Daniel declared: “In my vision in the night I looked, and suddenly the four winds of heaven were churning up the great sea. Then four great beasts came up out of the sea, each one different from the others:
The first beast was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and given the mind of a man.
Suddenly another beast appeared, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. So it was told, ‘Get up and gorge yourself on flesh!’
Next, as I watched, another beast appeared. It was like a leopard, and on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.
After this, as I watched in my vision in the night, suddenly a fourth beast appeared, and it was terrifying—dreadful and extremely strong—with large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed; then it trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the beasts before it, and it had ten horns. While I was contemplating the horns, suddenly another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like those of a man and a mouth that spoke words of arrogance.
Dan 7:2-8
This is a continuation of:
For the moment, assume that all of Daniel 7 is future to when Daniel recorded this vision - as the text suggests (Dan 7:17). Let's also make one more assumption. That this vision describes four last-days geopolitical entities that emerge and eventually come into contact with one another - see links above.
Now let's do a text-to-structure exercise.
If Daniel's descriptions were describing geo-political structures emerging in the modern world, what could those structures look like? I say could instead of would because my human perspective is very limited. And prophetic statements are almost never understood prospectively (before the fact); they are designed to be understood retrospectively (after the fact).
See: The Hazards of Prophetic Presumption.
All we can do is look at the text and examine it in the context of the culture and time that it was written.
All four entities in this chapter are described as beasts. There is nothing particularly unusual about the Aramaic word that is translated to the word "beast" - it simply means "living creature" or "animal". Earlier in the book, Daniel uses the same word generically when describing "the beasts of the field". Though in Dan 7:3 they are described as four "great beasts" - meaning either "huge" or "domineering" in character.
A little later in the text, Daniel is told these beasts represent four kingdoms:
These four beasts are four kingdoms that shall rise up on the earth.
Dan 7:17 (Septuagint)
Many translations say "four kings", but note that a little later when describing the fourth beast, they revert to "kingdom" (Dan 7:23). I believe the Septuagint preserves the better reading.
Daniel then begins to attach other characteristics to each beast. One point about the animal imagery used in Daniel 7. They should not necessarily be treated as a cryptic set of national emblems. Throughout Scripture, animals are frequently used to communicate character, behaviour, strength, vulnerability, predation, cunning, speed, and other attributes.
- Judah is a young lion (Gen 49:9)
- Benjamin is a ravenous wolf (Gen 49:27)
- Herod characterized as a fox (Luke 13:32)
- wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt 7:15)
- Satan as a roaring lion (1 Pet 5:8)
The animals in Daniel therefore tell us something fundamental about the nature of the political powers they represent. A correspondence with an actual national symbol might be significant, but I would avoid using national symbols as the primary meaning of the imagery.
If we look at those descriptions, I think we can derive some surprisingly specific characteristics and apply those to our modern context.
1. The Lion: concentrated power with extraordinary external reach
Text:
- lion
- eagle's wings
- wings subsequently removed
- raised from the ground
- made to stand like a man
- given the mind of a man
Structural characteristics
The lion suggests a highly concentrated centre of power.
This isn't a loose federation where authority is widely dispersed. There is enough central authority that the entity can behave as a single predator.
The wings add something different:
- extraordinary ability to project power beyond its immediate territory.
A modern equivalent might therefore possess:
- global military reach;
- financial reach;
- technological reach;
- diplomatic reach;
- cultural/informational reach;
- ability to intervene far beyond its borders.
But then the wings are removed.
That suggests a loss of external reach without necessarily destroying the underlying political entity.
And the transformation into a man suggests something more profound:
- a reduction from extraordinary imperial/predatory behaviour toward ordinary human political behaviour.
Structural model:
- A centralized hegemonic state with exceptional global projection capabilities, potentially followed by retrenchment and political normalization.
The important thing is that the entity doesn't disappear.
The lion remains.
2. The Bear: asymmetric, materially powerful, consumption-oriented power
Text:
- bear
- raised on one side
- three ribs in its mouth
- commanded to devour much flesh
This is quite different.
Asymmetry - It is “raised on one side” suggesting the power isn't evenly balanced.
It could be:
- one dominant attribute;
- a federation with an overwhelmingly dominant core;
- a coalition where one power provides most of the military/economic weight;
- an inherently asymmetric political structure.
- a projection of force that is dominant to one side.
The Ribs:
- The bear has already consumed something.
- Whatever the ribs specifically signify, the important structural observation is that this power has already incorporated or destroyed other entities.
And it is told to consume more.
So this isn't merely defensive power.
It has an expansionary appetite.
Structural model
- A large, materially powerful and internally asymmetric political system that has already consumed or subordinated other political entities and is characterized by an expanding appetite for further territorial or political acquisition.
3. The Leopard: one organism with multiple centres and extraordinary mobility
This one is the most structurally distinctive.
Text:
- leopard
- four wings
- four heads
- dominion given to it
The leopard itself implies speed and agility.
Four wings
- Symbolically, the structure possesses multiple independent means of rapid movement/projection.
- That could correspond to several major centres capable of acting rapidly.
Four heads
- This is the really important part.
- It is one beast, but it has four heads.
- Unity does not require singular leadership.
- We have a political organism capable of functioning as one entity while possessing multiple centres of authority.
That could describe:
- a federation;
- a confederation;
- a multinational union;
- a condominium of several major powers;
- a collective leadership structure;
- or a highly decentralized political system.
And then:
“dominion was given to it.”
The multi-headed system nevertheless acquires substantial authority.
Structural model
- A unified but multi-centred political entity possessing exceptional speed, adaptability and multiple centres of executive authority.
Of the four beasts, this is probably the one for which a federated or confederated structure makes the most intuitive sense.
4. The Fourth Beast: a global-scale composite system
Here things become much more interesting.
Daniel doesn't give us an animal.
Instead:
- terrifying
- dreadful
- exceedingly strong
- iron teeth
- devours
- breaks into pieces
- stamps what remains
- different from the preceding beasts
- ten horns
- eventually another horn
- three horns displaced
And later:
“it shall devour the whole earth.”
That's an extraordinary description.
It is not merely powerful.
It is systemically destructive.
The fourth beast breaks the existing order apart.
The fourth beast therefore looks structurally different
I'd identify at least six characteristics.
- Global reach - “Whole earth” (Dan 7:23) means we should at least entertain a genuinely global system, rather than a regional empire.
- Composite structure - The ten horns indicate that the beast contains or produces multiple centres of political authority.
- Hierarchical development - The horns aren't necessarily equals forever. A new horn emerges. Three existing horns are subdued. Therefore the system can reorganize internally.
- Coercive power - Iron teeth and crushing/stamping imagery imply that its authority isn't based exclusively on voluntary cooperation. There is force behind the system.
- Assimilative/destructive capacity - It doesn't merely defeat opponents. It breaks them into pieces and appears to incorporate the aftermath into its own order (Rev 13:2).
- Something fundamentally new - Daniel repeatedly calls it different. That may be the most important characteristic of all. We're not looking for simply a larger version of one of the first three political models. It represents a new form of political organization.
Now the ten horns become much easier to conceptualize
The beast could be:
a very large multinational political organism containing perhaps dozens of participating states.
Within it, ten principal political authorities emerge - "the ten horns are ten kings who will rise from this kingdom" (Dan 7:24).
But the critical point is:
- The ten are not necessarily the total membership of the beast.
- They are the political authorities that become significant enough to represent the total membership.
- But this changes later on - "another king, different from the earlier ones, will rise and subdue three kings" (Dan 7:24).
Now, given this information, look to the nations and observe (Hab 1:5). Also note that with complex prophetic statements like this, the pattern is almost always event, recognition, and then Scriptural insight. There's a lot happening in the text. And there's a lot of interconnectedness. The reality and fulfillment of these statements will not be fully recognised until after the fact. All we can do at this point is consider the text and note the patterns. The bits and pieces may only become coherent when the entire pattern is visible.
