What Does Daniel Mean by “Times and Law”? Understanding Daniel 7:25

Daniel 7 contains one of the Bible's most unusual descriptions of a prophetic power.

Daniel sees a succession of kingdoms represented by beasts. From the fourth beast emerge ten horns, and among them another power arises—a “little horn” that becomes different from those before it.

This power speaks extraordinary words.

It persecutes God's people.

And then Daniel says:

“he shall think to change times and laws.”
— Daniel 7:25

What does that mean?

What are the “times”?

What is the “law”?

Is Daniel talking about ordinary calendars and civil legislation?

Does “times” refer to prophetic timelines?

Could it refer to sacred times established by God?

And what kind of power would claim the authority to alter something Daniel associates with the Most High?

The answers become clearer when Daniel 7:25 is read in its original Aramaic and within the larger conflict described throughout the chapter.

 

Daniel 7 Is Written in Aramaic

Although much of the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, Daniel 2:4 through 7:28 is primarily written in Aramaic.

Therefore, understanding Daniel 7:25 requires examining its Aramaic vocabulary.

The relevant portion reads:

וְיִסְבַּר לְהַשְׁנָיָה זִמְנִין וְדָת

wisbar lehašnāyâ zimnîn wəḏāṯ

The basic sense is:

“and he shall intend to change times and law.”

Each part of this statement deserves attention.

 

“He Shall Think”

The word translated “think” comes from the Aramaic:

סְבַר — səḇar

It can convey the idea of:

thinking

intending

planning

considering

or

supposing.

This detail is important.

Daniel does not necessarily say the power actually possesses legitimate authority to change what follows.

It intends or presumes to do so.

The language already suggests an attempted exercise of authority.

 

“To Change”

The expression translated “to change” comes from:

שְׁנָא — šənāʾ

meaning:

to change

alter

or

make different.

Daniel uses related language elsewhere for genuine change.

But here the context makes the proposed change extraordinary because of what the little horn is attempting to alter.

It intends to change:

times

and

law.

 

What Does “Times” Mean?

The Aramaic word is:

זִמְנִין — zimnîn

the plural of:

זְמַן — zəman

meaning:

time

appointed time

occasion

or

season.

The word can refer to ordinary periods of time.

But Daniel's context raises the possibility of something more specific.

The little horn is not being condemned merely for adjusting a calendar.

The entire verse concerns its conflict with the Most High.

 

What Does “Law” Mean?

The Aramaic word is:

דָּת — dāṯ

meaning:

law

decree

edict

or

authoritative command.

The word occurs repeatedly in Daniel.

Sometimes it refers to human law.

For example, Daniel contains laws issued by kings.

But it can also refer to divine law.

Therefore, the word itself does not settle the question.

The context must determine whose law is being discussed.

 

The Context Is the Key

Daniel 7:25 does not occur in a discussion about ordinary government administration.

The complete verse says:

“And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws.”

Notice the progression.

The little horn:

speaks against the Most High

persecutes the people of the Most High

and

attempts to change times and law.

All three actions belong to the same conflict.

This strongly suggests that the “times and law” are connected with God's authority, not merely secular regulations.

 

The Little Horn's Problem Is Not That It Makes Laws

Every government makes laws.

Daniel does not condemn governments simply for legislating.

Nor would changing civil laws distinguish the little horn from other kingdoms.

Every kingdom represented in Daniel had legal authority.

Persia issued laws.

Babylon issued decrees.

Greek and later governments changed regulations.

If Daniel merely meant that the little horn would modify civil law, the characteristic would tell us almost nothing distinctive about it.

Something more significant appears to be happening.

 

The Power Enters God's Territory

Daniel says the horn speaks:

“against the most High.”

The Aramaic title is:

עִלָּיָא — ʿillāyāʾ

meaning:

the Most High

the Highest

or

the Supreme One.

The conflict is vertical.

The horn is not merely fighting neighboring nations.

Its claims reach toward heaven.

That is why its attempt to change “times and law” becomes theologically significant.

 

Daniel 7 Describes Counterfeit Authority

The little horn repeatedly acts as though it possesses authority belonging to God.

It speaks against God.

It persecutes God's people.

It attempts to alter sacred authority.

Daniel's description therefore suggests more than political tyranny.

It describes religious-political self-exaltation.

The central issue is:

Who has the authority to determine what God has established?

 

Daniel 7 Has a Parallel in Daniel 8

Daniel 8 describes another horn power.

It:

“magnified himself even to the prince of the host.”
— Daniel 8:11

It interferes with the:

תָּמִיד — tāmîḏ

the continual.

It attacks the sanctuary.

And Daniel says:

“it cast down the truth to the ground.”
— Daniel 8:12

Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 therefore share a common pattern.

A human power does not merely rule politically.

It interferes with sacred realities.

 

The Conflict Concerns Truth

Daniel 8's phrase:

“cast down the truth to the ground”

helps illuminate Daniel 7.

The Hebrew word for truth in Daniel 8 is:

אֱמֶת — ʾemeṯ

meaning:

truth

faithfulness

reliability

or

firmness.

When Daniel's prophetic powers challenge divine authority, they also interfere with truth.

Changing “times and law” therefore fits a broader prophetic pattern of attempting to replace what God has established with human authority.

 

What Could “Times” Refer To?

Several interpretations deserve consideration.

“Times” could refer generally to:

appointed periods

religious seasons

sacred times

calendar structures

or

prophetic periods.

The question is which meaning best fits the pairing:

“times and law.”

Because the two appear together, many readers have concluded that Daniel is describing attempts to alter divinely established sacred time and divine law.

 

Does “Times” Mean Prophetic Time Periods?

One possibility is that Daniel refers to prophetic chronology.

After all, Daniel contains numerous time prophecies.

These include:

time, times, and half a time

2,300 evening-mornings

seventy weeks

1,290 days

and

1,335 days.

Could the horn attempt to change prophetic times?

Possibly.

But there is a difficulty.

Daniel does not describe the horn rewriting the actual prophetic periods.

Instead, the horn itself is subject to one of them.

Immediately after saying it intends to change times and law, Daniel says:

“they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”

The horn does not control prophetic time.

Prophetic time controls the horn.

 

The Power Cannot Change God's Prophetic Clock

This creates an interesting contrast.

The horn thinks it can change times.

But God determines how long the horn itself operates.

Its period is measured:

time

times

and

half a time.

The power that presumes authority over time is itself constrained by God's time.

That irony may be intentional.

Human authority makes claims.

Divine sovereignty establishes the actual limits.

 

Could “Times” Mean Sacred Appointments?

This interpretation deserves serious consideration.

The Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly connect God's law with divinely appointed times.

The Hebrew word often used for an appointed time is:

מוֹעֵד — môʿēḏ

meaning:

appointed time

meeting

festival

or

appointed occasion.

Although Daniel uses an Aramaic word rather than môʿēḏ, the concept of divinely established sacred time is deeply embedded in Scripture.

God's commandments include instructions concerning time.

 

Time Is Part of Biblical Worship

This is important.

Biblical worship is not concerned only with:

where

how

and

whom people worship.

God also establishes sacred rhythms involving:

when.

From Genesis onward, time itself can be set apart for sacred purposes.

Therefore, a prophetic power attempting to alter times and law could logically be challenging divinely established patterns of worship.

 

Genesis Introduces Sacred Time

Genesis 2 says:

“God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.”
— Genesis 2:3

The Hebrew verb translated sanctified comes from:

קָדַשׁ — qāḏaš

meaning:

to make holy

consecrate

or

set apart.

This is remarkable.

Before Scripture describes a sacred building, it describes sacred time.

God sets apart a particular day.

Time itself becomes connected with divine authority.

 

The Fourth Commandment Combines Time and Law

The Ten Commandments contain one commandment explicitly structured around sacred time:

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
— Exodus 20:8

The Hebrew word for Sabbath is:

שַׁבָּת — šabbāṯ

associated with:

ceasing

resting

or

stopping.

The commandment identifies a recurring period:

the seventh day.

This creates a direct biblical connection between:

divine law

and

divinely appointed time.

 

Why This Connection Matters for Daniel 7:25

Daniel says the little horn intends to change:

times

and

law.

The fourth commandment is the clearest place in the Decalogue where:

time and divine law intersect.

That does not by itself prove Daniel 7:25 refers exclusively to the Sabbath.

The verse never explicitly uses the word Sabbath.

That distinction matters.

But the connection is significant enough that it should not be dismissed.

If Daniel is describing an attempt to alter sacred time within God's law, the Sabbath commandment becomes highly relevant.

 

Does Daniel Explicitly Say “The Sabbath”?

No.

Daniel 7:25 does not say:

“He shall change the Sabbath.”

The word:

שַׁבָּת — šabbāṯ

does not appear in the verse.

Therefore, identifying the “times” exclusively with the Sabbath goes beyond Daniel's explicit wording.

A responsible interpretation should acknowledge that.

However, Daniel does describe a power attempting to change divinely relevant time and law, and the Sabbath is one of Scripture's clearest examples of those two concepts converging.

 

God's Law Is Presented as His Authority

Throughout Scripture, divine law reflects God's authority over His people.

Isaiah says:

“the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king.”
— Isaiah 33:22

The Hebrew term translated lawgiver comes from a word family associated with:

decreeing

inscribing

or

establishing law.

The authority to define God's law ultimately belongs to God.

Therefore, Daniel's horn becomes especially significant when it presumes authority to alter divine law.

 

Can Human Authority Change God's Moral Law?

Scripture repeatedly presents God's commands as rooted in divine authority rather than human preference.

Psalm 111 says:

“all his commandments are sure.”

And:

“They stand fast for ever and ever.”
— Psalm 111:7–8

Jesus says:

“Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.”
— Matthew 5:18

The Greek word translated law is:

νόμος — nomos.

Jesus' statement emphasizes the enduring seriousness of God's revealed will.

 

Jesus Condemned Replacing God's Commandments With Human Tradition

This provides an important New Testament parallel.

Jesus says:

“Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”
— Mark 7:9

The Greek word for commandment is:

ἐντολή — entolē

meaning:

command

injunction

or

authoritative instruction.

The word translated tradition is:

παράδοσις — paradosis

meaning something handed down or transmitted.

Jesus identifies a dangerous possibility:

human religious authority can elevate inherited tradition in a way that displaces God's command.

That principle strongly resembles Daniel's warning.

 

The Problem Is Not Tradition Itself

Scripture does not condemn every tradition simply because it is a tradition.

Human communities naturally develop practices and customs.

The problem arises when human tradition claims authority to:

override

replace

contradict

or

alter

what God has commanded.

That is the kind of authority conflict Daniel 7:25 appears to anticipate.

 

The Little Horn Does Not Merely Break the Law

There is an important difference between:

breaking a law

and

claiming authority to change the law.

People have violated God's commandments throughout history.

That would hardly distinguish Daniel's prophetic power.

But Daniel says the horn:

“shall think to change”

times and law.

This implies something more institutional and authoritative.

The power behaves as though it possesses the right to modify sacred norms.

That is a much larger claim.

 

Daniel Himself Demonstrates the Opposite Principle

The book of Daniel repeatedly portrays faithful people facing conflicts between human commands and divine authority.

Daniel 3 provides one example.

Nebuchadnezzar commands everyone to worship the golden image.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse.

Why?

Because human authority cannot legitimately require worship contrary to God's authority.

 

Daniel 6 Provides Another Example

King Darius signs a decree prohibiting petitions to anyone except the king for thirty days.

Daniel continues praying to God.

The issue again concerns competing laws.

Should Daniel obey:

human law

or

divine obligation?

Daniel respects governmental authority until that authority enters territory belonging to God.

Then allegiance to God takes priority.

This theme provides important background for Daniel 7.

 

Daniel 7 Universalizes the Conflict

Daniel 3 describes one king commanding false worship.

Daniel 6 describes one government restricting prayer.

Daniel 7 expands the pattern into prophecy.

A future power develops religious-political authority and attempts to alter what belongs to God.

The recurring question throughout Daniel is:

What happens when earthly authority claims jurisdiction over something God has reserved for Himself?

Daniel's answer is consistent.

God remains the highest authority.

 

The Law Appears in Daniel's Judgment Scene

Daniel 7 contains a heavenly courtroom.

Daniel sees:

“the Ancient of days.”

Then:

“the judgment was set, and the books were opened.”

Judgment implies a standard.

The same chapter that describes a power attempting to alter law eventually portrays that power standing before divine judgment.

The contrast is striking.

The little horn presumes to change law.

But the Ancient of Days sits as Judge.

Human alteration does not change the standard of heaven.

 

“Times and Law” May Describe More Than One Specific Change

Daniel's phrase may intentionally be broad.

Rather than predicting only one alteration, it may describe a larger claim to authority over sacred order.

Under this interpretation, the power presumes authority over:

sacred times

divine commandments

worship practices

and

religious obligations.

A particular alteration involving sacred time could be especially significant without exhausting the meaning of the prophecy.

 

Why the Plural “Times” Matters

Daniel says:

זִמְנִין — zimnîn

“times.”

The plural allows for more than one sacred or appointed period.

This cautions against reducing the term too quickly to one observance.

At the same time, the biblical connection between sacred time and God's commandments means that alterations involving divinely appointed worship times remain highly relevant to the prophecy.

 

Could Calendars Be Involved?

Possibly.

Religious calendars determine:

festivals

holy days

commemorations

and

cycles of worship.

Throughout history, political and religious authorities have altered calendars and established religious observances.

But ordinary calendar reform alone would not seem sufficient to fulfill Daniel's description.

The larger issue is whether human authority claims the right to establish sacred obligations in place of or contrary to what God has established.

 

The Question Is Authority, Not Merely Dates

This is the central interpretive principle.

Suppose a government changes the date of a secular holiday.

That would technically change a “time.”

But it would have little relevance to Daniel's conflict with the Most High.

Daniel's concern is much deeper.

The horn's actions involve:

God

God's people

God's authority

and

God's law.

Therefore, “times” should be interpreted within that sacred context.

 

Revelation Develops the Same Conflict

Revelation draws heavily from Daniel 7.

Revelation 13 describes a beast that:

speaks blasphemies

makes war with the saints

exercises authority

and

receives worship.

These characteristics closely parallel Daniel's little horn.

Daniel emphasizes:

times and law.

Revelation emphasizes:

worship and allegiance.

Together they reveal the deeper issue.

The conflict concerns who possesses legitimate spiritual authority.

 

Revelation 12 Identifies God's Faithful People

Revelation 12:17 describes those who:

“keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

The Greek expression for commandments is:

τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ — tas entolas tou theou

meaning:

“the commandments of God.”

This is significant in light of Daniel 7.

Daniel describes a power attempting to change law.

Revelation describes God's faithful people as keeping God's commandments.

The contrast is difficult to miss.

 

Revelation 14 Repeats the Theme

Revelation 14:12 says:

“Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”

Again, the final conflict includes:

God's commandments.

This occurs within the same section of Revelation that warns against worshiping the beast.

Therefore:

worship

authority

commandments

and

allegiance

are interconnected prophetic themes.

 

The First Angel Calls Humanity Back to the Creator

Revelation 14:7 says:

“Fear God, and give glory to him… and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”

This language echoes the creation account.

It also resembles the wording of the fourth commandment:

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.”
— Exodus 20:11

That verbal connection makes sacred time particularly relevant to Revelation's final worship conflict.

 

Creation, Worship, and Sacred Time Intersect

Genesis establishes the seventh day at creation.

Exodus places it within God's commandments.

Revelation calls humanity to worship the Creator.

Daniel predicts a power that attempts to alter:

times and law.

These connections provide a biblical framework for considering whether sacred time plays an important role in the prophetic conflict.

Again, Daniel 7:25 does not explicitly name the Sabbath.

But the larger biblical pattern makes the question legitimate and significant.

 

Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath

Jesus says:

“the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.”
— Mark 2:28

The Greek word is:

σάββατον — sabbaton

derived ultimately from the Hebrew:

שַׁבָּת — šabbāṯ.

Jesus' statement places sacred time under His authority.

That is important for Daniel's prophecy.

If Christ is Lord of sacred time, then no human power possesses independent authority to redefine divine sacred time contrary to Him.

 

Jesus Corrected Abuse Without Abolishing Divine Authority

During His ministry, Jesus repeatedly confronted distorted interpretations of Sabbath observance.

But He did not treat human tradition as the final authority.

Instead, He restored the principle to its proper purpose:

“The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.”
— Mark 2:27

The pattern is instructive.

Human systems can surround divine commands with traditions.

Jesus brings attention back to God's intention.

 

Paul Also Warns About Self-Exalting Religious Authority

Second Thessalonians 2 describes a power characterized by self-exaltation:

“who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God.”

Paul says this power:

“sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”

The Greek verb translated exalteth is:

ὑπεραίρω — hyperairō

meaning:

to lift oneself above

or

exalt oneself excessively.

The conceptual resemblance to Daniel's little horn is significant.

Both involve human authority moving into territory belonging to God.

 

Daniel's Horn Is Identified by a Pattern, Not One Characteristic

A responsible interpretation should not identify the little horn based only on the phrase:

“times and law.”

Daniel provides a collection of characteristics.

The power:

arises within a specific historical sequence

comes from the fourth kingdom's divided landscape

differs from the other powers

develops extraordinary claims

speaks against the Most High

persecutes God's people

attempts to change times and law

operates for a defined prophetic period

and

eventually faces heavenly judgment.

Any historical identification should account for the entire pattern.

 

This Protects Against Speculative Interpretation

Prophecy becomes unreliable when interpreters select one characteristic and ignore the rest.

Daniel gives multiple identifying features precisely because the prophecy describes a historical system, not merely an abstract idea.

Therefore, the question should not be:

“Who changed a calendar?”

It should be:

“What historical power fits the complete prophetic profile?”

That requires careful historical study beyond the scope of one phrase.

 

Does “Law” Mean the Ten Commandments Specifically?

Daniel does not use an Aramaic term that exclusively means the Ten Commandments.

The word dāṯ can refer broadly to authoritative law.

Therefore, saying Daniel explicitly writes:

“He will change the Ten Commandments”

would go beyond the wording of the verse.

However, because the context concerns opposition to the Most High, the law in view is reasonably understood as divinely established law or sacred authority.

The Ten Commandments naturally become highly relevant within that category.

 

What Does Scripture Explicitly Say?

Daniel explicitly says the little horn:

speaks against the Most High

persecutes the saints of the Most High

intends to change times and law

and

exercises authority for a defined prophetic period.

The Aramaic terms mean:

zimnîn — times or appointed periods

and

dāṯ — law, decree, or authoritative command.

The context is unmistakably religious as well as political.

Those conclusions arise directly from the text.

 

What Does Scripture Not Explicitly Say?

Daniel 7:25 does not explicitly say:

“times means the Sabbath.”

It does not explicitly say:

“law means only the Ten Commandments.”

It does not identify a particular calendar alteration by name.

It does not name a later historical institution.

Those are interpretive applications that must be tested against the entire prophetic description and the broader biblical context.

Keeping this distinction clear strengthens rather than weakens the biblical argument.

 

What Is Daniel's Larger Point?

Daniel is revealing a conflict over authority.

The little horn behaves as though divine territory is negotiable.

It speaks against God.

It pressures God's people.

It presumes authority over sacred norms.

It attempts to change what belongs to a higher authority.

But Daniel deliberately uses the word:

“think.”

The horn may intend to change times and law.

That does not mean heaven recognizes the change.

 

Human Claims Do Not Rewrite Divine Reality

This distinction is fundamental.

A government can change its laws.

A ruler can issue decrees.

A religious authority can establish traditions.

A culture can redefine its practices.

Millions of people can accept those changes.

Centuries can pass.

But none of those things automatically change what God has established.

Human acceptance does not create divine authorization.

That is one of the most important principles emerging from Daniel 7:25.

 

The Horn Thinks It Can Change What God Established

The wording is almost ironic.

The little horn:

“shall think to change.”

It assumes authority.

It behaves as though its decisions carry divine weight.

But shortly afterward Daniel sees another authority appear.

Not another earthly empire.

Not another human ruler.

Daniel sees:

the Ancient of Days.

The court sits.

The books are opened.

The horn is judged.

Its dominion is removed.

 

The Real Lawgiver Appears in Judgment

This is the dramatic answer to Daniel 7:25.

The horn attempts to legislate sacred reality.

Then the heavenly court convenes.

The implication is powerful:

Human authority does not have the final word about divine law.

The Judge does.

Daniel's vision moves from:

human presumption

to

divine judgment.

The question of who possesses ultimate authority is finally settled in heaven.

 

Why “Times and Law” Still Matters

Daniel 7:25 raises a question every generation must confront.

What happens when human religious authority conflicts with Scripture?

What happens when inherited practice differs from what God has established?

What happens when something is widely accepted simply because it has existed for centuries?

What happens when institutional authority claims the power to define sacred obligation?

Daniel's prophecy tells us where the final standard must remain.

Not with tradition merely because it is old.

Not with culture merely because it is popular.

Not with government merely because it has power.

Not with religious authority merely because it claims sacred legitimacy.

The ultimate standard belongs to God.

 

The Prophecy Calls for Biblical Examination

The appropriate response to Daniel 7:25 is not suspicion toward every religious practice.

Nor is it hostility toward people who understand particular biblical questions differently.

The appropriate response is examination.

Every belief should be tested.

Every tradition should be evaluated.

Every claim of spiritual authority should be compared with Scripture.

The question is not merely:

“What have people historically practiced?”

The deeper question is:

“What has God actually established?”

 

What Does Daniel Mean by “Times and Law”?

The Aramaic expression describes a prophetic power that intends to alter appointed times and authoritative law within a conflict involving the Most High.

The immediate context strongly suggests that Daniel is concerned with more than ordinary civil legislation.

The power is attempting to exercise authority within the sacred sphere.

“Times” can naturally include divinely appointed or sacred times.

“Law” can naturally include divine commands and sacred authority.

Because the biblical Sabbath uniquely combines sacred time with divine law, it becomes highly relevant to the interpretation, although Daniel 7:25 does not explicitly identify the Sabbath by name.

The prophecy's larger point is broader:

a human power will presume authority to modify something belonging to God's jurisdiction.

 

The Most Important Word May Be “Think”

Daniel could have said:

“He will change times and law.”

Instead, the text describes the power as intending or presuming to change them.

That distinction matters.

Human beings can change:

calendars

customs

traditions

civil laws

religious practices

and

institutional rules.

But the prophecy raises the question of whether humans can actually change something established by God.

Daniel's larger vision answers that question.

The horn speaks.

The horn persecutes.

The horn claims authority.

The horn attempts change.

For a time, it appears successful.

But then Daniel sees the throne.

The Ancient of Days sits.

The books are opened.

The judgment begins.

And the power that presumed authority over divine things discovers that it was never the highest authority.

That is the warning at the heart of Daniel 7:25.

The deepest question is not merely:

What are the “times and law”?

It is:

Who has the authority to change what God has established?

Daniel's answer is ultimately unmistakable.

Human power may claim that authority.

Only God possesses it.