The Little Horn

It is plausible that ch. 7 was originally composed as an eschatological complement to the cycle of Daniel narratives in chs. 1–6, perhaps as early as the late fourth or early third century B.C.E., as a response to the violent wars of Alexander the Great’s successors, the Diadochi.  Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 216). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition. 

The basic issue with which this chapter is concerned, as with the dream in ch. 2, is God’s decision to delegate universal sovereignty to Gentile empires for a period of time and then to take back that sovereignty.  Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 219). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition. 

The little horn has been defined in a few different ways.  Historicists see the little horn as the papacy, or Roman Catholicism, as a system (the "horn" that arose after the fall of Rome and persecuted saints for “1260 years”).

Those that hold to the historical/Maccabean view see the little horn as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who is the ultimate foreshadow of the coming Antichrist. However, they see the description of Daniel as already ultimately fulfilled. How they can claim this passage has already been fulfilled is beyond me... did they not read to the end of the chapter?

Notice that all four beasts are four kings who will arise from the earth:

[Dan 7:17-18 LSB]  ‘These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth. [18]  ‘But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come.’

The fourth king is what this blog will focus on.  Again, kings and kingdoms go hand in hand (Dan 7:23).

[Dan 7:7 LSB]  “After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, fearsome and terrifying and extraordinarily strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.

It is said to trample the remains with its feet, leading a number of interpreters to speculate that the much-feared Seleucid war elephants are the inspiration for this creature (Staub; Bauer 151–53; Goldingay 163). If so, then the (dual) “great teeth” may refer to the two tusks. Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 225). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition. 

"... and it had ten horns"

Horns are a common Biblical figure of royal power (e.g., Ezek 29:21; Zech 1:18 [2:1]; Ps 132:17).

In fact, The early Seleucid kings were particularly fond of the motif, and on their coins, both Seleucus I and Antiochus I, depicted themselves as wearing bulls’ horns. Several Seleucid kings literally wore bull horns as part of their royal diadem (the cloth headband worn by Hellenistic monarchs). The bull horns were a deliberate claim to divine power and a direct continuation of Alexander the Great’s own iconography.

We'll get to the ten horns below.

[Dan 7:8 LSB]  While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great boasts.

Here, at our introduction to the "little horn" we notice that it is described as little.  Later, in verse 20, it becomes larger "in appearance than its associates".

There have been all sorts of contested interpretations as to the "three of the first horns" but no consensus has been confirmed.  They were pulled out "before it" (the little horn).  The answer that seems to make the most sense to me is the three horns that were uprooted in order to make way for Antiochus IV are probably to be identified with Seleucus IV and his two sons who were deemed the rightful heirs to the throne that Antiochus seized.

For the future Antichrist, I would think that whatever the uprooting of the three means, it should be obviously evident, for those watching, when it happens.

"this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great boasts."

In Israelite wisdom tradition, body parts, including the mouth and the eyes, are used as indicators of character and elements that must be properly directed and controlled. The mouth of the wicked or of the fool is often associated with duplicity, conflict, violence, and destruction (Prov 10:6, 11, 32; 11:11; 15:28; 18:6; 19:28; cf. Obad 12).  ... haughty eyes are a figure of arrogance (Prov 6:17; 21:4; Isa 2:11; 5:15).  Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 226). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition. 

Another "Antichrist Prototype", Sennacherib, was also noted similarly:

[Isa 37:23 LSB]  Whom have you reproached and blasphemed? And against whom have you heightened your voice And haughtily lifted up your eyes? Against the Holy One of Israel!

Antiochus was also noted as boastful:

[1Ma 1:24 KJVA]  And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken very proudly.

[Dan 7:11 LSB]  Then I kept looking because of the sound of the great boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was killed, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.

It's not only his violent nature that get him killed but also his "boastful words".

[Rev 19:20 LSB]  And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who did the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.

The most surprising thing is the differentiation between the judgment of the fourth beast and the first three:

[Dan 7:12 LSB]  As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was given to them for an appointed season of time.

It's here that I'm picking up on a pretty significant difference between these kings and those of Nebuchadnezzar's statue.  The statue is struck and all kingdoms are smashed to chaff and blown away with the wind. 

Here, these three kings were given an extension of life with their dominion taken away.  For me, this draws out the explicit distinction with the fourth over the remainder.  It is the fourth that should be drawn into focus - it is different and it is exceedingly violent in nature.

The lion, the bear, and the leopard nations will be spared.  We already know from our other studies that nations will be spared during the Millennial Reign.  For example:

[Zec 14:16-17 LSB]  Then it will be that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, Yahweh of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. [17]  And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, Yahweh of hosts, there will be no rain on them.

[Dan 7:19-20 LSB]  Then I desired to know the exact meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, extraordinarily fearsome, with its teeth of iron and its claws of bronze, and which devoured, crushed, and trampled down the remainder with its feet, [20]  and the meaning of the ten horns that were on its head and the other horn which came up and before which three of them fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth speaking great boasts and which was larger in appearance than its associates.

Notice above that we're given an additional detail of the fourth beast:

"... with its teeth of iron and its claws of bronze"

Daniel is pushing for more details from the angel.

[Dan 7:21 LSB]  “I kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and overcoming them

We're instantly reminded of Revelation:

[Rev 11:7 LSB]  And when they have finished their witness, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them and overcome them and kill them.

[Rev 13:7 LSB]  And it was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.

The beast was overcoming the saints, until...

[Dan 7:22 LSB]  until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was given in favor of the saints of the Highest One, and the season arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom.

[Rev 5:10 LSB]  And You made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth.

Then we get to the explanation of the fourth beast:

[Dan 7:23 LSB]  Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it. 

Here, we're told that the fourth beast will be fourth kingdom, different from all the others.  It will devour the whole earth, tread it down, and crush it.

Alexander the Great certainly made a go of it... as will the future Antichrist.

...between the beginning of his campaign in 334 and his death in 323 B.C.E., Alexander’s armies conquered Asia Minor, Syria-Palestine, Egypt, Babylon, and Persia, with military campaigns also into what is now Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 240). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition. 

The subsequent actions of Antiochus IV solidified the notion that the actions of the Hellenistic kingdoms exceeded the bounds of YHWH’s mandate to Gentile sovereigns.  Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 240). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition. 

[Dan 7:24]  ‘As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will make low three kings. 

The "another" who will arise is speaking of Antiochus here in Daniel.  Notice the similarities with the beast of Revelation below. 

[Rev 13:1 LSB]  And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.

[Rev 17:12 LSB]  And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour.

Below, we find some new details.  He intends to make changes to seasons [time?  feasts?] and in law [Sharia law?].  Antiochus was successful in changing Jewish observances, sacrifices, etc.  

[Dan 7:25]  ‘He will speak words against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make changes in seasons and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

Perhaps the coming Antichrist intends to change time as in his appointed time... meaning, his appointment with Yeshua.  He clearly sees himself as a god, has blasphemed the Most High Himself, and perhaps he's feeling that he actually has the power to determine who shall exercise sovereignty.

[Rev 13:5-6 LSB]  And there was given to him a mouth speaking great boasts and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him. [6]  And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.

We'll see below, that he is sorely mistaken:

[Dan 7:26-27 LSB]  ‘But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever. [27]  ‘Then the reign, the dominion, and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.’

I see the little horn as both a past historically fulfilled pattern of the final future Antichrist - a future world ruler who will arise in the end times, make a covenant, break it, persecute believers, and be cast into the Lake of Fire at Christ’s return.

Summary: The little horn arises among ten horns on the fourth beast (a future empire). At first, he's noted as small, or little. Later he becomes greater than his companions. Eventually, the little horn uproots, or subdues, three of the ten horns/kings. The little horn has eyes like the eyes of a man (intelligent, calculating) and a mouth speaking great things and boastfully blaspheming against the Most High. He will wear out and persecute the saints and attempt to change law (sharia law?) and the times. The saints are given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time (3.5 years). His dominion is taken away and he is cast into the Lake of Fire when the Ancient of Days comes and gives the kingdom to the Son of Man and the saints.

[2Th 2:3-10 LSB]  Let no one in any way deceive you, for it has not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, [4]  who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the sanctuary of God, exhibiting himself as being God. [5]  Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? [6]  And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. [7]  For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. [8]  And then that lawless one will be revealed—whom the Lord Jesus WILL SLAY WITH THE BREATH OF HIS MOUTH and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming— [9]  whose coming is in accord with the working of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, [10]  and with all the deception of unrighteousness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

[Rev 13:1-10 LSB]  And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names. [2]  And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority. [3]  And I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain fatally, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth marveled and followed after the beast. [4]  And they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?” [5]  And there was given to him a mouth speaking great boasts and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him. [6]  And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven. [7]  And it was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. [8]  And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. [9]  If anyone has an ear, let him hear. [10]  If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.

[Rev 17:9-14 LSB]  “Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, [10]  and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. [11]  And the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction. [12]  And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. [13]  These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast. [14]  These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and elect and faithful.”

Median and Persian

Within the context of Daniel, who is currently captive to Babylon, racial distinctions are clearly seen between the Medes and Persians. Meaning, it is clearly implied, within the scope of Daniel, the successive kingdoms were racially distinct from one another. This view is also supported by Isaiah and Jeremiah.

The Peshitta explicitly distinguishes them as two separate kingdoms within the sequence of four beasts, treating Media as the second kingdom (the bear in 7:5) and Persia as the third (the leopard in 7:6). This is a distinctive interpretive feature of the Peshitta’s Syriac translation, which includes added glosses (explanatory notes) in verses 7:5–8 to clarify the identities of the beasts. These glosses reflect an ancient understanding—shared with some early Jewish and Christian interpreters—that aligns the four kingdoms with Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece (with the “little horn” of the fourth beast linked to Antiochus IV Epiphanes).

Within the framework of Daniel, what we see represented, is that a Median king came to power at the death of Belshazzar, prior to the reign of Cyrus the Persian. The text repeatedly emphasizes a racial distinction between Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian. What we end up with, within the context (and narrative) of Daniel, are four distinct kingdoms: [1] Babylon, [2] Medes, [3] Persians, and [4] Greek. In other words, in the authors view of history, there were four successive kingdoms from Babylon to Greece. On the other hand, the Roman empire can only be found in the book through conjecture and disputed interpretation.

Historical evidence clearly points to no intermediate reign of the Medes between Belshazzar and Cyrus the Persian. Regardless of what we now know to be true, historically, what is portrayed by the author must be taken into consideration based on what the author intended to convey. The distinction is clearly portrayed throughout Daniel.

Having said that, it seems clear that the author knew of the Medo-Persian empire when he refers to laws of the Medes and Persians as binding on Darius; when he, through the writing on the wall, interpreted the Babylonian kingdom would fall to the Medes and Persians; however, it should be noted that the author also specified that the Babylonian kingdom was to be divided between the two; when in chapter 8 he represents the Medo-Persian empire as a single animal, but draws a distinction between the two horns; etc. 

It is clear that the author saw the connection between the two, yet continued to represent them as two distinct, racial powers, and yet also allied. This is clearly seen in the Ram of chapter 8. Distinctions are drawn between the history of the two horns. One preceded the other, and was in some unspecified respect, unequal with the other.

The author clearly portrays the Medes as being dominant, at the time Babylon fell, and shortly changing over to the Persians as being dominant before the clash with Alexander the Great. In fact, history shows that the Medes were, at one time, dominant over the Persians. The author was clearly aware of this, and perhaps is the reason for the short reign in his writings. He felt a need to express the Medes, in the succession of dominating empires, as they were at one time clearly dominant.

It should also be taken into account that the author had no view of specific history as we do. The author did have Biblical accounts however. He may have easily been led to believe that the Medes were meant to conquer Babylon by reading Jeremiah’s prophecies. Perhaps also reading deutero-Isaiah could be reason for explaining the division of Babylon between the two.

In other words, the author believed both prophecies were fulfilled. He knew there had been a Median empire before the Persian. He knew the Medes had swept the Assyrians before and that they were expected to defeat the Babylonians (Jeremiah). He also knew that Cyrus had established supremacy over the Medes and that they had some hand in the fall of Babylon. He was presenting his story from what little news, or recorded historical accounts, that he had access to.

In all likelihood, this is how the Book of Daniel was passed down to us.  A Jewish author, in Jerusalem, takes the old Aramaic court tales (chs. 2–6), adds a Hebrew introduction (ch. 1), writes new apocalyptic visions in Aramaic and Hebrew (chs. 7–12), and turns the whole thing into a unified book of resistance theology against Antiochus IV. He keeps the traditional hero’s name — Daniel — and sets everything in the distant past to give hope: “God overthrew Babylon, the Medes, and Persia; He will overthrow the Greeks too.”

The intent of the author was to express the four kingdoms clearly presented in the overall text of Daniel… Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.  There is no other answer that could possibly fit.

Fourth Kingdom can ONLY be Greek

You would think that Daniel 2 would be a really easy topic to discuss.  Which four kingdoms did the author intend for us to realize as to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue?  

The author TELLS US who the four are!  Yet, so many still have to figure out this deep theological puzzle and get it to fit within their own theology...

The author only mentions four kingdoms all throughout Daniel… Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.  Early on, it was that simple.  It should be that simple now, but has been over-complicated down through the centuries.  

If nothing else, it should be absolutely crystal clear as to who is the fourth kingdom since the climax of discussion is Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Greece.

Epiphanes ("god manifest").  The Jews mocked him and referred to him as Epimanes ("the madman").

Despite the known authorship and historical detail issues with Daniel, Yeshua instructed us to pay attention to the Book of Daniel.  Why?  Because Yeshua was telling us that the recorded events, in Daniel, were about to repeat on a larger scale with the coming Antichrist.  

The overarching theme of Daniel is dealing with the fourth kingdom (Greece [yavan]) and Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid empire.  Daniel, or the author (or interpolator), does not mention Rome or the Islamic caliphate in any way, shape, or form.  Rome is not even on the author’s radar!  The Islamic Caliphate is a completely foreign idea for the author.  The fourth kingdom, by necessity of the overwhelming subject of Antiochus, must be Greece.  Antiochus is the climax of the prophecies as according to all of Daniel.

In other words, it doesn’t matter which kingdoms you believe the second and third to fall upon - Greece and Antiochus are in clear view as the fourth kingdom.  Especially in light of the fact that very little information is given concerning the second and third kingdoms.

The point is clearly this - the fourth kingdom rests solidly as Greece, within Daniel, and any argument against that fact cannot be solidly challenged by a definition of the second and/or the third kingdoms. 

Early on, the four kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue were universally interpreted as [1] Babylon [2] Media [3] Persia [4] Greece.  There is clearly evidence that shows a strong history of support for the second to be the Medes, third to be Persia, and fourth to be Alexander and his successors.

The Peshitta, for one witness, repeatedly and unambiguously refers to “the kingdom of Greece” (ܡܰܠܟܽܘܬܳܐ ܕܝܰܘܳܢ) in Daniel 8:21, 10:20, and 11:2.  It is one of the earliest witnesses that explicitly interprets the fourth kingdom / the he-goat / the final Persian king’s opponent as Greece, and not some other power.

The Roman Empire never even came to be considered until the Greek Empire had fallen without the prophesied establishment of the Abiding Kingdom.  In other words, the prophecy had come to no literal fulfillment in relation to the fall of the fourth kingdom - the Greek Empire.  

In the view of the early church, this necessitated a reinterpretation by those who began with the assumption that it should have been literally fulfilled at that time.  The Roman Empire had succeeded the Greek, yet the Kingdom of God had not appeared and had not yet began to overthrow all earthly empires of the statue.

Jewish interpreters were eager to adopt a Roman scheme, but whereas they looked for the fifth monarchy with the advent of the Messiah, Christians became divided.  They couldn’t agree as to whether the prophecies were dealing with the first advent, or the second, for fulfillment.

Their claim is that Rome fits admirably for the dual legs of iron.  However, none can show clear evidence as to which the duality belongs.  There were so many different interpretations - eastern and western emperors (yet nobody agrees as to which emperors);  two consuls (secular and ecclesiastical); two different forms of government (republic versus emperor); etc..  The same issues relate to “the mingling of seed”.  There was, nor is now, no clear consensus among those who hold to the Roman view.

The book of Daniel, itself, answers the duality and the mingling of seed in Chapter 11 with the historical weddings of both the Ptolemaic and Seleucid marriages… Greece again.

Once the Roman Empire fell, new difficulties then arose and brought about even more chaos while trying to cling to the belief that Rome was indeed the fourth kingdom.  Matters became even more chaotic when trying to decipher the ten horns.

Another argument against Rome is that the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and the Greeks, including the Seleucid, all existed within the theatre of the Middle East - as does all of prophecy.  Rome was never "Asiatic" in any sense.  As much as supporters try, Rome was never a legitimate successor to these empires.  Rome never swallowed up Babylon, nor any of Medo-Persia, which means that it could not be said that it’s collapse would cause the remainder to be smashed to pieces.

There are serious questions that cannot be answered concerning Daniel.  The authorship is seemingly not exclusively 6th century BC from Daniel’s time.  It was likely authored during the Maccabean period (2nd century BC).  Darius the Mede confusion also abounds and is confused with the other mentions of a completely difference Darius of the time.  Historically, we know that the Persians clearly overcame the Medes and then Babylon.  There are notably some problems with Daniel…

Having said that, Yeshua still directed us to pay attention to Daniel because the content was important.  Yeshua was telling us the same pattern that happened in 167 BCE (pagan ruler desecrates the Temple → faithful Jews suffer → God vindicates them) is about to repeat on a larger scale—and Daniel is still the key text for understanding it.

When determining the four kings/kingdoms of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, Antiochus, the Seleucid Ruler (Greek), must be considered.

There’s no question as to who the head of gold belongs to - Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom of Babylon.  There’s also no question as to the fourth - it’s clearly Greece.

Daniel gives us very little elaboration as to the second and third.

Yeshua directed us to Daniel.  Daniel tells us who the four kingdoms are.  It IS that simple.

People of the Coming Prince

Daniel 9:24-27 might be one of the hardest passages in all of Scripture to decipher. The original text seems to be intentionally ambiguous. We really are required to look at every little detail of this passage. Even after doing so, it's easy to come away from it still scratching your head.

Having just finished two blogs on Daniel 2 & 7 you'll see that Rome plays no part in those prophecies. However, Rome cohorts will point to this prophecy in Daniel 9 and the AD 70 destruction of the Temple to support their claim that the Antichrist will be of the revived Roman Empire.

Daniel 7 Beasts: Click Here! Nebuchadnezzar - The Great Statue: Click Here!

You may also want to review:

Seventy Weeks - Six Conditions: Click Here!

Now, moving on to Daniel 9...

Daniel was certainly trying to figure it out... Gabriel had to explain:

[Dan 9:22-23 LSB]  Then he made me understand and spoke with me and said, “O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding. [23]  “At the beginning of your supplications the word was issued, so I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so understand the message and gain understanding in what has appeared.

I'm not so sure Gabriel cleared everything up for us.

[Dan 9:26 LSB]  Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are decreed. 9:26a - And after the 62 weeks an anointed one shall be cut off... After the 69th week, but before, or at the start of the 70th - the "cut off" is the hinge event. The "textual hinge" is the pivot point at which the conversation changes. Christ was "cut off" when he died, was resurrected and ascended. "shall be cut off" → violent, premature, judicial death (same verb used for execution or excommunication in Lev 17:14; Isa 53:8; Ps 37:9). Was the Messiah cut off? Isaiah says "yes": [Isa 53:8 KJV]  He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. So, with "cut off" being the grammatical, textual hinge event, we could say that everything after may refer explicitly to the 70th week.

Certainly, we can say that the next events do not refer to the 69th and previous. In other words, all of the next events come after the 69th, with "cut off" being the textual hinge, but they may not necessarily refer explicitly to the 70th week as it is sometime in the future. Clear as muddy water, right? 9:26b - destruction of city & sanctuary + "until the end of the war decreed desolations" No week-number is given → grammatically still under the 70-week decree, but not explicitly confined to the 70th week. Most scholars place it within or at the end of the 70th. I mean... good grief! Doesn't it figure? One of the things we're trying to decide is whether the AD 70 destruction qualifies with the original text, and the grammar appears to be ambiguous with no textual clues like the next events below.

These are the only parts the Hebrew text explicitly tagged as belonging to the 70th week:

9:27a – the confirming/strengthening of a covenant for one week
9:27b – the cessation of sacrifice in the middle of that week
9:27c – the abomination and final judgment that run until the end of that same period

For me, concerning the Temple destruction, I would claim that it's safe, or at least reasonable, to assume that the destruction is tagged as a 70th week event by association to 9:27a-c.

We know for a fact that none of the events of 9:27a-c can be attributed to the AD 70 destruction.  Therefore the destruction of city and sanctuary, spoken of by Daniel, must be a 70th week event.

Safe to assume?  You know what they say about those who assume...

"and the people of the prince who is to come"

There are really only a couple of ways to view this.

[1] Almost every commentator, theologian, and scholar all point to the destruction of AD 70 under Titus and Rome. We all know that this historically happened.

I often wonder "what they would point to had that destruction not occurred?". I would think their only option would be to point to the 70th week. Unfortunately, they come up with all kinds of answers for that... they point to Antiochus, or Yeshua and a "spiritual" fulfillment, etc.

For the above situation, we need to determine who the "prince" is. If the prince is Titus, then "the people" belong to Titus. If the prince is the coming Antichrist, then "the people" belong to the Antichrist.

The prince cannot be Titus because Titus didn't "confirm a covenant", etc. All of these things did not happen in AD 70; there was no covenant, no sacrifices to stop, and no abomination set up in the holy place. The prince is not Titus.

Those who hold to the AD 70 destruction claim, either way - the people are Roman because it was Rome that destroyed the city and temple.

There are a couple of problems with this...

Some, correctly point out that by the late AD 60s, almost no ethnic Italian Romans were serving in the eastern legions. The Roman army had long since become a multi-ethnic imperial force drawn from the provinces. The soldiers who actually burned the Temple and razed Jerusalem were overwhelmingly Syrians, Arabs, and eastern provincials — many of whom hated the Jews with a passion (Josephus repeatedly notes their cruelty and that they acted against Titus’s orders in setting fire to the Temple).

The Hebrew Text

Anyone who claims that Daniel 9:26 teaches that the destroyers of Jerusalem (or their descendants) must be ethnically Roman, because of their association with Rome, is adding a meaning to עַם that the Hebrew language itself never gives. The Hebrew word simply does not work that way.

The Septuagint (LXX) Greek The LXX translators did not see any ethnic connotation in the Hebrew עַם at all. They rendered it with λαός, the standard Greek word - can be political, ethnic, or military (the same word used for “the people” of Israel, Egypt, Rome, etc., without implying race). They translated נָגִיד with ordinary leadership titles (ἄρχων / ἡγούμενος) that carry zero ethnic or national implication in either direction.

What we end up with is that the language does allow that "people" could in fact be referring to their ethnicity. Meaning, that Rome, or Romans, cannot be explicitly claimed just because Titus, of Rome, was in charge of the destruction.

[2] Most agree that "the prince who is to come" is the Antichrist. If the Antichrist "who is to come" is not yet here, neither are "the people". This points to the destruction of the city [Jerusalem] and the sanctuary [third temple] in the future. There's nothing in the original language to disallow this.

This, in turn, could point back to the ethnicity argument in [1] above. The "people" ethnically could still exist when the Antichrist arrives on the scene and become his people in that way.

Still commentators and other scholars all attempt to claim the "people" were either Roman or Arab - in each case, their claim is that Daniel 9:26 is automatically referring to AD 70 and by association the people are Roman. At this point in the discussion, I'm calling "BS".

I don't see anything in the text to dictate this assumption. Nothing in the verse itself forces an AD 70 fulfillment. Just because it did, in fact, happen doesn't mean that Daniel is automatically referring to that event. “The prince who is coming” (הַבָּא) is a future participle from Daniel’s standpoint (6th–5th century BC). It is the same future form used for the little horn in Daniel 7:8, 24 and the "willful king" in Daniel 11:36 — both universally recognized as still-future figures.

The question is, how far into the future? I'll be getting to the "little horn" and the "willful king" soon. In this case we're told "even to the end there will be war". "End" is pretty far into the future, wouldn't you say?

וְקִצּוֹ בַשֶּׁטֶף וְעַד קֵץ מִלְחָמָה נֶחָרֶצֶת שֹׁמֵמוֹת

Liiterally: "and its end with-a-flood, and until end-of war determined desolations"

קֵץ

Above is Daniel’s standard word for the final consummation (Dan 8:17, 19; 11:35, 45; 12:4, 9, 13).

This being the case, it is safe to say the "end" being referred to is, in fact, pointing to end-time events (consummation). The same prince appears again in the very next verse where he confirms a covenant for one week, stops sacrifice in the middle of the week, and sets up the abomination of desolation.  

[Dan 9:27 LSB]  And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will make sacrifice and grain offering cease; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate. Or, at least, that is the common interpretation. There's nothing in the text that forces the "he will make a firm covenant" to refer to "the prince who is to come".

Hebrew routinely allows a verb to refer back to the most important or most recent named individual, even across intervening material (resumptive pronoun). Which in this case could be "the anointed One", or the Messiah.

Normal default rule: the verb refers to the nearest eligible masculine singular antecedent. In this case, pointing to the "prince who is to come".

Obviously, most believe the "he" is referring to "the prince who is to come". This is just one of those "cover all your bases" issues.

The verse ends with "until the end [there shall be] war — desolations are determined" — an open-ended future, not a closed event in AD 70.

You make up your own minds... I'm not buying in to the AD 70 destruction and blaming it on the Romans.

As far as I'm concerned... Nicolae Carpathia, from the Left Behind series, is still out of work.

Ethnicity Background

A bit of background... historian Josephus tells us that Titus did not want the Temple destroyed.  The soldiers, "hurried on by a certain divine fury", started the fires against the orders of Titus.
Jewish War 6.4.3 (§241) “Caesarea [Titus] gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers as were of the greatest eminency… but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground… that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited.” Notice he distinguishes: the city was to be totally demolished, but the Temple is not included in that demolition order.

Jewish War 6.4.5–6 (§249–250) “Now although Titus was desirous to preserve the temple, and many times commanded the soldiers to extinguish the fire… yet one of the soldiers, neither awaiting any command nor dreading such a command from any one, but being hurried on by a certain divine fury, thrust a flaming brand… into the hinges of the gate.” Jewish War 6.4.7 (§254–260) Titus rushed into the burning building with his generals: “Titus… seeing that the temple was on fire, and that his preserving it was now impossible, ran out and with his own hands tried to stop the soldiers… but their passions were too strong… the flame now burst out and encompassed the whole temple.” 

Jewish War 7.1.1 (§1–4) (later reflection) “Titus himself said that he had not given orders to set fire to the temple, but that the soldiers had done it in spite of his commands.”

We also covered this above, but Joel Richardson claims that the "people" were in fact not ethnically Roman, only under Roman rule.  The people were soldiers recruited from Syrian (Arab) and Turkish regions. It's historically true that the Roman soldiers were not all "Italians" or of Roman ethnicity. As Rome expanded across territories it recruited from the people of those local territories to serve in those territories.

Seventy Weeks - Six Conditions

There are some, for example preterists, who will argue that all of these conditions have been fulfilled.

[Dan 9:24 LSB]  Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.

Let's break it down while keeping this in mind:  "Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people [Israel], and as to your holy city [Jerusalem]..."

[Dan 9:24 LITV]  Seventy weeks [490 years] are decreed as to your people [Israel], and as to your holy city [Jerusalem], [1] to finish [H3615 - kalah] the transgression [H6588 - pesha], and [2] to make an end [H8552 - tamam] of sin, and [3] to make atonement for iniquity, and [4] to bring in everlasting righteousness, and [5] to seal up the vision and prophecy, and [6] to anoint the Most Holy.

[1]  to finish the transgression - The Hebrew word for "finish" is: kālāh: A verb meaning to complete, to accomplish, to end, to finish, to fail, to exhaust. Its primary meaning is to consummate or to bring to completion. 

The Hebrew word for "transgression" is: peša‛: A masculine noun meaning transgression, rebellion. 

This should be obvious to most, but take a look around you in this world.  Has "rebellion" been brought to "completion"? 

Their claim is that at Yeshua's death, rebellion was restrained.

[2Ti 3:1-5 LSB]  But know this, that in the last days difficult times will come. [2]  For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3]  unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, without gentleness, without love for good, [4]  treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, [5]  holding to a form of godliness, but having denied its power. Keep away from such men as these. 

Contextually, this was admittedly written to Christians, but nonetheless can still be applied to Israel.

[2]  to make an end of sin - You might be asking "what is the difference between [1] and [2] ?".  The first deals with bringing Israel’s open rebellion to its appointed climax and end.  The second deals with removing the guilt of sin for God’s people forever.

The next question you should be asking is "Has Israel's sin been removed forever?"

The Hebrew word for end is: tāmam: A verb meaning to be complete, to finish, to conclude. At its root, this word carries the connotation of finishing or bringing closure.  In other words, it is never used as simply a restraint of anything.

Here we are told, without reservation, that transgression and sin themselves will be finished. There is no theology that can account for this other than a futurist view.  

A direct reference to this, in a prophecy concerning the Millennium, can be found in Ezekiel:

[Eze 37:21-23 LSB]  “And speak to them, ‘Thus says Lord Yahweh, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; [22]  and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms. [23]  “They also will no longer defile themselves with their idols or with their detestable things or with any of their transgressions; but I will save them from all their places of habitation in which they have sinned, and I will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I will be their God.

[3]  to make atonement for iniquity - Some will claim that this was fully accomplished at the cross.  Yes, Yeshua has reconciled us to the Father (2 Cor 5:18-19).  But I would submit that if we look at this in context, this is a prophecy about the Jews and Jerusalem.  

This won't be realized for the Jews until the Millennium.  Paul is quoting from Millennial passages in Isaiah:

[Rom 11:25-27 LSB]  For I do not want you, brothers, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; [26]  and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.” [27]  “AND THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

Paul, who was obviously writing after Christ’s death and resurrection, is saying that there is a yet a future "turning away of ungodliness" and a "taking away of sins" from national Israel.

[4]  to bring in everlasting righteousness - This is the only other one of the six prophecies that I might agree with the preterist by saying that it could indeed be said that everlasting or perpetual righteousness came in with Christ’s atoning death. Our righteousness is in Christ and is not dependent upon ourselves anymore if we are saved and therefore is everlasting. 

However this again has the weakness of requiring you to divorce this from the context of having to do with the Jews and Jerusalem.  This idea of bringing in everlasting righteousness, like the idea of a future ending of sin, is a common theme found in promises to Jerusalem about the future Kingdom age.

[Isa 62:1-3 LSB]  For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, And for Jerusalem’s sake I will not keep quiet, Until her righteousness goes forth like brightness, And her salvation like a torch that is burning. [2]  The nations will see your righteousness, And all kings your glory; And you will be called by a new name Which the mouth of Yahweh will designate. [3]  You will also be a crown of glory in the hand of Yahweh, And a turban of royalty in the hand of your God.

"...you will be called a new name"

[Eze 48:35 LSB]  The city shall be 18,000 cubits round about; and the name of the city from that day shall be, ‘Yahweh is there.’”

[5]  to seal up the vision and prophecy - this absolutely cannot happen until the end.  The prophecies of Jerusalem and its future judgment and subsequent restoration and reconciliation are the completion of all of Bible prophecy.

The almost last words of Yeshua in the Bible, which even a partial preterist would admit is still future, refer to a prophecy in Isaiah 11 being fulfilled concerning the root of Jesse.

[Rev 22:16 LSB]  “I, Jesus, sent My angel to bear witness to you of these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

All eschatological promises throughout Scripture, dealing with Israel, are yet to be fulfilled.  The promises to Israel are the final things that must occur.  The prophecy and vision cannot be sealed up until Yeshua returns completes His mission.  

[6]  to anoint the Holy of Holies - The temple that Ezekiel spends almost nine complete chapters describing at the end of his book has obviously never been built.  The size of this Temple is approximately equivalent to the size of the entire city of Jerusalem right now.

In other words this prophecy of anointing the most holy place is saying that there will be 70 weeks before the inauguration of the Kingdom age Temple of Ezekiel 40-48, a Temple that must be built in order to fulfill prophecy.

All six of these conditions will begin to be met upon the return of Yeshua.

Gog and Magog

Satan is bound at the beginning of the Millennial Reign:

[Rev 20:1-3 LSB]  Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. [2]  And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; [3]  and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were finished. After these things he must be released for a short time.

Yeshua has been reigning over an unprecedented time of peace during the Millennial Reign.  As seen above, Satan has been bound so that he would no longer be able to deceive the nations.

When Satan is released, from the abyss, he will draw the nations in for the Gog-Magog war:

[Rev 20:7-9 LSB]  And when the thousand years are finished, Satan will be released from his prison, [8]  and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. [9]  And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

Many try to equate the passage below with Armageddon - which clearly does not fit.  At the midpoint of the 70th week the Antichrist tramples Jerusalem and sets up the abomination of desolation.  Israel is not even close to being considered as living securely... it is mass chaos.  There's only one period of time that this could be speaking of and it is during the Millennial Reign of Yeshua.

[Eze 38:8-12 LSB]  “After many days you will be mustered; in the last years you will come into the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from many peoples to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual waste; but its people were brought out from the peoples, and they are living securely, all of them. [9]  “And you will go up; you will come like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land, you and all your troops and many peoples with you.” [10]  ‘Thus says Lord Yahweh, “It will be in that day, that thoughts will come into your heart, and you will devise an evil plan, [11]  and you will say, ‘I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who dwell quietly, that live securely, all of them living without walls and having no bars or gates, [12]  to capture spoil and to seize plunder, to turn your hand against the waste places, which are now inhabited, and against the people who are gathered from the nations, who have acquired cattle and property, who live at the center of the world.’

_______________________________________________

Theologians and commentators are all over the place when discussing the timing of this war.  Some claim the Gog-Magog war occurs before the 70th week, some claim the middle.  Some will claim this war is actually the Battle of Armageddon and that Gog is another name for the Antichrist.

It should be noted that every single ECF taught that this war occurred post-millennium.  In fact, they don't even mention Ezekiel 38-39 when discussing Revelation 20.  Why?  Because they assumed it was a given and obvious that Revelation 20 was discussing Ezekiel 38-39.  They absorbed it into Revelation 20 and therefore felt no need to cite it separately. The moment the church began to see a large chronological gap between the second coming and the Millennium (or abandoned literal premillennialism altogether), then people had to start explaining what to do with Ezekiel 38–39 and that only begins to happen in a major way with Jerome in the early 5th century. Jerome, deeply influenced by Origen's allegorical method, is the first claim that Revelation 20 was not dealing with Ezekiel 38-39 and is the major influence in western theology to this day. Don't forget - Jerome is also responsible for the whole "Lucifer" debacle that also influenced western theology.

Note that Jerome is responsible for a lot of bad theology in western Christianity. The above is one example, another is his addition of Rome and combination of Media and Persia for Daniel 2, and last (certainly not least) is the whole "Lucifer" debacle that personally created! You can find all of this in other blogs I've posted.

So the near-silence is not evidence that they rejected a pre-trib or mid-trib Gog war — it is evidence that they never conceived of one in the first place.

I also used to believe Gog was a name for the Antichrist.  Mostly because of this verse:

[Eze 38:17 LSB]  ‘Thus says Lord Yahweh, “Are you the one of whom I spoke in former days by the hand of My slaves the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days for many years that I would bring you against them?

I still can't explain that verse as "Gog" is prophesied about nowhere in Scripture other than Ezekiel.  One possibility is that the passage is proleptic: the passage could be written from the perspective of what those in Gog’s time will say when Gog appears on the stage of history. In other words, the prophesy referred to may be Ezekiel 38:17 itself.

Click here for more on Ezekial 38:17

Whatever it means, it is impossible for Gog to be the Antichrist.  The Antichrist and the false prophet are cast into the Lake of Fire at the end of Daniel's 70th week.

[Rev 19:20 LSB]  And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who did the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.

If the Antichrist is predisposed in the Lake of Fire he will still be unavailable at the end of the thousand year reign.  We're told explicitly that the Antichrist is STILL in the LoF when Satan is cast in.  

[Rev 20:10 LSB]  And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

We just read in Rev. 20:7 "when the thousand years are finished" that Satan will gather Gog and Magog to war.

This means Gog must be someone else.

He is the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:

[Eze 38:2-3 LSB]  “Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him

[3]  and say, ‘Thus says Lord Yahweh, “Behold, I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.

Some will claim that in the war prophesied by Ezekiel, Gog is the main aggressor, a man, whereas in Revelation 20, Satan is said to be the aggressor.  There is no Scriptural reason to expect that after the Millennium Satan will be somehow now be incarnate and will physically lead these nations to battle.  In fact, there is explicit evidence that he operates in the same way he always has after he is released... he is "to deceive the nations" to go to war.

Some commentators will claim that this alone is another argument against the timing.  Their claim is that in Ezekiel it is Yahweh that brings Gog to war:

[Eze 38:4 LSB]  I [Yahweh] will turn you about and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your military force, horses and horsemen, all of them magnificently dressed, a great assembly with large shield and shield, all of them wielding swords;

Their argument is that it is Satan, not Yahweh, who brings Gog to war in Rev 20:7.  Since when does Satan do anything against the will of Yahweh?  Yahweh has used Satan to accomplish His goals from the beginning.  

Their next argument is that the armies in Ezekiel come from the north; but in Revelation 20 the armies come from "the four corners of the earth". 

[Eze 38:15 LSB]  You [Gog] will come from your place out of the remote parts of the north, you and numerous peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great assembly and a numerous military force;

First, it is Gog who comes from "the remote parts of the north".  Secondly, as can be seen in the verses from Ezekiel below, the nations who join Gog come from all directions:

[Eze 38:5-6 LSB]  Persia [east], Ethiopia [south], and Put [Libya] with them, all of them with shield and helmet; [6]  Gomer with all its troops; Beth-togarmah from the remote parts of the north with all its troops—many peoples with you.

[Eze 38:13 LSB]  Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish with all its young lions will say to you, ‘Have you come to capture spoil? Have you assembled your assembly to seize plunder, to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to capture great spoil?’

[Eze 39:6 LSB]  “And I will send fire upon Magog and those who inhabit the coastlands securely [west]; and they will know that I am Yahweh.

Why they insist that the armies in Ezekiel only come from the north is beyond me.

Next, they'll insist "four corners of the earth" suggests a worldwide invasion, whereas Ezekiel is describing a coalition that is based primarily in the Middle East. 

The term "four corners of the earth" or "four winds", are often used interchangeably, and are terms which often refer only to the four compass points within a Middle Eastern context (Daniel 11:4; Jeremiah 49:36).  Sometimes, they're even used together:

[Rev 7:1 LSB]  After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree.

Gog and Magog clearly represent all rebel "armies" of the world who are deceived by Satan at his release.  

[Eze 38:18-23 LSB]  “And it will be in that day, when Gog comes against the land of Israel,” declares Lord Yahweh, “that My wrath will mount up in My anger. [19]  “In My zeal and in My blazing fury I have spoken that on that day there will surely be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. [20]  “And the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the beasts of the field, all the creeping things that creep on the ground, and all the men who are on the face of the earth will quake at My presence; the mountains also will be pulled down, the steep pathways will fall, and every wall will fall to the earth. [21]  “And I will call for a sword against him on all My mountains,” declares Lord Yahweh. “Every man’s sword will be against his brother. [22]  “With pestilence and with blood I will enter into judgment with him; and I will rain on him and on his troops, and on the numerous peoples who are with him, a torrential rain, with hailstones, fire, and brimstone. [23]  “And I will magnify Myself, I will manifest Myself as holy, and I will make Myself known in the sight of many nations; and they will know that I am Yahweh.”’

Ezekiel 39 then goes on to the burning of the weapons, etc. to purify the land.  Gog will be buried in the Valley of Armageddon.

[Eze 39:11 LSB]  “And it will be in that day, that I will give Gog a burial ground there in Israel, the valley of those who pass by east of the sea, and it will block off those who would pass by. So they will bury Gog there with all his multitude, and they will call it the valley of Hamon-gog.

[Eze 39:12 LSB]  “And for seven months the house of Israel will be burying them in order to cleanse the land.

There's nothing in Scripture that dictates that the Great White Throne Judgment must occur immediately at the conclusion of the thousand years.

It is worth noting that in Ezekiel and Revelation the assault follows the period of the messianic kingdom. In Ezekiel 36–37 Israel is restored to the land; then comes the warfare in chapters 38 and 39. This is followed by a portrayal of the eternal state under the figure of a rebuilt temple in the New Jerusalem (chaps. 40–48).  Mounce, Robert H.. The Book of Revelation (New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT)) (p. 371). Eerdmans. Kindle Edition.

While the New Testament has little to say about a temporal messianic kingdom, Ezekiel’s prophecy has the same basic structure as Rev. 20. Chapters 36–37 picture the salvation of Israel, restored to their land and blessed with the messianic salvation (see 36:24–29). The goal of the prophetic expectation, “you shall be my people, and I will be your God” (Ezek. 36:28) is now realized. David, God’s servant, will rule over his people, and God will dwell in their midst (37:25, 28). However, the blessing of the messianic kingdom is not the end. The kingdom is disturbed by an eschatological war led by Gog from Magog (chapters 38–39); and only after the divine victory do we have a picture of the eternal new order, which in Ezekiel is described in terms of a rebuilt temple in the new Jerusalem (chapters 40–48).8 This structure of a temporal messianic kingdom followed by the eternal kingdom in the new age is the same as that in Revelation.  Ladd, George Eldon. A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Eerdmans Classic Biblical Commentaries (ECBC)) (p. 270). Eerdmans. Kindle Edition. 

More to come on this topic...

Daniel 7 Beasts

Before beginning, note that most believe Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are equivalent - meaning, Daniel, in chapter 7, is retelling the story of the four kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar's statue in chapter 2.  In other words, the four kingdoms between the two chapters are identical.

Admittedly there are notable similarities, but I do not believe he is retelling the same story.  I may mention the similarities below, but these are clearly four kings/kingdoms that will arise, and exist at the same time, in the end.

This is one thing I agree with Chris White on, and he has already written it so concisely:

If you take the beasts in Daniel 7, that is a lion with wings, a bear, a four headed leopard, and a ten-horned beast, and you combined them all into one beast, you would have a seven-headed ten-horned beast with characteristics of a bear, a leopard and a lion, exactly what we see in Revelation 13.  White, Chris. Daniel - A Commentary (p. 113). CWM Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

[Rev 13:1-2 LSB]  And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names. [2]  And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority.

Below, I'll list some of the traditional beliefs (maybe some non-traditional), but I DO NOT believe these kingdoms are related to the statue kingdoms of Daniel 2.

Yahweh's Judgment on Israel:

[Hos 13:7-8 LSB]  So I will be like a lion to them; Like a leopard I will lie in wait by the wayside. [8]  I will encounter them like a bear robbed of her cubs, And I will tear open the chest enclosing their heart; There I will also devour them like a lioness, As a beast of the field would rip them open.

The events in Hosea, may be echoed here in Daniel (and Revelation), suggesting that the represented beasts are in some way expressions of Yahweh's intentionality with Israel.

Daniel 7 is focused on the expectation of an eternal dominion by the earthly representatives of Yahweh.

[Dan 7:18 LSB]  ‘But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come.’

The sea is often referred to as a symbol of chaos, and/or the multitudes of mankind.

[Dan 7:3 LSB]  And four great beasts were coming up from the sea, different from one another.

Something really interesting to notice is that the first and third beasts are types of "feline-birds"... meaning, "lion with eagles wings" and "leopard with bird wings".  If we equate both of these back to the statue in Daniel 2 we find that the first and third (Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus) were both authorized by Yahweh. 

Nebuchadnezzar - (Dan 2:37–38; 4:1–3 [3:31–33]; 5:18–22).

Cyrus - (Isa 44:24–45:8; Ezra 1:1–4), and later the Persians - (Ezra 6:1–12; Neh 2:1–8).

There's another similarity also - the first, "lion with eagles wings" is more noble than that of a "leopard with birds wings".  So, again in Daniel 7, we notice a progression of types as seen in the statue of Daniel 2.

Beasts two and four are a different story though.  They're both characterized as violent.  While Darius the Mede wasn't noted as being particularly violent, the nation of Media is portrayed in Scripture as violent (Isa 13:17; Jer 51:11, 28).  The fourth kingdom in both Daniel 2 & 7 are excessively violent and here in Daniel 7 they both have threatening teeth.

While the above are interesting similarities, these four beasts (kings/kingdoms) will all arise together in the same future timeframe, prior to the return of King Yeshua:

[Dan 7:17 LSB]  ‘These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth.

Three of them will survive, after the return of Yeshua, for yet another purpose of Yahweh:

[Dan 7:12 LSB]  As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was given to them for an appointed season of time.

The First Beast

[Dan 7:4 LSB]  The first was like a lion and had the wings of an eagle. I kept looking until its wings were plucked, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man; and a heart of a man was given to it.

Babylon has been described as a lion elsewhere in Scripture:

[Jer 4:7 LSB]  A lion has gone up from his thicket, And a destroyer of nations has set out; He has gone out from his place To make your land a desolation. Your cities will be turned into ruins Without inhabitant.

[Jer 50:17 LSB]  Israel is a scattered flock; the lions have banished them away. The first one who devoured him was the king of Assyria, and this last one who has broken his bones is Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.

Nebuchadnezzar also described as "a great eagle":

[Eze 17:3 LSB]  and you will say, ‘Thus says Lord Yahweh, “A great eagle with great wings, long pinions, and a full plumage of many colors came to Lebanon and took away the top of the cedar.

Again, speaking of the Chaldeans (Babylon):

[Hab 1:8 LSB]  Their horses are swifter than leopards And sharper than wolves in the evening. Their horsemen come galloping; Their horsemen come from afar; They fly like an eagle swooping down to devour.

The plucking of the wings have been seen as a removal of power.  Others have said it seems to be alluding the humanization as seen in the rest of the verse.  In either event, it is certainly reminiscent of what happened to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4, when his period of madness was restored to reason.

I think we're more likely looking for a "swift" and "mighty" nation.

[2Sa 1:23 LSB]  Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their life, And in their death they were not separated; They were swifter than eagles, They were mightier than lions.

If his wings were plucked, and his heart of a lion - changed to the heart of a man, I would say that this nation would no longer be swift and as bold as it once was.

The Second Beast

[Dan 7:5 LSB]  And behold, another beast, a second one in the likeness of a bear. And it was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth; and thus they said to it, ‘Arise, devour much meat!’

"Raised up on one side" seems to mean that the bear was in a threatening stance.  Some have concluded that it represented the Medes strength prior to Persia, but then being overcome by Persia.  One side may represent one part of the Medo-Persian alliance.

In biblical tradition bears were particularly associated with ferocity and often paired with lions (1 Sam 17:34–37; 2 Sam 17:8; 2 Kgs 2:24; Hos 13:8; Amos 5:19; Prov 28:15; Lam 3:10).  We know that the Medes did join forces with Babylon to finish off Assyria.

The earliest Peshitta Gloesses (3rd -5th century AD) specifically comments that the bear is to be recognized as the Medes:

Daniel 7:5 (Bear Gloss Variant): Syriac: ܗܕܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܡܕܝܐ (hda mlkwt' dmdy') Translation: "This is the kingdom of the Medes."

It is clear, that early on, only the context of Daniel was taken into account and they clearly believed the four were:  Babylon, Medes, Persians, and Greece.

The bear has already dug in to his lunch as he has three ribs in his mouth when he's told to "Arise, devour much meat!"

The three ribs likely represent some type of conquest over three others.

I would also note that almost every time a bear is figured in scripture the idea of it being, as it says here, “deprived of her cubs,” is mentioned. That is the biblical bear is the most ferocious when its offspring is threatened.  White, Chris. Daniel - A Commentary (p. 124). CWM Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Meaning, this nation may be acting out of some form of self-defense. 

The Third Beast

[Dan 7:6 LSB]  After this I kept looking, and behold, another one, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird; the beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it.

Again, from the earliest copies of the Peshitta Glosses:

Daniel 7:6 (Leopard Gloss Variant): Syriac: ܗܕܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܦܪܣܐ (hda mlkwt' dprsa) or ܕܦܪܣܝܐ (dprsya) in some copies. Translation: "This is the kingdom of Persia" (or "the Persians").

Not surprisingly, leopards are noted for their speed...

[Hab 1:8a LSB]  “Their horses are swifter than leopards...

They're also patient predators:

[Jer 5:6 LSB]  Therefore a lion from the forest will strike them down; A wolf of the deserts will devastate them; A leopard is watching their cities. Everyone who goes out of them will be torn in pieces Because their transgressions are many; Their acts of faithlessness are mighty.

[Hos 13:7 LSB]  So I will be like a lion to them; Like a leopard I will lie in wait by the wayside.

The four heads and four wings is likely pointing to the beasts universality.  It has also been claimed that it represents the divided kingdom after Cyrus, but none can agree as to the exact divisions.  In Daniel 2 the third kingdom is said to "rule over the whole earth", here the third beast is explicitly given dominion... "and dominion was given to it".

Once again, we're dealing with a swift nation, possibly a swift coalition of nations (four heads).  A leopard with wings is going to be patient but when it's time, it'll be moving fast.

The Fourth Beast

The legs or iron in Daniel 2 represented the divided kingdom suggesting that it referred to the two major successors to Alexander’s kingdom, the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties.

Here is the exact quote for the fourth beast in the same early Syriac Peshitta manuscript tradition (the one that splits Medes and Persians):

Daniel 7:7 (Fourth-beast gloss variant) Syriac: ܗܕܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܝܘܢܝܐ (hda mlkwtʾ d-yāwānyā) Translation: “This is the kingdom of the Greeks / Yawan.”

Here in Daniel 7 we seem to be focusing in on the Seleucid dynasty.

We'll not find a specific animal assigned, just a "fearsome and terrifying and extraordinarily strong" beast that was "different from all the" previous beasts.

[Dan 7:7 LSB]  After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, fearsome and terrifying and extraordinarily strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.

The iron teeth that "devour and crush" remind of the destructive power of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2.

Notice the phrase "it was different from all the beasts that were before it".

The word for "before" isn't speaking of something as occurring before in time.  It means, the other beasts were in front of it... meaning, they all coexist at the same point in time.

The main difference to notice about this fourth beast is the absence of any controlling Divine authority, or presence.

What is most important in the description, however, is the shift from the divine control over the first three beasts, represented through the use of the divine passive and direct command—and the fact that this different beast acts autonomously, signified by active verbs: eating and crushing and trampling.   Newsom, Carol A.. Daniel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) (p. 225). Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Kindle Edition. 

"and it had ten horns"

Horns are a common figure for royal power in the Bible (e.g., Ezek 29:21; Zech 1:18 [2:1]; Ps 132:17).

We'll see these ten horns again later in Revelation.

[Rev 13:1 LSB]  And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.