Call

Kaleo is the ancestor of our English verb “call”, and carries almost exactly the same set of meanings: “to give a name to”, “to invite”, “to summon”, and especially in the epistles “to bring the gospel to someone”. Three easy examples are all that is necessary here.

• “The street which is called Straight” (Acts 9:11).
• “None of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper” (Luk 14:24).
• “Him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2Pe 1:3).

This kaleo also takes on prefixes galore.

Antikaleo (Luk 14:12 only) is, quite simply, an invitation in return for one received.

Epikaleo, “call upon”, has as its simplest and most obvious meaning the addition of an extra name, as “Judas surnamed Iscariot”.

An important extension of this idea is “having the name of Christ called upon oneself” — as in Jam 2:7: “that worthy name which was called upon you” (RV mg.). This is straight from the OT; eg Jacob’s blessing on the sons of Joseph: “Let my name be named on them” (Gen 48:16). Thus they were reckoned as his sons, and were given inheritance in the Land along with his sons.

This idiom crops up in several places. There is the ringing exhortation of Ananias to Saul of Tarsus: “And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, calling the name of the Lord upon thyself” (Acts 22:16; and so also in 2:21).

On a more mundane level, epikaleo makes appeal to Caesar (6 times in Acts). But a much more important usage is to make appeal to God. In Rom 10:13,14 Paul moves from one idea to the other: “For whosoever shall call the name of the Lord upon himself shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?” Here now is the lovely OT theme of the divine rescue: “I called upon the Lord in distress: the Lord answered me” (Psa 118:5).

Metakaleomai means “summon”.

Parakaleo, “call to one’s side”, is a word the NT could not do without. All its occurrences are covered by “beseech, exhort, comfort”. Sometimes when taking on a somewhat stronger intent, it means “exhort”, but more usually the other gentler meanings dominate.

Thus the noun paraklesis is nearly always “comfort, consolation”, with only one or two instances of the slightly more austere meaning, as in “Suffer the word of exhortation” (Heb 13:22).

There has been a lot of discussion about how the Holy Spirit passages in John should translate parakletos. It is true that ordinary Greek used this word of a legal aid or representative, but none of the four passages in John’s gospel take kindly to this meaning. “Helper” seems to be the best reading here (John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7).

Then what of 1Jo 2:1? “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” The legal idea goes well enough here, and is encouraged by the translations. Yet such a reading seems out of character with the apostle John. Also, since the four passages just mentioned have no legal flavour at all, is it likely that John would introduce it here? Isn’t the idea rather this?: ‘If we sin, we have Jesus as our helper in heaven, just as we have the Holy Spirit as our helper here’ (2:20).

Prokaleo, “call forth”, expresses a challenge. Hence Gal 5:26: “provoking one another” describes a spirit of rivalry which Paul so strongly deprecates in that place.

Proskaleomai is “to call others to oneself”. Always this is the idea. There are no complications. Thus: “as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39) means “call to Himself”.

Sunkaleo is, just as simply, “call together”.

Cast

Ballo is, quite simply, “to throw, cast”. There are a few places out of more than 130 occurrences where it comes away somewhat from precisely this meaning, but always it preserves something of the vigour associated with the basic idea.

“Put up (ballo) thy sword into the sheath” (John 18:11) suggests a decisive end to violence. “Except I put (ballo) my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust (ballo) my hand into his side, I will in no wise believe,” declared Thomas, showing his emphatic resolution by the strength of his language (John 20:25). Sick people are spoken of as lying (ballo) on a bed” (Mat 8:6,14; 9:2). “Laid low” would probably be a good modern equivalent.

The real interest in this word is in the astonishing tribe of compound words which it has spawned, all of them showing something of the vigour and energy of their forebear. There seems to be hardly a preposition in the language that ballo has no affinity for.

Anaballomai (Acts 24:22 only) describes how Felix “deferred” the Jews after the first hearing of the case against Paul. There is an evident sug-gestion of impatience about this word (“cast them back”), which crystallizes out further when reference is made to Psa 78:21; 89:38, LXX, where this is used.

Antiballo (Luk 24:17) is specially interesting: “What communications are these which ye have (weak translation!) one to another?” Ideas and arguments, hopes and guesses, speculations and objections were being thrown backwards and forwards by these two on the way to Emmaus. This is what antiballo says to the reader of the Greek NT (“Gospels”, HAW, ch. 247; “He is risen indeed”, HAW, ch. 11).

Epiballo has for its commonest rendering: “laid hands on” (eg Luk 20:19; 21:12). But occasionally it goes off in a different direction.

“This I speak for your own profit,” writes Paul, “not that I may cast a snare (noose) upon you.” Paul was no bronco buster seeking to lasso his converts. By all means see Prov 6:5, where the same word is used.

Mar 14:72, concerning Peter’s repentance, is decidedly difficult. AV: “when he thought thereon, he wept” really imports nothing of the idea of epiballo. Godet translates: “hurrying forth”. There is support in the papyri for reading it: “he burst into tears”. Souter: “he set to and wept” (and kept on weeping).

Ekballo is used a lot for the casting out of demons. It is also appropriate to energetic action wherever persons are concerned; eg excommunication — “Diotrephes casteth them out of the church” (3Jo 1: 10). “Dost thou teach us?” said the rulers to the (blind) man in his staunch loyalty to Jesus, “and they cast him out.” Rev 11:2 must be read the same way (“Revelation”, HAW, p. 146).

This vigorous word is used also of sending labourers into the vineyard (Luk 10:2), of removing both beam and mote from the eye (Mat 7:4,5), of the Spirit driving Jesus into the wilderness (Mar 1:12), and even of the well-instructed enthusiastic scribe casting forth things new and old out of his treasury (Mat 13:52) — a marvellous picture of the eagerness of a good Bible student to share his findings.

Diaballomai describes the unjust steward “accused” of wasting his master’s goods (Luk 16:1). The link with the more familiar diabolos is obvious, and may give rise to the suggestion that but for someone informing on him, the steward might have got away with it.

Kataballo is straightforward. Paul’s phrase, “cast down, but not destroyed”, suggests that his enemies within the church were achieving a successful campaign against him (2Co 4:9). The word is also used of laying a foundation (katabole).

Metaballomai (cp. metabolism) indicates a sudden or dramatic change — as when the ignorant people of Malta decided that Paul was not a criminal but a god (Acts. 28:6). It describes how Israel turned their backs on their enemies (Jos 7:8), and how later, when Ai was ablaze, they turned against their pursuers (8:21). Isa 60:5 is interesting: “the wealth of the sea shall turn, or turn back, unto thee (Israel restored).”

Paraballo suggests putting one thing beside (para) another. Hence the word “parable”, in which a detailed similitude is put alongside a real-life situation. In most parables (all of them?) the correspondence can be worked out in detail.

But when the same word is used of interpretation in detail of Abraham’s offering of Isaac, the RV of Heb 11:19 reads “parable”. So Gen 22 anticipates the parables of Jesus by many centuries and should be treated similarly.

The offering of sacrifice in the Tabernacle is also described as a parable (Heb 9:9). So here again exact correspondences are to be sought. In many details the redeeming work of Christ is foreshadowed. The difficulty is that only a few of these details are interpreted by the NT. So in this field exercises in interpretation should be expressed, and received, with due diffidence.

There is an interesting example in the LXX of a very literal use of kataballo. Boaz bade his harvesters: “Be sure to cast beside her (Rth) some of that which has (already) been heaped up” (Rth 2:16). Was Rth too ingenuous to realize what was happening?

Periballo (cast around) makes a highly appropriate word for putting on eastern garments, though inappropriate for clothes of western design. Thus, with only one exception, this word describes the putting on of robes or garments. That exception is the Lord’s prophecy (Luk 19:43) of Jerusalem’s fate, when “thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee.” The holy city’s winding sheet, or shroud!

Proballo is, very simply, “put forth” — the fig tree in the parable putting forth leaves; the Jews of Ephesus, scared by the riot, put forth Alexander as their representative.

Sumballo. The prefix means “together with”. The reference is usually to throwing words or ideas together, hence: “converse, discuss”.

The chief priests in Jerusalem “conferred among themselves” (Acts 4:15). The philosophers of Athens “encountered” Paul — they had discussion with him (17:18). Apollos, when he was come to Corinth, had a lot of talk with the brethren there (18:27) — AV: “helped them much” is rather vague. Mary “pondered” in her heart all the wonderful things associated with the birth of her baby — she was bringing together the significance of all that had transpired. Luk 14:31, AV, misses the point. It would read better: “What king going to another king to discuss concerning war…”

Acts 20:14 is rather problematical. AV: “when he met with us at Assos” seems to be the only possible reading, yet it is not without difficulty, for the verb is in the imperfect tense. “Met and conferred”?

Cleanse, Purify

One expects, naturally enough, that in the OT these words will be specially associated with ritual cleanness and freedom from defilement, as defined in the Law of Moses. But it turns out that this is true in the NT also, with very few exceptions.

There is the use of katharos with reference to leprosy: “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean” (Mat 8:2); and to “the days of the purification” of Mary (Luk 2:22); and to food: “Lord, I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean (akathartos)” (Acts 10:14); and to “waterpots…after the manner of the purifying (katharismos) of the Jews” (John 2:6), and so on.

But, declared Jesus, “all things (meaning: all foods) are clean unto you” (Luk 11:41; note v 39). Paul magnificently shook off his Pharisee prejudices about forbidden foods: “There is nothing unclean (koinos, common) of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean… All things indeed are pure (katharos)” (Rom 14:14,20).

This is also the true meaning of Tit 1:15: “To the pure (katharos) all things are pure” — contrast “Jewish fables” (v 14). This passage, which has so often been cited to prove that the pure-minded can read bad books and see bad TV programmes and stare at pornography without harm, is actually about the kind of food you may eat. If you are truly cleansed in Christ, so also is all the food you eat.

Much more fundamentally, the NT has some wonderfully fine assurances that those truly in Christ are truly clean: “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin (ie sins of commission).” But also: “He is faithful and just to…cleanse us from all unrighteousness (sins of omission)” (1Jo 1:7,9).

Again, “he that is bathed (in baptism) needeth not save to wash his feet (the forgiveness of day-to-day lapses), but is clean (katharos) every whit: and ye are clean, but not all” (John 13:10).

There is also the cleansing discipline in Christian experience: “Every branch in me (the True Vine) that beareth fruit he cleanseth it, that it may bring forth more fruit” (John 15:2). This refers, not to pruning, but to literally scrubbing the vine stem with soap and water to rid it of a fungus (see Jer 2:22).

The disciple’s self-discipline is also called for. “As ye yielded your members servants to uncleanness (akatharsia)…even so now…” (Rom 6:19). “Let us cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of flesh and spirit” (2Co 7:1). “Fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness (coveting a woman you have no right to), let it not be once named among you” (Eph 5:3).

Jam has a fine allusion to the service of the priests in the sanctuary. The laver was appointed specially that “Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat” (Exo 30:19). But Jam, having established his allusion, switches quite dramatically from “feet” to “hearts”: “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse (katharizo) your hands, ye sinners, and purify (hagnizo) your hearts, ye double-minded” (4:8).

This cleansing of heart and conscience is powerfully insisted on by Paul [1Ti 1:5; 3:9; 2Ti 1:3; 2:21 (ekkathairo), 22 (pure, katharos)]. But on this the most familiar passage of all is the beatitude: “Blessed are the pure (katharos) in heart, for they shall see God” (Mat 5:8). Isaiah, in consternation at his own uncleanness, had the reverse experience: the sight of the glory of God cleansed (perikathairo) him (Isa 6:5,7).

Many other passages call for special attention. Examples:

Tit 2:14: “…that he might purify (katharizo) unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” Here Paul is writing with his mind on the Old Covenant made with Israel at Sinai: “Moses sanctified the people, they washed their clothes…ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me…All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exo 19:14,5,8).

“We (the apostles) are made as the filth (perikatharmia) of the world, the offscouring (peripsema) of all things” (1Co 4:13). At Athens in time of plague a worthless person was thrown into the sea with the words: “Be thou our peripsema.” Such a person was called katharma (that which is thrown away in cleansing).

In Rev 21:21; 22:1 the new Jerusalem is described as “pure (clean) gold” because sanctified to God and by His Presence. Does this phrase contrast with the uncleanness of gold in this present age?

Unclean spirits? No, that is a separate subject.

Cloud

Out of 25 occurrences of nephele, all but three plainly mean the Cloud of the Shekinah Glory. The student should work his way through the entire list. Acts 1:9 and 1Th 4:17 are specially instructive.

But there are three of the twenty-five which do not so readily conform to this general usage: In 2Pe 2:17, false teachers are referred to as “clouds carried with a tempest”. Jud 1:12 (ref to the above) calls them “clouds without water”. In each of these instances the Shekinah Glory idea is not out of sight. Here were men claiming divine authority for their message (as Ezekiel with his Eze 1), but in fact they were not borne along by the Holy Spirit (2Pe 1:19) but by a tempest, sweeping them away to their own destruction. Differently, Jude’s “clouds without water” implies that these men brought no true Holy Spirit blessing.

But what is to be said about the words of Jesus?: “When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.” Besides the simple literal meaning, a commonplace experience in the Holy Land, Jesus may have meant allusion to the Holy of Holies at the western end of the sanctuary enclosure (cp Psa 103:12) — the Shekinah Glory of God appearing there would be the certain herald of heavenly blessing: “a shower”.

It is important to observe that the “so great cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1), referring to the multitude of the faithful in Heb 11, uses a different word: nephos. Thus, it is not permissible to use this passage to interpret 1Th 4:17.

Come Close

Acts 27:8,13 provides two interesting examples of an unexpected idiom. Paralegomai means literally “to speak with”. Yet is used in these two places of a ship’s close approach: “And hardly passing it (Salmone), we came unto… the Fair Havens” (27:8). Then, by and by, they “sailed close by Crete” (27:13). How has the word come to take on this kind of meaning?

To this day it is normal nautical parlance for one ship to “speak with” another; ie make a close approach. Communication between the two is not necessarily implied. So also, nearly two thousand years ago a similar idiom was in use. King Jam’ men recognized that they must translate so as to be intelligible to a land-lubber. Hence the AV readings here.

Come Near

Paraginomai is one of the commonest words for “come” or “come near”. But in two places only it occurs with an additional very expressive prefix sun — thus implying a close association. Thus, Paul writing about his trial, and perfectly certain of an adverse verdict, wrote: “At my first answer (appearing in court), no man stood with me” (2Ti 4:16). No fellow-believer, certainly no one of consequence, appeared at that hearing to publicly associate with him and to testify on his behalf.

The same word is used very eloquently in Luke’s account of the crucifixion: “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things that were done, smote their breasts…” (23:48). The verb implies a close sympathetic association; and the phrase that follows confirms this. These people were, doubtless, some of those who had acclaimed the Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem a few days earlier.

Craftiness, Guile

Panourgia has its roots in Eden: “as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Co 11:3). And it is appropriate to men who are the seed of the serpent. These came at Jesus seeking to entrap him, but “he perceived their craftiness” (Luk 20:23); for the Lord God “taketh the wise in their own craftiness” (1Co 3:19), and Jesus inherited his Father’s characteristics in this ability also.

The warnings to the early brethren to beware of the deceit of false teachers, a deliberate campaign by evil men, were common enough because necessary (2Co 11:13; 4:2; Rom 3:13 — dolos, guile, in these places; and Eph 4:14). Those crafty men even went so far as to use — how very hypocritically! — the same language against Paul: “being crafty (panourgos) I caught you with guile (dolos), did I?” (2Co 12:16). One is reminded of how Luther and the Pope called each other Antichrist.

Peter was fond, in an inverted sort of way, of this word dolos. No guile in the mouth of the Lord Jesus (alluding to Isa 53:9); therefore no guile in the mouths of those who are his (1Pe 2:1,22; 3:10; and see Rev 14:5).

It is no easy matter to make a distinction between the two words. Panourgia (derived from Greek for “all-work”) appears to describe the set pattern of a man’s character (it is even used in the LXX of Prov 1:4; 8:5, etc. for the dedicated character of a good man); whereas dolos, guile, is appropriate to the verbal expression of cunning and badness.

This is an exercise in kite-flying.

Those who have any flair for the study of New Testament words will hardly need to be reminded that here is a vast field of instruction and fascinating interest.

Unhappily the standard works in this field (Vine, Moulton, et al) are a very odd lot. The less thorough surveys offered here are content to cover main ideas and to direct attention to details of special interest.

If these unsystematic pages are appreciated, there are lots more where these came from.

H.A.W.

The comments to be offered here will be very brief, and—in the judgement of some readers—not very satisfactory.

This prophecy presents a problem the like of which occurs nowhere else in the Bible. In its detail it is too exact, too specific—and apparently too pointless. Verses 3-39, and possibly to the end of the chapter, read for the entire world like a history written in the language of prophecy. For a short and otherwise unimportant period in Bible history, it deals with the inter-relations of the kings of the south (the Ptolemys of Egypt) and the kings of the north (the Seleucids of Syria), with only very slight mention of the consequent sufferings of the attenuated Judaean state.

Some say these features present no problem. They are content to believe that God had some special purpose in foretelling in such a “programmatic” fashion the events of that era. Put the explanation goes no further than that.

The modernists assert: Here is history, written after the event, not true prophecy-written before it. Here, they declare, is the final proof that the Book of Daniel was not written by Daniel, but was written in his name several hundred years later. But even if this could be established for ch. 11, it would prove nothing about the rest of the book.

There is another view, which has been advanced by conservative scholars like C.H.H. Wright and C. Boutflower. This suggests the possibility that a Jewish Targum has replaced this part of Daniel’s prophecy.

These Targums were popular paraphrases of sections of Scripture, and were much used in certain synagogues. Thus, it is suggested, a short prophecy following on 11:2 was blown up by some imaginative commentator into a marvellous relevance to recent or current events. Some Christadelphian attempts at elucidation of Last Day prophecies have been known to yield to the same sort of temptation!

Those who believe that the text of the Old Testament has come down to us in immaculate form will feel outraged at the idea that such a distortion has overtaken a part, albeit a small part, of Holy Scripture. Yet there is no lack of evidence that, whilst the Old Testament text is in general thoroughly dependable, there are places where distortions have crept in. The Jews were not always as careful of their Holy Scriptures as they have been in less ancient days.

It would be possible, but too tedious, and long-winded, to set out in parallel columns the otherwise uncanny correspondence in detail after detail between the text of Daniel 11 and the events preserved in the histories of Josephus and Maccabees. Always the question recurs: Why? Why this photographic exactness? This Targum theory may supply an explanation. One cannot be sure.

A further question is this: Where, then, does the genuine prophecy of Daniel resume?

Mesmerised by the opening phrase of verse 40: “And at the time of the end…”, some would insist on the verbal inspiration of the last six verses, and are even inclined to accord verbal inspiration to their own personal understanding of those verses. Yet even from this standpoint there are at least three competing interpretations, and none of them free from difficulty. It may be that these verses also are an extension of the main part of the chapter, detailing some of the activities of the infamous Antiochus Epiphanes. But the student and commentator can certainly resume with confidence his detailed work at chapter 12, verse 1.

In the Appendix (at the end of this book) an outline is supplied of the uncanny correspondences in detail after detail between Daniel 11 and the narratives preserved in Maccabees.

The Michael who had earlier joined forces with the angel Gabriel (10:20,21) to ensure a prompt response to Daniel’s pleading, appears in a dramatic scene in the Last Days going into action (behind the scenes, as formerly) on behalf of Israel. The Scriptures which associate him as specially concerned with the Ministry of Israelitish Affairs are few but impressive (Ex. 23:20f; Josh. 5:14; Zech. 3:1 with Jude 9; Rev. 12:7). The reasons for equating this Michael with the Lord Jesus are quite inadequate, and (in 10:21) would involve a strange concept of personal pre-existence. That Michael means Who-is-like-God proves little, for paripassu Gabriel means God’s-Strong-One and, coupled with Psalm 80:17 would equally refer to the Messiah.

This prophecy speaks of a time when the powers of heaven are shaken, so that it- needs the strong action of this archangel of God to save His people in their final crisis (1 Th. 4:16?). This, it may be fairly safely surmised, will be when the final “overturning” of the nation takes place. It will be “a time of trouble such as never was.” “Alas, for that day is great, so that there is none like it—it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it” (Jer. 30:7). Daniel has the same explicit detail: “a time of trouble such as never was since there was a Gentile (goi—in the Land, adds LXX) even to that same time.” This is surely Zechariah 13:9; “I will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call upon my name, and I will hear them.”—”Thy people shall be delivered, every one that is found written in the book” (v.1; cp. Rev. 5:4 and Eur.1.12). So also Joel 2:2,3 and the sad ominous words of Jesus in Matthew 24:21.

The idea of a heavenly roll of honour, the Lamb’s Book of Life, is constantly before the mind of the observant reader of Holy Scripture: Ex. 32:32; Ps. 56:8; 69:28; Is. 4:3; Ez. 13:9; Lk. 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8).

The living and the dead are alike to be called to account—but not all: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth”; literally: “many from those who sleep…”, thus indicating even more pointedly that many that “understand not are like the beasts that perish”.

A judicial process for living and dead is implied (v. ld, 2), and—remarkably— here is the only Old Testament occurrence of “everlasting life. “ The only alternative for those found unfit for the Messianic kingdom is “shame” (great shame—the Hebrew has an intensive plural) and “contempt” (s.w. Is. 66:24).

But what a contrast with those who are glorified! “They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” There is a palpable allusion here to the surpassing brightness of the sun, as the equivalent saying of Jesus makes evident: “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Mt. 13:43). But Daniel’s “shine” and “brightness” involve a repetition of a remarkable double-meaning Hebrew word which also means “warn”, thus hinting at an impressive parallelism with what follows: “they that turn many to righteousness . . .”

“As the stars” perhaps echoes the great Promise to Abraham (Gen. 22:17) of an earthly seed “as the sand of the seashore,” and a spiritual seed “as the stars of heaven.” The context here mentions only the latter. Compare also the force of 1 Cor. 15:41,42.

This discrimination between the blessed and the rejected is repeated here again and again. In response to the almost agonized enquiry: “O my lord, what shall be the end of these things?” there comes first of all an assurance: “Go thy way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end,” a declaration difficult to reconcile with the view that the visions seen by Daniel present a conspectus of continuously unfolding history from Daniel’s time right through to the day of resurrection.

But the “sheep and goats” separation is insisted on in almost blunt terms:

“Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried, but the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand” (v.10).

This antithesis between wise understanding and doing wickedly is rather startling, for modern thinking hardly at all treats lack of understanding as akin to wickedness. Consider the Lord’s parable of the two builders (Mt. 7:24ff).

By contrast, “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” The tendencies to isolate these words, and treat them as a vivid anticipation of the ease and rapidity of modern travel borders on the grotesque. Rather, let the Biblical idiom behind the word “run” be recognized, and a very different idea emerges:

“I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran” (Jer. 23:21).

“Write the vision upon tables, that he may run that readeth it” (Hab. 2:2).

And many others: Ez. 1:18,20; 2 Th. 3:1RV; 1 Kgs. 18:46; Ps. 147:15; 2 Chr. 16:9; Zech. 4:10; Rev 5:6; Gal. 2:2; Is. 55:5; Jude 11; Phil. 2:16.

Or, there could be here an allusion to the people of Israel gathering the manna of God (Num. 11:8 Heb.).

Yet another possibility is that, by the smallest emendation imaginable (the frequent confusion between Hebrew ‘R’ and ‘D’), the words may read: “Many shall turn aside, and evils shall be increased.”

The picture of angels by the waters of the river (which river?) is extremely puzzling. Is the reader intended to visualise an angel on either bank and also a third upon or over (LXX epano) the waters? If so, Daniel was being reminded of how his people left Egyptian captivity behind and entered into their inheritance across the river Jordan, for at that time the Glory of the Lord, represented by the Ark of the Covenant borne by priests stood in the midst whilst the people crossed over. Now is declared the solemn divine oath that “the end of the scattering of the holy people” is at hand. There remains only the fulfilment of a final time-period of “a time, times and a half”. Then, “all these things shall be finished.”

No amount of juggling with 1260 years can produce a convincing fit into Jewish history. It is a failure, which has driven the last nail in the coffin of the year-for-a-day theory. Much more surely the student should look for a final period of literally 3½ years (as in 7:25; Rev. 11:2; 12:14; 13:5).

It has often been pointed out that all computations about the Last Day are doomed to failure, for two insuperable reasons:

1. The Lord Jesus himself declared: “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only” (Mk. 13:32).
2. Jesus had all the time-periods of Daniel as much at his finger-tips as any modern student of prophecy, and—it may be safely assumed—a much greater insight and expertise; nevertheless he too was in ignorance regarding this: “neither the Son”.

It is passing strange that over the years there has been so little inclination to equate this “time, times, and an half” with the “times of the Gentiles” (Lk. 21:24) during which Jerusalem is to be “trodden down of the Gentiles.” Those who talk blithely about this period having been finally fulfilled in the Six Days’ War of 1967 have a rude shock awaiting them, (after all, is not the temple site still “trodden down by Gentiles”?).

On this issue, the final decisive detail is one, which has gone badly neglected: this keyword “times” (Hebrew: mo’ed) is one normally restricted to Jewish religious feasts. Thus, “time, times, and a half” must be 3½ literal years, to be measured off, from start to finish, by the feasts of Israel. Is not this to be expected since the prophecy is about “the scattering of the holy people”?

It so transpires that the two outstanding Jewish holy days are exactly six months apart, so that the period under consideration may be expected to begin at the Feast of Tabernacles and end at Passover, or to begin at Passover and end at Tabernacles.

In “Passover”, HAW, ch.14, attention has been drawn to the evidence that the Second Coming may be looked for at Passover. In which case, the first of the two alternatives just mentioned seems to be indicated.

Then what is the special association intended to be suggested by the 1290 and the 1335 days?

The first of these runs on another month past the end of the 3½ years, either to suggest a “Little Passover” for those not already included in this deliverance period (see Num. 9:11); or alternatively, to allow for the inclusion of an intercalary month because the years of 360 days and 365¼ days get out of step in the course of 3½ years. In that case, the extra 45 days called for in the 1335 days would run on to the Feast of Pentecost, the time of the outpouring of the Spirit on God’s people in Jerusalem.

Daniel had been reduced to perplexity and even wretchedness more than once by the revelations made to him, but none so much as this: “O my lord, what shall be the end of these (times)?” But further detail was not vouchsafed to him. Instead:

“Go thy way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” Neither you nor any other will really grasp these things until fulfilment knocks at the door.

“Thou, Daniel, shall rest and shall stand in thy lot (in the Promised Land) at the end of the days.” Not for nothing was his name Daniel: God is my Judge. He was one of those whose glorious destiny was made known long before the Day of Judgment (Rev. 20:4; Mt. 19:28).

“Blessed is he that waiteth…” A quite surprising number of Bible passages (by all means see concordance on this) use this pregnant word about “waiting on or for the Lord” (e.g. Is. 25:9; Hab. 2:3).

1	Runs on from ch.10. Yet contrast 11:1 and 10:1. This suggests reading “strengthen thee”, and then allusion to 9:1.
2	There shall stand up (after Cyrus; 10:1) three kings—Cambyses 529-522, Pseudo-Smerdis (a few months), Darius Hystaspes 522-485, Xerxes 485-465. Xerxes was the richest. Against Grecia. Salamis 489.
3	There comes a big historic gap of about 50 years. Why? Mighty king Alexander 336-323. See 8.21. Great dominion. His empire, from Macedonia to India. This passage was shown to Alexander by the high priest, and gained his favour for the Jews.
4	His kingdom broken: i.e. empire broken up as soon as established; 8.8. Four winds of heaven. The four parts of Alexander’s empire divided to his four generals. Not to his posterity. His two sons were assassinated.
5-39.	All about the Seleucids (king of the north, ruling Syria to India)? And the Ptolemies (king of the south, ruling Egypt, Israel and Arabia).
5	King of the south: Ptolemy I RVm. But one of his (king of the north’s?) princes shall be strong. Seleucus helped by Ptolemy to gain Syria, and then became greater than Ptolemy.
6	End of Years: Antiochus I (280-261) omitted. Why? Join together: Ptolemy 11 and Antiochus 11 in alliance Daughter of king of the south: Berenice, married Antiochus 11. Not retain power: She was divorced. Neither shall he stand: Poisoned by Laodice, his first wife, who also had Berenice murdered. Read: he whom she begat (her son) and he that strengthened her (her father).
7	Out of the branch of her roots: Ptolemy III was the brother of Berenice. The fortress Selcucia. The empire of Seleucus III was almost captured.
8	Their gods: i.e. Egyptian gods, which Cambyses had seized 280 years earlier. RV: refrain some years from the king of the north.
9	RV: he shall come into the realm of the king of the south but he shall return. Seleucus II failed in an invasion of Egypt.
10	His son’s—Seleucus III and Antiochus III. And he (Antiochus III) shall come on. His invasion of Palestine. His fortress. Gaza captured.
11	King of the south. Ptolemy IV and he. Antiochus III Multitude given into his hand. Ptolemy’s. Antiochus III invasion of Egypt failed.
12	His (Ptolemy’s) heart lifted up…But he shall not be strengthened by it. Ptolemy did not push his advantage.
13	Antiochus III, the Great, was now very strong, and invaded Ptolemy V. His campaign made only limited gains.
14	Many: Philip of Macedonia and others helped Antiochus III. The robbers of thy people.. Jewish gangsters also joined in.
15	Antiochus III had a successful campaign in Palestine, and captured Jerusalem (RV).
16	But he (Antiochus) that cometh against him (Ptolemy)…which by his hand shall be consumed. Antiochus spared the temple, but the Land was plundered.
17	Give him the daughter of women. Because of the growing power of Rome, Antiochus sought friendship with Egypt, and married his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy. “But it (the alliance) shall not stand.”
18	Antiochus expanded into the coasts and islands of Asia Minor and Greece. A prince. Rome repulsed this expansion. Battle of Magnesia 190 ended the greatness of Antiochus III.
19	Final defeat of Antiochus by Rome.
20	Seleucus IV sent his minion to plunder the temple treasury. This man turned against him and had him poisoned.
21	A vile person. Vile in every respect, insane, persecutor of the Jews. Had no right to the throne. By flatteries. Insincere friendship was one of his stock methods.
22	They swept away. RV—the opposers of Antiochus IV succession. The prince of the covenant. Probably Ptolemy VI.
23	Work deceitfully. Ptolemy taken in by insincere friendship. Strong with a small people. Strong from weak beginnings.
24	Describes extraordinary generosity of Antiochus IV to his army, people, and Egypt. Against the strongholds (of Egypt). He held Pelusium for quite a while.
25	Two campaigns against Egypt 170, 169. He shall not stand i.e. Ptolemy VI.
26	Plots against Ptolemy VI. Result: Physcon joined him in rule over Egypt.
27	Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI both pretended to believe each other, but each was set on deceiving the other.
28	Return with great riches. Much spoil from Egypt. Antiochus then defiled the temple in Jerusalem, plundered temple treasury, and massacred many Jews.
29	His third Egyptian expedition. Not as the former—not so successful.
30	Ships of Chittim. LXX: And the Romans shall come. Indignation against holy covenant. Worse persecution of Jewry. From this point on, Daniel 11 is closely parallel to the record in 1 Maccabees. Them that forsake the holy covenant, accepting his Hellenising of Jewry.
31	Temple defiled (altar to Zeus): Jewish religion forbidden.
32	Flatteries. Cajolery and deceitful promises used to persuade Jews to forsake their religion. But Mattathias and his 5 sons (called the Maccabees) resisted and fought for independence.
33-35	A very tough struggle against Antiochus IV, led by Judas and Simon Maccabeus.
36	Antiochus claimed to be God—Epiphanes. (In Eureka 3.70 Dr. Thomas applies v.36-39 either to the Pope or to Constantine. Very obscure!). Against the God of gods. Antiochus campaign against the religion of Israel.
37	The desire of women—probably the worship of Adonis.
38	A god whom his fathers knew not—Zeus.
39	RV: And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help (people?) of a strange god. His use of mercenaries in Jerusalem?
40-45	40-45. These verses seem to re-capitulate the events covered already.
40	Same king of north and king of south. Chariots and horsemen and many ships—echoes 1 Mac. 1.17 description of Antiochus’s invasion of Egypt.
41	The glorious land. Threatened by the Romans, Antiochus broke off his Egyptian campaign, and took it out of the Jews instead. Many people (not, countries) overthrown Edom, Moab, Ammon escape, because these joined in hostility to Israel.
42	Egypt not escape.
43	Precious things of Egypt. Plenty of plunder in Egyptian cities before the retreat. 1 Mac.1.19.
44	Tidings—of defeats suffered by his army operating against Maccabees. 2 Mac.9.3. Great fury. 2 Mac.9.4.
45	Tabernacles of his palace. Ancient city of David re-fortified as, Syrian headquarters, for a long time. Come to his end. Antiochus hoped to restore his fortunes with a great campaign in Persia. It failed. He went (more) mad, and no respite from his malady. He died.

Before this prophecy is examined in detail, several important preliminaries call for attention.

1. The occasion of the prophecy.

   The Babylonian regime was over, and immediately Daniel began to study his Bible prophecies to learn about the restoration of his people. He ‘understood by the books’ (obviously, Jer. 29:10,12) the duration of the captivity. It is possible to ascertain from the allusions in the rest of chapter 9 that Daniel had in his Bible: Jeremiah, Isaiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Kings—at least, these, and almost certainly Ezekiel.

2. Had Daniel been a good twentieth century Christadelphian his reaction would have been: God has fixed the date on His calendar, and now that date is here, so all I have to do is sit back and wait for things to happen. Instead, he prayed, and in such fashion as to shame his modern brethren.

3. The ‘seventy weeks’ prophecy is usually regarded as the classic instance of ‘a year for a day’ in the understanding of prophetic time-periods. It is nothing of the sort, for the original phrase is not ‘seventy weeks’, but ‘seventy sevens’, the unit of time not being specified. (By contrast, Dan. 10:2 has the literal word: ‘weeks’).

4. Seven sevens are assigned to the re-building of Jerusalem. This requires forty nine years. No other unit of time will serve.

5. The usual understanding of this prophecy may be summarised thus: B.C. 457 (Ezra 7:8) plus 486½ = A.D. 30½ (the crucifixion). When this is considered critically, all kinds of unexplained difficulties come to light:
   1. Is the prophecy so approximate as to leave an unexplained margin of 3½ years?
   2. ‘Finish transgression, make an end of sins (or sin offering), to seal up the vision and prophecy (i.e. to complete its usefulness).’ Were all these achieved in the death of Christ?
   3. The prophecy runs ‘unto Messiah the Prince.’ This surely calls for further reference long after the crucifixion.
   4. “After three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off.” The normal meaning of these words would require the crucifixion at the end of the 69th week.
   5. What has the ‘destruction of city and sanctuary and the desolation of Jerusalem’ (v.26) got to do with the crucifixion?
   6. For the unused 3½ years, it is customary to point to the death of Stephen. After such a rich prophecy about Messiah, is not this something of an anticlimax, great man though Stephen was?
   7. Which is the “one-week” for which the covenant is confirmed (v.27)?
   8. Why should the abomination of desolation (v.27), forty years after the crucifixion, come into a prophecy which runs only to the death of Christ?

These are not the only difficulties, but they are surely enough to raise doubts about the validity of the traditional explanation.

Enough of negatives. It is high time to attempt something more positive and more loyal to the details of the prophecy.

Two plain and clear facts must not be lost sight of:

1. Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week.
2. The seventy weeks culminate in “Messiah the Prince.”

It needs to be remembered that almost all the visions in Daniel include in their sequence an interruption of the continuity. In chapter 2, there is necessarily a hiatus between the legs of iron and the feet of iron and clay. The vision of the four beasts (ch.7) likewise has a break where the ten horns come into the interpretation. In chapter 8 the explanation makes a sudden leap to the Last Days after verse 17. And it is generally agreed that chapter 11 has a sudden switch from P.C. to the Last Days either at verse 40 or at the junction with 12:1.

The details (a), (b), mentioned above, prepare the mind for the same phenomenon in chapter 9.

The clear anticipations of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (v.26, 27) seem to demand a gap of forty years after the time when “Messiah is cut off.” But, more than this, the culmination in “Messiah the Prince” (v.25) seems to require the Kingdom at the completion of the seventy weeks.

These main ideas can only be satisfied by the following synthesis:

AB = the re-building of Jerusalem

BC = the long wait: 62 x 7.

CD = A.D. 30-67.

D = the Roman War, A.D. 67-70.

E = an Elijah prophet (3½ years), and the anointing of the most Holy One.

Here are appended a few brief notes to help elucidation of some of the less obvious phrases:

1. The details of verse 24 all seem to require reference to the final consummation:
   1. to finish the transgression (of Jerusalem).
   2. to make an end of (the nation’s) sin.
   3. to make reconciliation for (Israel’s) iniquity.
   4. everlasting righteousness.
   5. to seal up (i.e. conclude the usefulness of) the vision and prophecy.
2. “The people of the prince that shall come to destroy city and sanctuary” and “war and desolations” must be the Romans in A.D.70—who else?

3. “The overspreading of abominations” = Mt. 24:15.
4. Gabriel made reference to the prophecy he communicated to Daniel when he said to Zacharias, immediately after allusion to Malachi’s Elijah prophecy, “thou shalt be dumb…because thou believedst not my words which shall be fulfilled unto their time” (Lk. 1:20).

5. Revelation 11:2 does not foretell a long drawn-out period of Jerusalem’s desolation; it describes the final 3½ years down-treading in the Last Days (see “Revelation”, HAW, on this).

The prophet was fasting in the first month. There is some ambiguity about this, for; reckoning Nisan (Passover) as the first month, the civil year came in in the seventh month—Rosh Hashanah, in modern Jewish observance.

This latter is probably the correct identification, for it began with the Feast of Trumpets, it included the fast of the Day of Atonement (the 10th), and also there was the great annual holiday, the Feast of Tabernacles. Thus, it seems likely that Daniel’s fast began immediately after the Feast of Trumpets and included the entire Tabernacles celebration. Whilst his fellow-Jews in captivity were, no doubt, enjoying the holiday, Daniel afflicted his soul. Evidently a vision had already been made known to him, and the details of it written down (“the scripture of truth”), and in his eagerness to learn the meaning of it all, he bombarded heaven with his prayers and reinforced his pleas with this rigorous fasting.

It is commonly assumed that the mysterious vision elucidated for him was the long detailed complexity of chapter 11. This is an unlikely conclusion for the angelic appearance was “to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days” (v.14). Put chapter 11 is mostly about Egypt and Syria and the squabbles of the fragments of the Greek empire, and very little about the well-being of Daniel’s people. Nor is chapter 11 about “the latter days” (except, possibly its last few verses). Nor is there anything in ch. 11, 12 to indicate, “the time was long” (10:1).

The angel was almost certainly Gabriel, for as in ch. 9:23 Gabriel was sent as soon as Daniel began his prayer, so here also: “from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand…thy words were heard (this was his prayer for fuller comprehension), and I am come for thy words” (v.12). Also, in v.16-19 there is such emphatic repetition as to make the Gabriel identification virtually certain: “I retained no strength…no strength…he strengthened me…be strong, yea, be strong…I was strengthened…thou hast strengthened me.” Does not this language tell the reader that the angel was Gabriel, the Strong One of God?

There follows an elaborate explanation as to why it took this angel of glory three weeks to achieve manifestation to this man “greatly beloved”. Paraphrased, the message intimated that behind the scenes a great tussle had been going on because of the conflicting activities of various angels charged with the responsibility of shaping the affairs of the nations involved.

The princes of Persia and Greece, that is, the angels controlling these international affairs had apparently made things difficult for Gabriel to work out the most suitable answer to Daniel’s prayer. It had needed the “reinforcement” of Michael, the “chief prince”, i.e. archangel, who had special charge of the heavenly ministry of Israelitish affairs, before ever Gabriel could achieve a proper response.

In the awe-inspiring description of these behind-the-scenes activities there is no doubt a certain “accommodation” of language to the limitations of human comprehension, but even so certain essential, if bewildering, ideas stand out in this remarkable chapter:

1. Michael is the “watcher” over Israel. This is his special work (12:1; 10:21).
2. The angels, although immortal sinless servants of God, are limited in their physical and intellectual powers. A great number of Scriptures state or imply these truths: Mt. 24:36; 1 Peter 1:12; Ex. 23:20ff; 31:17; Lk. 19:38; Gen. 32:24, 26; 22:12; 18:21.

When incredulity has given way to believing the truth of this Bible witness, it becomes the more impressive, and bewildering, to read the detailed description of Gabriel; “girt with fine gold, his body as a beryl, his countenance like lightning, his limbs like burnished brass, his voice as the voice of a multitude” (v.5, 6).

That last characteristic especially seems to have exercised a fatal fascination over many readers. The voice, like the voice of a multitude, has imparted to this phrase the dogmatic notion that here is a symbolic representation of a multitudinous Christ. However, in this instance, vox populi vox non dei. For otherwise there is the decidedly awkward concept of a Christ-multitude somehow dispensing wisdom to a prophet of the Lord some five centuries or more before there ever was a Christ. Ezekiel 1:24 have been accorded the same slovenly treatment. Yet the identical imagery in Rev. 1:15 describes the glorious Being who walks in the midst of the candlesticks. Does the multitudinous Christ do that? The rainbowed angel of Revelation 10:1-3 has suffered from similar uncritical treatment. He — an angel, and certainly not a multitude — “cries with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth”. The Greek word for “roareth” means literally “he mooed or lowed like a cow.” Are not all these variant phrases different ways of conveying the idea of a loud impressive voice? (so also in Rev. 19:6).

Daniel’s “deep sleep” before the angel of the Lord is rightly seen as suggesting the appropriate fate of mortal man when in the presence of Immortal Power. Put again there has to be caution against pressing the symbolism of death and resurrection too far. Death and resurrection — yes! (See the passages cited on Dan. 8:18). Put is one at liberty to infer from v.9-11 that in the great Day when the dead hear the voice of the Son of God the saints will pass by stages from death to Life? The idea needs reinforcement from plainer Scriptures than this.

In no other vision revealed to Daniel is there anything to compare with the emphatic repetition here; ‘a vision appeared…appeared…and I saw…and I saw…’ The six-fold repetition underlines the impressiveness and importance of what is now recorded.

The contest between the ram and the he-goat is explicitly expounded in v.20, 21: the two horns of the ram are the kings of Media and Persia; the rough goat is the king of Greece, and its prominent horn is Alexander, the builder of that empire; the four ‘notable horns’ that came up in his place clearly represent the four-fold division of Alexander’s empire (see on 7:6).

So far the interpretation is simple, almost obvious. Put, in verse 9, uncertainties begin to arise. Here there is the appearance of another little horn, which expands its greatness ‘towards the south (Egypt) and the east (Syria) and towards the pleasant Land (of Israel)’.

Here interpretation hesitates between identification with Antiochus Epiphanes, the mad Syrian persecutor of the Jews, and the unexpected expansion of Roman aggrandizement as far east as the Euphrates. The modernists are

stoutly in favour of the first of these (assuming, for their own convenience, a third century B.C. date for the composition of ‘Daniel’).

The details of verse 10 are not decisive; ‘it waxed great even to the host of heaven (see Is. 14:13), and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground (see v.13d here), and stamped upon them.’

However, the details of verse 11 are much more pointed: ‘Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down’. This was ‘by reason of transgression…it cast down the truth to the ground’ (v.12).

In this passage the following details are to be noted:

1. The word ‘place’ means ‘a holy place, the sanctuary.’ This is a very common usage.

2. The prince of the host is Michael the archangel to whom was specially committed the direction of the affairs of Israel (see 12: 1; 10: 13,21; Josh. 5: 14; Ex. 23:20ff).

3. ‘Truth’ refers to the Covenants of Promise, set aside with the casting-off of Israel.

4. The sanctuary was not trodden under foot (see Lk. 21:24) until A.D.70.

5. This destroying power is called ‘the transgression of desolation’; Jesus himself identified this when foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem: ‘When ye see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place…’ (Mt. 24:15).

All these details are linked with a mysterious time-period: ‘How long…to give both the sanctuary and the host (temple and people) to be trodden under foot?… ‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days, and (thus) shall the sanctuary be cleansed’ (v.13, 14).

As one man the commentators have made a sorry mess of their understanding of this time period—through failure to give full value to two important details:

1. ‘Days’ is at best only a paraphrase of ‘evening-mornings’, the daily sacrifices (two in every 24 hours).
2. The reading: ‘two thousand…’ depends entirely on the Hebrew pointing inserted by the scribes long centuries after the time of Daniel. They arbitrarily chose to read the key word ‘thousands’ as AL’PaIM, the dual form (= two thousand), instead of AL’PIM, the indefinite plural (thousands).

With this valid, and almost certainly correct, alternative, the time-period now reads: ‘unto thousands (unspecified) and one hundred and fifty days (two sacrifices, in every 24 hours), i.e. a long indeterminate period concluding with a very special five months.

Then can it be regarded as a remarkable coincidence that Josephus, with no understanding of Daniel 8, records that the A.D.70 siege of Jerusalem lasted exactly five months from the Passover when it began? And before that Jewish War started, the Book of Revelation already had this detail in one of its prophecies: Rev. 9:5,10 (see ‘Revelation’, HAW, ch.20).

But this is only half the story.

In the explanation given to Daniel, it was made clear that the prophecy belongs to ‘the last end of the indignation…the time of the end’ (v.17,19); and this was emphasized by the prophet being cast into ‘a deep sleep’ (a fairly obvious figure of death and resurrection: Gen. 15:12; 2:21; Jer. 31:26; Lk. 9:32; Rev. 1:17).

Indeed, the expanded explanation now added reaches well beyond any reference to the Roman destruction: ‘a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences (what does this mean?), shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty but not by his own power (cp. Rev. 17:13)…he shall destroy the mighty and the holy people…by peace he shall destroy many; he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes (the Messiah), but he shall be broken without hand (i.e. by divine power; v.23, 25. Rev. 17:14).’

So, as is stated explicitly in verse 26, ‘the vision of the evening-mornings…shall be for many days.’ This (and the details of v.23-25 just quoted) requires a further fulfilment of the time-period in the Last Days. Accordingly, the Fifth Trumpet (Revelation 9:5,10) repeats its ‘five months’ declaration of judgment against Israel in a context even more relevant to the Last Days than it was to A.D.70.

It is called (v.19) ‘the time appointed’. This Hebrew word mo’ed always refers to one of the outstanding Jewish religious festivals—here, either to Passover or the Feast of Tabernacles (see ‘Passover’, HAW, Ch.14).

Even such considerations as these can hardly be treated as ‘cast-iron’, for there is the assurance of the Lord Jesus that ‘for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened’ (Mt. 24:22). How, or why? He did not explain, but 2 Peter 3:11,12 will be relevant here, if only the elect rise to their spiritual responsibilities with prayers of conviction (Is. 62:6,7).

One other highly important detail bears on what has just been said: the explanation vouchsafed to Daniel was imparted to him by the angel Gabriel (v.16). This was granted because he ‘sought for the meaning’, praying about it. A case of no small impressiveness can be made for believing that, for outstanding saints of God, Gabriel is the angel of answered prayer (Lk. 1:26, 30, 13; 22:43, 44; Dan. 9:21; 10:12; 6:11, 22; Acts 10:30, 31; Jer. 32:16,18—‘Gabriel’ means God’s Mighty One’).

Here, there can be little doubt, is the counterpart to the four empires foretold through the symbolism of Nebuchadnezzar’s image. But a prophet of the Lord saw this vision; so, whereas the king saw bright impressive metals as symbols of human might, Daniel saw them as four horrible beasts. The reason for the repetition in a different form is simply explained by Genesis 41:32.

These four beasts are described as coming up from the sea. Accordingly, attempts have been made to interpret this detail as indicating their origination in the Mediterranean, the Great Sea. This will not do, for concerning Babylon and Persia it is simply not true.

More probably the “sea” is the fiery stream (Dan. 7: 10), the firmament (Ez. 1:25,26), the paved work of a sapphire stone (Ex. 24:10), the sea of glass (Rev. 4:6; 15:2) before the throne of the Almighty. In other words, these empires only rose to power through the design and control of heaven. Some would go even further, and suggest that the four foul beasts are representations of four angels of evil doing God’s inscrutable work among the nations of the world.

Verse 3 neatly introduces a quote from God’s promise to Abraham (Gen. 22:17): “the sand of the sea”; a subtle hint that the prophecy is about Israel, the natural seed of Abraham and their enemies (cp. Rev. 13:1).

Confirmation of this conclusion, that the four empires are the oppressors of Israel comes from recognition that this vision was anticipated in Hosea 13:7,8, where note especially: “they (Israel) have forgotten me… “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself” (v.6,9).

The lion with eagle’s wings was already familiar to Daniel as a symbol of Assyria and Babylon, for in both countries such figures guarded temple and palace entrances. (For a Biblical interpretation see Jeremiah 49: 19; 50: 17). Cyrus’s bas-relief at Persepolis shows Babylon like a lion and his sword in its guts. Jeremiah’s writings, documents in Daniel’s library (9:2), had the same idea.

This beast was “made to stand upon its feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it” (7:4). This was not prophecy, but history, recalling the remarkable experience of Nebuchadnezzar’s recovery from animal madness (ch.4).

The bear, a mountain beast, was an easy figure of the threatening power of Persia. Its being raised up on one side anticipated the greater exaltation of the Persians over the earlier threat of the Medes.

All kinds of interpretations have been advanced to explain the “three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it” (v.5):

1. The northern conquests specified in Jeremiah 51:27.
2. The three much more important conquests: Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt.
3. Three directions of territorial expansion: NW/W/SW.

The third beast, a fast-moving winged leopard, is a fitting symbol of the Greek empire. It took Alexander the Great only ten years to extend his conquests as far as India. The four wings and four heads suggest the sub-division of the empire into four territories, each ruled by one of Alexander’s generals.

The fourth beast, “dreadful and terrible”, is unquestionably Rome. The emphasis on its “great iron teeth” suggests a correspondence with the legs of iron in the image. And “brake in pieces” is the very phrase used about the fourth empire in Daniel 2:40.

The fate of these four beasts is summed up succinctly: “they had their dominion taken away, yet (before that transpired) their lives were prolonged for a season and a time” (7:12). Possibly, but not certainly this last phrase refers to the Passover (“time”) when the Roman siege of Jerusalem began, and the “season” was the five month’s duration of the siege when the Gentile down-treading of the holy city brought all to an end. (On this, see commentary on Daniel 8).

The situation of Daniel 2 was repeating itself: The king eager to know the meaning of his dream, the magicians just as false, then Daniel unfolds a revelation of divine control over Babylon.

It is something of a surprise that, after the former exposure of soothsaying inadequacy, Nebuchadnezzar had not rid himself of these mountebanks. Perhaps the consolidated influence of the priesthood (the “Chaldeans”) had been too much for him. The professed inability of these learned men to interpret the dream about the felling of a luxurious tree was probably put on. It would be easy to see that only a dire meaning could attach to the dream, and they were unwilling to risk further unpopularity with the king by imparting a discouraging message.

So they left it to Daniel. Was he really “the master of the magicians”? Or is that phrase intended to mean that he was the pick of the lot? And why should he appear after all the rest? The record does not explain.

There was reluctance in Daniel also. Put, urged by the king, he told plainly what the dream portended. He added his own exhortation to repentance, and apparently this was heeded, for a while; for the fulfilment was deferred for a year. Perhaps the memory of the warning faded from the king’s mind, and his native pride of achievement took over once again.

It is said that Amytis, his queen, came from the mountains of Elam, and in the dead flat plain of Mesopotamia she sighed for her native land.

“You want mountains, my dear?” said Nebuchadnezzar, “you shall have them”—and he proceeded to fashion one of the wonders of the ancient world, the hanging gardens of Babylon.

It was in the midst of this wonderful creation that he boasted: “Is not this great Babylon that I have built for the honour of my majesty and the glory of my power? “

Then judgment fell. The king was overcome with a highly unusual disease— lycanthropy—that drove him to the instincts and habits of an animal. The archaeologists have commented on a remarkable gap of about seven years in the documents and history of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (see Rendle Short: “Modern Discovery…” p.l46).

Then came recovery, and with it a thankful acknowledgement of the control of the Most High. The king’s confession of faith (v.1-3,37) stamps him as a man of high religious spirit; and various Nebuchadnezzar inscriptions express similar devoutness.

For the student of the Last Days, special interest attaches to that period of “seven times”. A popular interpretation has been on these lines:

This period, measured from a suitable year in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, terminates at 1914 A.D.

Thus—so it is argued—there is here a prophecy of the madness of the nations.

In this remarkable sequence of “reasoning” every detail is debatable except one: the “seven times” does mean “seven literal years”. All the rest is cloud-cuckoo land, especially the idea that the madness of the nations would last until 1914, for never has the Gentile world been so mad as since 1914.

Do readers need further warnings against the foolishness of such interpretations as these?

Daniel ch. 4 Additional Notes

Nebuchadnezzar was very keen on felling cedars in Lebanon—he did it personally:

    “Under her shadow (Babylon) I gathered all even in peace.”

    “Mighty cedars with my own hands I cut down.”

    “Merodach … may my woodcutting prosper.”

        Bas-relief in Wadi Brissa: “image of my royal person” felling cedars.

10.	Based on Ez. 31 :3ff, 13.
14.	Fate same as Assyria, and for same reason.
16.	“For four years all public works ceased”.
17.	basest = lowest. Nabopolassar “son of a nobody—me—the magnificent .”
17.	Isaiah 10:5 provides an earlier illustration.
25,27	Predestination and contingency, here side by side.
30.	E.g. Nebuchadnezzar’s Euphrates bridge 134yds x 69ft wide.
	7 yrs. It is a tribute to his character that his rule was not usurped.