. 1. Comp. Notes on Rev. i. 13. White was an emblem of purity and honour, and was not an improper symbol of the purity of the Judge, and of the justness of the sentence which he would pronounce. So in his celebrated speech against employ ing Indians in the war with the American people, the elder Pitt besought the Bish ops to * interpose the unsullied purity of their lawn.' Lengerke supposes as Prof. Stuart does, on Rev. i. 13, that the white ness here referred to was not the mere colour of the material of which the robe was made, but was a celestial splendour or brightness, as if it were lightning or fire — such as is appropriate to the divine majesty. Lengerke refers here to Ex. xix. 18—24, Daniel ii. 22, Matt. xvii. 2, 1 Tim. vi. 16, Ezra vii. 55, Ascension of Isa. viii. 21—25, Prov. i. 13, iv. 2. But the more correct interpretation is to suppose that this refers to a pure white robe, such as judges might wear, and which would not be an improper symbol of their office. ^[ And the hair of his head like the pure wool. That is, for whiteness — a charac teristic of venerable age. Comp. Notes came forth from before him: thou sand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten on Rev. i. 14. The image here set be fore us is that of one venerable by years and wisdom. <[ His throne was like the fiery flame. The seat on which he sat seemed to be fire. That is, it was brilliant and splendid, as if it were a mass of flame. <[ And his icheels as burning fire. The wheels of his throne — for, as in Ezek. i. 10, the throne on which Jehovah sat appeared to be on wheels. In Ezekiel (i. ]6, x. 9), the wheels of the throne appeared to be of the colour of beryl; that is, they were i like precious stones. Here, perhaps, they! had only the appearance of a flame — as I such wheels would seem to flash flames. So Milton, in describing the chariot of the Son of God:

Forth rush'd with -whirlwind sound The chariot of Paternal Deity, Flashing thick flames, wheel within wheel un drawn,

Itself instinct with spirit, but conveyed By four cherubic shapes; four faces each! Had wondi-ous; as with stars their bodies all, j And wings were set with eyes; with eyes the wheels Of Beryl, and careening fires between.

10. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him. Streams of fire seemed to burst forth from his throne. Repre sentations of this kind abound in the I Scriptures to illustrate the majesty and I glory of God. Comp. Rev. iv. 5, "And j out of the throne proceeded lightnings, and thundering?, and voices." Ex. xix. 16; Habak. iii. 4; Ps. xviii. 8. f Thou sand thousands ministered nnto him. ' A thousand of thousands;' that is, thou sands multiplied a thousand times. The mind is struck with the fact that there [ are thousands present — and then the j number seems as great as if those thoui sands were multiplied a thousand times. | The idea is that there was an immense —: a countless host. The reference here is to the angels, and God is often repre sented as attended with great numbers | of these celestial beings when he comes | down to our world. Deut. xxxiii. 2. j ' lie came with ten thousands of saints;' that is, of holy ones. Ps. Ixviii. 17. I " The chariots of God are twenty thou-

thousand stood » before him; the judgment »>was set, and the books were opened.

11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the

sands, even thousands of angels." Comp. Jude, ver. 14. The word ' ministered' means that they attended on him. ^ And ten thousand times ten thousand stood be- \ the great words which the horn spake. I fore him. An innumerable host. These | was attracted by these words — by their were not to be judged, but were attend- arrogance, and haughtiness, and pride; ants on him as he pronounced sentence and I saw that it was on account of these The judgment here referred to was not I mainly that the solemn judgment proon the world at large, but on the beast, ] ceeded against the beast. The attitude preparatory to giving the kingdom to the j of the Seer here is this — he heard arroone who was like the Son of Man, vs. i gant and proud words uttered by the 13, 14. ^[ The judgment was set. That | ' horn,' and he waited in deep attention, is, all the arrangements for a solemn act j and in earnest expectation, to learn what of judgment were made, and the process | judgment could be pronounced. He had of the judgment commenced. ^[ And the

As containing the record of the deeds of those who were to be judged. Comp. Rev. xx. 12. The great Judge is represented as having be fore him the record of all the deeds on

(ver. 8) that horn spring up and to great power, and utter great things; he had then seen, immediately on this, a solemn and sublime preparation for judgment, and he now waited anx iously to learn what sentence would be which judgment was to be pronounced, ' pronounced. The result is stated in the and to be about to pronounce sentence subsequent part of the verse. \ / beheld. according to those deeds. The judgment! I continued beholding. This would seem here referred to, seems to have been some j to imply that it was not done at once, solemn act on the part of God transfer- ' but that some time intervened, ^f Even ring the power over the world, from that j till the beast was slain. The fourth beast: which had long swayed it, to the saints. | that which had the ten horns, and on As already remarked, the necessary in- 3 which the little horn had sprung up. tcrpretation of the passage does not re- j This was the result of the judgment. It quire us to understand this of a literal j is evidently implied here that the beast and visible judgment — of a personal ap- j was slain on account of the words uttered pearing of the ' Ancient of Days' — of a I by the horn that sprang up, or that the formal application to him by ' one like! pride and arrogance denoted by that the Son of Man' (ver. 13) — or of a public symbol were the cause of the fact that and visible making over to him of a king- < the beast was put to death. It is not said dom upon the earth. It is to be rernem- i by whom the beast would be slain, but the bered that all this passed in vision before fair meaning is, that the procuring cause the mind of the prophet — that it is a sym-! of that death would be the divine judgbolical representation — and that we are j ment on account of the pride and arroto find the fulfilment of this in some j gancy of the ' horn' that sprang up in event changing the course of empire — | the midst of the others. If the 'beast* putting a period to the power represented j represents a mighty monarchy that would by the 'beast' and the ' horn' — and caus- | exist on the earth, and the 'little horn' ing that power to pass into other hands — n new power that would spring out of producing a change as great on the earth | that, then the fulfilment is to be found as 7/such a solemn act of judgment were passed. The nature of the representation requires that we should look for the ful filment of this in some great and mo mentous change in human affairs — some events that would take away the power of the 'beast,' and that would cause the dominion to pass into other hands.

in such a fact as this — that this power so mighty and terrible formerly, and that crushed down the nations, would, under the divine judgment, be ultimately de stroyed on account of the nature of the authority claimed. We are to look for the accomplishment of this in some such state of things as that of a, new power

12 As concerning the rest of the beasts they had their dominion taken away: yet b their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

springing out of an existing dominion, existed, but they were subdued and that the existing dominion still remains, j quiet. It was possible to discern them, but was so much controlled by tho new | Du^ they no longer acted the conspipovrer that it would be necessary to de- j cuous part which they had done in the stroy the former on account of the arro- i days of their greatness and grandeur, gance and pride of that which sprang | Their power had passed away. This from it. In other words, the destruction I cannot be difficult of interpretation. We of the kingdom represented by the fourth should naturally look for the fulfilment beast, would be, as a divine judgment, account of the arrogancy of that repre sented by the little horn. ^ And his body destroyed. That is, there would be a destruction of the kingdom here repre sented as much as there would be of the beast if his body was destroyed. The power of that kingdom, as such, is to of this in the fact that the nations referred to by these first three beasts were still in being, and could be recognized as na tions — in their boundaries, or customs, or languages, but that the power which they had wielded had passed into other hands. \ Yet their lives were prolonged. Marg., as in Chald. — 'a prolonging in life was come to an end.

burning flame. Consumed. This would represent, in strong terras, that the power here symbolized by the beast would be utterly destroyed. It is not, however, necessary to suppose that this is to be the mode in which it would be done, or that it would be by fire. It is to be re membered that all this is symbol, and no one part of the symbol should be taken literally more than another, nor is it con gruous to suppose there would be a literal consumingjfo-e in the case any more than that there would be literally a least, or ten horns, or a little horn. The fair meaning is, that there would be as real a destruction as if it were accomplished by fire; or a destruction of which fire would be the proper emblem. The allusion is here, probably, to the fact that the dead bodies of animals were often consumed by fire.

12. As concerning the rest of the beasts. They had been superseded, but not de stroyed. It would seem that they were Btill represented in vision to Daniel, as beast was after The meaning is, that in these kingdoms there would be energy for a time. They had life still, and the difference between them and the kingdom represented by the fourth beast, was that which would exist between wild animals subdiied but still living, and a wild animal killed and burned. We should look for the fulfil ment of this in some state of things where the kingdoms referred to by the three beasts were subdued and succeeded by others, though they still retained some thing of their national character, while the other kingdom had no successor of a civil kind, but where its power wholly ceased, and the dominion went wholly into other hands — so that it might be said that that kingdom as such had wholly ceased to be. f for a season and time. Comp. Notes on ver. 25. The time mentioned here is not definite.

retaining their existence, though their The phrase used— jnjn |PT-1J7— refers to power was taken away, and their fierce- j a definite period, both the words in ness subdued, or that they still seemed to j the original referring to a designated or remain alive for a time, or while the appointed time, though neither of them vision was passing. They were not cut down, destroyed, and consumed as the They had their They were super seded, or they no longer exercised power. •Ihey no more appeared, exerting a control over the nations. They still indicates anything about the length of the time, any more than our word time does. Luther renders this, 'for there was a time and an hour appointed to them how long each one should continue.' Grotius explains this as meaning, 'be yond the time fixed by God thej could and acame to the Ancient i> of days, and they brought him near before

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven,

not continue.' The true meaning of the used does not elsewhere occur in the Old Chaldee is probably this: 'for a time, | Testament as applicable to the personage even a definite time.' The mind of the j intendecL As OCCurring here, it is improphet is at first fixed upon the fact that portant to explain it, not only in view of they continue to live; then upon the tfce events connected with it in the fact, somehow apparent, that it is for a definite period. Perhaps in the vision he saw them one after another die or dis appear. In the words here used, how ever, there is nothing by which we can determine how long they were to con tinue. The time that the power repre sented by the little horn is to continue, is explained in ver. 25, but there is no clue by which we can ascertain how long the existence of the power represented by the first three beasts was to continue.

prophecy, but as having done much to mould the language of the New Testa ment. There are three questions in re gard to its meaning. What does it sig nify? what

(1) The phrase is more than a mere He brew or Chaldee expression to denote man, but is always used with some pecu liar significant^, and with relation to some peculiar ch.'iracteristic of the per son to whom it is applied, or with some

All that is clear is, that it was to be special design. To ascertain this delengthened out for some period, but that sign, regard should be had to the ex-

13. / saw in the night visions. EvU dently in the same night visions, or on the same occasion, for the visions are designations of sex, connected. See vs. 1, 7. The meaning j logically akin to &•*, is employed with is, that he continued beholding, or that »| constant reference to its original meannew vision passed before him. «[ And, \ ing? to be tceak sick. it is the ethical fstem'arU^that Da^el tS tt al'! ™*»«™ of -,.-, but o* denotes man tempt to represent this by any symbol, j »* to his physical, natural condition, The representation by symbols ceases whence the use of the word in such paswith the fourth beast, and now the de- i saSes as Ps- V11U 45 Job xxv- 6> and also scription assumes a literal form— the set-! its connection with j3, are satisfactorily ting up of the kingdom of the Messiah: explained. The emphatic address Son and of the saints. Why this change of of Man is therefore [in Ezekiel] a con form occurs is not stated or known, but tinned admonition to the prophet to rethe sacred writers seem carefully to have member that he is a man like all the rest." avoided any representation of the Mes- j Havernick, com. on Ezek. ii. 1, 2, quoted siah by symbols. The phrase ' the Son in the Bibliotheca Sacra, v. 718. The of Man' — C'^s -Q — does not occur else- expression here used is BHI'JN n3, and where in the Old Testament, in such a would properly refer to man as weak and connection, and with such a reference as feeble, and as liable to be sick, <fec. Apit has here, though it is often found in plied to any one as 'the Son of Man,' it the New, and is, in fact, the favourite would be used to denote that he partook term by which the Saviour designates of the weakness and infirmities of the himself. In Dan. iii. 25, we have the race; and, as the phrase 'Son of Man* is phrase 'the Son of God,' (see Notes on used in the New Testament when applied that passage,) as applicable to one who by the Saviour to himself, there is an appeared with the three 'children' that undoubted reference to this fact — that he were cast into the burning furnace, and sustained a peculiar relation to our race; in Ezekiel the phrase ' Son of Man' often that he was in all respects a man; that occurs as applicable to himself as a pro-, he was one of us; that he had so taken phet, being found more than eighty times • our nature on himself that there was a in his prophecies, but the expression here ] peculiar propriety that a ter » which 26* would at once designate this should Tbe ] days of these kings shall the God of Jieaven given to him. The phrase here used by set tip a kingdom which shall never be de> Daniel would denote some one (a) in the \ strayed," &c. So in the Talmud, and so human form; (I) some one sustaining a the majority of the ancient Jewish Rabpeculiar relation to man — as if human! bins. See Gill, com., in loc. It is true nature were embodied in him. (2) The [ that this interpretation has not been uninext inquiry here is, to whom this refers? form among the Jewish Rabbins, but still Who, in fact, was the one that was thus ' it has prevailed among them, as it has seen in vision by the prophet? Or who ' among Christian interpreters, (c) A sancwas designed to be set forth by this? j tion seems to be given to this interpreta- This inquiry is not so much, Who did; tion by the adoption of the title ' Son of Daniel suppose or understand this to j Man' by the Lord Jesus, as that by which be, as, Who was in fact designed to be ' he chose to designate himself. That title represented? Or in whom would the ful- 1 was such as would constantly suggest this filment be found? For, on the supposition I place in Daniel as referring to himself, that this was a heavenly vision, it is clear | and especially as he connected with it the that it was intended to designate some one i declaration that 'the Son of Man would in whom the complete fulfilment was to be: come in the clouds of heaven/ &c. It found. Now, admitting that this was a j was hardly possible that he should use heavenly vision, and that it was intended the title in such a connection without to represent what would occur in future suggesting this place in Daniel, or withtimes, there are the clearest reasons for out leaving the impression on the minds supposing that the Messiah was referred, of his hearers that he meant to be underto, and indeed this is so plain, that it stood as applying this to himself, (rf) It may be assumed as one of the indisput- j may be added, that it cannot with proable things by which to determine the priety be applied to any other. Porphyry, character and design of the prophecy, indeed, supposed that Judas Maccabeus

Among thes' reasons are the follow ing: (a) The name itself, as a name as sumed by the Lord Jesus — the favourite name by which he chose to designate himself when on the earth. This name was intended; Grotius that it referred to the Roman people; Aben Ezra to the people of Israel; and Cocceius to the peo ple of the Most High (Gill); but all these are unnatural interpretations, and are conbe used technically; housed it as one trary to that which one would obtain by that would be understood to denote the allowing the language of the New Testa ment to influence his mind. The title — so often used by the Saviour himself; the attending circumstances of the clouds of

Messiah; he used it as if it needed no explanation as having a reference to the Messiah. But this usage could have been derived only from this passage in Daniel — for there is no other place in the Old Tes tament where the name could refer with propriety to the Messiah, or would be un derstood to be applicable to him. (b) This interpretation has been given to it by the Jewish writers, in general, in all ages. I refer to this, not to say that their ex planation is authoritative, but to show heaven; the place which the vision occu pies — so immediately preceding the set ting up of the kingdom of the saints; and the fact that that kingdom can be set up only under the Messiah, all point to him as the personage represented in the vision. (3) But if it refers to the Messiah, the next enquiry is, What is to be regarded as the proper fulfilment of that it is the natural and obvious mean-: the vision? To what precisely does ing, and because, as we shall see, it is; relate? Are we to suppose that there that which has given shape and form to; will be a literal appearing of the Son the language of the New Testament, and of Man — the Messiah — in the clouds of is fully sanctioned there. Thus in the heaven, and a passing over of the kingancient Book of Zohar it is said, " In the | dom in a public and solemn manner into times of the Messiah, Israel shall be one the hands of the saints? In reply to people to the Lord, and he shall make i these questions, it may be remarked, them one nation in the earth, and they («) that this cannot be understood as reshall rule above and below; as it is writ- lating to the last judgment — for it is not ten, behold one like the Son of Man came | introduced with reference to that at all. with the clouds of heaven; this is the king The ' Son of Man ' is not here represented Messiah, of whom it is written, and in the as coming with a view to judge the world at the winding up of human affairs, but for the purpose of setting up a kingdom, or procuring a kingdom for his saints. There is no assembling of the people of the world together; no act of judging the righteous and the wicked; no pronouncmg of a, sentence on either. It is evident that the world is to continue much longer under the dominion of the saints. (I) It is not to be taken literally; that is, we are not, from this passage, to expect a literal appearance of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven, preparatory to the setting up of the kingdom of the saints. For if one portion is to be taken lit erally, there is no reason why all should not be. Then we are to expect, not merely the appearing of the Son of Man in the clouds, but also the following things, as a part of the fulfilment of the vision, to wit: the literal placing of a throne, or seat; the literal streaming forth of flame from his throne; the literal appearing of the 'Ancient of days,' with a garment of white, and hair as wool; a literal approach of the Son of Man to him as seated on his throne to ask of him a kingdom, &c. But no one can believe that all this is to occur; no one does believe that it will, (c) The proper in terpretation is to regard this, as it was Been by Daniel, as a vision — a represen tation of a state of things in the world as •if what is here described would occur. That is, great events were to take place, of which this would be a proper symboli cal representation — or as if the Son of Man, the Messiah, would thus appear; would approach the 'Ancient of days;' would receive a kingdom, and would make it over to the saints. Now, there is no real difficulty in understanding what is here meant to be taught, and what we are to expect; and these points of fact are the following, viz: — 1. That he who is here called the 'Ancient of days,' is the source of power and dominion. — 2. That there would be some severe ad judication in the power here represented by the beast, and the horn. 3. That the kingdom or dominion of the world is to be in fact given to him who is here called the 'Son of Man' — the Messiah — a fact represented here by his approaching the 'Ancient of days,' and who is the source of all power. 4. That there is to be some passing oyer of the kingdom or power into the hands of the saints; or some set ting up of a kingdom »u the earth, of, which he is to be the head, and in which the dominion over the world shall be in fact in the hands of his people, and the laws of the Messiah everywhere prevail. What will be the essential characteristics of that kingdom we may learn by the ex position of ver. 14, compared with ver. 27. ^[ Came with the clouds of heaven. That is, he seemed to come down from the sky encompassed with cloude. So the Saviour, probably intending to refer to this lan guage, speaks of himself, when he shall come to judge the world, as coming in clouds, or encompassed by clouds. Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64, Mark xiii. 26, xiv. 62. Comp. Rev. i. 7. Clouds are an appro priate symbol of the divinity. See Ps. xcvii. 2, civ. 3. The same symbol was em ployed by the heathen, representing their deities as appearing covered with a cloud:

Tandem venias, precamur, Nube candentes humeros amictus, Augur Apollo.

The allusion in the place before us, is not to the last judgment, but to the fact that a kingdom on the earth would be passed over into the hands of the Messiah. Ho is represented as coming sublimely to the world and as receiving a kingdom that would succeed those represei ted by the beasts. f And came to tlie Ancient of days, ver. 9. This shows that the passage cannot refer to the final judgment. He comes to the 'Ancient of days' — to God as the source of power, as if to ask a pe tition for a kingdom; not to pronounce a judgment on mankind. The act here appropriately denotes that God is the source of all power; that all who reign derive their authority from him, and that even the Messiah, in setting up his king dom in the world, receives it at the hand of the Father. This is in accordance with all the representations in the New Testament. We are not to suppose that this will occur literally. There is to be no such literal sitting of one with the appearance of age — denoted by the 'An cient of days' — on a throne; nor is there to bo any such literal approaching him by one in the form of a man to receive a kingdom. Such passages show the ab surdity of the attempts to interpret the language of the Scriptures literally. All that this symbol fairly means must be, that the kingdom that was to be set up un der the Messiah on the earth was received from God. 1[ And they brought him near

14 And 'there \vas given him do minion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and lan guages should serve him: his do-

before him. That is, he was brought near before him. Or, it may mean that his attendants brought him near. All that the language necessarily implies is, that he came near to his seat, and received from him a kingdom.

14. And there was given liim domin ion. That is, by him who is represented as the ' Ancient of days.' The fair inter pretation of this is, that he received the dominion from him. This is the uniform representation in the New Testament. Comp. Matt, xxviii. 18; John iii. 35; 1 Cor. xv. 27. The word dominion here means rule or authority — such as a prince exercises. He was set over a kingdom as a prince or ruler, ^f And glory. That is, the glory or honor appropriate to one at the head of such an empire. ^[ And a kingdom. That is, he would reign. He would have sovereignty. The nature and the extent of this kingdom is immediately designated as one that would be uni versal and perpetual. What is properly implied in this language as to the ques tion whether it will be literal and visible, will be appropriately considered at the close of the verse. All that is necessary to be noticed here is, that it is everywhere promised in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a. king, and have a kingdom. Comp. Ps. ii., Isa. ix. 6. 7. ^[ That all people, nations, and languages should serve him. It would be univer sal: would embrace all nations. The language here is such as would emphati cally denote universality. See Notes on ch. iii. 4; iv. 1. It implies that that king dom would extend over all the nations of the earth, and we are to look for the ful filment of this only in such a. universal reign of the Messiah. ^[ His dominion is an everlasting dominion, &c. The others, represented by the four beasts, would all pass away, but this would be permanent and eternal. Nothing would destroy it. It would not have, as most kingdoms of the earth have had, any such internal weakness or source of discord as would be the cause of its destruction, nor would there be any external power that would

minion is an everlasting ^dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not cbe destroyed.

invade or overthrow it. This declaration affirms nothing as to the form in which the kingdom would exist, but merely as serts the fact that it would do so. Re specting the kingdom of the Messiah, to which this undoubtedly alludes, the same thing is repeatedly and uniformly affirmed in the New Testament. Comp. Matt. xvi. 18; Ileb. xii. 28; Rev. xi. 15. The form and manner in which this will occur, is more fully developed in the New Testa ment; in the vision seen by Daniel the fact only is stated.

The question now arises, What would be a fulfilment of this prediction respect ing the kingdom that will be given to the saints? What, from the language used in the vision, should we be legitimately authorized to expect to take place on the earth? In regard to these questions, there are but two views which can be taken, and the interpretation of the pas sage must sustain the one or the other. (a) One is that which supposes that this will be literally fulfilled in the sense that the Son of God, the Messiah, will reign personally on earth. According to this, he will come to set up a visible and glori ous kingdom, making Jerusalem his cap ital, and swaying his sceptre over the world. All nations and people will be subject to him; all authority will be wielded by his people under him. (b) Ac cording to the other view, there will be a spiritual reign of the Son of God over the earth; that is, the principles of his religion will everywhere prevail, and the J righteous will rule, and the laws of the I Redeemer will be obeyed everywhere. j There will be such aprevalence of his gos-! pel on the hearts of all — rulers and peo ple; the gospel will so modify all laws, and control all customs, and remove all abuses, and all the forms of evil; men will be so generally under the influence of that gospel, that it may be said that he reigns on the earth, or that the government ac tually administered is his.

In regard to these different views, and to the true interpretation of the passage, it may be remarked, (1.) that TVO are

15 fl I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my a body, and the visions of my head troubled me.

16 I came near unto one of them

that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpreta tion of the things.

17 These great beasts, which are

not to look for the literal fulfilment of ray body. Marg., as in the Chald., sheath. this j we are not to expect that what is j The body is undoubtedly referred to, and here described will literally occur. The I is so called as the envelope of the mind — whole is evidently a symbolical represen- j or as that in which the soul is inserted, as tation, and the fulfilment is to be found j the sword is in the sheath, and from in something that the symbol would pro perly denote. No one can pretend that there is to be an actual sitting on the throne, by one in the form of an old man — 'the Ancient of days' — or that there is to be a literal coming to him by one 'like the Son of Man,' to receive a kingdom. But if one part of the representation is not to be literally interpreted, why should the other be? It may be added, that it is nowhere said that this would literally occur. (2) All that is fairly implied here is found in the latter interpreta tion. Such a prevalence of the princi ples of the gospel, would meet the force of the language, and every part of the vision would find a real fulfilment in that, (a) The fact that it proceeds from God — represented as 'the Ancient of days.' (b) The fact that it is given by him, or that the kingdom is made over which it is drawn out by death. Tho same metaphor is employed by Pliny: Donee cremato eo inimici remeanti animce velut vaginam ademerint. So, too, a cer tain philosopher, who was slighted by Alexander the Great, on account of his ugly face, is said to have replied, Corpus agina gladii, in qua n vagina reconditnr.

Gescnius. Comp. Lengerke, in loc. See also Job xxvii. 8, "When God taketh away his soul;" or rather draws out his soul, as a sword is drawn out of the sheath. Comp. Notes on that place. See also Buxtorf's Lex. Tal. p. 1307. The meaning here is plain — that Daniel felt sad and troubled in mind, and that this produced a sensible effect on his body. }\ And the visions of my head troubled me. The head is here regarded as the seat of the intellect, and he speaks of these visions by him to the Messiah, (c) The fact j as if they were seen by the head. That that the Messiah would have such a king- j is, they seemed to pass before his eyes, dom; that is, that he would reign on the 16. / came near unto one of them that earth, in the hearts and lives of men. stood by. That is, to one of the angels (d) The fact that that kingdom would be j who appeared to stand near the throne, universal — extending over all people, ver. 10. Comp. ch. viii. 13, Zech. iv. 4, 5, And (e) the fact that it would be per- Rev. vii. 13. It was natural for Daniel petual; that is, that it would extend to suppose that the angels who were seen down to the end of time, or the consuin- | encircling the throne, would be able to mation of all things here, and that it j give him information on the subject, and would be then eternal in the heavens. For the answers which Daniel received show & very full and ample illustration of this that he was not mistaken in his expecta- passage — so full and ample as to super sede the necessity of any additional illus- tration hero, see the notes on ch. ii. 44, 45. has made them the medium of communi- 15. / Daniel was grieved in my spirit, eating his will. Comp. liev. i. 1, Acts That is, I was troubled; or the heart was vii. 53, Heb. ii. 2. ^ 80 he told me, and made heavy and sad. This was probably j made me know the interpretation of the in part because he did not fully under- j things. He explained the meaning of tho stand tho meaning of the vision, and i symbols so that Daniel understood them, partly on account of the fearful and j It would seem probable that Daniel has momentous nature of that which was in- | not recorded all that the angels cominu- dicated by it. So the apostle John, (Rev. v. 4), says, " And I wept much be cause no man was found worthy to open and to read the book." f In tlie midst of nicated respecting the vision, but he has preserved so much that we may under stand its general signification.

four, are four kings, which shall j possess the kingdom b for ever, even arise out of the earth. j for ever and ever.

18 But the saints of the * Most I 19 Then I would know the truth High shall take the kingdom, and | of the fourth beast, which was di-

are four kings. Four kings or four dy nasties. There is no reason for suppos ing that they refer to individual kings, but the obvious meaning is, that they re succeed one another on the earth. So the whole representation leads us to but there can bo no doubt that it refers here to God, and is given to him as tho word Elohim is (Gen. i. 1, et sore.), to de note majesty or honor — jihtralis cxccllentice. The word rendered saints means the holy, and the reference is undoubtedly to tho people of God on the earth, mean- suppose, and so the passage has been al-, ing here that they would take possession ways interpreted. The Latin vulgate Of the kingdom, or that they would rule, renders it regna; the Sept. fiaatXZiai; i When true religion shall everywhere prc- Luther, Reiche, Lengerke, Konigreiche. I vail, and when all offices shall be in the This interpretation is confirmed, also, by j hands of good men — of men that fear God ver. 23, where it is expressly said that i and that keep his commandments — in- 'the fourth beast shall be the fourth stead of being in the hands of bad men kingdom upon earth.' See also ver. 24. as they generally have been, then this <[ Which shall arise out of the earth. In I prediction will be accomplished in respect ver. 2 the beasts are represented as com- to all that is fairly implied in it. And ing up from the sea — the emblem of agi tated nations. Here the same idea is presented more literally — that they would seem to spring up out of the earth, thus thrown into wild commotion. These dy nasties were to be upon the earth, and they were in all things to indicate their earthly origin. Perhaps, also, it is de signed by these words to denote a marked contrast between these four dynasties, and the one that would follow — which would be of heavenly origin. This was possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. This is a strong and emphatic declaration, affirming that this dominion will bo perpetual. It will not pass away, like the other kingdoms, to be succeeded by another one. What is here affirmed, as above remarked, will be true if such a reign should continue on earth to tho winding up of all things, and should then be succeeded by an eternal reign of holi ness in the heavens. It is not necessary to interpret this as meaning that there the general intimation which was given! would be literally an eternal kingdom on to the meaning of the vision, and he was! this earth — for it is everywhere taught in satisfied at once as to the explanation, so the Scriptures that tho present order of far as the first three were concerned, but; things will come to a close. But it does the fourth seemed to indicate more mys- seem necessary to understand this as terious and important events, and re- j teaching that there will be a state of pro specting this he was induced to ask a ] valent righteousness on the earth heremore particular explanation. after, and that when that is introduced it 18. But the saints of the Most High1 will continue to the end of time.

9lta.ll take the kingdom. That is, they shall ultimately take possession of the rule over all the world, aad shall control it from that time onward to the end. This is tho grand thing which the vision is designed to disclose, and on this itwyas evidently tho intention to fix the mind. Every thing before was preparatory and stiDordinate to this, and to this all things tended. Tho phrase rendered the Most Hiyh — in the margin 'high ones. i. e.

19. Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast. I desired to know particu larly what was symbolized by that. Ho appears to have been satisfied with tho most general intimations in regard to tho first three beasts, for the kingdoms repre sented by them seemed to have nothing very remarkable. But it was different in regard to the fourth. The beast itself was so remarkable — so fierce and terrific; the number of the horns was so great; the springing up of the little horn was so surprising; the character of that horn

verse from all a the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which de voured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;

20 And of the ten horns that were, in his head, and of the other which

was so unusual; the judgment passed on it was so solemn; and the vision of one like the Son of Man coming to take possession of the kingdom — all these things were of so fearful, and so uncom mon a character, that the mind of Daniel was peculiarly affected in view of them, and he sought earnestly for a further ex planation. In the description that Dan iel here gives of the beast and the horns, he refers in the main to the same circum stances which he had before described, but ho adds a few which he had before

fell; even o/that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

21 I beheld, and b the same horn made war with the saints, and pre vailed against them;

the others until it became the most pro minent. This would clearly denote that the kingdom or the authority referred to by this eleventh horn would be more dis tinct and prominent than either of the others — would become so conspicuous and important as in fact to concentrate and embody all the power of the beast.

21. / beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints. I continued to look on this until I saw war made by this horn with the people of God. This circum stance, also, is not referred to in the first omitted, all tending to impress the mind description, and the order of time in the more deeply with the fearful character, | description would seem to imply that the and the momentous import of the vision! War with the saints would be at a consi- — as for instance, the fact that it had nails i derablo period after the first appearance of brass, and made war with the saints. of the horn — or would bo only when it f Which was diverse from all the others. J had grown to its great size and power. Different in its form and character: — so j This ' war' might refer to open hostilities, different as to attract particular attention, j carried on in the usual manner of war; and to leave the impression that some thing very peculiar and remarkable was denoted by it. Notes ver. 7. Exceed- nails of brass. This circumstance is not mentioned in the first statement, ver. 7. It accords well with the other part of the description that his teeth were of iron, and is designed to denote the fearful and terrific character of the kingdom, sym- or to persecution, or to any invasion of the rights and privileges of others. As it is a 'war with the saints' it would

I ^[ And prevailed against them. That is, he overcame and subdued them. He was stronger than they were, and they were not able to resist him. The same events are evidently referred to, and in almost similar language — borrowed probably from Daniel — in Rev. xiii. 5 — 7: "And there was given him a mouth speaking

20. And of the ten horns, &c. See | great things and blasphemies, and power Notes on vs. 7, 8. ^[ Whose look was | Wa8 given unto him to continue forty and more stout than his fellows. Literally,! two months. And he opened his mouth ' whose aspect was nreater than that of in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme its companions.' This does not mean j his name, and his tabernacle, and them that its look or aspect was more fierce or j that dwell in heaven. And it was given severe than that of the others, but that j him to make war with the saints, and to the appearance of the horns was yreater — j overcome them: and power was given

In ver. 8, this is described as a ' little horn,' and to understand this, and recon cile the two, we must suppose that the seer watched this as it grew until it be came the largest of the number. Three fell before it, and it outgrew in size all

22. Until the Ancient of days came. Notes ver. 9. That is, this was to occur after the horn grew to its full size; and after the war was made with the saints, came, and judgment was given to [earth, which shall be diverse from the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints pos sessed the kingdom.

23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon

and they had been overcome. It does not affirm that this would occur imme diately, but that at some subsequent pe riod the Ancient of days would come, and would set up a kingdom on the earth, or would make over the kingdom to the saints. There would be as real a trans fer and as actual a setting up of a pecu-

all kingdoms, and shall devour the •whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall

tends still into the future; and it is of im portance, therefore, to determine if pos sible, what is its true meaning. The two points of inquiry which are properly be fore us are, first, What do the words of explanation as used by the angel, fairly imply; that is, what, according to the fair interpretation of these words, would liar kingdom, as if God himself should j be the course of events referred to, or appear on the earth, and should publicly j what should we naturally expect to find make over the dominion to them. IT And \ as actually occurring on the earth in the judgment was yiven to the saints of the \ fulfilment of this; and secondly, To what Most High. That is, there was a solemn I events the prophecy is actually to be apact of judgment in the case by which the j plied — whether to what has already ockingdora was given to their hands. It j curred, or what is yet to occur; whether was as real a transfer as if there had been a judgment pronounced on the beast, and he had been condemned and overthrown, we can find anything in what is now past which would be an accomplishment of this, or whether it is to be applied to and as if the dominion which he once | events a part of which are yet future.

had should be made over to the servants of the Most High. ^ And the time came that the saints j)°ssessed the kingdom. That they ruled on the earth; that good men made and administered the laws; that the principles of religion prevailed — influencing the hearts of all men, and causing righteousness and justice to be done. The universal prevalence of true religion — in controlling the hearts and

This will lead us into a statement of the points which it is affirmed would occur in regard to this kingdom; and then into an inquiry respecting the application.

I. What is fairly implied in the expla nation of the angel. This would em brace the following points:

(1) There was to be a fourth kingdom on the earth: — the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, ver. 23.

lives of men, and disposing them to do j This was to succeed the other three, symwhat in all circumstances ought to be j bolized by the lion, the bear, and the leodone, would be a complete fulfilment of | parcl. No further reference is made to all that is here said. Thus far the de- | them, but the characteristics of this are Bcription of what Daniel saw, of which he | fully stated. Those characteristics, which was so desirous to obtain an explanation. | have been explained in the Notes on ver. The explanation follows, and embraces j 7, are, as here repeated, (a) that it would the remainder of the chapter. be in important respects different from

23 — 27. Thus he said, &c. That is, in ' the others; (6) that it would devour or explanation of the fourth symbol which j subdue the whole earth; (c) that it would appeared — the fourth beast, and of the i tread it doAvn, and break it in pieces: — events connected with his appearing. This explanation embraces the remainder of the chapter, and as the whole subject appeared difficult and momentous to Da niel before the explanation, so it may bo said to be in many respects difficult, and in all respects momentous still. It is that is, it would be a universal dynasty, of a fierce and warlike character, that would keep the whole world subdued and subject by power.

(2) Out of this sovereignty or domin ion, ten powers would and the ten horns out of this kingdom are a question on which expositors of the 1 ten kings that shall arise. Comp. Notes Scriptures are by no means agreed, to on ver. 7. That is, they would spring what it refers, and whether it has been j out of this one dominion, or it would be already accomplished, or whether it ex- 1 broken up into these minor sovereignties,

arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first; and he shall subdue three kings.

yet all manifestly springing from the one kingdom, and wielding the same power. We would not naturally look for the ful filment of this in a succession of kings — for that would have been symbolized by the beast itself representing the entire dominion or dynasty, but rather to a number of contemporaneous powers that had somehow sprung out of the one power, or that now possessed and wielded the power of that one dominion. If the kingdom here referred to should be broken up into such a number of powers, or if in any way these powers became possessed of this authority, and wielded it, such a fact would express what we are to expect to find in this kingdom.

(3) From the midst of these sovereign ties or kingdoms there was to spring up another one of peculiar characteristics, vs. 24, 25. These characteristics are the following: («) That it would spring out of the ethers, or be, as it were, one form of the administration of the same power — as the eleventh horn sprang from the same source as the ten, and we are, there fore, to look for the exercise of this power somehow in connection with the same kingdom or dynasty, (b) This would not spring up contemporaneously with the ten, but would ' after them' — and we are to look for this power as in some sense succeeding them, (c) It would be small at first — as was the horn (ver. 8), and we are to look for the fulfilment in some power that we*ild be feeble at first, (d) It would grow to be a mighty power — for the little horn became so powerful as to pluck up three of the others (ver. 8), and it is said in the explanation (ver. 24), that 'he would subdue three of the kings.' (e) It would subdue 'three kings;' that is, three of the ten, and we are to look for the fulfilment in some manifestation of that power by which, either literally three of them were over thrown, or by which about one-third of their power was taken away. The mention of the exact number of 'three,' however, would rather seem to imply that we are to expect some such exact fulfil ment, or some prostration of three sove reignties by the new power that would

25 And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change timea

arise. (/) It would be proud, and am bitious, and particularly arrogant against God: — ' and he shall speak great wordi against the Most High,' ver. 25. The Chaldee here rendered against — ix1? — means, literally, at, or against the part of it, and then against. Vulg. Contra. Gr. Trpdf. This would be fulfilled in one who would blaspheme God directly; or who would be rebellious against his govern ment and authority; or who would com plain of his administration and laws; or who would give utterance to harsh and reproachful words against his real claims. It would find a fulfilment obviously in an open opposer of the claims and the authority of the true Ged; or in one the whole spirit and bearing of whose pre tensions might be fairly construed as in fact an utterance of great words against him. (g) This would be a persecuting power: — ' and shall wear out the saints of the Most High,' ver. 25. That is, it would be characterized by a persecution of the real saints — of those who were truly the friends of God, and who served him. (h) It would claim legislative power, the power of changing established customs and laws: — ' and think to change times and laws,' ver. 25. The word rendered think — •gp — means more properly to hope; and the idea here is, that he hopes and trusts to be able to change times and laws. Vulg., Putabit quod possit mutare ternpora, &c. The state of mind here re ferred to would be that of one who would desire to produce changes in regard to the times and laws referred to, and who would hope that he would be able to effect it. If there was a strong wish to do this, and if there was a belief that in any way he could bring it about, it would meet what is implied in the use of the word here. There would be the exercise of some kind of authority in regard to existing times for festivals, or other occasions, and to existing laws, and there would be a purpose so to change them as to accomplish his own ends. The word times — pjsr — would seem to refer properly to some stated or designated times — as times appointed for and laws: and they shall be given festivals, &c. Gesenius, ' time, specially an appointed time, season.' Eccl. iii. 1; Neb. ii. 6; Esther ix. 27, 31. Lengerke renders the word Fcst-Zeiten — ' festival times/ and explains it as meaning the holy times, festival days, Lev. xxiii. 2, 4, 37, 44. The allusion is, undoubtedly, to such periods set apart as festivals or fasts — seasons consecrated to the services of religion; and the kind of jurisdiction which the power here referred to would hope and desire to set up would be to have control of these periods, and so to change and alter them as to accomplish his own purposes — either by abolishing those in existence, or by substituting others in their place. At all times these seasons have had a direct connection with the state and progress of religion, and he who has power over them, either to abolish existing festivals, or to substitute others in their places, or to appoint new festi vals, has an important control over the whole subject of religion, and over a na tion. The word rendered laics here — D? — while it might refer to any law, would more properly designate laws pertaining to religion. See Dan. vi. 6, 9, 13; Ezra vii. 12, 21. So Lengerke explains it as referring to the laws of religion, or to religion. The kind of jurisdiction, there fore, referred to in this place, would be that which would pertain to the laws and institutions of religion; it would be a purpose to obtain the control of these; it would be a claim of right to abolish such as existed, and to institute new ones; it would be a determination to exert this power in such a way as to promote its own ends, (i) It would continue for a definite period: — and they shall be given into his hands until a time and times and the dividing of a time, ver. 25. They; that is, either those laws, or the people, the powers referred to. Maurer refers this to the 'saints of the Most High/ as meaning that they would be delivered into his hands. Though this is not de signated expressly, yet perhaps it is the most natural construction, as mean ing that he would have jurisdiction over the saints during this period, and if so, then the meaning is, that he would have absolute control over them, or set up a tominion over them, for the time speci-

into his hands until a time and times and the dividing of time.

fied — the time, and times, &a. In re gard to this expression 'a time and times/ <fec., it is unnecessary to say that there has been great diversity of opinion among expositors, and that many of the controversies in respect to future events turn on the sense attached to this and to the similar expressions which occur IE the book of Revelation. The first and main inquiry pertains, of course, to its literal and proper signification. Tho word used here rendered time, times, time — 1?*' my. — is a word which, in itself, would no more designate any definite and fixed period than our word time does. See ch. ii. 8, 9,21, iii. 5, 15, iv. 16, 23,25, 32, vii. 12. In some of these instances, the period actually referred to was a year, (ch. iv. 16, 23), but this is not necessarily implied in the word used, but the limita tion is demanded by the circumstances of the case. So far as the word is con cerned, it would denote a day, a week, a month, a year, or a larger or smaller division of time, and the period actually intended to be designated must be de termined from the connection. The Latin Vulgate is indefinite — ad tempus; so the Greek,?a>j Kaipoii', so the Syriac, and so Luther — eine Zeit, and so Len gerke, cine Zeit. The phrase 'for a time,' expresses accurately the meaning of the original word. The word rendered ' times' is the same word in the plural, though evidently with a dual significa tion, Gesenius, Lex. Lengerke, in loc. The obvious meaning is two such times as is designated by the former time. The phrase 'and the dividing of a time/ means clearly half of such a period. Thus, if the period denoted by a 'time' here be a year, the whole period would j be three years and a half. Designations of time like this, or of this same period, occur several times in the prophecies J (Daniel and Revelation), and on their meaning much depends in regard to the interpretation of the prophecies pertain ing to the future. This period of three years and a half equals forty-two months, or twelve hundred and sixty days — the periods mentioned in Rev. xi. 2, xii. 5, and on which so much depends in the in terpretation of that book. The only question of importance in regard to the

26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion,

period of time here designated is, whether this is to be taken literally to denote three years and a half, or whether a sym bolical method is to be adopted, by making ea«h one of the days represent a year, thus making the time referred to, in fact, twelve hundred and sixty years. On this question expositors are years and a half; that is, regarding each day as standing for a year, and thus con sidering it as denoting twelve hundred and sixty years. This could not be shown to be a violation of prophetic usage, or to be forbidden by the nature of prophetio language, because nothing is more com mon than symbols, and because there are divided, and probably will continue to be, | actual instances in which such an interand according as one or the other view is pretation must be understood. Thus in adopted they refer the events here to Antiochus Epiphanes, or to the Papal power; or perhaps it should be said more accu rately, according as they are disposed to refer the events here to Antiochus or to the Papacy, do they embrace one or the other method of interpretation in regard to the meaning of the days. At this point in the examination of the passage, the only object is to look at it exegeticalfy; to examine it as language apart from the application, or unbiassed by any purpose of application; and though absolute certainty cannot perhaps be obtained, yet the fol lowing may be regarded as exegetically

Ezekiel iv. 6, where the prophet was com manded to lie upon his right side forty days, it is expressly said that it was sym bolical or emblematical: " I have ap pointed thee each day for a year." No one can doubt that it would be strictly consistent with prophetic usage, to sup pose that the time here might bo symboli cal, and that a longer time might be re ferred to than the literal interpretation would require. (4) It maybe added that there are some circumstances, even con sidering the passage with reference only to the interpretation of the language, and with no view to the question of its appli- probable: — (1) The word time may be j cation, which would make this appear viewed as denoting a year; I mean a • probable. Among these circumstances year rather than a week, a month, or any I are the following: (a) The fact that, in other period — because a year is a more the prophecies, it is unusual to designate marked and important portion of time, and because a day, a week, a month, is so short that it cannot be reasonably sup posed that it is intended. As there is no larger natural period than a year — no cycle in nature that is so marked and ob- the time literally. Very few instances can be referred to in which this is done. It is commonly by some symbol; some mark; some peculiarity of the time or e referred to, that the designation is made, or by some symbol that may bo vious as to be properly suggested by the word time, it cannot be supposed that any such cycle is intended. And as there is so much particularity in the language used j bol — the beasts, the horns, here, 'a time, and times, and half a time/ j horn, <fec., — and it would it is to be presumed that some definite and marked period is intended, and that it is not time in general. It may be pre sumed, therefore, that in some sense of the term, the period of a year is referred to. (2) The language does not forbid understood when the event has occurred. (b) This designation of time occurs in the midst of symbols — where all is symtho little seem to be much more probable that such a method would be adopted as designating the time referred to than a literal method, (c) It is quite apparent on the mere perusal of the passage here that the events do ac tually extend far into the future — far be- the application to a literal year, and then yond what would be denoted by the brief the actual time designated would be three I period of three and a half years. This years and a half. No laws of nothing in the language itself could be will be considered more fully in another place in the inquiry as to the meaning of these prophecies.

(4) A fourth point in the explanation regarded as violated, if such an interpre tation were given to the language, and so far as this point is concerned, there would j given by the interpreter to Daniel is, thac be no room for debate. (3) The same 1 there would be a solemn judgment in reremark maybe made as to the symbolical gard to this power, and that the dominapplication of the language — taking it for ion conceded to it over the saints for a a muct longer period than literally three j time would be utterly taken away, and to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

27 And the kingdom and domin ion, and the greatness of the king dom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all

a dominions shall serve and obey

28 Hitherto is the end of the mat ter. As for me, Daniel, my cogita tions much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.

the power itself destroyed: — but the judg ment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume, and to destroy it unto the end, ver. 26. That is, it shall le taken away; it shall come en tirely to an end. The interpreter does not say by ichom this would be done, but be asserts the fact, and that the destruc tion of the dominion would be final. That is, it would entirely and forever cease. This would be done by an act of divine judgment, or as if a solemn judg ment should be held, and a sentence pro nounced. It would be as manifestly an act of God as if he should sit as a judge, and pronounce sentence. See Notes on vs. 9—11.

(5) And a fifth point in the explana tion of the interpreter is, that the domin ion under the whole heaven would be given to the saints of the Most High, and that all nations should serve him; that is, that there would be a universal preva lence of righteousness on the earth, and that God would reign in the hearts and lives of men, (ver. 21.) See Notes on vs. 13, 14.

28. Hitherto is the end of the matter. That is, the end of what I saw and heard. This is the sum of what was disclosed to the prophet, but he still says that he meditated on it with profound interest, and that he had much solicitude in regard to these great events. The words ren dered hitherto, mean, so far, or thus far. The phrase 'end of the matter/ means 'the close of the saying a thing;' that is, this was all the revelation which was made to him, and he was left to his own meditations respecting it. f As for me Daniel. So far as I was concerned; or 80 far as this had any effect on me. It was not unnatural, at the close of this remarkable vision, to state the effect that it had on himself, ^f My cogitations much troubled me. My thoughts in regard to It It was a subject which he could not avoid reflecting on, and which could not but produce deep solicitude in regard to the events which were to occur. Who could look into the future without anx ious and agitating thought? These events were such as to engage the profoundest attention; such as to fix the mind in so lemn thought. Comp. Notes on Rev. v. 4. ^[ And wy countenance changed in me. The effect of these revelations de picted themselves on my countenance. The prophet does not say in what way— whether by making him pale, or care worn, or anxious, but merely that it pro duced a change in his appearance. The Chaldee is brightness — VT — and the mean ing would seem to be that his bright and cheerful countenance was changed; that is, that his bright looks were changed, either by becoming pale (Gesenius, Lengerke), or by becoming serious and thoughtful. ^ But I kept the matter in my heart. I communicated to no one the cause of my deep and anxious thoughts. He hid the whole subject in his own mind, until he thought proper to make this record of what he had seen and heard. Perhaps there was no one to whom ho could communicate the matter who would credit it; perhaps there was no one at court who would sympathize with him; perhaps he thought that it might savour of vanity if it were known; perhaps he felt that as no one could throw any new light on the subject there would be no use in making it a subject of conversa tion; perhaps he felt so overpowered that he could not readily converse on it.

We are prepared now, having gone through with an exposition of this chap ter, as to the meaning of the symbols, the words, and the phrases, to endeavor to ascertain what events are referred to in this remarkable prophecy, and to ask what events it was designed should be portrayed. And in reference to this there are but two opinions, or two classes of in terpretations, that require notice — that which refers it primarily and exclusively to Antiochus Epiphanes, and that which refers it to the rise and character of the Papal power; that which regards the fourth beast as referring to the empire of Alexander, and the little horn to Antiochus, and that which regards the fourth beast as referring to the Koman empire, and the little horn to the Papal dominion. In inquiring which of these is the true interpretation, it will be proper, first, to consider whether it is applicable to Antiochus Epiphanes; se cond, whether it in fact finds a fulfilment in the Roman empire and the Papacy; and, third, if such is the proper applica tion, what are we to look for in the future in what remains unfulfilled in regard to the prophecy.

I. The question whether it is applica ble to the case of Antiochus Epiphanes. A large class of interpreters of the most respectable character, among whom are Lengerke, Maurer, Prof. Stuart (Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 86, seq; also Com. on Daniel, pp. 205 — 211,) Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Bleek, and many oth ers, suppose that the allusion to Antiochus is clear, and that the primary, if not the exclusive, reference to the prophecy is to him. Prof. Stuart (Hints, p. 86) says,

" The passage in Dan. vii. 25 is so clear as to leave no reasonable room for doubt. In vs. 8, 20, 24, the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes is described; for the fourth beast is beyond all reasonable doubt the divided Grecian dominion which suc ceeded the reign of Alexander the Great. From this dynasty springs Antiochus, vs. 8, 26, who is most graphically described in ver. 25 "as one who shall speak great words against the Most High," &c.

The facts in regard to Antiochus, so far as they are necessary to be known in the inquiry, are briefly these: Antiochus Epi phanes (the Illustrious, a name taken on himself, Prideaux, III. 213), was the son of Antiochus the Great, but succeeded his brother, Seleucus Philopator, who died B. C. 176. Antiochus reigned over Syria, the capitol of which was Antioch, on the Orontes, from B. C. 176 to B. C. 164. His character, as that of a cruel tyrant, and a most blood-thirsty and bit ter enemy of the Jews, is fully detailed in the first and second Book of Macca bees. Comp. also Prideaux, Con. Vol. III. 213—234. The facts in the case of Antiochus, so far as they are sup posed to bear on the application of the 27* prophecy before us, are thus stated by Prof. Stuart (Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, pp. 89, 90): " In the year 168 before Christ, in the month of May, Antiochus Epiphanes was on his way to attack Egypt, and he detached Apollonius, one of his military confidents, with 22,000 soldiers, in order to subdue and plunder Jerusalem. The mission was executed with entire success. A terrible slaughter was made of the men at Jerusa lem, and a large portion of the women and children being made captives, were sold and treated as slaves. The services of the temple were interrupted, and its joy ful feasts were turned into mourning. 1 Mac. i. 37—39. Soon after this the Jews in general were compelled to eat swine's flesh, and to sacrifice to idols. In December of that same year, the temple was profaned by introducing the statue of Jupiter Olympius; and on the 25th of that month sacrifices were offered to that idol on the altar of Jehovah. Just three years after this last event, viz. Dec. 25, 165 B. C. the temple was expurgated by Judas Maccabeus, and the worship of Jehovah was restored. Thus three years and a half, or almost exactly this period, passed away, while Antiochus had com plete possession and control of every thing in and around Jerusalem and the temple. It may be noted, also, that just three years passed, from the time when the profanation of the temple was carried to its greatest height, viz., by sacrificing to the statue of Jupiter Olympius on the altar of Jehovah, down to the time when Judas renewed the regular worship. I mention this last circumstance in order to account for the three years of Antio chus' profanations, which are named as the period of them in Josephus, Ant. xii. 7, $ 6. This period tallies exactly with the time during which the profanation as consummated was carried on, if we reckon down to the period when the temple wor ship was restored by Judas Maccabeus. But in Proem, ad Bell. Jud. g 7, and Bell. Jud. L. 1, g 1, Josephus reckons 3£ years as the period during which Antio chus ravaged Jerusalem and Judah."