The Explanation Concerning the Fourth Wild Beast (Daniel 7:23-27).
‘Thus he said, “The fourth wild beast will be a fourth empire on earth, and will be diverse from all the empires, and will devour the whole earth, and will tread it down and break it in pieces. And as for the ten horns, out of this empire will ten rulers arise, and another will arise after them. And he will be diverse from the former and will put down three kings. And he will speak words against the Most High, and will wear out the saints of the Most High, and he will think to change the times and the law. And they will be given into his hand until a time, and times and half a time.'
The fourth wild beast also represents an empire from the Mediterranean world. Diverse (altered) from all empires signifies its uniqueness in that it will continue in a broken up form as depicted in chapter 2. It is first the mighty Roman empire, but then it expands into a number of empires (‘ten' indicates ‘a number of'), and finally produces the Anti-God. But the Anti-God only destroys ‘three' kings. He is lord of a complete section of his world but not of the whole world.
Then arises the Anti-God. He is ‘altered' from all that has gone before. He carves out for himself an area of the Mediterranean world, complete in itself, and openly challenges God and all that is of God, putting himself in the place of God (compare 2 Thessalonians 2:4). To ‘speak words' has an evil connotation (see Hosea 10:4).
‘He will wear out the holy ones of the Most High', like ill treatment wears out clothes, leaving them, as it were, ragged and in tatters. Some link the Aramaic word to an Arab root which means ‘to treat roughly, to harm'.
‘And he will think to change the times and the law.' That is the times which God has in His own power (Daniel 2:21; Acts 1:7; Acts 3:21; Ephesians 1:10 compare Genesis 17:21; Genesis 18:14), and His law which He has given to men in the Scriptures, or possibly God's law as proclaimed by the heavenly court. His thoughts will centre on destroying God's purposes and truth.
‘And they will be given into his hand until a time, and times and half a time.' The thought here is of an incomplete period of time, in contrast, for example with ‘seven times'. ‘Seven times' depicted time under perfect control, time which God had in His own power, but ‘a time, and times and half a time' depicts time not under control. Unlike God he is unable to determine the divinely perfect set times in which things will happen, nor is he able to control his own times. It is probably intended to represent less than the perfect ‘seven'. (It has been suggested that it was building up to seven but failed - a time, two times and then an expected four times, making seven, but then the four times collapsed into a half). He wanted to change the seasons but failed. They were not under his control. Compare for the phrase Daniel 12:7; Revelation 12:14, both referring to the persecution of the people of God which is broken off before the persecutors can complete their purpose.
Note.
All we can say about the attempt to make ‘times' mean ‘years' is that there is no definite evidence for it. Nor does ‘times' necessarily mean ‘two times'. Indeed the noun is plural and not dual. If Daniel wanted to say three and a half years there was perfectly good Aramaic with which to do it. It is true that Revelation 12 parallels the Greek equivalent with twelve hundred and sixty days (Revelation 12:6 with Revelation 12:14), but that does not necessarily equate them. He may be getting over two ideas. It could be argued that that was why he used different expressions. The twelve hundred and sixty days was probably to reflect the three and a half years of Elijah's time in the wilderness (Luke 4:25; James 5:17), and Daniel never refers to a period of twelve hundred and sixty days. Interestingly he does refer to a period of twelve hundred and ninety days (Daniel 12:11). But we cannot just dismiss the difference. If John wanted to equate with Daniel, why did he alter the phrase? Surely because he did not wish to equate with it. His eyes were on Elijah and not on Daniel.
Thus John was pointing out that the persecution and fleeing for safety of the people of God could be compared with that of Elijah, and that it also lasted for an incomplete period, rather than the time that Satan had determined, in a similar way to here in Daniel.
I would in fact have no particular objection to a meaning of three and a half years if that were clear from the wording and the context, as long as there was no attempt always to make periods of three and a half years mean the same period, for they clearly do not as the reference to Elijah's three and a half years demonstrates. But I think that the attempt fails and misses the whole point of the phrase.
(End of note).