Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 7:23-27

"Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all the kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And as for the ten horns, out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise: and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the former, and he shall put down three kings. And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time. But the judgment shall be set, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him." — Daniel 7:23-27 (ASV)

Thus he said... - That is, in explanation of the fourth symbol which appeared—the fourth beast, and of the events connected with its appearing. This explanation embraces the remainder of the chapter; and as the whole subject appeared difficult and momentous to Daniel before the explanation, so it may be said to be in many respects difficult, and in all respects still momentous.

It is a question on which expositors of the Scriptures are by no means agreed, to what it refers, and whether it has been already accomplished, or whether it still extends into the future. It is important, therefore, to determine, if possible, what is its true meaning.

The two points of inquiry properly before us are: first, what do the words of explanation as used by the angel fairly imply? That is, according to the fair interpretation of these words, what would be the course of events referred to, or what should we naturally expect to find actually occurring on the earth in the fulfillment of this? Second, to what events is the prophecy actually to be applied? Is it to what has already occurred, or what is yet to occur? Can we find anything in what is now past that would be an accomplishment of this, or is it to be applied to events a part of which are still future? 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.

What is fairly implied in the explanation of the angel? This would embrace the following points:

1. There was to be a fourth kingdom on the earth: the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth (Daniel 7:23). This was to succeed the other three, symbolized by the lion, the bear, and the leopard. No further reference is made to them, but the characteristics of this are fully stated. Those characteristics, which have been explained in the notes at (Daniel 7:7), are, as here repeated:

   • That it would be in important respects different from the others;
   • That it would devour, or subdue the whole earth;
   • That it would tread it down and break it in pieces; 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 dominion, ten powers would arise (Daniel 7:24): and the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise. (Compare to the notes at Daniel 7:7). That is, they would spring out of this one dominion, or it would be broken up into these minor sovereignties, yet all manifestly springing from the one kingdom and wielding the same power.

   We should not naturally look for the fulfillment of this in a succession of kings, because that would have been symbolized by the beast itself representing the entire dominion or dynasty. Instead, we should look for 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 referred to here 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 sovereignties or kingdoms there was to spring up another one of peculiar characteristics (Daniel 7:24–25). These characteristics are the following:

   • That it would spring out of the others, 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, therefore, to look for the exercise of this power somehow in connection with the same kingdom or dynasty.

   • This would not spring up contemporaneously with the ten, but would arise after them—and we are to look for the power as in some sense succeeding them.

   • It would be small at first—as was the horn (Daniel 7:8), and we are to look for the fulfillment in some power that would be feeble at first.

   • It would grow to be a mighty power, for the little horn became so powerful as to pluck up three of the others (Daniel 7:8), and it is said in the explanation (Daniel 7:24), that he shall subdue three kings.

   • It would subdue three kings; that is, three of the ten, and we are to look for the fulfillment in some manifestation of that power by which, either literally three of them were overthrown, 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 fulfillment, or some prostration of three sovereignties by the new power that would arise.

   • It would be proud, ambitious, and particularly arrogant against God: and he shall speak great words against the Most High (Daniel 7:25). The Chaldee word here rendered against—לצד (lᵉṣaḏ)—literally means at, or against the part of it, and then against. The Vulgate has contra; the Greek, πρὸς (pros).

     This would be fulfilled in one who would blaspheme God directly, or who would be rebellious against His government and authority, or who would complain of His administration and laws, or who would give utterance to harsh and reproachful words against His real claims. It would obviously find fulfillment in an open opposer of the claims and authority of the true God, or in one whose whole spirit and bearing of pretensions might be fairly construed as, in fact, an utterance of great words against Him.

   • This would be a persecuting power: and shall wear out the saints of the Most High (Daniel 7:25). 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.

   • It would claim legislative power, the power of changing established customs and laws: and think to change times and laws (Daniel 7:25). The word rendered think (סבר, sᵉḇar) means, more properly, to hope; and the idea here is, that this power hopes and trusts to be able to change times and laws. Vulgate, Putabit quod possit mutare tempora, etc. The state of mind here referred 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 it 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 it 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 its own ends.

     The word times—זמנין (zimnîn)—would seem to refer properly to some stated or designated times, such as times appointed for festivals, etc. Gesenius: “time, specially an appointed time, season” (Ecclesiastes 3:1; Nehemiah 2:6; Esther 9:27, 31). Lengerke renders the word Fest-Zeiten—“festival times,” and explains it as meaning the holy times, festival days (Leviticus 23:2, 4, 37, 44).

     The allusion is, undoubtedly, to such periods set apart as festivals or fasts—seasons consecrated to the services of religion. 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 its 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 whoever has power over them, either to abolish existing festivals, or to substitute others in their places, or to appoint new festivals, has an important control over the whole subject of religion, and over a nation.

     The word rendered laws here—דת (dāṯ)—while it might refer to any law, would more properly designate laws pertaining to religion. (See Daniel 6:5, 7, 12 (see also Daniel 6:6, 9, 13); Ezra 7:12, 21). So Lengerke explains it as referring to the laws of religion, or to religion. The kind of jurisdiction, therefore, referred to in this place would be what 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.

   • It would continue for a definite period: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time (Daniel 7:25). “They” refers either to 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 this power’s hands. Though this is not designated expressly, yet perhaps it is the most natural construction, meaning that it would have jurisdiction over the saints during this period. If so, then the meaning is that it would have absolute control over them, or set up a dominion over them, for the time specified: the time, and times, etc. In regard to this expression a time and times, etc., 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 similar expressions which occur in the book of Revelation. The first and main inquiry pertains, of course, to its literal and proper signification.

     The word used here rendered time, times, time—עדן עדנין (ʿiḏān, ʿiḏānîn)—is a word which in itself would no more designate any definite and fixed period than our word “time” does.

     (See Daniel 2:8-9, 21; Daniel 3:5, 15; Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32; Daniel 7:12). In some of these instances, the period actually referred to was a year (Daniel 4:16, 23), but this is not necessarily implied in the word used; the limitation is demanded by the circumstances of the case. So far as the word is concerned, 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 determined from the connection. The Latin Vulgate is indefinite—ad tempus; so the Greek—ἕως καιροῦ (heōs kairou); so the Syriac, and so Luther—eine Zeit; and so Lengerke—eine Zeit. The phrase “for a time” accurately expresses the meaning of the original word. The word rendered “times” is the same word in the plural, though evidently with a dual signification (Gesenius, Lexicon; 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 is a year, the whole period would be three years and a half. Designations of time like this, or of this same period, occur several times in the prophecies (Daniel and Revelation), and much depends on their meaning in regard to the interpretation of the prophecies pertaining 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 (Revelation 11:2) and (Revelation 12:6), and on which so much depends in the interpretation of that book. The only question of importance regarding the period of time here designated is whether this is to be taken literally to denote three years and a half, or whether a symbolic method is to be adopted, by making each 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 divided, and probably will continue to be. According as one or the other view is adopted, they refer the events here to Antiochus Epiphanes, or to the Papal power; or perhaps it should be said more accurately, 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 regarding the meaning of the days. At this point in the examination of the passage, the only object is to look at it exegetically: to examine it as language apart from the application, or unbiased by any purpose of application. Though absolute certainty cannot perhaps be obtained, yet the following may be regarded as exegetically probable:

     1. The word “time” may be viewed as denoting a year. I mean a year rather than a week, a month, or any other period, because a year is a more marked and important portion of time, and because a day, a week, or a month is so short that it cannot be reasonably supposed that it is intended. As there is no larger natural period than a year—no cycle in nature that is so marked and obvious 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 here, a time, and times, and half a time, it is to be presumed that some definite and marked period is intended, and that it is not time in general. It may be presumed, therefore, that in some sense of the term the period of a year is referred to.

     2. The language does not forbid the application to a literal year, and then the actual time designated would be three years and a half. No laws of exegesis, nothing in the language itself, could be regarded as violated if such an interpretation were given to the language, and so far as this point is concerned, there would be no room for debate.

     3. The same remark may be made as to the symbolic application of the language—taking it for a much longer period than literally three years and a half; that is, regarding each day as standing for a year, and thus considering 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 prophetic language, because nothing is more common than symbols, and because there are actual instances in which such an interpretation must be understood. Thus in (Ezekiel 4:6), where the prophet was commanded to lie upon his right side forty days, it is expressly said that it was symbolic or emblematic: I have appointed you each day for a year. No one can doubt that it would be strictly consistent with prophetic usage to suppose that the time here might be symbolic, and that a longer time might be referred to than the literal interpretation would require.

     4. It may be added that there are some circumstances, even considering the passage with reference only to the interpretation of the language, and with no view to the question of its application, which would make this appear probable. Among these circumstances are the following:

        • The fact that, in the prophecies, it is unusual to designate 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 age referred to, that the designation is made, or by some symbol that may be understood when the event has occurred.
        • This designation of time occurs in the midst of symbols—where all is symbol: the beasts, the horns, the little horn, etc.; and it would seem to be much more probable that such a method would be adopted for designating the time referred to than a literal method.
        • It is quite apparent on the mere perusal of the passage here that the events do actually extend far into the future—far beyond what would be denoted by the brief period of three and a half years. This will be considered more fully in another place in the inquiry as to the meaning of these prophecies. (See also Editor’s Preface to volume on Revelation.)

4. A fourth point in the explanation given by the interpreter to Daniel is that there would be a solemn judgment regarding this power. The dominion conceded to it over the saints for a time would be utterly taken away, and the power itself destroyed: but the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume, and to destroy it unto the end (Daniel 7:26). That is, it shall be taken away; it shall come entirely to an end.

   The interpreter does not say by whom this would be done, but he asserts the fact that the destruction of the dominion would be final. In other words, it would entirely and forever cease. This would be done by an act of Divine judgment, or as if a solemn judgment were held and a sentence pronounced. It would be as manifestly an act of God as if He should sit as a judge and pronounce sentence. (See the notes at Daniel 7:9-11).

5. And, a fifth point in the explanation of the interpreter is that the dominion 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 prevalence of righteousness on the earth, and that God would reign in the hearts and lives of men (Daniel 7:27). (See the notes at Daniel 7:13-14).