Daniel 7:3–8

The sea represents a mass of men in a state of political anarchy. It is out of this troubled state of peoples that empires arise. Take the French Empire for example. A revolution broke up the old system of government. Then followed a state of confusion, like the sea torn with the winds, and out of it all emerged an empire. From such a state of things in the world the four great empires arose.

These are not actual beasts nor an actual sea, but four great world empires that have their origin in the nations. Also we have a similar thought expressed in Revelation 13:1, where we read of a beast rising up out of the sea.

In the vision they rise out of the sea; in the interpretation they rise from the earth. The vision shows their providential or political origin; the interpretation shows their moral origin. In God's providence they rise in a time of political upheaval. Morally they are earthly, unlike the kingdom of the Son of Man, who comes from heaven.

The four beasts of Daniel's vision match, as everyone knows, the one human figure that the king of Babylon saw. In his eyes it at least looks like a man, though it has no breath and no life. To the prophet later, on the other hand, the world empires are full of life — but the life is that of an animal. One of the chapters in between links the two. In the fourth chapter Nebuchadnezzar is himself driven out among the beasts, as a corrective punishment, until he knows "that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men." In a pride that has forgotten God, he has become nothing but a beast, which knows no God.

Why does God picture these powers as wild beasts? He does it to show us their moral character as He sees it. A beast lives by force, and to satisfy its appetites, with no sense of responsibility to God. In the same way the Gentile powers have been marked by greed for conquest and a craving for power and glory. God has not been in all their thoughts. It is striking that these powers have willingly taken the character of a wild beast, perhaps without knowing they were fulfilling God's Word. Is it not a fact that many have chosen wild beasts or birds of prey as their national symbols? Look at the lion of England and the eagle of the United States.

Nebuchadnezzar's vision unfolded the outward course of the great world empires, while Daniel's vision revealed their inner character. Lion — the Babylonian Empire. Bear — the Medo-Persian Empire. Leopard — the Greek Empire. Fourth beast — the Roman Empire.

Here these same empires appear in a form that shows how each one sinks lower morally in the sight of God. Cruelty, selfishness and greed, with no recognition or knowledge of God, mark the beast. These are the solemn features of the world empires through the times of the Gentiles, until the dominion of Christ is established.

I do not believe the expression is ever used of the Mediterranean. Daniel uses a Hebrew word (Rab) meaning a multitude of waters, and he uses it with no article; "the Great Sea" is used with the article. It is quite clear that the passage in Daniel speaks of the origin of these empires from a sea of peoples with no settled shape.

In the vision of the image, these empires were shown as impressive but declining powers, as men see them. Here the same empires are shown in a form that expresses their moral decline, one after another, as God sees them. Cruelty, selfishness and greed, with no recognition or knowledge of God, mark the beast. These are the solemn features of the world empires through the times of the Gentiles, until Christ's rule is set up.

"The first was like a lion and had eagles' wings." Here, beyond question, we have the empire of Babylon. It is nothing new for the Holy Spirit to apply the figure of a lion to Nebuchadnezzar, or of an eagle either. Jeremiah has already used both, and names him as both the lion and the eagle in Jer. 49:19-22. Ezekiel pictured him as an eagle too. In Daniel's vision the Holy Spirit combines the two figures in one symbol, to give a fitting picture of what the Babylonian empire was in the mind of God.

This was the power to which God gave dominion after He set Israel and the house of David aside. Remarkably, while God still owned Israel, He let no power rise to the top place on earth. Both Egypt and Assyria wanted that place and fought for it, but neither one won it. When the time came for David's throne to be overthrown, God let the rising power of Babylon conquer both of those older empires, and so it became supreme among the nations. Keeping that place depended on faithfulness to the trust given by Him who rules in the kingdom of men and gives it to whomever He will. Babylon proved unfaithful, and so God set it aside.

The wings of the beast were plucked. It lost the swift action that had marked it out, and this shows what the empire became in the hands of Nebuchadnezzar's weak successors. The beast also lost its own natural posture. It was made to stand up like a man and was given the heart of a man — pictures of the weak state to which Babylon sank in the end. For if a lion is made to stand up, and its whole nature is changed, it has lost both its power and its grandeur.

In keeping with this, "a man's heart was given to it." There may be a contrast here with what was done to Nebuchadnezzar himself, who was given a beast's heart. The proud king was not looking up to God, which is the plain duty of every soul. A man who does not recognize the God who made him is not truly a man… In Nebuchadnezzar's case, man was taken up with himself. Satan twisted the very gift of worldwide rule that God had given him, so that self, and not God, became the object of his thoughts.

Some may ask, "Why are they shown as wild beasts?" We learn in this figure their moral character in the eyes of God. Beasts live to satisfy their appetites, with no sense of responsibility towards God. The figure is a true one. Neither Babylon nor Persia nor the rest ruled for God. Love of power and greed of conquest marked every one of them, some more and some less.

Just as plainly, if the first beast stands for Babylon, the second stands for Persia — or rather for the Medo-Persian kingdom. Daniel 5 tells us in so many words that this kingdom followed Babylon, and Daniel 8 tells us it came before Greece. History says the same, as everyone knows. The symbol of a bear shows its ferocious character.

The three ribs in its mouth show the bear's ferocity plainly. But it has none of the lion's majesty, energy, or dash. It is clumsier and more awkward in its movements, yet marked by endless conquest and greed.

It was an empire not so uniform as the Babylonian. It consisted of two peoples joined under one head. Another remarkable feature is this: it was the inferior of the two kingdoms that prevailed. The Persian takes the upper hand of the Mede. So in Daniel 5 we saw that Darius the Mede took the kingdom. But Cyrus soon followed. From then on it was always the Persian who governed, not the Mede.

Its one-sidedness shows us how exact the Spirit of God is in the details of Scripture. The next chapter pictures the same empire as a ram with two horns. There we learn that "one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last" (Daniel 8:3). This points to a power with two branches, and to a leading branch — the Persian — that was the younger. So the Spirit of God takes notice of a simple and well-known historical fact.

Imagine a panorama of different beasts, with one animal painted holding a heap of prey and eating it. At once we would think of a huge appetite. That was the case with the Persians. They faced frequent revolts, because of their extortion and cruelty.

Cyrus the Persian became favourable to the Jews, as the opening verses of Ezra show. Apart from this, its power was not tolerant. The words "Arise, devour much flesh" came true in its history.

The third beast was like a leopard, having on its back four wings of a bird. We need not go outside the book of Daniel for the interpretation of this. Daniel 8:21 lets us know that it was the Grecian Power that destroyed the Medo-Persian Empire. The leopard is fast in its movements by nature; the wings added in the vision speak of extraordinary speed. Most people know that Alexander led his forces against Persia to avenge Xerxes' invasion of Greece (Daniel 11:2). In about twelve years he conquered almost the whole known world.

There was nothing in nature like this leopard. God takes features from different things that did exist in nature and combines them to give an idea of this new empire. The leopard is known for its agility in chasing its prey. Yet, to give something beyond nature, we hear that it had "on its back four wings of a bird." If headlong courage in pursuing great plans was ever joined with speed in winning one conquest after another, we find it in the history of Alexander the Great.

The third beast does not lack speed in action, for it has on its back four wings of a bird. But its flight is not the lofty, magnificent flight of the eagle; it is that of a much lower bird. It has, however, four wings instead of two. It has also four heads; absolute authority was not held by one head only. To it dominion was given.

This is without doubt the empire of Alexander. The vision describes this beast more by what it became after Alexander died, when his empire split into four parts, than by what it was while he held it together. This matters, because two of those parts had much more to do with the Jews than the empire had in Alexander's own time. Two of these are afterwards called (chapter 11) the king of the north and the king of the south.

Daniel tells us also that the leopard had four heads. As Daniel 8:8-22 and 11:4 tell us, these are the four military leaders — not descendants of Alexander — who divided his dominions among themselves after his death. Their names were Seleucus, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus.

Whatever the nature and character of these beasts, God ordained them as truly as He ordained David, the King of Israel, the man anointed with the holy oil. Driven by their own self-will and greed, they devoured countries, conquered kingdoms, and took thrones. But behind all that man could see, the hand of God was working out His wise designs. Neither they nor their armies could go one inch beyond what He permitted. … Neither man nor the devil has power to do anything apart from God's permission. What a comfort this truth is to our cowardly souls!

The vision of the image showed these empires as imposing but declining powers in the sight of men. Here the same empires appear in a form that shows their step-by-step moral decline in the sight of God. Cruelty, selfishness and greed, with no recognition or knowledge of God, mark the beast. These are the solemn features of the world empires through the times of the Gentiles, until the dominion of Christ is established.

The fourth beast speaks mostly of events still to come. It matters so much that Daniel receives further details in a second vision. Nothing in nature can compare to this beast. It stands there on purpose as an unnatural monster, filling the one who sees it with dread and terror.

When the four empires were shown in symbol to the Gentile king, they had their worldly aspect. There was the likeness of a great image, majestic in its proportions, made of the most costly, lasting, and useful of metals... Here is the world's estimate of imperial power and successful ambition, and the world bows down and worships. But the saint sees these same empires in symbol as unclean and terrifying beasts: greedy for blood, fierce, untameable. The last one went so far beyond the rest in those qualities that no animal known to man could set out its character. So a strange monster, a terror of nature, stood before the prophet's eye to picture the fourth empire. This gives us God's judgement about these empires, and shows what value His saints should put on their splendour and power.

No doubt the Roman empire had all these awful features, bringing dread and terror to all who opposed it or attracted its greed; taking whatever served its purpose, and destroying what it could not use.

It devoured and broke in pieces, and it stamped on what was left with its feet. That is to say, it took over the territories of previous empires and absorbed them into its own — not all of each empire, but its most important parts.

It was an empire that kept a strong sense of the will of man — of the people. It combined certain republican elements with as iron a despotism as ever ruled in this world. These two things were brought into distinct, but seemingly harmonious, play.

We are not to look for the actual development of history in this vision. If we did, the ten horns would clearly not have been seen on the Roman beast when it first met the eyes of the prophet. The Spirit of God brings into the very first view the features that would be found at the close, and not at the beginning.

The last clause of verse 7 needs careful attention — "it had ten horns." Verse 24 tells us that these are ten kings. That raises an important question. When was anything of this kind seen in the Roman Empire of the past? For a long period it had only one head. Then for a considerable time three or four rulers held power together. But anything like what we have before us here has never yet been seen. What, then, are we to understand from the statements of our chapter? Just this: that the history of the Roman Empire is not finished, for no word of God can fall to the ground. So between the two last clauses of verse 7 there is a gap of many hundreds of years. That is not at all unusual in the prophetic Word.

Here it is enough to note that the ten horns clearly take us on to the future. Then the Roman Empire will be revived in a ten-kingdom form under one head (see Rev. 13:1; Rev. 17:12).

Here we have divine ground to know that the "little horn" of the west will at first be a small power among the other ten, and that he only becomes great by destroying three of his contemporary powers. He becomes at last not only the possessor of these three kingdoms but the overlord of all the rest. This is the form in which he becomes emperor of the western powers.

This eleventh horn is Satan's agent for bringing together the broken-up parts of the ancient Empire of Rome. He will begin by conquering three of the European kingdoms. Then cunning or force will draw seven others to join with these in a general confederacy. Each kingdom will keep its own ruler, but all will acknowledge the supreme leadership of the little horn.

The little horn is marked by immense intelligence — not by brute force. The description of it contrasts with that of the Lord, the Lamb who was slain. He has seven horns and seven eyes — that is, the perfection of intelligence and of power. In this case it is not so. The power outwardly looks much greater. It has ten horns instead of seven — a monster instead of perfection. The result is a kind of grotesque exaggeration of the power and wisdom of Christ, which wretched man, energised by Satan, will claim for himself.

This description is not simply that of a power driven into action by its passions, nor of a conqueror who goes about ravaging everywhere. There was something more in the ways of this little horn: extreme arrogance, intelligence, design, planning, reflection. He had eyes like the eyes of a man… He also had "a mouth speaking great things," that is, enormous boasting. This particularly marks this horn. It is because of the words this horn spoke that the beast was destroyed. He is the one who brings on the judgment of the fourth beast. The little horn is the one who morally influences the beast.

But the great words of the horn bring judgment down upon the beast, and this assures us all the more of the horn's personality. A "political system" is not a responsible agent; for that you need a living being. We could not think of ten political systems where an eleventh subdued three of them, as is said of the "horn." If a real king is meant, nothing is more natural. A king is the meaning of both "horn" and "head," and that should be simple enough to need no further explanation.

The pope has never gained three of the ten kingdoms… All its weight has come instead from its spiritual deception over the souls of men. Clearly, then, a power, small in its beginnings, is to rise and put down three of these greater powers, taking over all their dominion. The pope has never done any such thing. So although there has been a measure of likeness, there is enough difference to make the distinction quite plain.

I gather from that, not that this has no bearing upon the papacy, but that its full fulfilment is in the future.