In my previous study we came to understand how the saints of the Most High inherited the Kingdom of God, and what that means. In Daniel 7:23, the one who stood by told Daniel that the fourth beast would be a fourth kingdom that would arise upon the earth. It was different from the other three in that it devoured the whole earth. That is, it consumed what was the land of the Jews, treading it down and crushing it, meaning it took all that could be taken and what remained it trampled down as though it was chaff that fell to the ground (Daniel 7:23). Nevertheless, it needs to be asked, how was this done by the fourth beast?
Notice that the one who stood by turned his attention to the ten horns of the beast, and he called them kings or rulers (Daniel 7:24). It is also important to understand that these ten kings or rulers are described as beasts in Daniel 7:12, “the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time” (emphasis mine). Who are these ten kings/rulers? They are the ten Roman procurators/prefects who governed the Jews, while Annas, the high priest responsible for Jesus’ death, or one of his sons officiated the office of high priest.
|
High Priest |
Horns |
Identity of the Horns |
Years of Reign |
|
Annas |
Three |
Coponius; Ambivius; Ananius Rufus |
AD 6 to AD 15 |
|
Eleaszar |
One |
Valerius Gratus |
AD 16 to AD 17 |
|
Caiaphas |
One |
Pontius Pilate |
AD 18 to AD 36 |
|
Jonathan |
(Pontius Pilate, mentioned above) |
AD 36 to AD 37 |
|
|
Two |
Cumanus; Antonias Felix |
AD 52 to AD 58 |
|
|
Theophilus |
Two |
Marcellus; Marullus |
AD 37 to AD 41 |
|
Matthias |
None |
Officiated under King Agrippa, but he isn’t counted among the 10. |
AD 42 to AD 44 |
|
Ananias |
One |
Albinus |
AD 62 |
Everything that the fourth beast did to the Jews was done through these governors, who were sent to Caesarea by Caesar to govern and keep the peace in the Jewish lands.
The one who stood by also mentioned the little horn who stood up, was different from the other horns, and through whom three of the other horns would be “humbled, put down, or subdued” (H8214; Daniel 7:24-25). Pontius Pilate, Antonias Felix and Marullus seem to be the three kings/governors who were replaced or humbled due to the works of the little horn. Both Pilate and Felix were removed from office for complaints of inappropriate behavior and had to report to Caesar. Marullus was the governor reigning when Gaius Caesar was assassinated. Marullus was removed and replaced with a Jew, King Agrippa, by Clausius Caesar, after the whole nation at the direction of Theophilus stood in protest over the things being done against the Jews.
According to the text, the little horn also spoke blasphemy and wore out the saints of the Most High and would seek to change the times and the laws (Daniel 7:25). The only persecuting authority during the first century AD against Christ and his disciples was the high priest. Moreover, persecution arose against the disciples only when one of the sons (or son-in-law) of Annas officiated the high priesthood. It was Annas to whom Jesus spoke, saying he would be alive to see the coming of the Son of Man with the clouds in the glory of the Father (Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62). He sought to change the times (viz. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8) by killing off Jesus’ disciples in an effort to keep the Old Covenant in force, while keeping the saints from inheriting the Kingdom of God.
Nevertheless, this wasn’t possible, because the Lord intervened and sat in judgment, taking away the dominion of the Jews, represented in the little horn (high priest), and gave it to the saints of the Most High, bringing the Old Covenant to an end and establishing the New Covenant as the only means, whereby the world could communicate with God (Daniel 7:26-27).
|
Daniel 7 |
Matthew 16 |
|
In the days of the Roman Empire |
In the days of the Roman Empire |
|
Persecutor of the saints (v. 21, 25) |
Persecution of the disciples (v.21, 24-25) |
|
Coming of the Ancient of Days (v. 22) |
Coming of the Lord (v. 27-28) |
|
Judgment / Vindication (v. 26-27) |
Judgment / Vindication (v. 27) |
|
Coming of the Kingdom (v. 22) |
Coming of the Kingdom (v. 28) |
|
In the days of the Roman Empire |
Some shall not taste death (v. 28) |
This was the end of the matter and Daniel continued to be greatly troubled. His countenance changed in the understanding of how things would develop in his nation, the Jews, after they would be released, when Jeremiah’s 70 Year Prophecy would be fulfilled. Nevertheless, he kept it all in his heart to consider it (Daniel 7:28).
Smoodock's Blog 
9 responses to “The Vision of the 4th Beast Interpreted”
Hi Eddie,
I believe the willful “king” of Daniel 11:36 was the Hasmonean king / high priest Alexander Jannaeus. This “king” made civil war against his own people and murdered many of the Pharisees along with their wives and children who considered him to be unlawfully holding that position of king / high priest of Israel (in fulfillment of this king not regarding the God of his fathers in Dan. 11:37, and “magnifying himself above all”).
This Hasmonean king / high priest Alexander Jannaeus presented Pompey the Great a fabulous golden, jewel-encrusted gift called “The Delight” (in fulfillment of Dan. 11:38) which Pompey the Great had carried in one of his 3 Roman triumph processions. This was also part of this “king” “honoring the god of forces” by pandering to the military might of Rome to gain their favor. The majority of Alexander’s 27-year reign was taken up with his instigating foreign wars and causing civil conflict within his own nation.
This interpretation of the willful “king” in Daniel 11:36-39 being the Hasmonean king / high priest Alexander Jannaeus chronologically fits very well with the continual flow of events following Antiochus E’s war against the Jews, and the Maccabees victories described in Daniel 11:30-35.
In Daniel 11:40, the “king of the south” pushing against this “king” is probably connected to Alexander Jannaeus’s attempt to take Ptolemais, when the city then requested assistance from Ptolemy IX Lathyros, the son of Egypt’s Queen Cleopatra III. This began a battle campaign between Alexander Jannaeus and this “king of the south”.
Once again, Patricia, greetings and thanks for participating in this study. Lord bless you.
Actually, we can probably say that all real kings rule according to their own will, so which “willful” king is referred to in Daniel 11:36?
You choose Alexander Jannaeus, a Hasmonean. I wonder, however, if the “willful king” can be a Jew. The Kings of the South and Kings of the North are all foreign powers, gentiles, who rule and abuse the Jews. For this reason I have to reject Alexander or any other Hasmonean. The period of the Haxomneans represent a period of ‘home rule’ whereby the succession of the Kings of the North and the Kings of the South is interrupted. Nothing in Daniel’s prophecy seems to fit (gentiles affecting Jews) during this period. However, the accuracy of the prophecy begins again with the rise of Herod the Great, an Edomite and a gentile.
Of course, if I’m wrong about the Kings of Daniel 11, that they must be gentiles who rule and abuse the Jews, then your interpretation is valid for consideration.
Lord bless you, Patricia.
Hi Eddie,
You are not wrong about “the king of the south” and “the king of the north” being Gentile rulers. But the title of “the king of the south” (the Ptolemaic Egyptian kings) and “the king of the north” (the Seleucid kings of Syria) are different from the one simply titled “the king” in Daniel 11:36 (who I believe was an Israelite king / high priest). As the other poster above has mentioned, the title “kings of the earth” in scripture was given to the high priests of the land of Israel.
Israel’s monarchy was originally supposed to be concentrated in her high priesthood – not a regular monarch as all the other nations around her. It was a corruption of Israel’s original God-given design that they demanded a king like all the other nations about them. And it was a grave sin for the nation of Israel’s regular monarch to attempt to sacrifice as if he were a high priest. King Uzziah found this out when he immediately became leprous for this offense.
Yet after the Maccabean victories over Antiochus, with the brief independence established for Israel after that, King Uzziah’s same old offense was repeated when the roles of both king and high priest became merged under the power of a single man. “The king” Alexander Jannaeus’s role of acting as both a regular monarch and as a high priest was deserving of God’s judgment. It went against all the laws of his Jewish fathers, as Daniel 11:37 tells us about this “king” who had no regard for that law which he had flagrantly broken.
Eddie, I know you must be busy, but I would encourage you to read some historical records of Alexander Jannaeus the king / high priest’s activity, and see if you can’t recognize a match with the predictions Daniel made about this single “king” in Daniel 11:36-40. This guy was really a piece of work – he treated his own Jewish citizens no better than Antiochus Epiphanes did.
Once again, a debate between us will go nowhere. I love the fight, at least I did at one time, but I don’t any longer. Don’t know if that’s good or bad, a man of faith or a man whose too tired to use the sword of God. God knows. Nevertheless, you do make a grave error in your argument above.
How would you reconcile this with Jacob’s blessing of Judah in Genesis 49? You can’t get much more “original” than that, which is long before Levi was promised the priesthood and the service of the Temple. Until then, the first born male of every family was a priest.
While I admit that it was wrong for Israel to desire a king over the reign of God among them, it wasn’t a corruption. It was expected and predicted in the Law (Deuteronomy 17:14-15). Besides which, how could corruption become the apple of the eye of the Lord (Psalm 17:8)?
I don’t agree with you, Patricia, but I love the fire you have for the word of God. Lord bless you.