William H. Shea CHAPTERS 2 AND 7
Editorial synopsis. In the three sections of this chapter the author addresses in detail the issue of the unity of the book of Daniel. Is the book the mixed product of multiple authors writing over a period of several centuries, as critical scholarship affirms, or are there indicators in the document to indicate single authorship, as conservative scholars maintain?
Testimony for the unity of a biblical book may be drawn from its evident integrated literary structure, from common theological themes extending throughout the work, and from a variety of linguistic elements—small nuts and bolts—that serve to fasten the whole together. In a step-by-step analysis of the prophetic portions of the book these three levels of inquiry are explored. Demonstrated harmony of thought and relationships in the smaller blocks of material in the book vouches for the harmony of the integrated whole.
In this chapter the author focuses on the clear correlation between the dream and vision of chapters 2 and 7. The chapters are closely linked by (1) a number of linguistic connections; (2) their common outline of four great kingdoms; (3) an eventual division in the fourth kingdom; and (4) the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom at some point subsequent to the division of the fourth kingdom. Parallels exist between the sequences of metals and beasts. The former moves downward from high value (gold) to great strength (iron). In a similar manner the hierarchy of beasts moves from high honor (lion, king of beasts) to crushing power (non-descript beast, wilder than any known to nature).
While there are similarities between the prophecies of these two chapters, there are also differences due to the natural progression of further revelations. The new elements in chapter 7 are the blasphemous little horn, the heavenly judgment, and the fact that the “saints of the Most High” ultimately will possess God’s eternal kingdom. These would have meant nothing to Nebuchadnezzar had they been introduced into his dream.
The vision of chapter 7 has a few other features which argue for its internal integrity as well as its demonstrable relationship with the other prophecies of the book. First, it can be substantiated that the vision has been written in a literary form known as a chiasm. In such an arrangement each part of the composition is balanced so closely with every other part that it is evident that the piece must be the work of one hand.
Secondly, the vision of chapter 7 emphasizes a vertical dimension in which the prophet sees earth and heaven connected. Each affects the other. This is a characteristic of apocalyptic prophecy which ties this vision in a special relationship to the following apocalyptic visions of the book.
Finally, the historical identifications not only tie together the
prophecies of chapters 2 and 7, but they also link the little horn and its attempt to change “times and law” with the NT apocalyptic prophecy of Revelation 12:14–17 with a focus on the Decalogue and the Sabbath.
Section Outline I. Introduction
II. Relationship of Daniel 2 to Daniel 7 III. Specialized Aspects of Daniel 7
Introduction
When a biblical book is examined to determine the degree of its unity, several different aspects of its contents are utilized.
Literary structure. In the first place, one can speak of the unity of its literary structure. For example, the book of Lamentations may be cited as a work that contains a completely integrated and unified literary structure. We know that Lamentations was written by its author in exactly five chapters because of its use of acrostics.
In biblical Hebrew, laments were written in a 3 + 2 stress-accent poetic meter. This is known as qînāh meter because qînāh is the Hebrew word for lament. Since Lamentations was written in exactly five chapters, three long and two short, it is but a step to suggest that its literary structure was planned along the lines of lament meter applied to the larger units of the whole book. This evident literary structure emphasizes the fact that the book was written as one complete unit.
A similar proposal can be made for Daniel, even though its literary structure is quite different from that found in Lamentations. The overall structure will be integrated at the conclusion of this study. But in order to build up such a structure it is necessary to examine first the individual units which make
up the composition. Any conclusion derived from an analysis of literary structure (especially if it gives evidence that the book constitutes one overall literary unit) carries implications for the literary criticism of the book and the interpretation of its prophecies.
If Daniel does indeed present a unified literary structure, then it becomes more difficult to separate its historical chapters (1–6) from its prophetic chapters (7–12). It will not be possible to assign dates which differ by centuries for their composition. A unified literary structure for Daniel also adds strength, in a formal way, to the commonly (and correctly) held interpretation that the scheme found in chapters 2, 7, 8, and 11 all treat the same basic prophetic outline, even though each elaboration differs in some detail. The positions that these different presentations of the basic outline occupy in the literary structure of the book adds emphasis to the directness of their interrelations.
Theological themes. A second way one can ascertain the unity of a biblical book is to compare the common theological themes treated in its individual segments. For example, we might note the Messianic prophecies in Isaiah. In the first section of the book these appear in chapters 7, 9, and 11. In the second section of Isaiah the same theme is taken up again in what have been called the Servant Songs of chapters 42, 49, and 53.
Thus this particular prophetic subject of the Messiah is taken up at least three times in each of the two main sections of the book. By means of this link a common theological theme may be demonstrated to run through both sections of this work. This common theme does not prove common authorship for these sections, but the data is more in harmony with a single author view than with the literary critical theory of multiple authors.
Beyond this, it may be suggested from these relations that the Messiah treated in both sections of the book is one and the same figure. While each says something new about Him, they still describe attributes and activities of the same Messiah. We do not have in Isaiah, therefore, a royal Messiah in its earlier prophecies and a different servant Messiah in its later prophecies. These two groups of prophecies describe two main (but different) aspects of the work and character of the same Person.
The order in which these prophecies are presented may appear to be reversed when judged by our modern western way of thinking. We reason from cause to effect, from servant to king.
In ancient Hebrew thought, however, it was common to reason from effect to cause, from king to servant.
A general parallel to Isaiah’s messianic prophecies may be drawn here with respect to the order of Daniel’s prophecies, at least in the case of chapters 7, 8, and 9. If the shorter time prophecy (chap. 9) was indeed to be cut off from the longer time span (chap. 8), westerners would have described the shorter prophecy first. The reversed order in which these prophecies are found in Daniel (the longer prophecy first, then the shorter) stems from another case of Semitic thought order. This can be demonstrated from the locations in the prophecy of Daniel 11 where these earlier prophecies are connected. Their earlier reversed order is turned around.
Just as we have seen a unity of theme in the prophecies of Isaiah, so we may expect to see a similar phenomenon in the prophecies of Daniel. Not only is this the case in terms of theological themes, it is also the case in terms of historical applications. The Messianic prophecies of the first part of Isaiah refer to the same future historical figure depicted in the prophecies of the second section. In like manner we may expect to find the same historical entities prophesied about in the
outline prophecies of the first or Aramaic section of Daniel reappearing in the outline prophecies of the second or Hebrew section of Daniel.
Linguistic elements. A third way we may look at those aspects of a biblical book which contributes to its unity is through its linguistic contents. These smaller details, the nuts and bolts of literary content, contribute to making up the larger theological themes of biblical books. Once again Isaiah is a case in point.
Those who see but one author for this entire work have emphasized the common vocabulary that is found in both sections of the document. A contrast also can be drawn between this vocabulary and that found elsewhere in the OT. These comparisons simply illustrate how a common vocabulary can be employed by a biblical writer in successive prophecies.
Looking at Daniel from this perspective leads the reader to an examination of its successive prophecies for a recurrence of similar words and phrases. This is true even for cognates between the Aramaic of chapters 2 and 7 in comparison with the Hebrew of chapters 8, 9, and 11. When these are found to be present (either in different or similar language passages), they should be taken as providing a link for common themes and applications, in accordance with sound hermeneutical principles.
A caution is in order here, however. Translators sometimes translate different words in the biblical text with the same word in the language of their translation. Examples of this may be seen in Daniel 8 where two different Hebrew words both have been translated by the English word “vision”; in Daniel 8 and 9 where different Hebrew words have been translated “sacrifice”;
and in the same two passages where different Hebrew words have been translated “prince.” This procedure of simplifying a translation may at times lose the shade of meaning intended by the author. Therefore, a study of linguistic connections requires
analysis of the biblical book in the original language rather than in a given translation.
From this brief survey we have seen several angles from which the unity of a biblical book may be evaluated. On the lowest or most basic level there is the function of linguistic connections. On the intermediate level there is the matter of how theological themes and historical relations are treated. On the upper level there is the way the individual parts of a book fit into its overall literary structure.
Each of these perspectives can be applied to the prophecies of Daniel. Our study starts with an examination of the individual prophecies. It continues with a comparison between them.
Finally, it culminates in an overall integration of these into the scheme of the entire book. The study proceeds in such a fashion as to build up that final structure from the individual building blocks as they are examined in successive sections.
Relationship of Daniel 2 to Daniel 7
There is evident correlation between the outline of nations presented through the series of metals in chapter 2 and the series of beasts in chapter 7. Therefore, these two chapters may be treated together. The correlations involve first of all the fact that both prophecies present a general outline of four great kingdoms in which the fourth is to be divided. In turn, these divisions are indicated by a mixture of iron and clay in chapter 2 and by the appearance of ten horns in chapter 7.
At some point after those divisions have taken place, the final kingdom of God is to be set up. This is represented by the stone kingdom in chapter 2 and by the reference to the kingdom in which the saints of the Most High will dwell in chapter 7. In terms of historical relations, therefore, these two prophecies can
be seen as describing essentially the same succession of historical entities.
On the more detailed level of linguistic correspondences the same relationships can be demonstrated through the use of similar words and phrases in both chapters. Since both of these chapters were written in Aramaic, these correspondences are quite direct, as the following outline demonstrates:
Correspondences Between Daniel 2 and 7
A. The numerical sequence for the principal elements in the prophecies:
Daniel 2 Daniel 7
1. 1. “1st” beast, 7:4
2. 2. “2nd” beast, 7:5
3. 2:39, “3rd kingdom,” 3.
4. 2:40, “4th kingdom,” 4. “4th kingdom,” = 4th beast, 7:23
B. Linguistic and thematic connections between the fourth kingdoms:
Daniel 2 Daniel 7
1. 4th kingdom to be
“strong” Aramaic, taqqı̇̂p̱, 2:40
1. “strong” exceedingly, 4th kingdom Aramaic, taqqı̇̂p̱, 7:7
2. Strong as “iron” 2. “iron” teeth of 4th beast
Aramaic, parzel, 2:40 Aramaic, parzel, 7:7, 19 3. 4th kingdom “breaks”
Aramaic, deqaq, 2:40
3. “breaks” in pieces, 4th kingdom Aramaic, deqaq, 7:19, 23
4. 4th kingdom “divided”
2:41
4. word is not used but the 10 horns signify the divisions, 7:7
5. Divisions = “kings,”
2:44
5. “kings” = 10 horns, 7:24
It should be noted that the presence of precisely four world kingdoms in both of these sequences (section A) does not rest upon our enumeration alone. The writer himself made the enumeration in these specific terms. He has told us already that there would be exactly four great world kingdoms in each of these prophecies. We do not have to count them for ourselves.
Since we are dealing with four great kingdoms in both these prophecies, and the fourth is to be followed by God’s final kingdom (2:44, cf. 7:13–14, 27), the four kingdoms present in these two outlines must be the same.
This conclusion is confirmed by an examination of the second half of the list of linguistic correspondences given above (section B). They demonstrate that the fourth kingdom in these two lines of prophecy is described in common terminology (sharing an adjective, two nouns, and two verbs). Therefore the fourth kingdom is the same in both these lines of prophecy, so the three preceding kingdoms also should be equated.
Having determined that the four kingdoms of chapters 2 and 7 are the same, we turn to the question of their identification.
None of these kingdoms are named in chapter 7, but the first of them is identified in chapter 2. Interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to the king, Daniel said, “You are the head of gold. After you shall arise another kingdom inferior to you” (2:38–39, RSV). The fact that the word for “kingdom” instead of the word for “king” appears in the second half of this statement indicates that we are dealing with kingdoms here. The word used for
“kingdom” elsewhere in both of these prophecies illustrates the same point.
Daniel was not inaccurate, incidentally, to equate the Neo-Babylonian empire with Nebuchadnezzar since he ruled it for 43 of the 66 years that it existed. He conquered much of the territory belonging to that empire and was responsible for the great architectural expansion of its capital city. From the identification of the Neo-Babylonian empire as the first of these four kingdoms, we must turn to history for the identification of the succeeding three. The Medo-Persian empire succeeded the Neo-Babylonian as is evident from the book of Daniel itself (5:28, 30–31; 10:1). Alexander brought the Medo-Persian empire to an end with his expansion into the Near East. Thus the third kingdom should be identified as Greece.
Beginning from its consolidation of control over the Italian peninsula in the third century B.C., Rome went on to expand its holdings. Its empire came to include virtually all of the Mediterranean world and some regions beyond. In this way it absorbed the political and territorial entities that developed out of the divisions of Alexander’s empire. Thus, even a rudimentary knowledge of world history indicates that, starting with Babylon (identified for us in chapter 2), the succeeding three kingdoms should be identified as Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The same conclusion can be reached by working back into chapter 7 from chapter 8 where Medo-Persia and Greece are identified by name (8:20–21).
This outline of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome has been accepted as the standard interpretation of chapters 2 and 7 by two of the three major schools of prophetic interpretation: the historicist and the futurist. The critical school of interpretation (preterism) on the other hand holds that these four kingdoms should be identified as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. This interpretation of the prophecies has been brought over from an interpretation of the historical chapters in the book.
The king who ruled Babylon after its conquest was a Median named Darius (5:31). Consequently, the preterist view infers that the author of Daniel mistakenly identified the power that conquered Babylon and came to rule there as Media. This mistake (supposedly found in the historical chapters of Daniel) then is superimposed upon the outline of the kingdoms in the prophetic chapters. It is argued that the author should have made the same mistake there as well.
Even if Daniel did make such a mistake in his historical chapters, the outline of nations in the prophetic chapters still corresponds to what took place in history. There are also passages in Daniel which contradict this preterist view. For example, 5:28 indicates that the Medes and Persians were identified as co-conquerers of Babylon. Daniel 8:20 indicates that the two horns on the one ram represented Media and Persia together. Furthermore, the only linguistically justifiable translation of the passive-causative verb in 9:1 indicates that Darius the Mede “was made king” over the realm of the Chaldeans through the agency of somebody else, that is, Cyrus.
In addition, the preterist view does not take into full account the evidence for the historical accuracy of Daniel in this regard as indicated from the Neo-Babylonian tablets written in the time when the transition to Persian rule took place. Since the critical view on this subject is unsatisfactory for several reasons, it
should be rejected and the standard outline of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome should be retained.
As far as prophetic imagery is concerned, the metals of the image in chapter 2 are listed in order of descending value but increasing strength. Thus the gold of the head represents the wealth of the first kingdom while the iron of the legs represents the might and power of the fourth kingdom. A similar hierarchy of metals is known elsewhere in Scripture from non-prophetic contexts (Exod 25:3ff., Num 31:22; Josh 6:19, 24; 1 Chr 22:14;
2 Chr 2:7, 14).
The beasts of chapter 7 follow a somewhat similar pattern.
The lion which represented the first kingdom is known as the king of beasts, but the crushing power of the fourth kingdom was beyond representation by a naturally known animal.
Hierarchies of the animal world similar to this one are found in several biblical texts (1 Sam 17:34–37; Prov 28:15; Hos 13:7–8;
Amos 5:19; Jer 5:6). Outside of Daniel the use of animals to represent kings is known especially from prophets who were contemporary with Daniel in the sixth century B.C. For example, Ezekiel referred to Nebuchadnezzar as an eagle (17:1–
6). He also referred to Pharaoh of Egypt as an eagle, a lion, and a dragon (17:7–10, 32:2). Jeremiah applied the metaphor of a lion to Nebuchadnezzar twice (4:7; 50:17) and to the king of
6). He also referred to Pharaoh of Egypt as an eagle, a lion, and a dragon (17:7–10, 32:2). Jeremiah applied the metaphor of a lion to Nebuchadnezzar twice (4:7; 50:17) and to the king of