Chapter 7

1 Daniel’s vision of four beasts. 9 Of God’s kingdom. 15 The interpretation thereof.

1. First year of Belshazzar. It should be pointed out that Daniel does not present the materials of his book in strict chronological order. The events of chs. 5, 6 took place after those recorded in the 7th chapter, but, doubtless for reasons of continuity, the historical narrative is carried through to completion in chs. 1–6. On the identity and place in history of Belshazzar see Additional Note on Chapter 5.

Had a dream. Literally, “saw a dream.” In a dream the Lord gave to Daniel a pictorial view of the future history of the world.

The prophecy of ch. 7 covers essentially the same span of history as the dream of ch. 2, both reaching from the prophet’s day to the time of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Nebuchadnezzar saw the world powers represented by a great metallic image; Daniel saw them as symbolic beasts and horns, and saw also aspects of history related to the experience of God’s people and the outworking of His plan. Chapter 2 deals largely with political matters. It was given, first of all, for the instruction of Nebuchadnezzar, to secure his cooperation in the divine plan (see on ch. 2:1). The relationship of the people of God to the shifting political scenes was not a subject of that prophecy. The prophecy of ch. 7, like those of the remainder of the book, was given especially for the people of God in order that they might understand their part in the divine plan for the ages. The inspired preview of events was given against the background of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. The efforts of the arch-enemy of souls to destroy the “holy people” were unveiled and the final victory of truth assured.

He wrote. So that it might be preserved for future generations.

Sum of the matters. The Aramaic words thus translated are particularly difficult to phrase in English. The word for “sum” is reХsh, which means “head,” or “beginning.” The original Greek version reads, eis kephalaia logoµn, which may be interpreted to mean “a summary.” Evidently what is meant by the expression is that Daniel wrote down and reported the chief contents of the dream. Ehrlich translates the phrase, “the important details.”

2. Winds. From the Aramaic ruach, equivalent to the Heb. ruach, which has a variety of meanings, such as “air” (Jer. 2:24, translated “wind”), “breath” (Job 19:17), human “spirit” (Ps. 32:2), divine “Spirit” (Ps. 51:12), and “wind” (Ex. 10:13). Metaphorically the word is also used of vain and empty things (Jer. 5:13). When used in symbolic vision, as here, the word seems to denote activity or energy of some form, the particular form to be determined by the context. For example, the “winds” of Ezekiel’s symbolic vision, which revived the dry skeletons, were representative of divine energy reviving the lifeless nation of Israel (Eze. 37:9–14). The “winds” of Daniel, which strove upon the great sea, causing four beasts—or empires—to emerge, represented those movements, diplomatic, warlike, political, or otherwise, that were to shape the history of the period.

The “four winds,” being from the four points of the compass, doubtless represent political activity in various parts of the earth (Jer. 49:36; cf. Dan. 8:8; 11:4; Zech. 2:6; 6:5, margin).

Strove. Aramaic guach, which means “to stir up.” The form of the verb suggests continued action.

Great sea. No specific body of water, such as the Mediterranean Sea, need be inferred. The sea is here symbolic of the nations of the world—the “great sea” of humanity in all ages (see Rev. 17:15; cf. Isa. 17:12; Jer. 46:7).

3. Four … beasts. The application of the symbol is not left to speculation. According to v. 17 the four beasts represent “four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.” For “kings” the LXX, Theodotion, and the Vulgate read “kingdoms.” The fourth beast is specifically called “the fourth kingdom” (v. 23). There is general agreement that these four beasts represent the same four world powers symbolized by the metallic image of ch. 2.

Came up. The world powers represented did not bear rule contemporaneously but successively.

Diverse. The diversity here spoken of was illustrated by the different metals presented (ch. 2:38–40).

4. Lion … eagle’s wings. An appropriate symbol for Babylon. The winged lion is found on Babylonian objects of art. The combination of lion and eagle was a common motif—more often a lion with eagle’s wings, sometimes with claws or a beak; a similar composite was the eagle with a lion’s head. The winged lion is one of the forms of the beast often pictured in combat with Marduk, the patron god of the city of Babylon. On these lion-eagle combinations see S. H. Langdon, Semitic Mythology (“The Mythology of All Races,” vol. 13), pp. 118, 277–282, and Fig. 51 facing p. 106 (winged lion), and pp. 116, 117 (lion- headed eagle); see illustrations of various Babylonian and Assyrian composite beasts in L. E. Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 50, 52.

Other prophets referred to King Nebuchadnezzar by similar figures (Jer. 4:7; Jer. 50:17, 44; Lam. 4:19; Eze. 17:3, 12; Hab. 1:8). The lion as the king of beasts and the eagle as the king of birds fittingly represented the empire of Babylon at the height of its glory. A lion is noted for its strength, whereas the eagle is famous for the power and the range of its flight. Nebuchadnezzar’s power was felt not only in Babylon but from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, and from Asia Minor to Egypt. Thus it is fitting, in order to represent the spread of Babylon’s power, that the lion should be provided with eagle’s wings.

Plucked. The lion was no longer able to fly like an eagle upon its prey. This doubtless refers to the time when less powerful rulers followed Nebuchadnezzar in the kingdom of Babylon, rulers under whose administration Babylon lost glory and power. Some have suggested a possible reference also to Nebuchadnezzar’s later life, when for seven years he was deprived not only of his power but also of his reason (ch. 4:31–33).

Lifted up. A lion standing erect like a man is indicative of the loss of lionlike qualities.

A man’s heart. King Richard’s nickname, the “Lion-Hearted,” ascribed to him unusual courage and boldness. Conversely, a “man-hearted” lion would indicate cowardice and timidity. In its declining years Babylon became weak and enfeebled through wealth and luxury, and fell a prey to the Medo-Persian kingdom.

Some see in the expression “man’s heart” the disappearance of the animal characteristic of greed and ferocity and the humanizing of the king of Babylon. Such could apply to Nebuchadnezzar after his humiliating experience, but would not be a fitting representation of the kingdom in its closing years.

5. A bear. The Persian, or Medo-Persian, Empire, corresponding to the silver of the image (see on ch. 2:39). As silver is inferior to gold, so, in some respects at least, the bear is inferior to the lion. The bear is, nevertheless, cruel and rapacious, characteristics that are attributed to the Medes in Isa. 13:17, 18.

On one side. The interpreter (v. 16) does not explain this feature of the vision. However, a comparison with ch. 8:3, 20 seems clearly to indicate that the kingdom was composed of two parts. Of the Medes and the Persians, the latter became the dominant power a few years before the dual empire conquered Babylon (see on ch. 2:39).

Three ribs. These are not mentioned in the interpretation (vs. 17–27), but many commentators have considered them a symbol of the three principal powers that were conquered by the Medo-Persian Empire—Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt (see on Isa. 41:6).

They said. The speaker is not identified. The subject should perhaps be regarded impersonally, “it was said.”

6. Like a leopard. The leopard is a fierce, carnivorous animal noted for the swiftness and agility of its movements (see Hab. 1:8; cf. Hosea 13:7).

The power succeeding the Persian Empire is identified in ch. 8:21 as “Grecia.” This “Grecia” must not be confused with the Greece of the classical period, inasmuch as that period preceded the fall of Persia. The “Grecia” of Daniel was the semi-Greek Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great (see on ch. 2:39), which inaugurated what is called the Hellenistic period. Not until Alexander’s day could reference be made to the “first king” (ch. 8:21) of a Greek empire who was “a mighty king” with “great dominion” (ch. 11:3).

In 336 Alexander succeeded to the throne of Macedonia, a semi-Greek state on the northern border of Greece. Alexander’s father, Philip, had already united most of the city-states of Greece under his rule by 338 b.c. Alexander proved his mettle by subduing revolts in Greece and Thrace. After order had been restored in his own kingdom, Alexander set himself the task of conquering the Persian Empire, an ambition he had inherited from his father. Among the factors that spurred the young king on in his plans were personal ambition, the need for economic expansion, the desire to spread Greek culture, and a not unnatural animosity toward the Persians because of their past relations with his countrymen.

In 334 b.c. Alexander crossed the Hellespont and entered Persian territory with only 35,000 men, the meager sum of 70 talents in cash, and but one month’s store of provisions. The campaign was a series of triumphs. The first victory was achieved at Granicus, the next at Issus in the following year, and the next at Tyre in the year after that. Passing through Palestine, Alexander conquered Gaza and then entered Egypt virtually unopposed. Here in 331 b.c. he founded the city of Alexandria. He declared himself the successor to the Pharaohs and his troops hailed him as a god. When he set forth again that year he directed his armies toward Mesopotamia, the heart of the Persian Empire. The Persians took their stand near Arbela, east of the junction of the Tigris and Great Zab rivers, but their forces were defeated and routed. The fabulous riches of the world’s greatest empire lay open to the young king, 25 years old.

After preliminary organization of his empire Alexander pushed his conquests to the north and to the east. By 329 b.c. he had taken Maracanda, now Samarkand in Turkistan. Two years later he invaded northwest India. Soon after crossing the Indus River, however, his troops refused to go farther, and he was forced to yield to them. Returning to Persia and Mesopotamia, Alexander was faced with the stupendous work of organizing the administration of his territories. In 323 b.c. he made his capital in Babylon, a city that still preserved reminders of the glory of Nebuchadnezzar’s day. In the same year, after a round of hard drinking, Alexander fell ill and died of “swamp fever,” which is thought to be the ancient name for, or counterpart of, malaria.

Four wings of a fowl. Although the leopard is itself a swift creature, its natural agility seems inadequate to describe the amazing speed of Alexander’s conquest. The symbolic vision represented the animal with wings added to it, not two but four, denoting superlative speed. The symbol most fittingly describes the lightning speed with which Alexander and his Macedonians in less than a decade came into possession of the greatest empire the world had yet known. There is no other example in ancient times of such rapid movements of troops on so large and successful a scale.

Four heads. Obviously parallel with the four horns of the he-goat, which represented the four kingdoms (later reduced to three) that occupied the territory of Alexander’s short-lived conquests (see on ch. 8:8, 20–22). For some years, however, Alexander’s Macedonian generals attempted to preserve, in theory if not in fact, the unity of the vast empire. Alexander died without arranging for the succession to his throne. First his weak-minded half brother Philip and then his posthumous son Alexander were the titular rulers under the regency of one or another of the generals, and the empire was divided into a large number of provinces, the most important of which were controlled by about six leading generals as satraps (see p. 824, map A).

But the central authority—that is, the regency for the two puppet kings—was never strong enough to weld the vast empire together. Through some 12 years of internal struggle, during which the control of various sections of the territory changed repeatedly, and during which both kings were slain, Antigonus emerged as the last of the claimants for central power over the whole empire. He was opposed by a coalition of four powerful leaders, Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy, who were bent on dividing the territory among themselves. In 306 Antigonus declared himself king (jointly with his son Demetrius) of the entire empire, the successor of Alexander. Thereupon the four allies, abandoning their subordinate title of satrap, declared themselves kings of their respective territories (see p. 824, map B).

The long life-and-death struggle over the question as to whether the empire should be united under Antigonus and Demetrius or divided by the four generals was settled by the Battle of Ipsus in 301 b.c. Antigonus was killed, Demetrius fled, and their territory was divided. This left, with the exception of the small fragments, four independent kingdoms (see p. 825, map C) in place of the huge empire that Alexander had won but had not been able to consolidate. Ptolemy had Egypt, also Palestine and part of Syria; Cassander had Macedonia, with nominal sovereignty over Greece; Lysimachus had Thrace and a large part of Asia Minor; and Seleucus had the bulk of what had been the Persian Empire—part of Asia Minor, northern Syria, Mesopotamia, and the east. Demetrius, reduced to control of a navy and a number of coastal cities, had no kingdom, though he later displaced the heirs of Cassander and founded the Antigonid dynasty in Macedonia.

About 20 years after the division the four were reduced to three, for Lysimachus was eliminated (see p. 825, map D). Much of his territory was taken by the Seleucid Empire, but part was overrun by the Gauls, or fell apart into small independent states, the most important of which was Pergamum. But Macedonia, Egypt, and the Seleucid Empire (sometimes known as Syria, for the eastern part was soon lost) continued on as the three major divisions of the eastern Mediterranean until they were absorbed, one by one, into the Roman Empire.

Many historians, especially writers of textbooks who must eliminate details in a broad survey, skip over the division into four and mention only the later and longer-lasting division into the three principal kingdoms that retained their identity into Roman times.

Some would seek to find the continuation of the four kingdoms on into the Roman period by reckoning Pergamum as the successor of Lysimachus’ short-lived kingdom. But regardless of whether we speak of three principal kingdoms and the much smaller Pergamum, or three kingdoms plus a group of smaller states, it is significant that at the critical time—when the last hope of holding Alexander’s empire together failed, and the division was inevitable—the whole territory, with the exception of minor fragments, fell into four kingdoms (see Alexander’s Empire as Arranged After His Death, The Principal Territories in Alexander’s Empire, Alexander’s Empire Divided into Four Kingdoms, Three Principal Kingdoms of Alexander’s Empire) as specified by prophecy (ch. 8:22). For the approximate boundaries of these four kingdoms, see maps in Willis Botsford, Hellenic History, facing p. 463; see discussion in Botsford, p. 454; W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation, [2d ed.], pp. 6, 9.

Alexander’s empire, even in its divided phase, was still a continuation and embodiment of its founder’s ideal—a Greco-Macedonian-Asiatic world of diverse peoples united by Greek language, thought, and civilization. Except for political centralization, the Hellenistic world constituted as much a unity as it had been under Alexander, and more so than had ever been achieved before. It was aptly represented by a single beast with multiple heads (or in ch. 8, with multiple horns). For the Hellenistic period and the rise of Rome see article on the intertestament period in Vol. V.

7. Fourth beast. Compare v. 19. There was, presumably, no parallel in the natural world by which to designate this hideous creature, for no comparison is made as in the case of the first three beasts. There should be no question, however, but that it represents the same power that is portrayed by the iron legs of the great image (see on ch. 2:40).

It is clear from history that the world power succeeding the third prophetic empire was Rome. However, the transition was gradual so that it is impossible to point to a specific event as marking the change. As already stated, the empire of Alexander was divided after 301 into four (later three) Hellenistic kingdoms (see on ch. 8:8), and their replacement by the Roman Empire was a gradual process in several principal stages. Writers differ in attempting to choose a significant turning point.

By 200 b.c., when Carthage was no longer a rival (although it was not destroyed until more than half a century later), Rome was the mistress of the western Mediterranean and had begun to enter into contacts with the East, where she was thenceforth to become dominant also. In 197 Rome defeated Macedonia and set up the Greek states under her own protection. In 190 Rome defeated Antiochus III and took the Seleucid territory as far east as the Taurus Mountains. In 168, at the Battle of Pydna, Rome ended the monarchy in Macedonia, dividing it up into four confederacies; and probably in the same year warned Antiochus IV away from his attack on Egypt. In 146 Rome annexed Macedonia as a province and placed most of the Greek cities under the governor of Macedonia.

If Rome’s mastery of the East is reckoned from the removal of the monarchs of the three Hellenistic kingdoms, by Roman power, the date 168 may be regarded as the first step in the process. However, the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kings remained on their thrones till much later, 63 in Syria and 30 in Egypt. If the dates of the annexation of these three kingdoms as Roman provinces are chosen, the dates would be 146, 64, and 30 respectively. Some historians emphasize 168 because by that time Rome had conquered Macedonia and had saved Egypt from falling to the Seleucid kingdom by merely forbidding the invasion of Antiochus IV. This demonstrated that Rome virtually controlled all three kingdoms even though she had as yet conquered only one of them.

No single date can be given for a gradual process. Regardless of one’s choice of the most significant date or dates, the change of world power to Rome is clear, and the absorption of the territory of Alexander from Macedonia to the Euphrates was completed in 30 b.c. See article on the intertestament period in Vol. V.

Great iron teeth. These enormous metallic teeth speak of cruelty and strength. As the animal tore to pieces and devoured its prey with these grotesque fangs, so Rome devoured nations and peoples in its conquests. Sometimes whole cities were destroyed, as in the case of Corinth in 146 b.c., then again kingdoms, such as Macedonia and the Seleucid dominions had been, were divided into provinces.

The Chief Provinces of Alexander’s Empire as Arranged After His Death in 323 B.C.

The Principal Territories in Alexander’s Empire in 311 B.C.

Alexander’s Empire Divided Into Four Kingdoms in 301 B.C.

The Three Principal Kingdoms of Alexander’s Empire in 280 B.C.

Stamped the residue. Where Rome did not destroy or subjugate a people, it often employed them as slaves or sold them into slavery. In the intensity of its power to destroy, Rome surpassed the kingdoms that had previously ruled the world.

Ten horns. Explained as “ten kings” (v. 24). If the “four kings” of v. 17 represent kingdoms (see on v. 3), parallel to the four empires of ch. 2, then there is fully as much reason to understand these “ten kings” as kingdoms also, even as the four horns of the goat are “four kingdoms” (ch. 8:22). The successive invasions of the Roman Empire by numerous Germanic tribes, and the replacement of the empire by a number of separate states or monarchies, are well established facts of history. Owing to the fact that a score or more barbarian tribes invaded the Roman Empire, commentators have compiled various lists of the kingdoms that were founded. The following list is representative: Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Vandals, Suevi, Alamanni, Anglo-Saxons, Heruli, Lombards, Burgundians. Some prefer to list the Huns in place of the Alamanni, however the Huns disappeared early without leaving a settled kingdom. The period was one of great upheaval, confusion, and change, during which a large number of states secured their independence.

8. Another little horn. Better, “another horn, a little one.” Though small at the beginning, this little horn is described later as “more stout than his fellows,” literally, “greater than its companions.” It will be seen that this was the continuation of the Roman power in the Roman Church.

“Out of the ruins of political Rome, arose the great moral Empire in the ‘giant form’ of the Roman Church”

(A. C. Flick, The Rise of the Medieval Church [1900], p. 150). See further on vs. 24, 25.

“Under the Roman Empire the popes had no temporal powers. But when the Roman Empire had disintegrated and its place had been taken by a number of rude, barbarous kingdoms, the Roman Catholic church not only became independent of the states in religious affairs but dominated secular affairs as well. At times, under such rulers as Charlemagne (768–814), Otto the Great (936–73), and Henry III (1039–56), the civil power controlled the church to some extent; but in general, under the weak political system of feudalism, the well-organized, unified, and centralized church, with the pope at its head, was not only independent in ecclesiastical affairs but also controlled civil affairs”

(Carl Conrad Eckhardt, The Papacy and World-Affairs [1937], p. 1).

Before. Aramaic qodam, a word occurring frequently in Daniel, meaning either “before in point of time,” or “in the presence of.” The phrase “before whom” may be interpreted as meaning “to make way for him.”

Three of the first horns. The “little horn” is a symbol of papal Rome. Hence the plucking up of three horns symbolizes the overthrow of three of the barbarian nations. Among the principal obstructions to the rise of papal Rome to political power were the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths. All three were supporters of Arianism, which was the most formidable rival of Catholicism.

The Heruli were the first of the barbarian tribes to rule over Rome. They were German auxiliary troops in Rome who mutinied, and in 476 deposed the boy Romulus Augustus, the last emperor of the West. At the head of the Heruli and the other mercenary troops was Odovacar (Odoacer), who made himself king in Rome. Odovacar, an Arian, though tolerant toward the Catholics, was hated by the Italians. At the suggestion of the Emperor Zeno of the Eastern Empire, Theodoric, leader of the Ostrogoths, next invaded Italy. He arrived there in 489, and in 493 secured Odovacar’s surrender and soon afterward killed him (see Thomas Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, vol. 3, pp. 180–213).

So far as the position of the Roman Church was concerned the arrival of Theodoric marked no change for the better, but merely a change of leaders. Theodoric was as strong an Arian as his predecessor on the throne of Italy. Although he granted toleration to the various religions in his kingdom, the lofty ambitions of the Roman pontiff could not succeed under a system that granted only toleration.

In the meantime the Vandals, led by Gaiseric (Genseric), had settled in North Africa, having taken Carthage in 439. Being fanatically Arian and warlike, they posed a threat to the supremacy of the Catholic Church in the West. They were particularly intolerant toward the Catholics, whom they termed heretics. To help the cause of the Catholics in the West the Emperor Justinian, who ruled the Eastern half of the Roman Empire in Constantinople, dispatched Belisarius, the ablest of his generals. Belisarius completely vanquished the Vandals in 534.

This victory left the Ostrogoths in Italy as the sole surviving Arian power of significance to hinder the hegemony of the papacy in the West (see Hodgkin, op. cit., vol. 3, ch. 15). Having wiped out the Vandals, Belisarius in 534 began his campaign against the Ostrogoths in Italy. Though this campaign lasted for twenty years before the imperial armies emerged completely victorious (see Hodgkin, op. cit., vol. 5, pp. 3–66), the decisive action occurred early in the campaign. The Ostrogoths, who had been driven from Rome, returned and laid siege to it in 537. The siege lasted for a full year, but in 538 Justinian landed another army in Italy, and in March the Ostrogoths abandoned the siege (see Hodgkin, op. cit., vol. 4, pp. 73–113, 210–252; Charles Diehl, “Justinian,” in Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 2, p. 15). It is true that they re-entered the city for a very brief time in 540, but their stand was short-lived. Their withdrawal from Rome in 538 marked the real end of Ostrogothic power, though not of the Ostrogothic nation. Thus was “plucked up” the third of the three horns that stood in the way of the little horn.

Justinian is noted not only for his success in temporarily reuniting Italy and parts of the West with the Eastern half of what had been the Roman Empire, but also for the gathering and organizing of the then-existing laws of the empire, including new edicts of Justinian himself, into a unified code. Incorporated into this imperial code were two official letters of Justinian, which had all the force of royal edicts, in which he legally confirmed the bishop of Rome as the “head of all the holy churches” and “head of all the holy priests of God” (Code of Justinian, book 1, title 1). In the later epistle he also commends the pope’s activities as corrector of heretics.

Although this legal recognition of the pope’s ecclesiastical supremacy was dated in 533, it is obvious that the imperial edict could not become effective for the pope so long as the Arian Ostrogothic kingdom was in control of Rome and the greater part of Italy. Not until the rule of the Goths was broken could the papacy be free to develop fully its power. In 538, for the first time since the end of the Western imperial line, the city of Rome was freed from the domination of an Arian kingdom. In that year the Ostrogothic kingdom received its deathblow (although the Ostrogoths survived some years longer as a people). That is why 538 is a more significant date than 533.

To summarize: (1) The pope had already been recognized generally (though by no means universally) as supreme bishop in the churches of the West, and had exercised considerable political influence, from time to time, under the patronage of the Western emperors. (2) In 533 Justinian recognized the pope’s ecclesiastical supremacy as “head of all the holy churches” in both East and West, and this legal recognition was incorporated into the imperial code of laws (534). (3) In 538 the papacy was effectively freed from the domination of the Arian kingdoms that followed the Western emperors in the control of Rome and Italy. From then on the papacy was in a position to increase its ecclesiastical power. The other kingdoms became Catholic, one by one, and since the distant Eastern emperors did not retain control of Italy, in the turbulent developments that followed, the pope emerged often as the leading figure in the West. The papacy acquired territorial rule and eventually it reached its peak in political as well as religious dominance in Europe (see Additional Note at the end of this chapter). Though this dominance came much later, the turning point can be found in the time of Justinian.

Some find it significant that Vigilius, the pope who held office in 538, had, the year before, replaced a pope who had been under Gothic influence. The new pope owed his office to the Empress Theodora, and was regarded by Justinian as the means of uniting all the churches, East and West, under his own imperial dominance. It has been pointed out that, beginning with Vigilius, the popes were more and more men of the state as well as of the church, and often became rulers of the state (Charles Bemont and G. Monod, Medieval Europe, p. 121).

This horn. With the ten horns representing the divided state of the Roman Empire after its fall (see on v. 7), the little horn must represent some power that would come into being among them and take the place of some of these kingdoms (see quotation in comments on ch. 8:23).

Eyes. Generally taken to be a symbol of intelligence. In contrast with the barbarians, who were largely illiterate, the power represented by the “little horn” was noted for its intelligence, its insight, and its foresight.

Speaking great things. See on v. 25.

9. Cast down. Aramaic remah. The word also means “to place,” or “to set up,” though it may also mean to throw (chs. 3:20; 6:16, 24). The LXX has titheµmi, which is defined, “to set up,” “to place,” “to erect.” The translation “cast down” seems to have been based on an interpretation that regarded the thrones as belonging to the beasts. A symbolic representation of the great final assize, fixing the destinies of men and of nations, is here brought to view.

The Ancient of days. The Aramaic reads literally, “an Ancient of days,” or “One, ancient of days.” The expression is descriptive rather than being a title. The article is used in vs. 13, 22 as an article of previous reference, that is, its function is to refer to the Being earlier described. God the Father is represented.

Whose garment. Caution must be exercised when interpreting the representations of symbolic visions. “No man hath seen God at any time” (John 1:18). Daniel saw only a representation of the Deity. To what extent the representation reflected the reality cannot be known. In vision Deity is presented in various forms, the form assumed generally having reference to the teaching objective of the vision. In a vision of the second advent, John saw Jesus as sitting upon a white horse, clothed in a garment dipped in blood, and having a sword proceeding out of His mouth (Rev. 19:11–15). Obviously we do not expect to see our Saviour thus clothed, equipped, or mounted when He returns. But each of these features has instructive value (see on Rev. 19:11–15). In Daniel’s vision we may see in the white garment a symbol of purity and in the white hair a mark of antiquity, but to go beyond symbolization and to speculate on the appearance of Him who dwelleth “in the light which no man can approach unto” (1 Tim. 6:16) is to enter the realm of forbidden theorizing (see 8T 279). That God is a personal being cannot be doubted. “God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being, for man was made in His image” (8T 263). “Let none indulge in speculation regarding His nature. Here silence is eloquence” (8T 279). On the interpretation of symbolic visions see on Eze. 1:10.

10. Thousand thousands. These represent the heavenly angels who wait before the Lord and are ever attendant on His will. The angels perform an important part in the judgment. They function as both “ministers and witnesses” (GC 479).

Was set. Or, “began to sit.” Daniel is shown the final judgment in both its phases, investigative and executive.

In the investigative judgment the records of all who have at one time or another professed allegiance to Christ will be examined. The investigation is not conducted for the information of God or of Christ, but for the information of the universe at large—that God may be vindicated in accepting some and rejecting others. Satan claims all men as his lawful subjects. Those for whom Jesus pleads in judgment, Satan accuses before God; but Jesus defends their penitence and faith. As a result of the judgment a register of those who will be citizens of the future kingdom of Christ will have been made up. This register includes the names of men and women from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. John speaks of the ransomed in the new earth as “the nations” of the saved (Rev. 21:24).

The books were opened. Compare Rev. 20:12. The following classification appears in GC 480, 481: (1) the book of life, wherein are recorded the names of all those who have accepted the service of God; (2) the book of remembrance, a record of the good deeds of the saints; and (3) a record of the sins of men. In the record of a vision of the executive phase of the judgment at the end of the 1000 years the following classification appears: (1) the book of life, containing a record of the good deeds of the saints; (2) the book of death, containing the record of the evil deeds of the unrepentant, (3) the statute book, the Bible, according to whose standard men are judged (EW 52).

11. I beheld. In prophetic vision Daniel saw one event rapidly following another. Note the repetition of the statements “I beheld” and “I saw” throughout the narrative of the visions. These clauses introduce the transition from one scene to the next.

Great words. See on v. 25.

Was slain. This represents the end of the system, or organization, symbolized by the horn. Paul presents the same power under the title “man of sin,” “son of perdition,” “that Wicked,” and speaks of its destruction at the second coming of Christ (2 Thess. 2:3–8; cf. Rev. 19:19–21).

12. Dominion taken away. The territory of Babylon was made subject to Persia, yet the subjects of Babylon were allowed to live on. Similarly, when Macedonia conquered Persia and when Rome conquered Macedonia, the inhabitants of the conquered countries were not destroyed. With the final destruction of the little-horn power the whole world will be depopulated (see on v. 11).

13. Like the Son of man. Aramaic kebar Хenash, literally, “like a son of man.” According to Aramaic usage, the phrase could be rendered “like a man” (Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Arama?ischen [Halle, 1927], p. 315d). The LXX has, hoµs huios anthroµpou, also literally, “like a son of man.”

Many of the revised translations (see RV, RSV, etc.) follow this literal rendering. Some have felt that such a rendering detracts from the majesty of our Redeemer. The English phrase “a son of man” is admittedly indefinite in tone. However, the corresponding phrase in the Aramaic is full of meaning. Along with other ancient languages, the Aramaic omits the article when the primary stress is upon quality, and uses it when the stress is on identity. The normal order in prophetic narrative is for the prophet first to describe what he has seen, and later to give attention to identity. Prophetic items are usually introduced without the article. When subsequently referred to, the article is employed (see on v. 9). Thus there were “four great beasts” (v. 3), not “the four great beasts,” but later “all the beasts” (v. 7). The Ancient of days was introduced as “One, ancient in days” (see on v. 9) but later referred to as “the Ancient of days” (vs. 13, 22; see on v. 9). Compare further, “a ram” and “the ram,” “two horns” and “the two horns,” “an he goat” and “the he goat” (ch. 8:3–8), etc. In harmony with this rule the Son of God is introduced literally as “One, of human form.” He is not again referred to by this expression in this prophecy. If He were, the definite article would probably appear. In the NT the expression “Son of man” which most commentators agree is based on ch. 7:13, occurs almost invariably with the article.

Instead of the translation “a son of man” the translation “One, human in form” would more adequately represent the Aramaic phrase. God chose to present His Son in prophetic vision with special emphasis on His humanity (see MB 14).

At the incarnation the Son of God took upon Himself the form of humanity (John 1:1–4, 12, 14; Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:14; etc.) and became the Son of man (see on Mark 2:10), so uniting divinity with humanity by a tie never to be broken (DA 25). Thus, repentant sinners have as their representative before the Father “one like” themselves, One who was in all points tempted like as they are and who is touched with the feeling of their infirmities (Heb. 4:15). Comforting thought!

Came to the Ancient of days. This cannot represent the second coming of Christ to this earth, for Christ comes to “the Ancient of days.” The coming of Christ to the most holy place for the cleansing of the sanctuary is here represented (GC 426, 480).

14. Given him dominion. In Luke 19:12–15 Christ is represented as a nobleman who took his journey into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. At the close of His priestly ministry in the sanctuary, while still in heaven, Christ receives the kingdom from His Father and then returns to earth for His saints (see GC 428; EW 55, 280).

15. Grieved. Aramaic kerah, “to be distressed.”

16. One of them. This being is not identified. Here, Daniel is still in vision, and the being he addresses is probably one of the attendants at the judgment. Whenever we inquire with a sincere heart for spiritual enlightenment, the Lord has one standing by to help us. Angels are eager to communicate truth to men. They are ministering spirits (Heb. 1:14), commissioned by God to bring messages from heaven to earth (Acts 7:53; Heb. 2:2; Rev. 1:1).

17. Four kings. See on vs. 3–7.

18. Take the kingdom. All earthly kings and governments will pass away, but the kingdom of the Most High will endure forever. The usurpation and misrule of the wicked may last for a time, but soon it will be at an end. Then this earth will be restored to its rightful Owner, who will share it with the saints. Those who have long been destitute and despised by men will soon be honored and exalted by God.

For ever, even for ever and ever. The repetition of the phrase emphasizes the idea of perpetuity. There is nothing transitory about the occupancy of the restored earth. The lease will never expire, and the inhabitants will be secure in their own dwelling places. “They shall not build” only to have someone else take over the building. “They shall not plant,” and another eat the fruit, for the “elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands” (Isa. 65:22).

19. Know the truth. Compare v. 7. Daniel repeats the specifications earlier described. He is particularly interested in the fourth beast so different in appearance and activity from the preceding. His query dramatically focuses attention on the great persecuting power of history (see on vs. 24, 25).

20. Stout. Aramaic rab, “large,” “great,” “big.” The clause reads literally, “whose appearance was bigger than that of its companions.” Though small at the beginning, this little horn grew until it became greater than any of the other horns. This power would gain superiority over all other earthly powers. For an interpretation of the specifications here noted, see on vs. 24, 25.

21. Made war with the saints. This little horn represented a persecuting power, carrying on a campaign of extermination against the people of God (see on v. 25).

Prevailed against them. For many long centuries (see on v. 25) the saints seemed to be helpless against this destructive force.

22. Ancient of days came. Daniel is relating events as they appeared to him in vision. By thecoming of the Ancient of days he means the appearance of this Being on the prophetic screen. On the significance of the events see on vs. 9–14.

Judgment was given. Not only would judgment be given in favor of the saints, but according to Paul (1 Cor. 6:2, 3) and John (Rev. 20:4) the saints will assist in the work of judgment during the 1000 years (see GC 661).

23. Devour. See on v. 7.

24. Ten horns. On the divisions of the Roman Empire see on v. 7.

From the first. Better, “from the former [horns].” The word for “first” is plural. The former represented political kingdoms. The power represented by this unique horn was religio-political in nature. The papacy was an ecclesiastical kingdom ruled over by a pontiff; the other kingdoms were political powers ruled by kings.

25. Great words. Aramaic millin (singular millah), simply, “words.” The word “great” is supplied. The expressions “great things” (v. 8) and “very great things” (v. 20) are translations of the Aramaic rabreban.Millah is translated “thing” in chs. 2:5, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17; 4:33; 5:15, 26; 6:12; “matter” in chs. 2:23; 7:1, 28; “word” in chs. 2:9; 3:28; 4:31; 5:10; 7:11, 25; and “commandment” in ch. 3:22.

Against. Aramaic les\ad. S\ad literally means “side.” Les\ad may be interpreted as meaning “over against,” implying that in its opposition to the Most High the little horn would set itself up as being equal with God (see on 2 Thess. 2:4; cf. Isa. 14:12–14).

Ecclesiastical literature is replete with exhibits of the arrogant, blasphemous claims of the papacy. Typical examples are the following extracts from a large encyclopedic work written by a Roman Catholic divine of the 18th century:

“The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. …

“The Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions. …

“The Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been intrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom. …

“The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine laws. …

“The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing his sheep.

“Whatever the Lord God himself, and the Redeemer, is said to do, that his vicar does, provided that he does nothing contrary to the faith”

(translated from Lucius Ferraris, “Papa II,” Prompta Bibliotheca, Vol. VI, pp. 25–29).

Wear out. Or, “wear away.” The event is earlier described in the words, “the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them” (v. 21). The phrase depicts continuous and relentless persecution. The papacy acknowledges that it has persecuted, and defends such acts as a legitimate exercise of power presumably granted her by Christ. The following is from The Catholic Encyclopedia:

“In the Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ (1252) Innocent IV says: ‘When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestа or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them.’ … Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions ‘Commissis nobis’ and ‘Inconsutibilem tunicam.’ The aforesaid Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or re-enforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254–61), Clement IV (1265–68), Nicholas IV (1288–92), Boniface VIII (1294–1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake”

(Joseph Blцtzer, art. “Inquisition,” Vol. VIII, p. 34).

Think. Aramaic sebar, “to mean to,” “to intend,” “to strive,” “to endeavor.” A deliberate attempt is indicated (see GC 446).

Times. Aramaic zimnin (singular, zeman), a term denoting fixed time, as in chs. 3:7, 8; 4:36; 6:10, 13, or a period of time, as in chs. 2:16; 7:12 (where zeman is translated “season”). A suggestion as to the meaning of the expression of the expression “to change times” is given in ch. 2:21, where the identical Aramaic words for “change” and “times” are again coupled together. However, Daniel there ascribes to God the prerogative to change times. It is God who has the destiny of nations under His control. It is He who “removeth kings, and setteth up kings” (ch. 2:21). “Above, and through all the play and counter-play of human interests and power and passions, the agencies of the all-merciful One, [are] silently, patiently working out the counsels of His own will” (Ed 173). It is God who determines also the “time” (Aramaic zeman) that the saints shall possess the kingdom (ch. 7:22). For the little horn to endeavor to change times would indicate a deliberate attempt to exercise the prerogative of God in shaping the course of human history.

Laws. Aramaic dath, used of both human (chs. 2:9, 13, 15; 6:8, 12, 15) and divine (Ezra 7:12, 14, 21, 25, 26) law. Here it is evident that divine law is referred to, inasmuch as human law is changed at will by those in authority, and such changes would hardly become the subject of prophecy. Inquiring as to whether the papacy has endeavored to change divine law, we find the answer in the great apostasy of the early Christian centuries that introduced numerous doctrines and practices contrary to the will of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. The most audacious change was in the matter of the weekly day of worship. The apostate church freely admits it is responsible for the introduction of Sunday worship, claiming that it has the right to make such changes (see GC 446). An authoritative catechism for priests says: “But the Church of God [that is, the apostate church] has in her wisdom ordained that the celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to ‘the Lord’s day’” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Donovan translation, 1829 ed., p. 358). This catechism was written by order of this great council, and published under the auspices of Pope Pius V.

Throughout NT times Christians observed the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath (see on Acts 17:2). The transition from Sabbath to Sunday was a gradual process that began sometime before a.d. 150 and continued for some three centuries. The first historical references to the observance of Sunday by professed Christians occur in the Epistle of Barnabas (ch. 15) and in Justin Martyr’s First Apology (ch. 67), both dating from about a.d. 150. Both denounce Sabbath observance and urge that of Sunday. The first authentic references to Sunday as the “Lord’s day” come from the apocryphal Gospel According to Peter and from Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, v. 14), toward the close of the 2d century.

Prior to the Jewish revolt under Bar Cocheba, a.d. 132–135, the Roman Empire recognized Judaism as a legal religion and Christianity as a Jewish sect. But as a result of this revolt Jews and Judaism were discredited. To avoid the persecution that followed, Christians henceforth sought by every means possible to make it clear that they were not Jews. Repeated references by Christian writers of the next three centuries to the observance of the Sabbath as “Judaizing,” together with the fact that no historical references to the Christian observance of Sunday as a sacred day occur prior to the Jewish revolt, point to the period a.d. 135–150 as the time when Christians began to attach Sabbath sacredness to the first day of the week.

The observance of Sunday did not, however, immediately replace that of the Sabbath, but accompanied and supplemented it. For several centuries Christian observed both days. Early in the 3d century, for instance, Tertullian observed that Christ did not rescind the Sabbath. A little later the apocryphalApostolic Constitutions (ii. 36) admonished Christians to “keep the Sabbath and the Lord’s day festival.”

By the early 4th century Sunday had achieved definite official preference over the Sabbath. In his Commentary on Psalm 92 Eusebius, foremost church historian of the period, wrote, “All things whatsoever it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.”

The first official action of the Catholic Church expressing preference for Sunday was taken at the Council of Laodicea, in the 4th century. Canon 29 of this council stipulates that “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [Sabbath], but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.” This council made provision for Sabbath worship, but designated the day as a work day. It is worthy of note that this, the first ecclesiastical law enjoining the observance of Sunday, specifies Judaizing as the reason for avoiding the observance of the Sabbath. Furthermore, the stern injunction against Sabbath observance is evidence that many were still “Judaizing” on that day. Indeed, the writers of the 4th and 5th centuries repeatedly warn their fellow Christians against this practice. About the year 400, for instance, Chrysostom observes that many were still keeping the Sabbath in the Jewish manner, and thus Judaizing.

Contemporary records also reveal the fact that the churches in Alexandria and Rome were chiefly responsible for promoting Sunday observance. About a.d. 440 the church historian Socrates wrote that “although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this” (Ecclesiastical History v. 22). About the same time Sozomen wrote that “the people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.”

Three facts are thus clear: (1) The concept of Sunday sacredness among Christians originated, primarily, in their effort to avoid practices that would tend to identify them with Jews, and thus lead to persecution. (2) The church at Rome early developed a preference for Sunday; and the increasing importance attached to Sunday in the early church, at the expense of the Sabbath, closely parallels Rome’s gradual rise to power. (3) Finally, Roman influence prevailed to make the observance of Sunday a matter of church law, as it did with many other practices such as the worship of Mary, the veneration of saints and angels, the use of images, and prayers for the dead. Sunday sacredness rests upon the same basis as these other nonscriptural practices introduced into the church by the bishop of Rome.

A time and times and the dividing of time. The Aramaic Фiddan, here translated “time,” occurs also in ch. 4:16, 23, 25, 32. In these passages the word Фiddan undoubtedly means “a year” (see on ch. 4:16). The word translated “times,” also from Фiddan, was pointed by the Masoretes as a plural, but scholars generally agree that it should have been pointed as a dual, thus denoting “two times.” The word translated “dividing,” pelag, may also be translated “half.” Hence the more acceptable translation of the RSV, “a time, two times, and half a time.”

A comparison with parallel prophecies calling attention to this same time period, but by other designations, enables us to calculate the length of time involved. In Rev. 12:14 the period is denominated “a time, and times, and half a time.” The same period is referred to earlier in the chapter by the designation “a thousand two hundred and threescore days” (Rev. 12:6). In Rev. 11:2, 3 the expression “a thousand two hundred and threescore days” is equated with “forty and two months.” Thus it is clear that a period of three and a half times equals 42 months, which in turn equals 1260 days, and that a “time” represents 12 months, or 360 days. This period may be denominated a prophetic year. However, a prophetic year of 360 days, or 12 30-day months, must not be confused either with a Jewish calendar year, which was a lunar year of variable length (with both 29-day and 30-day months), or with a solar calendar year of 365 days (see Vol. II, pp. 111, 112). A prophetic year means 360 prophetic days, but a prophetic day stands for a solar year.

This distinction may be explained thus: A 360-day prophetic year is not literal, but symbolic; hence its 360 days are prophetic, not literal, days. By the year-day principle, as illustrated in Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6, a day in symbolic prophecy stands for a literal year. Thus a prophetic year, or “time,” represents 360 literal, natural years, and similarly a period of 1260 or 2300 or any other number of prophetic days means as many literal, actual years (that is, full solar years as marked off by the seasons, which are controlled by the sun). Although the number of days in each lunar year was variable, the Jewish calendar was corrected by the occasional addition of an extra month (see Vol. II, p. 104), so that for Bible writers—as for us—a long series of years always equaled the same number of natural solar years. For the historical application of the year-day principle see pp. 39–76.

The validity of the year-day principle has been demonstrated by the precise fulfillment of various prophecies calculated by this method, notably the 1260 days and the 70 weeks. A period of three and a half literal years falls absurdly short of fulfilling the requirement of the 1260-day prophecies in regard to the papacy. But when, by the year-day principle, the period is extended to 1260 years, the prophecy meets a unique fulfillment.

In July, 1790, thirty Roman Catholic bishops appeared before the leaders of the revolutionary government of France to protest legislation designed to free the French clergy from the jurisdiction of the pope and to make them directly responsible to the government. Were the leaders of the Revolution, they inquired, going to leave all religions free “except that which was once supreme, which was maintained by the piety of our fathers and by all the laws of the State, and has been for twelve hundred years the national religion?” (A. Aulard , Christianity and the French Revolution, p. 70).

The prophetic period of the little horn began in a.d. 538, when the Ostrogoths abandoned the siege of Rome, and the bishop of Rome, released from Arian control, was free to exercise the prerogatives of Justinian’s decree of 533, and thenceforth to increase the authority of the “Holy See” (see on v. 8). Exactly 1260 years later (1798), the spectacular victories of the armies of Napoleon in Italy placed the pope at the mercy of the French revolutionary government, which now advised him that the Roman religion would always be the irreconcilable enemy of the Republic, and added that “there is one thing even more essential to the attainment of the end desired, and that is to destroy, if possible, the centre of unity of the Roman Church; and it is for you, who unite in your person the most distinguished qualities of the general and of the enlightened politician, to realize this aim if you consider it practicable” (Ibid., p. 158). In response to these instructions and at the command of Napoleon, Berthier, with a French army, entered Rome, proclaimed the political rule of the papacy at an end and took the pope prisoner, carrying him off to France, where he died in exile.

The overthrow of the papacy in 1798 marks the climax of a long series of events connected with its progressive decline, and also the conclusion of the prophetic period of 1260 years. For a more complete outline of the rise and decline of the papacy, see Additional Note at the end of this chapter.

26. The judgment shall sit. See on vs. 9–11. The judgment will pass sentence of extinction upon the papacy. This power will continue its war against the saints to the very last. Then its dominion over them will be forever removed, and it will be consumed.

27. Shall be given. Here is a reassuring glimpse of the final outcome of all the turmoil and persecution through which the saints have passed. Blessed thought! Christ is soon to return for His saints and usher them into their everlasting kingdom and reward.

All dominions. In the restored earth, the abode of the righteous, there will be no discord or disaffection. One pulse of harmony will beat throughout the entire universe. All who are saved will render willing obedience to God and abide in His blessed presence forever.

28. My cogitations. Or, “my thoughts.”

Troubled. Or, “frightened.”

Countenance. Aramaic ziw, which according to some authorities means “complexion,” according to others, “brightness,” probably in the sense of “appearance.” A revelation of the future history of the saints greatly astonished and saddened the prophet.

additional note on chapter 7

The development of the great apostasy that culminated in the papacy was a gradual process that covered several centuries. The same is true of the decline of this power.

With respect to the future, Jesus warned His disciples, “Take heed that no man deceive you,” for “many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many,” performing “signs and wonders” in confirmation of their deceptive claims, “insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Matt. 24:4, 11, 24).

Paul, speaking by inspiration, declared that men would “arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29, 30). The result would be a “falling away” in which the power he refers to as “that man of sin” and “the mystery of iniquity” would be revealed, opposing truth, exalting itself above God, and usurping the authority of God over the church (2 Thess. 2:3, 4). This power, which, he warned, was already at work in a limited way (v. 7), would operate “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (v. 9). The subtle manner of its rise was to be so cleverly camouflaged that none but those who sincerely believed and loved the truth would be safe from its deceptive claims (vs. 10–12).

Before the close of the first century the apostle John wrote that “many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1), and a little later, that “many deceivers are entered into the world” (2 John 7). This, he said, is the “spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).

These predictions warned of the presence of ominous forces already at work in the church, forces that foreshadowed heresy, schism, and apostasy of major proportions. Claiming prerogatives and authority that belong only to God, yet operating on satanic principles and by satanic methods, this instrument would eventually deceive the majority of Christians into accepting its leadership, and thus secure control of the church (see Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thess. 2:3–12).

In apostolic times each local congregation selected its own officers and regulated its own affairs. The church universal was nevertheless “one body” by virtue of the invisible operation of the Holy Spirit, and the guidance of the apostles, that united believers everywhere in “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (see Eph. 4:3–6). Leaders in the local churches were to be men “full of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 6:3), selected, qualified, and guided by the Holy Ghost (see Acts 13:2), and appointed (Acts 6:5) and ordained by the church (Acts 13:3).

As the church “left” its “first love” (Rev. 2:4), it forfeited its purity of doctrine, its high standards of personal conduct, and the invisible bond of unity provided by the Holy Spirit. In worship, formalism took the place of simplicity. Popularity and personal power came more and more to determine the choice of leaders, who first assumed increasing authority within the local church, then sought to extend their authority over neighboring churches.

Administration of the local church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit eventually gave way to ecclesiastical authoritarianism at the hands of a single official, the bishop, to whom every church member was personally subject and through whom alone he had access to salvation. Henceforth leadership thought only of ruling the church instead of serving it, and the “greatest” was no longer one who considered himself “servant of all.” Thus, gradually, developed the concept of a priestly hierarchy that interposed between the individual Christian and his Lord.

According to writings attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, who died about 117, the presence of the bishop was essential to the celebration of religious rites and to the conduct of church business. Irenaeus (d. about 200) ranked bishops of the various churches according to the relative age and importance of the churches over which they presided. He accorded special honor to churches founded by the apostles, and held that all other churches should agree with the church in Rome in matters of faith and doctrine. Tertullian (d. 225) taught the supremacy of the bishop over the presbyters—locally elected elders.

Cyprian (d. about 258) is considered the founder of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. He advocated the theory that there is but one true church, and that outside of it there is no access to salvation. He put forth the claim that Peter had founded the church in Rome, that the bishop of the church at Rome should therefore be honored above other bishops, and his opinions and decisions should always prevail. He emphasized the importance of direct apostolic succession, asserted the literal priesthood of the clergy, and taught that no church might celebrate religious rites or conduct its affairs without the presence and consent of the bishop.

Factors contributing to the ascendancy and eventual supremacy of the bishop of Rome were: (1) As capital of the empire and metropolis of the civilized world Rome was the natural place for the headquarters of a world church. (2) The church at Rome was the only one in the West that claimed apostolic origin, a fact which, in those days, made it seem natural that the bishop of Rome should have priority over other bishops. Rome occupied a highly honorable position even before a.d. 100. (3) The removal of the political capital from Rome to Constantinople by Constantine (330) left the bishop of Rome comparatively free of imperial control, and thereafter the emperor rather consistently supported his claims as against those of other bishops. (4) In part, the Emperor Justinian strongly supported the bishop of Rome, and advanced his interests, by an imperial edict recognizing his supremacy over the churches of both East and West—an edict that could not become fully effective until after the breaking of the Ostrogothic hold on Rome in 538. (5) The success of the church at Rome in resisting various so-called heretical movements, notably Gnosticism and Montanism, gave to it a high reputation for orthodoxy, and contending factions elsewhere often appealed to the bishop of Rome to arbitrate their differences. (6) Theological controversies that divided and weakened the church in the East left the church at Rome free to devote itself to more practical problems and to take advantage of opportunities that arose to extend its authority. (7) Repeated instances of success in averting or mitigating barbarian attacks on Rome enhanced the political prestige of the papacy, and often in the absence of civil leadership the pope provided the city with the essential functions of civil government. (8) Mohammedan invasions hindered the church in the East, so eliminating Rome’s only important rival. (9) The barbarian invaders of the West were already, for the most part, nominally converted to Christianity, and these invasions freed the pope from imperial control. (10) With the conversion of Clovis (496), king of the Franks, the papacy found a strong army to champion its interests, and effective help in converting other barbarous tribes.

Professing Christianity, Constantine the Great (d. 337) linked church and state, subordinated the church to the state, and made the church an instrument of state policy. His reorganization of the political administration of the Roman Empire became the pattern for the ecclesiastical administration of the Roman Church, and thus of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. About 343 the Synod of Sardica assigned the bishop of Rome jurisdiction over metropolitan bishops, or archbishops. Pope Innocent I (d. 417) claimed supreme jurisdiction over the entire Christian world, but was not able to exercise that power.

Augustine (d. 430), one of the great church Fathers and founder of medieval theology, maintained that Rome had always been supreme over the churches. His classic The City of God set forth in bold outline the Catholic ideal of a universal church in control of a universal state, and this provided the theoretical basis for the medieval papacy.

Leo I (the Great, d. 461) was the first bishop of Rome to proclaim that Peter had been the first pope, to assert the succession of the papacy from Peter, to claim primacy directly from Jesus Christ, and to succeed in applying these principles to papal administration of the affairs of the church. Leo I gave to the theory of papal power its final form, and made that power a reality. It was he who procured an edict from the emperor declaring that papal decisions have the force of law. With imperial support he set himself above the councils of the church, assuming the right to define doctrine and to dictate decisions. His success in persuading Attila not to enter Rome (452) and his attempt to stop Gaiseric (Genseric, 455) enhanced his prestige and that of the papacy. Leo the Great was definitely a temporal as well as a spiritual leader of his people. Later papal claims to temporal power were based largely on the supposed authority of forged documents known as “pious frauds,” such as the so-called Donation of Constantine.

The conversion of Clovis, leader of the Franks, to the Roman faith about the year 496, when most of the barbarian invaders were still Arians, gave the pope a strong political ally willing to fight the battles of the church. For more than twelve centuries the sword of France, the “eldest son” of the papacy, was an effective agent for the conversion of men to the Church of Rome and for maintaining papal authority.

The pontificate of Pope Gregory I (the Great, d. 604), first of the medieval prelates of the church, marks the transition from ancient to medieval times. Gregory boldly assumed the role, though not the title, of emperor in the West. He laid the basis for papal power throughout the Middle Ages, and it is from his administration in particular that later claims to papal absolutism date. Extensive missionary efforts begun by Gregory the Great greatly extended the influence and authority of Rome.

When, more than a century later, the Lombards threatened to overrun Italy, the pope appealed to Pepin, king of the Franks, to come to his assistance. Complying with the request, Pepin thoroughly defeated the Lombards and, in 756, presented the pope with the territory he had taken from them. This grant, commonly known as the Donation of Pepin, marks the origin of the Papal States and the formal beginning of the temporal rule of the pope.

From the seventh to the eleventh centuries papal power was, generally speaking, at ebb tide. The next great pope, and one of the greatest of them all, was Gregory VII (d. 1085). He proclaimed that the Roman Church had never erred and could never err, that the pope is supreme judge, that he may be judged by none, that there is no appeal from his decision, that he alone is entitled to the homage of all princes, and that he alone may depose kings and emperors.

For two centuries there was a running struggle between pope and emperor for supremacy, with sometimes one and sometimes the other achieving temporary success. The pontificate of Innocent III (d. 1216) found the papacy at the height of its power, and during the next century it was at the very zenith of its glory. Claiming to be the vicar of Christ, Innocent III exercised all the prerogatives claimed by Gregory a century and more earlier.

A century after Innocent III, the ideal medieval pope, Boniface VIII (d. 1303) attempted unsuccessfully to rule as his illustrious predecessors had ruled before him. He was the last pope to attempt to exercise universal authority as asserted by Gregory VII and maintained by Innocent III. The waning power of the papacy became fully evident during the so-called Babylonian Captivity (1309–77), when the French forcibly removed the seat of the papacy from Rome to Avignon, in France. Soon after the return to Rome, what is known as the Great Schism (1378–1417) broke out. During this time there were at least two, and sometimes three, rival popes, each denouncing and excommunicating his rivals and claiming to be the true pope. As a result the papacy suffered irreparable loss of prestige in the eyes of the peoples of Europe. Long before Reformation times many voices within and without the Catholic Church were raised in criticism of its arrogant claims and its many abuses of both secular and spiritual power. The rebirth of learning (Renaissance) in Western Europe, the age of discovery, the growth of strong national states, the invention of printing, and various other factors contributed to the gradual loss of papal power. By the time of Martin Luther much had already been done to undermine the authority of Rome.

The Reformation, commonly thought of as beginning in 1517, with the posting of the Ninety-five Theses, saw papal power driven from large areas of Northern Europe. Efforts of the papacy to combat the Reformation took such forms as the Inquisition, the Index, and the organization of the Jesuit order. The Jesuits became the intellectual and spiritual army of the church for the extermination of Protestantism. For nearly three centuries the Church of Rome carried on a vigorous but gradually losing struggle against the forces battling for civil and religious freedom.

Finally, during the course of the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was outlawed in France—the first nation of Europe to espouse its cause, the nation that had, for more than twelve centuries, championed its claims and fought its battles, the nation where papal principles had been tested more fully than in any other land, and had been found wanting. In 1798 the French Government ordered the army operating in Italy under Berthier to take the pope prisoner. Though the papacy continued, its power was shorn, and it has never since wielded the same kind or measure of power that it did in former days. In 1870 the Papal States were completely absorbed into the united kingdom of Italy, the temporal power the papacy had formally exercised for more than 1,000 years came to an end, and the pope voluntarily became “the prisoner of the Vatican” until his temporal power was restored in 1929. See on ch. 7:25.

It is evident from this brief sketch that the rise of papal power was a gradual process covering many centuries. The same is true of its decline. The former process may be thought of as continuing from about a.d. 100 to 756; the latter, from abouta.d. 1303 to 1870. The papacy was at the height of its power from the time of Gregory VII (1073–85) to that of Boniface VIII (1294–1303). It is thus clear that no dates can be given to mark a sharp transition from insignificance to supremacy, or from supremacy back to comparative weakness. As is true with all historical processes, the rise and fall of the papacy were both gradual developments.

However, by 538 the papacy was completely formed and functioning in all significant aspects, and by 1798, 1260 years later, it had lost practically all the power it had accumulated over a period of centuries. Inspiration allotted 1260 years to the papacy for a demonstration of its principles, its policies, and its objectives. Accordingly these two dates should be considered as marking the beginning and the end of the prophetic period of papal power.

Ellen G. White comments

1–28PK 548, 553, 554

2, 3 GC 440

9, 10 GC 479

10 EW 52; GC 414, 480, 512; LS 241; MH 417; MYP 330; PP 339, 357; 1T 100; 4T 384, 453, 482

13 Ed 132; GC 422

13, 14 GC 424, 426, 480

14 GC 427

18 AH 540; ML 273; PP 342

22 GC 661

25 DA 763; Ev 233; EW 33; GC 51, 54, 439, 446; LS 101; PK 178, 183, 184; SR 328, 331, 382; 1T 76; 9T 230

27 DA 828; EW 151, 280, 295; GC 347, 614; MB 108; PP 170; SR 44, 403; 9T 219

28 PK 553