The prevailing modem interpretation is C (B has had few advocates). The reasons for the adoption of C are as follows : Whatever may have been the facts of history, the author does distinguish between the Median and Persian kingdoms. After tlie iJabylonian he places the Median represented in the reign of Darius (o*"* 6' 9^), who has the position of an independent and absolute sovereign, and then follows the reign of Cyrus tlie Persian (G*^ 10'). A Medo-Persian Kingdom could scarcely have been designated by the writer as ir^fcrlor to Nebucliail- nezzar or the Babylonian (2^"), wliile this would aptly describe the short-lived Median of his scheme. This kingdom seems also well represented in the bear (7^). The kingdom of brass which shall rule over all the earth {2^"), or the leopard to which douiinion was given (7*), with its four wings
undisputed and indisputable, and there is scarcely a single book of the OT which can l)e more richly pr<»fltahle for tcarbing, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, completely furnished to every good work. Such religious lessons . . are not In the slightest degree impaired by those results of archtoological discovery uml criticism which are almost universally accepted by the scliolars of the Continent and maii^* of our chief English critics. Kiiially unfavourable to authenticity, they are yet in no way derogatory to the preciousness of this OT Apocalypse ' {Uk. of i)an. jt. 3 f.)'. • In'teed it is ditllcull to see how a different inter^iretation ooutd have been (jiven according to the prevailing exegesis which ignurrd tile original historicjil situation and meaning of OT prnphecies, and sought some fulfihiient agreeable t<> the actual iiistory or exi»eclcd future of the Church, (vhrist had applied to His second coming the words of Dn 7*8 (Mk 13'* 14<W), hence Ilis parousia waw reganlcd as prece<i«l by the little horn of v.n, which IhuH l)e<'aiiie the Antichrist. Many commentators sought liist. kingdoms to represent the 10 liorns, and since the Refor- mation the pai>al power has very often been regarde<i as the Antichrist. Tlu- numbers three, four, and ten iiave alwo l>eeD freq. Interpreted symbolically (so Briggs, Me4». Prvph. g 106).
556 DANIEL, THE BOOK OF
DANIEL, THE BOOK OF
representing rapid and successive couq nests, and with its four heads (corresponding to tlie four kings of 11'), symbolizes particularly well the Persian kingdom which advanced so widely and rajiidly under Cyrus and Cambyses, and whose dominion was so great under Darius I. and his successors. It must also be noted that the two horns of 8', one of wliich comes up last, which are interpreted as tlie kings of Media and Persia (8*), can as well represent two successive kingdoms, the power of one of which entered into the other, as one consoli- dated empire. The fourth kingdom of the image, which shall be strong as iron and break in pieces and crush (2'"'), and the beast terrible and powerful with great iron teeth, that devoured and brake in pieces and stamped the residue with his feet ("'), seem identical with the he-goat of furious power (8'"') interpreted as Alexander {8^'). The feet, part of clay and part of iron (2^-), represent well the successors of Alexander, often ' externally allied but inwardly disunited ' ; and the ten toes (2^-) seem to be reproduced in the ten horns, which fitly represent the Seleucidas (see footnote, p. 552). The mmgling of the seed seems to refer to the futUe endeavours of the Ptolemies and Seleucida; to form stable alliances by marriages (cf. II*-'"). But the clear description of Antiuchus Epiphxines in the little horn (T"' *•*"■) is decisive for the modem inter-. pretation. The introduction of the Messianic kingdom immediately in connexion with or follow- ing events of the author's o\vn time, is fully in accord with other OT representations. Isaiah places the advent of the Messianic king in Immediate con- nexion with a deliverance from Assyr. oppression (Is 8i»-9' 10^-1 1'"-), likewise Micah (S-"*) ; and Deutero-Isaiah blends in one picture the release and restoration from Bab. captivity, and the final consummation of the divine purposes for Israel. The same principle is illustrated in Christ's eschato- logical discourse in Mt 24.
Corresponding with the interpretations of the four beasts are those of ' one luce unto a son of man ' (7™"). The prevailing Christian and Jewish interpretation has referred these words to the Messiah. In favour of this view is their application by Christ to Himself (Mt 26", Mk W, Lk 22«», cf. Mk I3«, Lk 21", Mt W^, Lk l^"" 18«, Rev 14" et al.), and the repeated desiOTation of Christ in NT by the term ' the Son of Alan.' The Bk. of Enoch applies the same expression to the Messiah (46'"* 48'"' 62'''' 69^"^),* and this is the general exposition of our passage by the Jewish Rabbins, also in the Talm. {Sanh. p. 98, col. 1). A growing modern view, however, finds in 7" a symbolization of the kingdom of Israel, and this probably was the in- tention of the writer. The expression ' son of man ' (Aram. djK i3 = Heb. n-ix-ja) ace. to a common Heb. idiom is synonymous for man or one of mankind (cf. Ps 8*, Ezk 2' 3'- *• '"• " et al.), and stands here evidently for one in human form representing Israel, in contrast with the beasts symbolizing the heathen powers. A striking parallel occurs in Ps 80, where in v." 'boo of man symbolizes Israel, and 'the boar' v." the heathen. The interpretation in v." seems also decisive for this view. The kingdom is given to ' the people of the saints of the Most High ; nis(the people s) kingdom is an everlastingkingdoni, and all dominions shall serve and obey him (the people).' Again, no other possible similar Messi- anic allusion appears elsewhere in Daniel. The ' coming with tne clouds of the heaven ' is in evident contrast to the heathen kingdoms ' rising out of the8ea'(7'). The latter appearance is fig., iudioating earthly origin ; the former indicates then, by parallelism, a source in the special power of