Introduction

The book of Daniel is a very unique piece of apocalyptic literature because it contains two sections: the narrative section (chs. 1-6) and a part with a series of visions (chs. 7-12). Usually, when the book of Daniel is interpreted, these two parts of the book are treated separately. It is often considered that although the stories of the first part of the book have tremendous moral and didactic value, their content (except ch. 2) is poorly related to the portion that contains the visions. Such approach is in great deal influenced by the critical school which considers two parts of the book produced in different periods and therefore not connected to each other. However, if the book of Daniel is a coherent whole then some inner connections should exist between two parts of the book.

In fact, it is impossible to call either part of the book purely historic or purely apocalyptic. The visions’ part is rooted in the historical events of the first part of the book by the time references (Dan 7:1; 8:1; 9:1), and the content of the second chapter is closely related to the visions of chs. 7 and 8. It looks like the author deliberately remained a lot of links between two pars to emphasize the unity of the book. The assumption of the current investigation is that the book should be interpreted as a coherent unity and the part which contains the historical events might be a key to the interpretation of the rest part of the book. Similar assumption can be found in the article by Zdravko Stefanovic;¹ the current paper tries to deepen the understanding connections between two parts of the book of Daniel.

Sacred Vessels and the People

The book of Daniel starts with an intriguing statement that the Lord gave to the hands of Nebuchadnezzar Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, and parts of the vessels from the house of God (Dan 1:2). The detailed description of the place where the vessels were brought (“to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god and even to the treasure house of his god”) unmistakably places the emphasis on the vessels. Most probably, it was a part of the contribution put upon Judah by the victorious Babylonian king. Many of the previous Israelite kings robbed the Temple in order to pay off from the enemy and always only the fact of taking the golden things from the Israelite sanctuary was mentioned but the accent was never placed on the things which were taken (cf. 1 Kings 15:18; 2 Kings 12:18; 2 Kings 18:16).

Then the author says that Nebuchadnezzar gave an order to take young people from Judah and to bring them to Babylonia. The same verb ואבּ “to bring” is used in both cases – to describe how the vessels and the young people were taken to Babylon. Evidently, the author on purpose makes the destiny of the vessels and the destiny of the young men parallel to each other.

The description of the youth adds one more striking detail to this parallel. The young captives are depicted as those who had no defect (Dan 1:4). Such expression is a technical term which is used mostly for the sacrificial animals (Lev 22:20)². Therefore, the author describes the young men belonging to the sacred sphere like the vessels.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that that the first chapter ends with one peculiar detail – Daniel was in Babylon until the first year of Cyrus (Dan 1:21). This date is very perplexing because in Dan 10:1 it is stated that Daniel got the vision in the third year of Cyrus which implies that he was still somewhere in exile and his career was going on even beyond the time frame indicated in Dan 1:21. Many scholars pointed out that this link to the first year of Cyrus marks the end of the 70 years period of captivity.³ However, the problem with this suggestion is that in the book of Daniel the end of the captivity is never celebrated. What is more probable, the author wants to link Daniel’s staying in Babylon to the staying there of the vessels. According to the book of Ezra, the holy vessels were returned to Jerusalem exactly in the first year of Cyrus (Ezra 1:7). So, the author once again connects the destiny of Daniel and his friends with the destiny of the vessels. Therefore, the vessels are an important symbolic objects which represent the Temple itself and the exiles.

After the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. the vessels brought to Babylon were the only things which remained from the First Temple. According to Exod 40:9, all utensils and objects of the tabernacle were consecrated and therefore should be holy (שֹׁקֶד). Here vessels function as an important link connecting two parts of the book. In the first part of the book Belshazzar tries to desecrate the holy vessels (Dan 5), while in the second part the little horn wants to cast down the holy place (שֹׁקֶד) (Dan 8:13). The stories about Daniel and his companions contribute to another line of the plot. The story of chs. 1-6 narrates about numerous attempts to defile the young Jews by Babylonian and Mede-Persian kings. It is interesting that the character of these attempts resembles in many aspects the behavior of the little horn as it portrayed in Dan 7 and 8.

Nebuchadnezzar

The key characters in the historical part of the book of Daniel are Daniel himself, his friends and several foreign kings (Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede). It appears that the stories of all of these kings contain some allusions to the description of the little horn in Dan 7 and 8.

The depiction of Nebuchadnezzar is controversial. On the one hand, he is portrayed as the one who many times showed reverence and respect to the Lord, but on the other hand, he many times rebelled against God. His first uprising depicted in the book of Daniel is the construction of the golden image and imposing worshipping it on all citizens of his country (Dan 3). The previous chapter narrates that Nebuchadnezzar saw a similar image in a dream however the image he saw was not completely golden but consisted of different materials. Later on Daniel explained to him the meaning of different parts of the image and evidently, he could not content with this interpretation. In the result, Nebuchadnezzar made the golden image and forced everybody to bow down in front of it. The story of chapter 3 is skillfully designed so that the description of the act of worshipping idol is repeated many times: first time as an order of Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 5-6), second time as a factual act of worship (v. 7), then retrospectively by the Chaldeans who wanted to accuse the Jewish young men (vv. 10-11), and finally as a new order given by Nebuchadnezzar (v. 15). This frequent repetition places a special emphasis on this event. One of the most frequent words which occur in the description of the worship is an Aramaic verb נפל “to fall” (Dan 3:5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15). Evidently, it was the main purpose of Nebuchadnezzar to make everybody to fall down in front of the image. The problem of the plot develops when three Jewish young men refused to follow the command of the king and the story reaches its climax when Nebuchadnezzar succeeds to make them “fall,” not before the image but into the furnace of blazing fire (Dan 3:23). The echo of this story can be found in the description of the little horn who also causes “some of the host and some of the stars to fall [נפל].” Another echo which links the story of worship at the plain Dura to the prophetic vision of Dan 8 is the words of Nebuchadnezzar addressed to the young three men: “and what god is there who can deliver you out of my hands?” (Dan 3:15). Evidently, Nebuchadnezzar was sure that nobody else could control the situation except him. Surprisingly, the similar words describe the ram and the goat in the vision of Dan 8: “there was nobody who could rescue from his hand” (Dan 8:4). Such parallels between Nebuchadnezzar and the beasts from the vision are reinforced by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar himself became almost an animal for a period of time (Dan 4:32-33).

Daniel 4 contains even more parallels between Nebuchadnezzar and the little horn. This chapter narrates that the Babylonian king saw another dream where he was represented by a great tree. One of the characteristics of that tree was that it reached the heaven (Dan 4:20). This detail very much resembles the description of the little horn which also grew up to the host of heaven (Dan 8:10). Although it is impossible to speak about the verbal parallels due to the different languages employed in these two chapters but it is evident that the author uses the same ideas. The height of the tree symbolizes the pride of Nebuchadnezzar which is confirmed by the king’s words: “Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?” (Dan 4:30 [27]). King calls Babylon “the great” (Aram. ַרב). The same word is used as a characteristic of how the little horn was talking (Dan 7:8). In Dan 5:20 we find another similar characteristic of Nebuchadnezzar: “But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit became so proud that he behaved arrogantly, he was deposed from his royal throne, and his glory was taken away from him” (Dan 5:20). Furthermore, the idea of judgment is present in both chapters 4 and 7. The judgment upon the beast and the little horn came because of the boastful words the horn spoke (Dan 7:11); similar, the judgment upon Nebuchadnezzar comes when he pronounces his boastful speech (Dan 4:20).

Belshazzar

If Nebuchadnezzar is depicted partially positively and partially negatively, the portrait of Belshazzar is completely negative. He gave an order to bring out the sacred vessels taken by Nebuchadnezzar from the Jerusalem Temple and used them for his feast (Dan 5:2). Obviously, such action profaned the sacred objects. But worst of all was that they used those vessels in order to praise all other gods (Dan 5:4). Probably, they used Jewish vessels in order to insult and mock the true God. Even Nebuchadnezzar did not dare to do anything like that.

As has been mentioned earlier, in the book of Daniel the sacred vessels are important symbolic objects. Belshazzar does not treat them properly. However, his attitude to Daniel is not much better. He even does not know about the prophet and after he meets Daniel, he emphasizes his status as exile: “Are you that Daniel who is one of the exiles from Judah, whom my father the king brought from Judah?” (Dan 5:13). It looks like during the reign of Belshazzar Daniel and all his merits were completely forgotten.

The description of Belshazzar is given in contrast to that of Nebuchadnezzar. Obviously, the purpose of this comparison is to indicate that Belshazzar repeated the mistakes of his grandfather and did even worse. The main accusation against Belshazzar sounds very similar to the description of the little horn: “but you have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven” (Dan 5:23; cf. 8:11). Among all the kings of Babylon and Persia mentioned in the book of Daniel, Belshazzar is characterized as the worst. Another interesting detail is that both visions which describe the little horn are dated to the reign of Belshazzar (Dan 7:1; 8:1). Probably, this detail is not of a big importance but it looks like it is one more link which connects these two characters.

One more feature of the narrative, which also connects Belshazzar to the beast who had the little horn is the description of the end of both of them. Thus, the story of Belshazzar finishes with the notice that he was slain (Heb. ְקִטיל, Dan 5:30), the same destiny awaits for the beast (Dan 7:11).

Darius

Darius is presented as a positive figure. From the very beginning of his reign he exalts Daniel and establishes him as one of the supervisors over the kingdom. Based on his sincere concerns when Daniel was in a lions’ den it is possible to say that he was in a very good relationship with the old prophet. Darius became a victim of intrigues designed by his satraps.

However, one episode of his reign is also linked to the theme of the little horn. The officials of his kingdom approached Darius with the request to sign a decree that nobody should pray to any god for 30 days (Dan 6:6[7]). It was done on purpose in order to find an occasion to destroy Daniel because, as they said, “We shall not find any ground of accusation against this Daniel unless we find it against him with regard to the law of his God” (Dan 6:4[5]). The decree was issued and it could not be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians. In spite of this decree, Daniel continued to pray to the Lord three times per day. Three key words of this story which are repeated several times are especially important. These are תדָּ “law” (6:8[9], 12[13], 15[16]), ָמן ְז “time” (6:10[11], 13[14]), and the verb נהשׁ “change” (6:8[9], 15[16], 17[18]). The collocation of these three terms can be found in Dan 7:25, “And he will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations (נהשׁ) in times (ָמן ְז) and in law (תדָּ); and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.” Such collocation could hardly be a coincidence. Evidently, the author on purpose draws these parallels to emphasize an important issue.

Finally, an interesting sequence of the repetitions can be traced in the stories of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius. As we have already seen, some elements of the narrative are designed in such a way that all of these characters to a certain degree resemble the little horn from Dan 7 and 8. All stories of Nebuchadnezzar are finished with the words of praise that the proud king pronounces in honor of God of heaven. The same is true about Darius the Mede. Therefore, in some part of the narrative a twist takes place and the character who acted like a little horn changes his behavior and from being an antagonist turns to the protagonist’s side. However it does not happen in the story of Belshazzar who till the end remains a negative hero.

Conclusion

This analysis demonstrates that there are many links which allow connecting the historical part of the book of Daniel to the part which contains the visions. The material of the historical part might serve as good illustrations which elucidate the content of the visions. Therefore some elements of the stories of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius might be understood as typological which anticipate the antitypological fulfilment in the end of the time (Dan 8:26).

This analysis also helps to find out the characteristics of the little horn. All of the three kings (Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius), who to some extent reflected the features of the little horn, tried to substitute the true worship with the false one. They exalted themselves and even put themselves on the place of God. They made people to worship either themselves or other pagan gods. Finally, they persecuted those who did not obey. All these characteristics lead to the conclusion that the little horn should be a religious-political power which should be effective for a long period of time and which tries to substitute the true worship with the false one in order to make the true worship ineffective. These actions result in the defilement of the heavenly sanctuary and the cessation of the continual offering (tamid). Of course, the Bible does not explicitly say whether it is the Pope, Antiochus Epiphanes or anybody else, but it provides the guidelines which help to define this person in the world history almost unmistakably.

Bibliography

Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary 30. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002. Hartman, Louis F. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Book of Daniel: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary on Chapters 1-9. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. The New American Commentary 18. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

Stefanovic, Zdravko. “Thematic Links Between the Historical and Prophetic Sections of Daniel” Andrews University Seminary Studies 27.2 (Summer 1989): 121-127.