Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 7:4

"The first was like a lion, and had eagle`s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand upon two feet as a man; and a man`s heart was given to it." — Daniel 7:4 (ASV)

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.