A Question about one of the beasts in Daniel...
Someone was troubled by an
interpretation of a beast in Daniel...<
Dear Glenn,
Thanks so much for
your website. It has been a real help to me in study and
encouragement in the faith. I was reading your articles on Daniel
the other night in an effort to understand the book.
The big question
that I had was about internal problems in the book and you have not
gotten that far yet :) But the problem feels pretty intractable
to me:
Dan has a vision
of 4 kingdoms in chapter 2. Conservative scholars say the four
kingdoms are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and then Rome. Liberal
scholars say the four kingdoms are Babylon, Media, Persia, and then
Greece. They want to make Greece the final empire since it was at
its height in the 2nd century BC when they claim Daniel was
written. But you know all this :) Well, it seems, just by
reading the book of Daniel that the critics have to be right- the
fourth kingdom has to be Greece. The description of the kingdom
in chapter two has two prominent details given: It will be a
divided kingdom (Daniel 2:41) and because is weak it will try to
strengthen itself through alliances through intermarriage (Daniel
2:43). What kingdom could this be but Greece? The first
part of Daniel 11, which all commentators whether liberal or
contrastive accept as describing Greece, chronicles how Greece would be
a divided kingdom (Daniel 11:3-4) and that the different parts of the
kingdom would try to form alliances with the other parts through
intermarriage (Daniel 11:6). It seems pretty clear from this that
the author of Daniel intended that the fourth kingdom of chapter 2 to
be Greece and not Rome.
This is a major
problem since it goes on to say (Daniel 2:43), "In the days of those
kings [i.e. Greece!] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will
never be destroyed or conquered. It will crush all these kingdoms
into nothingness and it will stand forever." So it doesn't seem
to matter whether Daniel was written in the 6th century BC or the 2nd
century BC since it seems to pretty clearly teach that the Kingdom of
God would arrive in the days of Greece. Which didn't happen in
any way shape or form.
I used to think
(before comparing Daniel 2 and Daniel 11 and having the historical
background) that the fourth kingdom was Rome. Because it was in
the days of the Roman empire that Jesus came and we can easily say that
God set up His kingdom then.
But if the fourth
kingdom is Greece then we not only have unfulfilled prophecy but
prophecy that can't ever be fulfilled because it has been disproved by
history. That is not a very ... appealing conclusion.
Discovering this
has much saddened me and I don't know what to do with it. I was
hoping that perhaps you could briefly shed some light on it for me if
my understanding of the text is wrong since, as a believer who holds a
very high view of Scripture that is not a conclusion that I would
naturally want to accept...
In the Lord Jesus,
ABC
I dug up some resources and
summarized them (some of the Hebrew fonts probably won't make it
across...so expect some weird characters):
Sorry for the very hasty/terse reply, but I did want to at least get a couple of
quick suggestions to you as early as I could--I won't be able to do much
with this Q, because of the backlog...but... I scratched around in my resources here and noticed a couple of points
for you to consider (I cannot dialogue about these, but they should
give you some possible points of departure for your own study):
- Persia was never considered to have conquered 'the whole world'--Greece
was the first one to do that, and that would force the last image to be
Rome.
- Greek was NOT a 'divided kingdom' when it took over the world; In fact,
it ceased being a kingdom when it was divided. We then DON'T HAVE a real
kingdom again until the Romans--the 4 generals did not constitute "a
divided kingdom". And, my commentaries all called ROME the divided
kingdom, since she allowed so many local rulers and local jurisdictions
to prosper. Greece/Persia went for much-more monolithic cultures (Alex
wanted to make 'one world' with Hellenistic culture?!!!) And the
combining in the seed of men
is between the clay and iron (both parts
of the kingdom AT THE SAME TIME--not later).
- The 'mingling' did not
specifically say 'intermarriage of the RULER'.
Keil and Delitzch point out that it was the PEOPLE who
intermarried--and this was just as true of Rome as it was of Greece. A
standard ploy of conquered Roman nations was to get the ladies to marry
Roman citizen-men, and therefore 'mingle' the families into Roman power
and privilege. So, I don't think this has to be taken as referring to
high-level political marriages EXCLUSIVELY at all. [like I say, it was
Keil & D. that explained that point from the toes.] And the
combining in the seed of men
is between the clay and iron (both parts
of the kingdom AT THE SAME TIME--not later).
- The ancient Jewish interpreters
(e.g. Rashi) all understood the 4th
beast to be Rome.
................................................
Just a
couple of supporting quotes:
-
[Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The
Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures.
Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.]
"The legs of iron represent the Roman
Empire. This fourth kingdom
conquered the Greek Empire in 63 B.C. Though the Roman Empire was divided into two legs and
culminated in a mixture of iron and clay, it was one empire. This
empire was characterized by its strength, as iron is stronger than
bronze, silver, and gold. The Roman Empire was stronger than any of the
previous empires. It crushed all the empires that had preceded it. Rome in its cruel conquest
swallowed up the lands and peoples that had been parts of the three
previous empires and assimilated those lands and peoples into itself.
2:41-43. The empire that
began as iron
regressed to a state of clay mixed with iron. This mixture speaks of progressive weakness and
deterioration. Two metals together form an alloy which may be stronger
than either of the metals individually. But iron and clay cannot be mixed. If
iron and clay are put into a crucible, heated to the melting point, and
poured into a mold, when the pour has cooled the iron and clay remain
separate. The clay can be broken out which leaves a weak casting.
The Roman Empire was
characterized by division (it was a
divided kingdom) and deterioration (it
was partly strong and partly brittle). Though Rome succeeded in conquering the territories
that came under its influence, it never could unite the peoples to form
a united empire. In that sense the people were a mixture and were not united. (Other views of this mixture of strength and weakness
are suggested: [a] the empire was strong organizationally but weak
morally; [b] imperialism and democracy were united unsuccessfully; [c]
government was intruded by the masses, i.e., mob rule; [d] the empire was a mixture of numerous
races and cultures.)"
- [Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentary
on the Old Testament. (Vol. 9, Page 559). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.]
"...to heighten the idea of brittleness. This twofold
material denotes that it will be a divided or severed kingdom, not
because it separates into several (two to ten) kingdoms, for this is
denoted by the duality of the feet and by the number of the toes of the
feet, but inwardly divided..."
"In
v. 42 the same is
aid of the toes of the feet, and in v. 43 the comparison to iron and clay is defined as the
mixture of these two component parts. As the iron denotes the firmness
of the kingdom, so the clay denotes its brittleness. The mixing of iron
with clay represents the attempt to bind the two distinct and separate
materials into one combined whole as fruitless, and altogether in vain.
The mixing of themselves with the seed of men (v. 43), most interpreters refer to
the marriage politics of the princes. They who understand by the four
kingdoms the monarchy of Alexander and his followers, think it refers
to the marriages between the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies, of which
indeed there is mention made in Dan. 11:6 and 17, but not here;"
"As, in the three preceding kingdoms, gold, silver, and brass represent
the material of these kingdoms, i.e., their peoples and their culture,
so also in the fourth kingdom iron and clay represent the material of
the kingdoms arising out of the division of this kingdom, i.e., the
national elements out of which they are constituted, and which will and
must mingle together in them. If, then, the “mixing themselves with the
seed of men” points to marriages, it is only of the mixing of different
tribes brought together by external force in the kingdom by marriages
as a means of amalgamating the diversified nationalities.
- [Expositors Bible Commentary on the Old Testament (EBCOT)]:
"As for the third empire (represented by bronze), it was even less
desirable from Nebuchadnezzar's standpoint; though Greece was to "rule
over the whole earth," its political tradition was more republican than
its predecessor. The bronze empire was the Greco-Macedonian Empire
established by Alexander the Great, who began his invasion of Persia in
334, crushed its last resistance in 331, and established a realm
extending from the border of Yugoslavia to beyond the Indus Valley in
India--the largest empire of ancient times.
"Verse 41 deals with a later
phase or outgrowth of this fourth empire, symbolized by the feet and
ten toes--made up of iron and earthenware, a fragile base for the huge
monument. The text clearly implies that this final phase will be marked
by some sort of federation rather than by a powerful single realm. The
iron may possibly represent the influence of the old Roman culture and
tradition, and the pottery may represent the inherent weakness in a
socialist society based on relativism in morality and philosophy. Out
of this mixture of iron and clay come weakness and confusion, pointing
to the approaching day of doom. Within the scope of v. 43 are disunity, class struggle,
and even civil war, resulting from the failure of a hopelessly divided
society to achieve an integrated world-order. The iron and pottery may
coexist, but they cannot combine into a strong and durable world-order.
.................................................................................
Anyway, I just looked at the first passage, but I think you have enough
'play' in the imagery to allow for either Greece OR Rome for that final
beast.
I hope this helps get you started/further, friend...warmly, glenn
.......................................
[danrome.html]
The Christian ThinkTank...[https://www.Christianthinktank.com]
(Reference Abbreviations)