"7 After this I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, terrible and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things" (Dan. 7:7,8).

In these verses we have a description of the coming of the fourth beast, which was so very terrible and hideous that Daniel found no animal with which to compare it, since it was different from all the other beasts. According to him, "it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet." It had ten horns. In the midst of these there came up another horn, a small one, before which three of the ten were plucked up by the roots. This horn had eyes and a mouth that spoke words of blasphemy.

When one reads this passage, he instantly receives the impression that these are not literal beasts but are symbols. The data leading to this conclusion are the facts that the first one was like a lion and had eagle's wings. When these were plucked, it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it. The third one, like a leopard, had upon its back four wings of a bird, and it had four heads. Instantly one realizes that these are not literal beasts. If they are not, then they are symbols of something; for it is quite evident that they have some significance. The fact that such animals come out of the waters of the troubled sea and live upon the land likewise intimates that they are not literal animals. The impressions received from reading the passage are confirmed by the angel's interpretation, which is as follows: "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, that shall arise out of the earth" (Dan. 7:17).

From this statement it is clear that these animals are symbols of four kings. Concerning this position there can be absolutely no doubt; but these beasts also have another signification as is indicated by verse 23. "Thus he said, the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all the kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down and break it in pieces" (Dan. 7:23). I invite the reader to note carefully that the fourth beast, according to this verse, is "a fourth kingdom upon earth." In verse 17, as we have seen, these beasts are four kings; but, according to verse 23, the fourth beast is a fourth kingdom. This language, therefore, shows that the words, king and kingdom, are used interchangeably as they apply to these four animals. We must always remember that they have this twofold signification, and that we must examine minutely the immediate context of any statement to ascertain which of these definitions was in the writer's mind when he used one of the symbols in any given case. This is one of the fundamental principles in interpreting symbolic language. If it is ignored, hopeless confusion results; but, if this principle is recognized as all the facts are carefully weighed, a given passage will yield its rich and sacred meaning to the earnest student.

But there must be some fundamental reason underlying this double usage. I can call attention to it by relating the following circumstance. Some years ago Theodore Roosevelt split the Republican Party at the National Convention held in Chicago. His followers formed what became known as the Progressive Party. Shortly after that event a European came to America and asked how many parties we had in this country. The immediate reply was: "Three--Republican, Democrat, and Roosevelt." This answer was correct, for Theodore Roosevelt was the father of the Progressive Party. He was its life. When he died, it died and passed out of existence. Thus the witty reply that Roosevelt was the third party was in keeping with good usage. This story might be used as an illustration of the two-fold symbolic meaning of a beast. In a certain statement reference is made to the monarch; the beast therefore symbolizes the king. The facts of the immediate context however must make this meaning clear. Speaking figuratively, in such a connection the facts focus the spotlight upon the sovereign. The same symbol appearing in another context with different data refers to the realm over which the sovereign reigns. In this instance, the facts flash the floodlight over the entire realm. In view, therefore, of this double usage, one must be very careful to examine all the facts to determine whether the sovereign alone is in view or the kingdom is meant.

Having therefore learned that beasts when used symbolically have this twofold meaning, it is for us next to ascertain what four governments are symbolized by the beasts of this vision. When we lay Daniel 7 beside Daniel 2, immediately a parallel is suggested to our minds. There are four metals in the image of Nebuchadnezzar and four beasts of Daniel's vision. Following the fourth kingdom represented by the iron legs and the iron and clay toes is another one which is set up by the God of heaven, and which shall never pass to another people nor be destroyed. After the judgment, which is pronounced upon this fourth beast, one like unto a son of man comes before the Ancient of Days, receives a world-wide, everlasting kingdom, and establishes His reign of righteousness upon the earth. Without question the fifth kingdom of Daniel 2 is the kingdom of this "one like unto a son of man" of Daniel 7. The facts are plain, and the interpretation is sure. The image vision was given to Nebuchadnezzar in his second year. The beast visions were shown to Daniel in the first year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon. Let it be remembered that Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, whereas he was the recipient of the revelation concerning the four beasts. An angel however interpreted this vision to him. Daniel informed Nebuchadnezzar that he and his kingdom were symbolized by the head of gold, as we have already seen in the preceding study. The chest of silver signified a second kingdom, which succeeded Babylon, namely, Medo-Persia. The belly of brass represented the third world empire, Greece. The legs of iron and the toes of iron and miry clay set forth Rome.

Since both visions were given during the ministry of Daniel and have his day as their initial date, since both have the same terminus, since there are four kingdoms presented in each vision, and since they follow each other in succession (I shall below give the absolute proof on this point regarding the fourth beast), the irresistible conclusion is that these visions are parallel and refer to the same kingdoms but are viewed from different angles.

As an argument against this position, our attention is by some called to the facts that, in the Book of Daniel, we read of Babylon (chapter 2), and of the Medo-Persian Empire and the Greek kingdom (chapter 8), but that in no portion of Daniel do we see the name of Rome. It is concluded, therefore, by these expositors that the fourth empire symbolized by the legs of the image and the fourth beast of Daniel 7 cannot be the Roman Empire, but that it is some kingdom that arises in the end of the age. Everyone who knows the contents of the Book of Daniel admits that. Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece are mentioned by name in it, and that the name of Rome does not appear. This fact however does not militate against our identifying the fourth kingdom, mentioned in these two chapters, as Rome. We have already seen in the previous study that in the image there were no breaks, which fact signified the immediate appearance of one kingdom after its predecessor went down. Continuity appears in Daniel 7. One beast emerges from the troubled waters as its predecessor disappears. That this is true is evident from the phrase introducing verses 6 and 7: "After this I beheld." The expression in the original Aramaic (for this is the language in which chapters 2:4-7:28 are written) literally rendered is "in the place of this one." This phrase in its connection means that the third kingdom comes up and takes the literal place of the second one. In other words, the third beast, which is Greece, comes up out of the agitated political waters and takes the place of the second empire, Medo-Persia. When we look at the historical facts and study the marvelous career of Alexander the Great, we know what actually happened. Alexander marched against the Medo-Persian Empire, conquered its armies, incorporated the entire kingdom into his realm, and took it over. No one can for a moment question this fact.

This identical phrase--word for word--is used with reference to the appearance of the fourth beast. The latter comes up and literally takes the place of the third one. Now since we know literally what is meant with reference to the third beast's coming up after the second and its taking the place of its predecessor, we are forced logically by the facts to understand that the fourth beast takes the place of the third one in a manner similar to the third's taking the place of the second. Since the third literally followed the second and immediately took its place, we know that the fourth beast takes the place of the third in the same way. These facts drive us to the irresistible conclusion that the kingdom symbolized by the fourth beast actually, literally, and historically overcame and supplanted the Greek Empire, just as Greece formerly overcame and succeeded the Medo-Persian Kingdom. What empire overran Greece, conquered all of its territory, swallowed it up, and took its place? There is but one answer--Rome.

All of the facts set forth in the image vision and in that of the four wild beasts viewed in the light of history acclaim with no uncertain sound that these four beasts, as well as the four metals of the image, symbolize Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.

This position is the one taken by conservative scholars and is correct. Let us not discard a view that is supported by all the facts, and that has been held by godly, consecrated Bible scholars unanimously, for some theory that has been propounded in order to relieve the passage of a seeming difficulty. The Lord does not need our assistance. He said what He meant and meant what He said.

"I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousands of thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld at that time because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld even till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire" (Dan. 7:9-11).

What scene is this? Is this the judgment mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46--the judgment of the living nations which survive the Tribulation, and which are gathered before Christ at His second coming? By no means could it be this judgment, for, when Christ sits upon the throne of His glory, the Antichrist and all of his aides will have already been slain. Paul tells us that the Lord Jesus at His second coming will slay the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:8). The judgment of the living nations mentioned in Matthew 25 occurs after Christ has come to earth. But when this scene mentioned by Daniel takes place, the Antichrist will be in the plenitude of his power, hurling defiance against the Almighty. In view of these considerations and others that might be mentioned, one cannot identify this judgment as the one described by Jesus in Matthew 25.

But some take the position that the Ancient of Days mentioned in verse 9 of this passage is the same as the Ancient of Days described in verses 21,22 and that the latter passage undoubtedly refers to Christ and His judging the nations after His return. The Ancient of Days mentioned in verse 9 cannot possibly be the Lord Jesus Christ; but He is undoubtedly the Father, for, in the fourth vision of this series (verses 13 and 14), Christ is the one "like unto a son of man," who comes before the Ancient of Days and receives from Him the kingdom. Verses 21 and 22, in which the Ancient of Days again appears were spoken by the interpreting angel to Daniel as he explained the judgment to be pronounced by the Almighty upon the Antichrist. The Ancient of Days in both cases is therefore God the Father.

Since this angel came to Daniel's side and was explaining to him the significance of the visions which he had just seen, let us visualize the situation. We can then see more clearly the import of the language. Frequently I give stereopticon lectures. I throw a certain scene upon the screen and with my pointer explain the different objects that are pictured. For instance, if I show a picture of Jerusalem taken from the Mount of Olives, in the lower left-hand corner I point out the Dome of the Rock on the Temple area. In the lower right-hand corner I call attention to a building, most beautiful and modern, and explain that it is the million-dollar Rockefeller Museum. Moreover, I speak of the east wall of the city, giving special attention to the golden gate. Thus I explain the various objects of interest in the picture. In the same way the four visions were shown to Daniel. Figuratively speaking, they were thrown upon the screen. As Daniel gazed at them, an angel came to interpret to him their significance. As has been indicated above, Daniel wrote by inspiration the description of the four visions, which account is found in the first fourteen verses. By the same infallible guidance of the Spirit, he has recorded in the last fourteen verses the explanation which the angel made to him as he looked at these four scenes. There was before the prophet in the third vision the Ancient of Days, God the Father, sitting upon a throne of judgment, while the beast, the Antichrist, on earth hurled defiance and blasphemies at Him. The angel informed Daniel that the persecution of the saints (Jewish people) by the Antichrist continues up to the time when the Ancient of Days comes into the courtroom of heaven, takes His seat upon the throne, and pronounces judgment against the beast. All these facts show conclusively that the Ancient of Days mentioned by the angel could be none other than the One who sits upon the throne described in verse 9. These and other facts likewise prove absolutely that this judgment scene could not be the judgment of the living nations after Christ has returned to this earth.

After having disposed of the misunderstanding relative to this scene, let us look more closely at the revelation that is given in the verses just quoted. In order to do this, I wish to present an imaginary case. Let us assume that we are looking at a moving picture. This place is to have two screens, an upper and lower. The first two visions are thrown upon the lower screen. As we have seen, these two present the four beasts which appear in succession. We sit there with rapt gaze observing the coming forth of each of the beasts in succession; but our interest is immediately heightened, when we see the fourth one take the place of the third and observe him in all of his maneuvers and developments until finally he in arrogant pride and haughtiness defies the God of heaven. As we contemplate this picture and all of its implications, suddenly there is thrown upon the upper screen another picture giving a view of the supreme courtroom of the universe. Presently a throne is set. Then other thrones are placed around this one. When all things are ready, the Ancient of Days enters, attended by an innumerable host of angels. He takes his seat upon the throne. Then He pronounces judgment against the beast, the Antichrist, which, when carried out, causes his execution. He is then "given to be burned with fire." Thus is brought to a conclusion the proud and defiant career of this last world emperor.