kingdom is referred to) the goal at the end of
the development of earthly dominion, which
coincides with the erection of the kingdom of
God (v. 13 et seq.). — Terse 27. And the king-
dom and dominion and the greatness of the
kingdom(" kingdoms") ; a triad similar to that
in V. 14, differing only in the substitution of
^*^'I2'^, ' ' the greatness " (Luther, " the power "),
for "Ip'^, "glory." rriabJO I'l depends equally
on all the three nouns as a subjective genitive,
and therefore denotes that the dominion, power,
and greatness possessed by all the heathen king-
doms is intended. On the meaning of the ex-
pression " of the kingdoms under the whole
heaven," see supra, on v. 12.

Verse 28. The impression made on Daniel by
what he has seen andheard. Hitherto is the end
of the matter (or "remarks"), namely of the
interpreter, the conclusion of which coincides
with the end of the dream. De Wette, Hitzig,
etc. , render it inappropriately, and contrary to
the sense of '*^'?'?, " Thus far the history " — an
interpretation which finds no sujjport in chap,
xii. 6. — As for me, Daniel, my cogitations
much troubled me, namely, after awaking from
his dream-vision; cf. ii. 1 ; iv. 2. — And (the
color of) my countenance changed iu me. Cf .
chap. V. 9, where the same expression is found,
and chap. x. 8, which is parallel in substance. —
But I kept the matter in my heart, viz. ; th«
remarks of the interpreting angel, v. 17 et seq.,
and consequently, the subject and signification
of the dream-vision. Cf. Ltike ii. 19.



ETHICO-FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES RELATED
TO THE HISTORY OF SALVATION, APOLO-
GETICAL REMARKS, AND HOMILETICAL

SUGGESTIONS.

1 . After what has been remarked, it is app.ar-
ent that the principal force and the greatest in-
terest of the prophetic descriptions of this chap-
ter centre in fhe fourth world-kingdjm and in its
development as an anti-christian power, which
immediately prepares the way for the judicial
advent of Christ. In the parallel description in



* [Keil. in like manner, argues for the purely symbolical
and indefinite import of this designation of time, being
driven thereto) by his theory that this whole prophecy applies
to the duration nf the Ronisn power, which he extends into
the unknown future. He has all along contended against
a literal interpretation of these cbrouological data as they
eeeui to be.]



CHAP. Vn. 1-28.



16J



the second chapter, — where the series of world-
kingiioms was represented by four metallic sub-
stances, respecti%'ely inferior to each other in
value, in the order of their succession, and al-
though together forming a great colossus, yet
indicating its perishable nature by the weakness
of the feet on which it rested — the observation
of both the dreaming king and the interpreting
prophet was fixed equally on all the four world-
monarchies. Their intimate relations to each
other, their separation, and their subjection to
the same ultimate fate through the agency of
the rock of Messiah's kingdom, formed the prin-
cipal features of that prophecy, which, however,
likewise dwelt more extensively upon the fourth
kingdom than upon its predecessors (v. 40 et
seq. ) ; but the principal re-ason for the promin-
ence thus given to the last kingdom in the series,
existed substantially in the fact that the aim
was to point out that its heterogeneous elements
and its divisions laid the foundation for its own
ruin, and, as a matter of course, for the fall and
ruin of the former empires. The case is differ-
ent with the present vision and its interpretation.
Each of the four bea.sts which in this instance
represent the world-kingdoms is indeed drawn
with nervous and strongly characterizing strokes,
that admit of no doubt respecting their identity
with the four constituents of the image (v. 4 et
seq) ; but the attention of the narrator is prin-
cipally directed to the fourth beast, and to the
horn which denotes the height of the develop-
ment of the world-power (v. 7 et seq. ; 11 et
seq.), even during the dream-vision itself. The
interpretation of the vi.sion disposes of the first
three beasts and their reference to the three
earliest world-kingdoms very summarily (v. 17),
but emphasizes the fourth beast and its '• little
horn which speaks blasphemous things." as Sym-
bols of the final phase of development on the
part of the world-power, and of the reign of
antichrist produced by it ; for not only are the
characteristic peculiarities of this beast noticed
twice over, the second time in a recapitulation
denoting the reflections of the prophet concern-
ing its nature and appearance (vs. 18-22), but
they receive a somewhat detailed explanation
(vs. 23-26), which does not indeed display the
clearness of the disclosures in chapters viii., xi.,
and -xii. relating to the same events in the period
immediately prior to the Messianic future, but
which is nevertheless far superior to all the for-
mer prophetic sections of the book, and espe-
cially to that contained in chap. ii. , in the pre-
cision and clearness of its expositions.

2. In order to a correct apprehension of the
Messianic bearing of this prophecy, it is requisite
before all else, that the identity of the monar-
chial relations and situations indicated in this
chapter with those described in chapters viii. . xi. ,
and xii. should be carefully observed ; or, in
other words, that the common reference of the
prophecies in all these chapters to Antiochus
Epiphanes and the Maccabrean period, as mark-
ing their more immedi,ate fulfilment, should be
recognized. The following considerations will
demonstrate th.at this reference is common to
the prophecies mentioned (and also to that con-
tained in chap. ix. 24^27), and that, consequent-
ly, the second part of the book of Daniel refers,
as a whole, to that time as the epoch of its first
».nd more immediate fulfilment :



a. The world-power in question is described as
dirided and suhjcct to disxeiisions in itstif, in all
the parallel representations, especially in chap,
ii. and vii. on the one hand and chap. xi. on the
other. This agreement extends even to the
point, that in both instances, chap, ii, 43 as
well as chap. xi. 6, 17, the vain attempts to
secure peace by means of intermarriages are
noticed (see on iL 43 and cf. infra, on chap. xi. ,
1. c).

b. The number ten, is applied to the kings of
the fourth monarchy, and receives prominent
mention in at least two of the parallel descrip-
tions (chap. vii. and xi. ), although merely as a
symbolic number, which finds its counterpart, in
a general way, in the first ten possessors of the
throne of the Seleucidas. (It must be remem-
bered, however, that [according to the author's
view] neither the ten toes of the image of the
monarchies, chap. ii. 42 et seq., nor the four
horns of the Grecian goat, chap. viii. 7 et seq.,
refer to these ten predecessors of Antiochus
Epiphanes, or to any individual kings what-
ever. )

c. The blasphemous and sacrilegious course of
(lie eleventh king — symbolized by the "little
horn " — towards the Most High, His law, and
His saints, is described in chap. vii. (vs. 8, 11,
20-25), and more fully in chap. viii. 10, 24 et
seq. ; ix. 24 et seq. [?] ; xi. 31 , 3(i, in a manner that
recalls the statements of the Maccabiean booke
relating to the abominable attempts of Epiphanes
to profane the Jewish worship and oppress its
adherents, with the liveliest and strongest em-
phasis.

d. Chapters vii. 25 ; ix. 27 ; xii. 7 et seq. ,
agree in limiting the duration of the tribulation
caused by the antichristian tyrant to 3^ years.
(In relation to the merely apparent discrepancy
in the duration of the suffering, as stated in chap,
viii. 14 and chap. xii. 12, see on those passages.)

e. The several descriptions agree in supersed-
ing and destroying the antichristian supremacy
by the erection of a Messianic kingdom. This is
noi only asserted in the chapter before us and in
chap. ii. 44 etseq., but also in chap, viii., where
the breaking of the foe witiiotit /lands (v. 25) 13
evidently synonymous with the loosening of the
destroying stone "without hand " in chap. ii.
34, 45, and where the "justifying" (v. 14) of
the desolated sanctuary denotes nothing else
than the introduction of the Messianic period ot
salvation. Further illustrations of this head
appear in chap. ix. 24 and in xii. 1 et seq., 7 et
seq. , where the Messiah likewise is described aa
the direct opponent and victorious successor of
antichrist and his abominations. Hengstenberg
(p. 213 etseq.), Hiivernick. Ebrard (Offenb. Jo/i..
p. 84 et seq.), Ziindel (p. 119), and Auherlen (p.
197 et seq.) attempt in vain to deny the identity
of the antichrist noticed in chapters ii. and vii.
with the enemy of the people of God described
in chapters viii. and ix. , asserting that the for-
mer Ls to be looked for in N. -T. times immedi-
ately prior to Mes.siah's second advent, while the
latter appeared and was destroyed during the
Old Dispensation and before the first advent of
Christ, and that the prophecies in chapters ii.
and vii. relate to the eschatological antichrist,
while those in viii. and xi. denote a typical per
sonage ! — as if the descriptions in chap. vii. 25
did not already indicate on opponent of the O. -T.



164



THE PROPHET DANIEL.



church and ceremonial ! as if the " changing of
(festal) times and laws," there referred to, coald
designate anything but the Tiolent oflenceR
against the temple and the sacrifices of the Old
(/'ovenant, as described in chapters viii. , ix. , and
XI. (see supra on v. 25, and also under c) ! and
as if an Israelitish prophet could possibly sus-
pect that the worship of Messianic tunes would
differ from that of the former dispensation ; and
as if he had not, in chap. ix. 24, even expressly
opened the prospect of a restoration of the O. -T.
sacrifices and sanctuary services when Messiah
should appear (see on that passage) ! An unpre-
judiced exegesis, governed by scientific princi-
ples, can discover but a single antichrist in all
the parallel prophecies, and that one is clearly
described as the immediate predecessor of the
^lessiah, who supersedes and destroys him. *
The prophet, however, wag evidently ignorant
of the merely typical importance of this anti-
ihrist, as being only a forerunner of the anti-
christ A the last times (to whom refer the N. -T.
desr.iptions of the future, which are based upon
th.s book indeed, and which frequently recall
its features — in 2 Thess. ii. ; Rev. xi. 7 ; xiii. 1
et seq. ; xvii. ; xix. 19 et seq.) ; for instead of
representing the former as merely an imperfect
analogue of the incomparably more atrocious
impiety, the far more concentrated and diaboli-
cal wickedness of the latter, as he must have
done if he were actually conscious that the dis-
tinction between type and anti-type existed in
this case, he ever3-where presents the idea of a
flagrant rebellion against the Most High, and of
the desecration of the sanctuary, and the at-
tempted extirpation of the true religion, in ex-
pressions of equal force. And instead of dwell-
ing chiefly on the anti-type as the more impor-
tant character, and as being more signilicant in
his relations to Messiah's work, as might have
been expected, he pursues a contrary course,
and furnishes a far more thorough and realistic
praphetic description of the type ! — We are
therefore obUged to conclude that, in harmony
with the law of prophetic perspective, Daniel
saw the type and anti-type, the vista of Old and
Kew-Testament times, the scenes of the more
immediate future and those of the eschatological
period, as a comprehensice whole, and that from
his point of view, as a captive in Babylon, he no



* [Keil seek' (p. 258 et seq.) to make the most of the in-
cidental variations in the description of the "little horn,"
in ch. vii. and v\n. : but his points are minute and often
far-fetched, whereas the coincidences are striking, numer-
ous, and essential. Consnitthe harmonic table in the intro-
duction. Lest we might be thought to treat the opposite
view too lightly, we briefly note the differences adduced by
Keil. 1. The little horn of ch. vii. rises out of one of the
four horns without adding to their number or injuring them ;
that of ch. viii. arises among the ten as an additional nr
parallel element, and uproots three. This merely proves
that the four iiowers are not identical with the ten hom.s
which is precisely our view. 2. The enemy in ch. vii. goes
much farther in his violence than that in ch. viii. ; but as
the conduct is of the same eeneral character, this is evi-
dently but a fuller or more detailed description. Both cer-
tftinly tallied with the behavior of Autiochus. It is vain to
allege that in one chapter the persecutor is not an antichrist
because he is not directly said to arrogate divinity as in
the other chapter, but only to oppose the people of God : for
t.-.r!.e are everywhere in the Bible identihed with God hira-
t*e]f, and their cause and interests are his likewise. 3. The
periods in the two cases are diflferent (i.-MH) days, and a
year and a half, or 1.2110. or l.."W5 days). This is readily
explained as including in some ptissages more accessory cir-
cumstances than in others. Sec the exegetical remarks ou
each.]



more saw the interval between the two featnrei
in the history of the future, although it covered
thousands of years, than the pilgrim who jour-
neys toward a distant goal is able to observe the
broad and depressed valley that intervenes be-
tween the mountain immediately before him
and that which seems to rise in close proximity
beyond it. Cf. Hofmann, Weissagvng und Erf.,
p. 313 et seq., where it is correctly remarked,
with reference to the closing verses of chap. xi. ,
which describe the terrible end of the typical an-
tichrist, Antiochus Epiphanes, that " at a subse-
quent point he (the prophet, or rather the angel
who speaks to him) observes only the final end
of national history, the fear and tribulation
which overtake the whole world, and the preser-
vation of Israel in the midst of it, in addition to
the final end of human history, the resurrection
of the dead to Ufe or to perdition (chap. xii. 1-

3) The connection of these last things

with the prospect of the end of that oppressor
of Israel is not different, for instance, from that
by which Isaiah speaks of the impending attack
on Jerusalem by Assyria as the final alarm of
that city, or which causes Jeremiah to regard
the end of the seventy years as coinciding with
the end of all the afflictions of his people."
Similar views are advanced by the same author
in his Schriftbeweis, U. 2, 547 et seq. , and also
by DeUtzsch, p. 285 : "It is a law of Messianic
history that the fulfilment of a prophecy, if not
completed by one event, must produce succes-
sive developments, until the actual state that
has been realized shall correspond to the sense
and word of the prophecy. The afflictions
caused by Antiochus were not the last experi-
enced by God's people ; but the book of Daniel
predicts them as the last, as Tsaiah in the down-
fall of Assyria, chapter x. , and Habakkuk in the
destruction of Babylon, chap. ii. et seq. , foretell
the overthrow of the world-power. The range
of the prophet's vision is decided by the border
of the horizon where arises the glory of the con-
gregation of God, but not the measure of the
meaning which the Spirit of prophecy introduces
into his words, and which history gradually un-
folds."

3. While, however, the more immediate ful-
filment of the predicted misfortunes of the
dream-vision is to be chiefly, and even exclu-
sively sought in the period of tribulation marked
by the reign of the Seleucidas and the revolt of
the Asmonmans, it does not follow in any degree
that a contemporary of that generation must be
regarded as the composer of this vision, and that
therefore it must be held to be a prophecy forged
ex eventu. In opposition to this assumption of
a pseudological conveutional composition of the
chapter by an apocalyptist of the Maccabsean
period, it must be observed that discrepancies
exist between several leading characteristic fea-
tures of the prophecy and the facts connected
with the history of the sufferings of Israel under
Antiochus, and also the facts connected with the
development of the empire, which are ungues-
timiablymore vinrked than the origin of the chap-
ter in the time of the Maccabees uould justify in
any vay. Above all we notice the following :

a. The difference betweer the ten horns of the
fourth beast (v. 7et seq.. 20, 24) and the number
of the predecessors of Antiochus Epiphanes on
th« throne of the Seleucids. The most plan-



CHAP. VII. 1-28.



1G5



Bible method of reconciling the number of the
horns with that of the early Seleuoidae — hence,
of fixing the number of the latter at ten, while
Antiochus follows as the eleventh — is that adopt-
ed by Prideaux, Bertholdt, Von Lengerke, De-
Utzsch, and Eivald, by which Alexander the Great
is excluded from the series, and Seleucus
Nicator heads the Ust. This certainly secures
a succession of seven rulers down to Seleucus
IV. Philopator, the brother and predecessor of
Ant. Epiphanes (1. Seleucus Nicator, B. C. 312-
280; 2. Antiochus Soter, 279-201 ; 3. Antiochus
Theos, 260-246; 4. Seleucus Callinicus, 245-
226 ; 5. Seleucus Ceraunus, 225-223 ; 6. An-
tiochus the Great, 222-187 ; 7. Seleucus Philo-
pator, 186-176) ; but every attempt to designate
the three missing monarchs, who should fill the
brief interregnum and state of restless anarchy
which preceded the accession of Antiochus
Epiphanes, results in failure. The ordinary re-
source is to assume that these three kings, whom
Antiochus dethroned and superseded, or, as the
figurative language in v. 8 has it, ''the three
horns which were uprooted before the little horn
came up," were (1) Demetrius, the eldest son of
Seleucus Philopator, and therefore the nephew
of Ant. Epiphanes, who was at Rome as a host-
age when his father died, and whose crown was
usurped in his absence by his uncle (who had
just returned to Syria from an extended sojourn
in Rome, where he had likewise been a hostage) ;
(2) Heliodorus, the murderer of Seleucus Philo-
pator (see chap. xi. 20), who occupied the throne
for a short time after poisoning that king, until
Epiphanes dethroned him ; and finally (3 ) Ptol-
emy IV. Philometer, king of Egypt, a minor at
the time, who was the son of Cleopatra, the
daughter of Antiochus the Great and sister of
Epiphanes. It is assumed that this queen laid
claim to the throne of the Seleucidfe for her eon,
or at least to the provinces of Palestine and
Phoenicia, which adjoined Egypt. In point of
fact, however, none of these rivals of Epiphanes
could be regarded as the king of Syria, for Heli-
odorus was a mere usurper, who was dethroned
after a brief reign, and there is no record to
show that either Demetrius or Ptolemy Philo-
meter pretended to the throne with any degree
of earnestness.* Hence a variety of different
explanations have been attempted; as, for in-
stance, Alexander the Great has been included
in the series of the ten kings, as being the ac-
tual founder of the empire of the Seleucidse (!),
so that the line begins with him and closes with
Seleucus Philopator as the eighth, Heliodorus
as the ninth, and Demetrius as the tenth repre-
sentative of that dynasty (thus Hitzig, on the
passage, emd Hilgenfeld, Dl4 Prop/wten Esra
und Daniel, 1863, p. 82) ; or again, attention is

* [Keil urges these objections with all their force to disprove
any reference here to the time of the Seleucidae ; but they
apply with equal and even greater force to the Roman list of
emperors. It does not appear however, that the three horns
in question represent actually reigning k.ngs, nor do the
terms "plucked up" and "fell'' cle-irly mean dethrone-
ment. It is sufBcient that they were royal personages who
claimed or were entitled to the throne. One of them, at
lea-t, Heliodorus, actually occupied it, for a brief period, in-
deed, but long enough to come within the description. The
other two, as being ieg.timate heirs, may fairly be designated
as prtiicefi, and this is all that the figure requires. The partial
and ternixirary royalty of all three is evidently denoted by
their speedily succumbing to the upstart. It is difficult to
imagine a case of four rivals to the same throne that would
more accurately answer to the vision.]



caUed to the fact that exactly that peri<d in the
history of Syria which immediately precedes the
reign of Epiphanes, is known to be particularly
obscure, uncertain, and defective in its records
(Ewald, and also Hitzig and Kamphausen) ; or
it is observed that on the analogy of the toes of
the image, which were partly of clay and partlj
of iron, the requisite number of kings is prob-
ably to be found both among the Seleucidae and
the Ptolemies (Rosenmiiller, Delitzsch, following
Porphyry, Polychron, and other ancients); or
the attempt to discover a succession of ten kings
is wholly given up, and the ten horns are regard-
ed as denoting ten con temporary ivieTs, e.g., ten
satraps or generals of Alexander the Great,
among whom the three that Seleucus Xicatot
conquered, Antigonus, Ptolemy Lagus, and Lysi-
machus, were especially prominent (Bleek, p.
68). The uncertain and unsatisfactory nature
of all these attempts at an explanation, which
Delitz.sch (p. 283) also acknowledges in substance,
has finally led even several advocates of the
theory of the Maccabtean composition of this
section {e.g., Hertzfeld. Oenchkhte IsraeUs) to
adopt the only correct view, on which the num-
ber ten as applied to the horns is a round or sym-
bolic number, whose more specific interpretation
it is useless to attempt. This view is also held
in substance by a majority of the expositors who
refer the fourth beast to the lioman world-
power and the occidental-Christian kingdoms
which emanated from it, although they hold
fast to the really prophetic character of the
vision, and therefore its origin with Daniel and
during the captivity.* We have already shown
that the advocacy of the genuineness of thi
prophetic book by no means involves, as a neces
sary consequence, the interpretation by which
the fourth beast designates Rome. It has also
been shown, on v. 8, that we must be content
with a general and symbolic explanation of the
subordinate three-fold number of the horns, as
well as of the number ten. Cf. infra, on chap,
xi. 2 et seq.

b. The statement in v. 25, according to which
the period of tribulation, prepared for God's
people by the eleventh king of the fourth mon-
archy, was to cover "a time, and two times, and
a half time " (hence according to chap. iv. 13
was to extend over three and a half years and
then to be ended by an act of Divine judgment),
ivill likewise admit of no exact and thoroughly



* [So formidable is this difficulty on the Roman theory of
interpretation that Keil, its last most noted advocate, takea
refuge in a remarkable postponement of the solution.
" The kingdoms represented by the ten horns belong still to
the future. To be able to judge regarding them with an.v
O'rtainty, we must first make clear to ourselves the place of
the Messianic kingdom with reference to the fourth world-
kingdom, and then compare the prophecy of the .\p0Crtlyp5e
of John regarding the formation of the world-power — a pro-
phecy which rest« on the book of Daniel." This is a virtual
abandonment of the Held. If all the other parts of this
prophecy have their clear counterpart in history, why not
this also ? If, as Keil claims, these ten horns are found
simultaneously on the head of the beast as it fii-st arises it
is obviously inconsistent to refer their identification to the
future. But the attempts made to distingui.sh the horns in
question, in their literal applicatioi Rome, have signally
failed, as the must cursory inspection of the schemes proposed
in vari<'us commentar.es on Daniel and the Apocalypse
will abundantly show. The ten kings in Rev. xvii. 'A art
there expreasly assigned to the indefinite future : but the
seven in ver. 10 are clearly chantcterized as lielonging to
proximate history, and the first six as bavintf been at the
time actually realized.]



ItJfi



THE PROPHET DANIEL.



satisfactory comparison with the periods of re-
ligious persecution under Antiochus and of the
Jlaccaba'au revolt. If the introduction of a
sacrificial worship and the erection of an altar
to the Ol.ympic Zeus by Antiochus ( 1 Maco. i.