Daniel 7:5

5. For the proof that the second beast was the Medo-Persian empire see note Daniel 2:39; Daniel 8:20. The mention here of its two sides, one of which was more active than the other, emphasizes again the duality of this empire; not its torpidity, as Terry and others maintain. (See also Daniel 8:3.) Prince though believing that Daniel, through lack of historic knowledge, mentions a Median empire separate from the Persian empire after Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges that ancient history establishes the closest connection between the Medes and Persians, the Greeks frequently applying the common term “Medes” indifferently to either nation (p. 116), and concludes: “It cannot of course be denied that the Medes enjoyed a special prominence in the empire. Indeed the place which they occupied in the inscriptions, next to the Persians, and the fact that Medes are found in the most important and responsible positions, seem to point to such a conclusion. Part of their powerful influence may have been due to the sacerdotal caste of the Magi, who were probably originally of Median origin. The very fact that the name Mede survived so long as almost a synonym for Persian certainly seems to show that the individuality of the older people was extremely prominent throughout a long period of the Persian history.… Throughout the entire Book of Daniel wherever both nations are mentioned the Medes have the first place, while in the Book of Esther Persia is put before Media except in Daniel 10:2, where an allusion is made to the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia perhaps an old record” (pp. 117, 121, 122). The Persians might therefore be represented by the active, and the Medes by the passive side of this beast, although its standing “on one side” may merely mean that its aggressiveness extended in one direction only (Cowles). The three ribs in the lion’s mouth show that it has been killing and devouring already. Many expositors name these ribs, which it is still crunching, as Babylonia, Egypt, and Syria; Babylonia, Assyria, and Syria; or Babylonia, Lydia, and Egypt. Three, however, was used as a round number for “several,” both in Judea and Babylonia, and this phrase probably only means that when the successor of the Babylonian empire first appeared it was already hungry for conquest and glutted with spoil.

Dr. Terry strongly maintains that the whole picture here is that of a torpid beast who holds a few ribs in his mouth and cannot be urged to further killing; but if this were the meaning there would surely be some indication given that this beast did not obey the command to “arise and devour much flesh.” Even Bevan sees that the picture, as given here, is that of a “ravenous beast… whose chief characteristic is destruction.” Thomson thinks the bear exactly represents King Cyrus, who, like the bear, came originally from the mountains, and who conquered various countries before he attacked Babylonia. The idea of the old Jewish commentators that these “three ribs” meant that the empire governed by Cyrus covered three quarters of the globe is no less contrary to all the analogies of symbolism than that of Kuenen, who thinks that its lifting itself up on one side shows that it was “threatening to fall,” while the three ribs indicate that the empire was divided into three parts, or ruled by three princes.