Chapter 7: Vision 1- Four Beasts and Son of Man
Historical Collation, Genre and Language Shift, End of a Chiasm
Typology
Everything said here about biblical theology is based squarely on the pursuit of the meaning that the biblical authors intended to communicate. Focusing biblical theology on the interpretative perspective of the biblical authors moors it to authorial intent. This has massive implications for how we approach both salvation history and thematic questions in biblical theology.
For thematic studies, the question of what the biblical authors intended trains our gaze on themes they themselves develop. If we are pursuing this method, we do not bring themes to the Bible but examine the texts to see how later biblical authors have developed thematic issues set forth in earlier biblical texts.
Similar things can be said about our examination of the salvation-historical unfolding of the Bible’s story. If we are looking for the interpretative perspective of the biblical authors, we will only be interested in a transition from one so-called dispensation to another if we can demonstrate that it was the intention of Moses or Paul or John to communicate a change in dispensations. If we think that Moses has indicated a change from one dispensation to another, our claims will be significantly strengthened if we can show that Isaiah or Peter or some other biblical author interpreted Moses that way. The question for dispensationalists and covenant theologians alike is this: Did the biblical authors intend to communicate the contours of these systems?
Read the Text
Replay the Text
Daniel’s Vision of the Four Beasts
First Kingdom:
We perceive then the reason why the prophet says, The first beast offered to me was like a lion, because greater integrity flourished under the Chaldeans than when all the empires were mixed together, and the Persians subdued both the Chaldeans and the Medes. For it is evident from all histories that they were a barbarous and fierce nation. They were indeed showy in their praise of virtue, since they spent their lives in austerity, and despised all luxuries and were exceedingly temperate in their living, but their ferocity and brutal cruelty rendered them detestable. The first beast then was like a lion, says he, and had eagle’s wings; that is, although it was a lion, yet it had wings. This refers to its swiftness, since we know in how short a time the Assyrians increased their monarchy, for they had previously subdued the Chaldeans, just like a lion for swiftness. For a lion has force, spirit and cruelty for committing injuries. Besides, the prophet saw a winged lion, since they not only increased their empire by their own strength but also suddenly extended their wings in every direction. We see, then, how strength and power are denoted on the one hand, and the greatest speed on the other. He afterwards adds, Their wings were dragged or torn off. For when the Chaldeans desired to stretch beyond their bounds, the Lord restrained them within due limits and checked their continual victories. Their wings were then torn off, when God restrained them by the check of a bridle, lest they should wander as freely as they had formerly done.
The prophet then adds, This beast was raised from the earth, implying the cessation of the empire. For neither the Chaldeans nor the Assyrians were entirely destroyed; but their glory was completely taken away. The face of the beast no longer appeared when God transferred that monarchy to the Medes and Persians.
Second Kingdom:
The second animal, the bear, is the kingdom of Persia and Media, which destroyed the last remnant of Babylon, plucking its wings. Among its teeth are three ribs that are three great, long teeth, representing the most distinguished kings—Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes—who accomplished the most in this kingdom, devouring much flesh, that is, they conquered many great lands.
Here the kingdom of Persia is represented by a bear because a bear is baser than a lion who by subtlety gets his prey and is more cruel. He is baser, as not having so specious a form as a lion, so the Persian was poor and inhabited a barren country, and therefore lived more basely and on coarser food then the Babylonian, whose country was more fruitful.
Third Kingdom:
The leopard signifies Alexander of Macedonia. The four wings and four heads are the four successors, for after the mighty battle the four rulers after Alexander divided the great empire: Seleucus ruled Syria and beyond, Ptolemy Egypt, Antigonus Asia Minor, and Antipater Macedonia.
The nature of the leopard or panther corresponds to the character of the Greeks; they are spotted, fragrant and have a frightful head; they hunt their prey with their sweet odor and by concealing their heads; they fight courageously for their young and offspring, fearing no weapons; and they are made drunk with wine.
Fourth Kingdom:
Little Horn
[Another] That is, Antiochus called Epiphanes, who is one of the number of the above-mentioned ten kings; yet he is called another, because his tyranny over the people was especial (Dan 7:24).
[Little] as Daniel 8:9, because this Antiochus was the youngest among his brethren, and the kingdom did not by right belong to him; and besides, he was of an abject and despicable nature and carriage (Dan 11:21).
[Three of] that is, three kings, namely, Ptolomeus Philopater, king of Egypt, who had taken Syria; Antiochus the great father of Epiphanes; and Seleucus his brother, who were all three deprived either of their lives or kingdoms by Antiochus (Dan 7:24).
[Were eyes] this is spoken to show his natural sagacity and cunning (Dan 8:23, 25; 11:23, 32).
[Mouth] he was exceeding haughty in words (1 Macc 1:25), cruel in bloody decrees and a great blasphemer of God (Dan 7:25; 8:23, 25; 11:36, 1 Macc 1:46–47). See the comparison of this with pagan Rome (Rev 13:5). PIOUS ANNOTATIONS
By the ten horns are rather understood ten kingdoms, then kings, as Greece, Macedonia, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany and Illyricum. The little horn signifies Muhammad, called little in respect of his obscure beginning. The three horns plucked up before it are the three kingdoms of Syria, Egypt, Africa, which the Turk invaded. The mouth speaking proud things is the new law of the Turks brought in by Muhammad.
The repetition indicates that Daniel means to depict this ‘type’ of thing as happening through the course of history until the pattern culminates and is fulfilled in the final instance of the typological pattern.
The Ancient of Days Reigns
The Son of Man Is Given Dominion
Here by the Ancient of Days Lyra understands Christ in his divinity, and by the Son of Man brought to him Christ in his humanity, but Polanus by the first God the Father and God the Son incarnate by the second. I rather prefer Lyra, because God the Father has never taken to him any similitude, but the Son as a “prelude” of his incarnation, and Ezekiel 1, where one sitting on a throne above the cherubim appeared like the Son of Man, it was undoubtedly God the Son; and here is a representation of a judge, which office is by the Father deputed to the Son. There is something said like this in Revelation 20:12 where the proceedings at the day of judgment are set forth, and as there, so here the opening of the books are spoken of, but here nothing else is meant, but that it should be justly proceeded against the kings before spoken of, as when a judge now goes according to plain evidence in condemning malefactors
He is said to be as the Son of Man because Daniel saw only a figure of the Son of Man. For at this time, when Daniel saw this, he was not yet the Son of Man but was to be born and become man in his time (Bullinger). Because Christ had not yet put on our flesh; indeed after Christ was incarnate, when he was seen figuratively in vision, he is said to be as the Son of Man; Revelation 14:14, I saw upon the cloud one sitting as the Son of Man. This was said because he was not seen in his substance but in figure only.
Reality of the Text
Christ Connection: Excursus in the Book of Revelation
Principle of Prophecy
The NT use of the Old
Daniel 7 in Revelation
Roughly more than half the references are from the Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and in proportion to its length Daniel yields the most.
The evaluation of Daniel as most influential is supported by recent study. Among the allusions to Daniel, the greatest number comes from Daniel 7. Proportionally, Ezekiel ranks second as the most used Old Testament book, although in terms of actual numbers of allusions Isaiah is first, followed by Ezekiel, Daniel and Psalms (although statistics cited by commentators differ; e.g. Swete cites Isaiah = 46,6 Daniel = 31, Ezekiel = 29, Psalms = 27). There is more agreement that Ezekiel exerts greater influence in Revelation than Daniel (on which see below in this section). The Old Testament in general plays such a major role that a proper understanding of its use is necessary for an adequate view of the Apocalypse as a whole.
Therefore, we may viably speak about changes of applications but need not conclude that this means a disregard for Old Testament context, since this is not a logically necessary deduction. It seems likely that Vos, and others, confuse disregard for context with change of application. That the above texts reflect disregard for Old Testament context is possible but other explanations are more satisfactory. The passages I have discussed are test cases, the conclusions of which are applicable to other Old Testament references where it is probable that the author has made intentional allusion and has demonstrated varying degrees of respect for the Old Testament context. The overall thrust of the present monograph is an argument in support of this position.
Admittedly, it is sometimes difficult to know whether there has been conscious or unconscious activity. Non-contextual uses of the Old Testament can be expected to occur in those places where there is unconscious allusion. No doubt the apocalyptist’s mind was so saturated with Old Testament language from the tradition he had learned that when he described his vision he sometimes spontaneously used this language without much forethought. For example, the phrase ‘I turned to see the voice which was speaking’ (Rev. 1:12a) is probably drawn from Dan. 7:11 (LXX), but there it refers to the ‘boastful words’ of the beast. This may have been drawn in unconsciously because of the clear influence of Daniel 7 in Rev. 1:7–14.
To clarify what is meant by ‘context’ is important. What is usually meant is literary context: how a passage functions in the logical flow of a book’s argument. But there is also historical context. For example, the historical context of Hos. 11:1 is the Exodus and not the argument of the book of Hosea. In addition, there is also the thematic Old Testament context whereby a New Testament writer focuses first on a general Old Testament theme (e.g. judgment or restoration) and then appeals to a number of specific passages from different Old Testament books which pertain to that theme. A New Testament author might reflect on only one of these three contexts; he could focus on all three or entirely disregard them. In the light of the passages discussed above, John appears to display varying degrees of awareness of literary context, as well as thematic context and, perhaps, historical context, although appeal to literary and thematic contexts is predominant. Thematic context is really an explanation for why particular literary contexts are focused upon. Those texts with a low degree of correspondence with the Old Testament literary context can be referred to as semi-contextual, since they seem to fall between the opposite poles of what we ordinarily call ‘contextual’ and ‘non-contextual’ usages. The categories of use to be considered below should further clarify and illustrate these initial conclusions.
A comparison of Rev. 4-5 (see chart)
Concluding Thoughts
Therefore, the conclusion of this brief overview is that the place of the Old Testament in the formation of thought in the Apocalypse is both that of a servant and a guide: for John, the Christ event is the key to understanding the Old Testament, and yet reflection back upon the Old Testament context leads the way to further comprehension of this event and provides the redemptive-historical background against which the apocalyptic visions are better understood; the New Testament interprets the Old and the Old interprets the New.
What to some may appear to be John’s novel interpretations of the Old Testament are the result of his new presuppositional lenses through which he perceives the Old Testament, among the most significant of which are: (1) Christ corporately represents true Israel of the Old and New Testament; (2) history is unified by a wise and sovereign plan, so that the earlier parts of canonical history are designed to correspond typologically and point to later parts of inscripturated history; (3) the age of end-time fulfillment has been inaugurated with Christ’s first coming; and (4) in the light of points 2 and 3, the later parts of biblical history interpret earlier parts, so that Christ as the centre of history is the key to interpreting the earlier portions of the Old Testament.
Granted the viability of these assumptions, John’s interpretation of the Old Testament shows a careful understanding of Old Testament contexts, and his interpretation shows significant influence from the Old Testament itself; if, however, these presuppositions are hermeneutically fallacious, then his interpretation must be seen as alien to the intention of the Old Testament. John probably saw his presuppositions as organically growing out of the Old Testament itself and out of Christ’s own approach to interpreting the Old Testament. Consequently, it is likely that John is offering new understandings of Old Testament texts and fulfilments of them which may have been surprising to an Old Testament audience, but not to a New Testament audience which retrospectively looks at the Old Testament in the light of the above presuppositions.
