Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 7

In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon — On the character and reign of Belshazzar, see Introduction to Daniel 5:0, Section II. He was the last of the kings of Babylon, and this fact may cast some light on the disclosures made in the dream.

Daniel had a dream — Margin, as in Hebrew, saw. He saw a series of events in vision when he was asleep. The dream refers to that representation and was of such a nature that it was proper to speak of it as if he saw it. Compare the notes at Daniel 2:1.

And visions of his head upon his bed — See the notes at Daniel 4:5.

Then he wrote the dream — He made a record of it at the time. He did not commit it to tradition or wait for its fulfillment before it was recorded, but long before the events referred to occurred he committed the prediction to writing, that when the prophecy was fulfilled they might be compared with it. It was customary among the prophets to record their predictions, whether communicated in a dream, in a vision, or by words to them, that there might be no doubt when the event occurred that there had been an inspired prediction of it, and that there might be an opportunity for a careful comparison of the prediction with the event. Often the prophets were commanded to record their predictions. See Isaiah 8:1, Isaiah 8:16; Isaiah 30:8; Habakkuk 2:2.

Compare Revelation 1:19; Revelation 14:13; Revelation 21:5. In many instances, as in the case before us, the record was made hundreds of years before the event occurred, and as there is all the evidence that there could be in a case that the record has not been altered to adapt it to the event, the highest proof is thus furnished of the inspiration of the prophets. The meaning here is that Daniel wrote out the dream as soon as it occurred.

And told the sum of the matters — Chaldee, “And spoke the head of the words.” That is, he spoke or told them by writing. He made a communication of them in this manner to the world. It is not implied that he made any oral communication of them to anyone, but that he communicated them — namely, in the way specified. The word “sum” here — ראשׁ rē'sh — means “head”; and would properly denote such a record as would be a heading up, or a summary — as stating in a brief way the contents of a book, or the chief points of a thing without going into detail.

The meaning here seems to be that he did not go into detail — as by writing names, and dates, and places; or, perhaps, that he did not enter into a minute description of all that he saw in regard to the beasts that came up from the sea, but that he recorded what might be considered as peculiar, and as having special significance.

The Codex Chisianus renders this, ἔγραψεν ἐις κεφάλαια λόγων egrapsen eis kephalaia logōn — “He wrote in heads of words,” that is, he reduced it to a summary description. It is well remarked by Lengerke, on this passage, that the prophets, when they described what was to occur to tyrants in future times, conveyed their oracles in a comparatively dark and obscure manner, yet so as to be clear when the events should occur. The reason for this is obvious. If the meaning of many of the predictions had been understood by those to whom they referred, that fact would have been a motive to them to induce them to defeat them; and as the fulfillment depended on their voluntary agency, the prophecy would have been void.

It was necessary, therefore, in general, to avoid direct predictions, and the mention of names, dates, and places, and to make use of symbols whose meaning would be obscure at the time when the prediction was made, but which would be plain when the event should occur. A comparison of Daniel 7:4, Daniel 7:9, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:14, will show that only a summary of what was to occur was recorded.

Matters — Margin, as in Chaldee, words. The term words, however, is often used to denote things.

Daniel spoke and said - That is, he spoke and said in the manner intimated in the previous verse. It was by a record made at the time, and thus he might be said to speak to his own generation and to all future times.

I saw in my vision by night - I beheld in the vision; that is, he saw represented to him the scene which he proceeds to describe. He seemed to see the sea in a tempest, and these monsters come up from it, and the strange succession of events which followed.

And behold, the four winds of the heaven - The winds that blow under the heaven, or that seem to come from the heaven—or the air. Compare (Jeremiah 49:36). The number of the winds is here referred to as four, as they are now, blowing mainly from the four quarters of the earth. Nothing is more common now than to designate them in this manner—as the east, the south, the west, and the north wind. So the Latins: Eurus, Auster, Zephyrus, Boreas.

Strove - מגיחן megı̂ychân. Burst, or rushed forth; seemed to conflict together. The winds burst, rushed from all quarters, and seemed to meet on the sea, throwing it into wild commotion. The Hebrew word (גיח gı̂yach) means to break or burst forth, as a fountain or stream of waters (Job 40:23); an infant breaking forth from the womb (Job 38:8); a warrior rushing forth to battle (Ezekiel 32:2). Hence, the Chaldean word means to break forth; to rush forth as the winds. The symbol here would naturally denote some wild commotion among the nations, as if the winds of heaven should rush together in confusion.

Upon the great sea - This expression would properly apply to any great sea or ocean, but it is probable that the one that would occur to Daniel would be the Mediterranean Sea, as that was best known to him and his contemporaries. A heaving ocean—or an ocean tossed with storms—would be a natural emblem to denote a nation, or nations, agitated with internal conflicts, or nations in the midst of revolutions. Among the sacred poets and the prophets, hosts of armies invading a land are compared to overflowing waters, and mighty changes among the nations to the heaving billows of the ocean in a storm. Compare (Jeremiah 46:7–8; Jeremiah 47:2; Isaiah 8:7–8; Isaiah 17:12; Isaiah 59:19; Daniel 11:40; Revelation 13:1).

The classic reader will be reminded in the description here of the words of Virgil, Aeneid 1.82 and following:

“Ac venti, velut agmine facto
Qua data porta ruunt, et terras turbine perflant.
Incubuere mari, totumque a sedibus imis
Una Eurusque, Notusque ruunt, creberque procellis
Africus, et vastos volvunt ad littora fluctus.”

Compare also Ovid, Tristia 1.2.25 and following.

It was from this agitated sea that the beasts Daniel saw, representing successive kingdoms, seemed to rise. The fair interpretation of this part of the symbol is that there were, or would be, as it appeared to Daniel in the vision, commotions among the nations resembling the sea driven by storms. From these commotions, successive kingdoms would arise, having the characteristics specified by the appearance of the four beasts.

In the fulfillment of this, we naturally look to some state of affairs in which the nations were agitated and convulsed, struggling against each other as the winds strove upon the sea—a state of affairs that preceded the rise of these four successive kingdoms. Without now pretending to determine whether that was the time denoted by this, it is certain that all that is said here would find a counterpart in the period immediately preceding the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, or the kingdom which he founded and adorned.

His rapid and extensive conquests, the agitation of the nations in self-defense, and their wars against one another would be well denoted by the agitation of the ocean as seen by Daniel in the vision. It is true that this image could apply to many other periods in world history. However, no one can doubt its applicability to this particular period. This applicability would be sufficient if the design was to represent a series of kingdoms commencing with that of Nebuchadnezzar.

And four great beasts came up from the sea – Not at once, but in succession. See the following verses. Their particular form is described in the subsequent verses.

The design of mentioning them here, as coming up from the sea, seems to have been to show that this succession of kingdoms sprang from the agitations and commotions among the nations represented by the heaving ocean. It is not uncommon for the prophets to use animals to represent or symbolize kingdoms and nations—usually by some animal that was peculiar to the land that was symbolized, or that abounded there.

Thus, in Isaiah 27:1, leviathan, or the dragon, or crocodile, is used to represent Babylon. See the note at that passage. In Ezekiel 29:3-5, the dragon or the crocodile of the Nile is put for Pharaoh; in Ezekiel 32:2, Pharaoh is compared to a young lion, and to a whale in the seas. In Psalm 74:13-14, the kingdom of Egypt is compared to the dragon and the leviathan.

So on ancient coins, animals are often used as emblems of kingdoms; it may also be added that the lion and the unicorn represent Great Britain now, and the eagle the United States.

It is well remarked by Lengerke (in loc.) that when the prophets design to represent kingdoms that are made up of other kingdoms, or that are combined by being brought by conquest under the power of others, they do this, not by any single animal as actually found in nature, but by monsters—fabulous beings that are compounded of others, in which the peculiar qualities of different animals are brought together, as in the case of the lion with eagle’s wings.

Thus, in Revelation 13:1, the Romish power is represented by a beast coming out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns; compare this to 2Ezra 11:1 (Apocrypha), where an eagle is represented as coming from the sea with twelve feathered wings and three heads. As an illustration of the attempts made in the apocryphal writings to imitate the prophets, the whole of chapter 11 and chapter 12 of the Second Book of Ezra may be referred to.

Diverse one from another – Though they all came up from the same abyss, yet they differed from each other—denoting, doubtless, that though the successive kingdoms referred to would all rise out of the nations represented by the agitated sea, yet in important respects they would differ from each other.

The first was like a lion – It is to be assumed, in explaining and applying these symbols, that they are significant. This means there was some appropriateness or suitability in using these symbols to denote the kingdoms referred to. In each case, there was a reason why the particular animal was selected for a symbol rather than one of the others. That is, there was something in the lion better fitted to symbolize the kingdom referred to than in the bear or the leopard, and this was why this particular symbol was chosen.

It is to be further assumed that all the characteristics in the symbol were significant. We are to expect to find them all in the kingdom they were designed to represent. Nor can the symbol be fairly applied to any kingdom unless something is found in its character or history that corresponds both to the particular circumstances referred to in the symbol and to the grouping or succession.

Regarding the first beast, five things entered into the symbol, all of which it is to be presumed were significant: the lion, the eagle’s wings, the fact that the wings were plucked, the fact that the beast was lifted up so as to stand up as a man, and the fact that a man's heart was given to it. It is proper to consider these in their order and then to inquire whether they found fulfillment in any known state of things.

1. The animal that was seen: “the lion.” The lion, “the king of beasts,” is the symbol of strength and courage and becomes the proper emblem of a king—as when the Muslims call Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law, “The Lion of God, always victorious.” Thus it is often used in the Scriptures. Genesis 49:9 states, “Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, you have gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?” The warlike character, the conquest, and the supremacy of that tribe are undoubtedly denoted here. So in Ezekiel 19:2-3: “What is your mother? A lioness: she lay down among lions, she nourished her whelps among young lions.” Grotius says this is an allusion to Genesis 49:9. Judea was among the nations like a lioness among the beasts of the forest; she had strength and sovereignty.

   The lion is an emblem of a hero: 2 Samuel 23:20, “He slew two lion-like men of Moab.” Compare Gesenius zu Isa. i. 851. So Hercules and Achilles are called by Homer θυμολέοντα (thumoleonta)—or λεοντόθυμον (leontothumon)—lion-hearted (Iliad e 639, ee 228, Odyssey l 766). See the character, intrepidity, and habits of the lion fully illustrated in Bochart, Hieroz. lib. iii. c. 2, pp. 723-745; Credner, der prophet Joel, s. 100 and following. Compare also the following places in Scripture: Psalms 7:2; Psalms 22:21; Psalms 57:4; Psalms 58:6; Psalms 74:4; 1 Samuel 17:37; Job 4:10; Jeremiah 4:7; Jeremiah 49:19; Joel 1:6; Isaiah 29:1–2.

   The proper notion here, as far as the emblem of a lion is concerned, is that of a king or kingdom distinguished for power, conquest, and dominion. Such a kingdom would be in relation to other kings and kingdoms as the lion is among the beasts of the forest—keeping them in awe, maintaining dominion over them, and marching where it pleases, with none to cope with or resist it.

2. The eagle’s wings: “and had eagle’s wings.” Here appears one peculiarity of the emblem: the union of things not found joined together in nature, representing things or qualities that no single animal could represent. The lion would denote one thing, or one quality in the kingdom referred to—power, dominion, sovereignty. However, there would be some characteristic in that king or kingdom which nothing in the lion would properly represent, and which could be symbolized only by attaching to it qualities found in some other animal.

   The lion—distinguished for its power, its dominion, its keeping other animals in awe, its spring, and the severity of its blow—is not remarkable for its speed, nor for going forth to conquest. It does not range far to accomplish its purpose, nor are its movements eminent for fleetness. Hence, the wings of an eagle were attached to the lion. The proper notion of this symbol, therefore, would be that of a dominion or conquest rapidly secured; as if a lion, the king of beasts, should move not as it commonly does, with a spring or bound, confining itself to a certain space or range, but should move as the eagle does, with rapid and prolonged flight, extending its conquests afar.

   The meaning of the symbol may be seen by comparing this passage with Isaiah 46:11, where Cyrus is compared to “a ravenous bird”—“calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executes my counsels from a far country.” The eagle is an emblem of swiftness: Jeremiah 4:13, “His horses are swifter than eagles;”Jeremiah 48:40, “Behold, he shall fly as an eagle, and shall spread his wings over Moab.” See also Jeremiah 49:22; Lamentations 4:19; Habakkuk 1:8.

3. The clipping of the wings: “I beheld until its wings were plucked.” The word used (מרט (meraṭ)) means to pluck or pull, as to pull out the beard (Isaiah 50:6). Here it would be properly applied to some process of pulling out the feathers or quills from the wings of the eagle. The obvious and proper meaning of this symbol is that some check was put to the conqueror's progress—as there would be to an eagle by plucking the feathers from its wings; that is, the rapidity of its conquests would cease. The prophet says that he looked on until this was done, implying it was not accomplished at once, but leaving the impression that these conquests were extended far.

   They were, however, checked, and we see the lion again without the wings: the sovereign who has ceased to spread its triumphs over the earth.

4. The lifting up from the earth: “and it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand upon its feet as a man.” That is, the lion, with its wings thus plucked off, was made to stand upright on its hind feet—an unusual position, but the meaning of the symbol is not difficult. It was still the lion—the monarch—but changed as if the lion were changed to a man; that is, as if the ferocity, power, and energy of the lion had given place to the comparative weakness of a man.

   There would be as much difference in the case referred to as there would be if a lion so fierce and powerful should be made to change its nature so much as to stand upright and walk like a man. This would evidently denote some remarkable change—something unusual, something where there would be a diminution of ferocity, and yet perhaps a change to comparative weakness, as a man is feebler than a lion.

5. The giving to it of a man’s heart: “and a man heart was given to it.” The word “heart” in the Scriptures often has a closer relation to the intellect or understanding than it commonly has with us now. Here perhaps it is a general term to denote something like human nature. That is, there would be as great a change in the case as if the nature of the lion should be transformed to that of a man. Or, the meaning may be that this mighty empire, carrying its arms with the rapidity of an eagle and the fierceness of a lion through the world, would be checked in its career; its ferocity would be tamed, and it would be characterized by comparative moderation and humanity.

   In Daniel 4:16, it is said of Nebuchadnezzar, “Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him.” Here, if the symbol refers to him, it does not refer to that scene of humiliation when he was compelled to eat grass like a beast, but to the fact that he was brought to look at things as a man should do. He ceased to act like a ravenous beast and was led to calm reflection, and to think and speak like a man—a rational being.

   Or, if it refers to the empire of Babylon instead of the monarch, it would mean that a change had come over the nation under the succession of princes, so that the fierceness and ferocity of the first princes of the empire had ceased. The nation had not only closed its conquests but had actually become, to some extent, moderate and rational.

Now, regarding the application of this symbol, there can be little difficulty, and there is almost no difference of opinion among expositors. All, or nearly all, agree that it refers to the kingdom of Babylon, of which Nebuchadnezzar was the head, and to the gradual diminution of the ferocity of conquest under a succession of comparatively weak princes. Whatever view may be taken of the book of Daniel—whether it is regarded as inspired prophecy composed by Daniel himself and written at the time it professes to have been, or whether it is supposed to have been written long after his time by someone who forged it in his name—there can be no doubt that it relates to the head of the Babylonian empire, or to that which the “head of gold,” in the image referred to in Daniel 2, represents.

The circumstances all agree so well with that application that, although in the explanation of the dream (Daniel 7:16–27) this part of it is not explained—for Daniel’s perplexity related particularly to the fourth beast (Daniel 7:19)—yet there can be no reasonable doubt as to what was intended. For:

1. The lion—the king of beasts—would accurately symbolize that kingdom in the days of Nebuchadnezzar: a kingdom occupying the same position among other kingdoms as the lion does among other beasts, and well represented in its power and ferocity by the lion. See the character and position of this kingdom fully illustrated in the notes at Daniel 2:37-38.

2. The eagle’s wings would accurately denote the rapid conquests of that kingdom—its leaving, as it were, its own native domain and flying abroad. The lion alone would have represented the character of the kingdom considered as already having spread itself, or as being at the head of other kingdoms; the wings of the eagle represented the rapidity with which the arms of the Babylonians were carried into Palestine, Egypt, Assyria, etc. It is true that this symbol alone would not designate Babylon any more than it would the conquests of Cyrus, Alexander, or Caesar; but it is to be taken in the connection in which it is here found, and no one can doubt that it has a striking applicability to Babylon.

3. The clipping or plucking of these wings would denote the cessation of conquest, as if it would extend no farther. That is, we see a nation once distinguished for invading other nations now ceasing its conquests, and remarkable not for its victories but for standing at the head of all other nations, as the lion stands among the beasts of the forest.

   All who are acquainted with history know that after the conquests of that kingdom under Nebuchadnezzar, it characteristically ceased to be a kingdom distinguished for conquest. Although under his successors it held a pre-eminence or headship among the nations, its victories were extended no further. The successors of Nebuchadnezzar were comparatively weak and indolent princes—as if the wings of the monster had been plucked.

4. The rising up of the lion on its feet, and standing on its feet as a man, would not inappropriately denote the change of the kingdom under the successors of Nebuchadnezzar. See above in the explanation of the symbol.

5. The giving of a man’s heart to it would not be inapplicable to the change produced in the empire after the time of Nebuchadnezzar and under a succession of comparatively weak and inefficient princes. Instead of the heart of the lion—of being “lion-hearted”—it had the heart of a man. That is, the character of wildness and fierceness denoted by an untamed beast was succeeded by what would be better represented by a human being.

   It is not the character of the lion changed to that of the bear, the panther, or the leopard; nor is it man considered as a warrior or conqueror, but man as distinguished from the wild and ferocious beast of the desert. The change in the character of the empire, until it ceased under the feeble reign of Belshazzar, would be well denoted by this symbol.

And, behold, another beast, a second, like a bear—That is, after the lion had appeared, and he had watched it until it had undergone these surprising transformations. There are several circumstances, also, regarding this symbol, all of which, it is supposed, were significant, and all of which require explanation before it is attempted to apply them.

1. The animal seen: the bear. For a full description of the bear, see Bochart, Hieroz., lib. iii, c. 9. The animal is well known and has properties quite distinct from the lion and other animals. There was doubtless some reason why this symbol was employed to denote a particular kingdom, and there was something in the kingdom that corresponded with these peculiar properties, as there was in the case of the lion. The bear might, in some respects, have been a proper representative of Babylon, but it would not in all nor in the main respects.

   According to Bochart (Hieroz., vol. i, p. 812), the bear is distinguished mainly for two things: cunning and ferocity. Aristotle says that the bear is greedy as well as silly and foolhardy (Wemyss, Key to the Symbolic Language of Scripture). The name in Hebrew is taken from its grumbling or growling. Compare Isaiah 19:11: “We roar all like bears.”

   Compare Horace, Epodes 16:51: “Nec vespertinus circumgemit ursus ovile.”

   Virgil mentions their ferocity: “Atque in praesepibus ursi saevire” (Aeneid 7.17).

   The bear is noted as especially fierce when hungry, or when robbed of its cubs. Jerome remarks, “It is said by those who have studied the nature of wild beasts, that none among them is more ferocious than the bear when deprived of its young, or when hungry.” Compare 2 Samuel 17:8; Proverbs 17:12; Hosea 13:8. The characteristics of the kingdom, therefore, that would be denoted by the bear would be ferocity, roughness, fierceness in war, especially when provoked; a spirit less manly and noble than that denoted by the lion; severe in its treatment of enemies, with a mixture of fierce and savage cunning.

2. Its rising up on one of its sides: “and it raised up itself on one side.” The Chaldee word used here (שׁטר (sheṭar)) occurs nowhere else. It means side (Gesenius), and would be applied here to the side of an animal, as if it lifted up one side before the other when it rose. The Latin Vulgate renders it, in parte stetit. The Greek (Walton), έις μέρος ἕν ἐστάθη (eis meros hen estathē)—“it stood on one part;” or, as Thompson renders it, “he stood half erect.” The Codex Chisianus, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς πλευροῦ ἐστάθη (epi tou henos pleurou estathē)—“it stood upon one side.”

   Maurer renders this, “on one of its forefeet it was recumbent, and stood on the other,” and says that this is the figure exhibited on one of the stones found in Babylon, an engraving of which may be seen in Munter, Religion d. Babyl., p. 112. The animal referred to here, as found in Babylon, says Lengerke, “lies kneeling on the right forefoot, and is in the act of rising on the left foot.”

   Bertholdt and Havernick understand this as meaning that the animal stood on its hindfeet, with the forepart raised, as the bear is said to do. However, probably the true position is that referred to by Maurer and Lengerke: that the animal was in the act of raising itself up from a recumbent posture, and rested on one of its forefeet while the other was reached out, and the body on that side was partially raised.

   This position would naturally denote a kingdom that had been quiet and at rest, but that was now rousing itself deliberately for some purpose, such as conquest or war—as the bear that had been crouching down would rise when hungry, or when going out for prey.

3. The ribs in its mouth: “and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it.” Bertholdt understands this as fangs or tusks—or fangs crooked or bent like ribs (p. 451). But the proper meaning of the Chaldee עלע (‛ala‛) is the same as the Hebrew צלע (tsēlâ‛)—“a rib” (Gesenius). The Latin Vulgate is tres ordines—three rows; the Syriac and the Greek, three ribs.

   This would be sufficiently characteristic of a bear. The attitude of the animal here seems to be that it had killed some other animal, and, in devouring it, had torn out three ribs from its side, and now held them in its mouth. It was slowly rising from a recumbent posture, with these ribs in its mouth, and about to receive a command to go out and devour much flesh.

   The number three, in this place, Lengerke supposes to be a round number, without any special significance. Others suppose that it denotes the number of nations or kingdoms which the people here represented by the bear had overcome. Perhaps this latter would be the more obvious idea as suggested by the symbol, but it is not necessary, in order to properly understand a symbol, to press such a point too closely. The natural idea which would be suggested by this part of the symbol would be that of a kingdom or people of a fierce and rough character, having already subdued some, and then, after reposing, rising up with the trophies of its former conquests to go out to new victories, or to overcome others. The symbol would be a very striking one to represent a conquering nation in such a posture.

4. The command given to this beast: “and they said thus to it, Arise, devour much flesh.” That is, it was said to it; or someone having authority said it. A voice was heard commanding it to go out and devour. This command is wholly in accordance with the nature of the bear.

   The bear is called by Aristotle σαρκοφαγῶν (sarkophagōn)—flesh-eater, and ξῶον πάμφαγον (xōon pamphagon), a beast devouring everything (Hist. Nat. 8.5), and no better description could be given of it.

   As a symbol, this would properly be applicable to a nation about receiving, as it were, a command from God to go out to wider conquests than it had already made; to arouse itself from its repose and to achieve new triumphs.

The application of this symbol was not explained by the angel to Daniel; but if the former related to Babylon, there can be little difficulty in understanding to what this is to be applied. It is evidently to what succeeded the Babylonian—the Medo-Persian, the kingdom ruled successively by Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and Darius Nothus, until it was overthrown by Alexander the Great. The only inquiry now is as to the relevance of the symbol here employed to represent this kingdom.

1. The symbol of the bear. As already seen, the bear would denote any fierce, rough, overbearing, and arbitrary kingdom. It is clear that while it might have applicability to any such kingdom, it would better represent that of Medo-Persia than the lion would; for while, in some respects, either symbol would be applicable to either nation, the Medo-Persian did not stand so decidedly at the head of nations as the Babylonian.

   As to its character, however, the bear was not an inappropriate symbol. Taking the whole nation together, it was fierce, rough, and unpolished, little disposed to friendliness with the nations, and dissatisfied while any around it had peace or prosperity. In the image seen in Daniel 2, this kingdom, denoted by the breast and arms of silver (Daniel 2:32), is described in the explanation (Daniel 2:39) as “inferior to thee;” that is, to Nebuchadnezzar.

   For a sufficiently full account of this kingdom—of the mad projects of Cambyses, and his savage rage against the Ethiopians, well represented by the ferocity of the bear; of the ill-starred expedition to Greece under Xerxes, an expedition in its fierceness and folly well represented by the bear; and of the degeneracy of the national character after Xerxes, well represented by the bear as compared with the lion—see the notes at Daniel 2:39. No one acquainted with the history of that nation can doubt the propriety and applicability of the emblem.

2. The rising up on its side, or from a recumbent posture, as if it had been in a state of repose, and was now arousing itself for action. Different interpretations have been adopted of this emblem as applicable to the Medo-Persians. The ancient Hebrew interpreters, as Jerome remarks, explain it as meaning that that kingdom was “on one side” in the sense of separate; that is, that this kingdom kept itself aloof from Judea, or did not inflict injury on it.

   Thus also Grotius explains it as meaning that it did not injure Judea—“Judea nihil nocuit.” Ephraim the Syrian and Theodoret explain it as meaning that the empire of the Medo-Persians was situated on the side of Judea, or held itself within its proper bounds, in the sense that it never extended its dominion, like Babylon, over the whole earth. Rosenmüller explains it as meaning that in relation to the kingdom represented by the lion, it was at its side, both occupying the regions of the East.

   John D. Michaelis understands it as denoting that, as the bear was raising itself up, one part being more raised than the other, the Medo-Persian empire was composed of two kingdoms, one of which was more exalted or advanced than the other. Compare Lengerke.

   The true meaning, however, is that, as seen by Daniel, the nation that had been in a state of repose was now preparing itself for new conquests—a state descriptive of, and in every way quite applicable to, the condition of the Medo-Persian empire after the conquests by Cyrus, as he overran the kingdom of Lydia, etc., then reposing, and now about arousing to the conquest and subjugation of Babylon.

   The precise time, therefore, indicated would be about 544 BC (Calmet), when, having overcome the Medes, and having secured the conquest of Lydia and the dethronement of Croesus, he is meditating the destruction of Babylon. This interval of repose lasted about a year, and it is at this time that the united empire is seen, under the image of the bear rising on its side, arousing itself to go out to new conquests.

3. The ribs in the mouth of the beast. This, as remarked above, would properly refer to some previous conquest—as a bear appearing in that manner would indicate that some other animal had been overcome and slain by him, and torn in pieces. The emblem would be fulfilled if the power here symbolized had been 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 Babylon, or before extending its dominion over Babylon and its establishment as the Medo-Persian kingdoms, no one can doubt. Compare the notes at Daniel 2:39.

   It has been commonly supposed that 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 Cyropaedia. In the Anabasis of Xenophon, however, the fact of his having subdued Media by arms is distinctly admitted (Daniel 3:4, Daniel 3:7, Daniel 3:12).

   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 cities of Larissa and Mespila were taken by Cyrus. From Strabo we learn that the decisive battle was fought on the spot where Cyrus afterward built Pasargadae, in Persia, for his capital. See Kitto, Cyclopedia, article “Cyrus.”

   In addition to this, we are to remember the well-known conquests of Cyrus in Lydia and elsewhere, and the propriety of the emblem will be apparent. It may not be certain 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.

4. The command to “arise and devour 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; which brought under its dominion a considerable part of the world; and which, under Darius and Xerxes, poured its million on Greece. The emblem used here is, therefore, one of the most striking and appropriate that could be employed, and it cannot be doubted that it had reference to this kingdom, and that, in all the particulars, there was a clear fulfillment.