Daniel (Pt 17): The Four Empires are not Local Kingdoms

In part, our perceptual difficulty with Daniel arises from the over-literal translations of the text, which don't take the context into consideration sufficiently.

For all the so-called 'scholarship' expended (usually to disprove or critique the book) very little common sense or simple logic is applied, either by translators or interpreters.  This leaves readers wading through ambiguities that shouldn't even exist.

One is the issue of 'kingdoms' vs. 'Empires'.

There is a clear difference between a local 'kingdom' or nation of city-states (such as early Italy or classical Greece) and a world-dominating Empire.

The problem is, until Empires came into existence, and for a long time afterward, there was no specialized language or name for "Empire".

In fact, the word "Empire" as we have come to know it, is a late invention, coming out of the experience of the Roman Empire (c. 29 BC - 310 AD).
An Empire is a multi-nation state spread across the globe, usually run or controlled by an "Emperor" - a word which is understood as an 'Uber-Dictator' as opposed to a local 'king' (which is nearly colorless by comparison).

When Daniel interpreted the dream of the very first 'Emperor', he had to use the language available.  King Nebuchadnezzar was naturally called 'king', because in every language, including Hebrew, Aramaic and Chaldean, there was no word for 'Emperor' yet coined.

The best one could do was say 'great king', or 'king of kings', or 'king of the world', or some such descriptive title that might try to convey the size and scope of the rulership and territory.

So Daniel uses 'king' and 'kingdom' by convention of the time, naturally in the language of his contemporaries.

We however, are not so limited, and are quite able to distinguish between local 'kingdoms' and vast Empires, and in modern English we now have modern words suited for translation and exposition that convey the meaning intended by Daniel.

The strongest argument of course is context, and here we must seriously take this context into account, and give it its due.

The main and obvious context is the fact that Daniel himself is a minister in the very court of the first multi-national Empire in existence, at the center of civilization.    From here, we understand instinctively that when Daniel talks about the 'great kingdoms' he plainly means 'Empires' in modern parlance.

When Daniel envisions and talks of great beasts with multiple horns, he is speaking of successive Empires and their Emperor-dictators, not local kingdoms or short-term events.

The ploy by critics to 'localize' or minimize the vast size and scope of Daniel's prophecy is a desperate attempt to account for the sharp accuracy of Daniel's prediction in naturalistic terms, by claiming it to be a late forgery.   The position of critics is that a priori, accurate detailed prophecy is impossible.

This fails however, because the very LATEST the book of Daniel can be dated is about 167 BC, because it was known to have been widely circulated by this time.

The very first prophecy however, extends to 300 AD.

Most importantly:

Each 'kingdom' (World Empire) is very clearly and plainly identified:

(1)  Each Empire involves the same basic vast area of land.

(2)  Each Empire is successive, replacing its predecessor.

(3)  Each Empire is headed and administrated by a different ethnic nation.

(4)  Each Empire is founded by a Warlord through warfare.

(5)  Each Empire conquers the preceding Empire.

(6)  Each Empire's beginning is clearly defined on a timeline.

(7)  Each Empire's end is clearly defined on a timeline.

(8)  Each Empire has a unique character or trademark.

(9)  Each Empire imposes tribute on other nations through force.

(10)  Each Empire rules over the land and nation of Israel.

(12)  Each Empire at some point oppresses the People of God.

(13)  One Empire (Babylon) is known and two (Persia/Greece) are named.


These distinctive features, most of which are contained in the prophecies of Daniel, leave no room at all for mistaking the size and scope of the prophecy or mistaking the identity of the Empires described.

Lets look closer at these characteristics:

(3) Each Empire is headed and administrated by a different ethnic nation.

(4) Each Empire is founded by a Warlord through warfare.

(5) Each Empire conquers the preceding Empire.

(6) Each Empire's beginning is clearly defined on a timeline.

To be clear, each Empire begins as a small and local ethnic kingdom.

They are not mere internal 'coups', political regime changes,
or even dramatic changes in administration or infrastructure.

Thus, the passing of kingship from father to son, or to co-ruler/general,
do not count as 'new Empires' (as occurred in Babylon and Persia).

Nor do internal administrative reorganizations count, such as
the (re)division of provinces or sattraps (as occurred in Persia).

Not even the failure of an heir, and division into relatively independent regions
count as a 'new Empire'. The Greek Empire remained in the control of
the Greek generals and they continued the plan of Hellenization, even
when Alexander died childless.
Thus Four Horns sprouted but remained on the same beast, 
- the Goat (Greek Empire).

Each small kingdom begins as a local one, made up of a distinct and
independent nation (Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman).
And each of these kingdoms becomes an 'Empire' through
the conquering of foreign powers and essentially occupies
the same 'Empire Territories'.

The transition from local kingdom to world-class Empire is plainly
demarcated by the rise of powerful individual Warlord, who
relatively quickly conquers the previous dynasty and ruling nation/culture.

Even the 4th Roman Empire conquers through a handful of great military generals.
 

Finally, this 4th Roman Empire is NOT reconquered by a foreign power,
but remarkably, seems to implode from internal fighting and disharmony,
just as the prophecy of Daniel predicts (the feet of iron and clay).

The New Kingdom of God is according to the prophecy a physical earthly one,
but 'made without hands'. (Dan. 2:34,45)

"I will destroy this temple (Herod's) made with hands,
and in three days build a temple 'made without hands' !"
(Mk 14:58)

It is clear in the original quotation of Jesus (in Mark)
that He interprets Daniel to be referring to
Jesus' own spiritual kingdom 'not of this world' (Jn. 18:36, Jn. 17:16)

Jesus self-describes His kingdom in a parable as
'a mustard seed' expanding to fill the world.

We get the sense of this in the subsequent history of Jesus' underground church
and 'body/temple' expanding to ultimately 'destroy' the Roman Empire
by 'disloyalty' to Rome and loyalty to Jesus.

In the end, Constantine found it expedient and necessary to:

(1) End persecution of Christians
(2) Legalize Christianity
(3) Assist Christianity with the commandeering of pagan temples and wealth,
(4) Become a Christian,
(5) Hold Councils intended to unite Christians under a central authority.

He did this not least because Christianity had spread so deeply and become
so popular that one could not command a Roman Army without
acknowledging and protecting Christians.

This final "Empire" was indeed such a revolutionary difference in kind,
that it ceased to mean 'Empire' in the normal oppressive sense.
It retained its army and policing power, its ability to defend itself,
and its use of military force, but nonetheless transformed, if briefly
into an unprecedented and entirely new 'thing'.

Initially all religions were granted 'rights' of practice and worship.

Christians were for the first time given powers as councillors in the court
of the Emperor.

The change was so radical that Constantine chose to abandon Italy
entirely and choose Greece as his new Capital and central base for
his new 'Empire'.

In doing this, he let the Western half fall into the Dark Ages,
fullfilling a great and terrible fate upon the old 'Roman Empire'.

This new partially Christianized 'Empire' must be recognized as the
obvious and clear fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy concerning
the 'made without hands', and having a Spiritual element unknown
to previous earthly empires.

We do not here equate Constantine's Empire with Christ's,
but do acknowledge the obvious and deeply rooted connection,
due to the rapid and successful evangelization of the old Roman world.

Daniel (Pt 13): Destroying the Prophecies of Christ

Its worth underlining the whole point of all this effort by critics.

Its actually a bit of shuffling and handwaving when they say:

"deciding on one [interpretation] doesn't actually matter too much...
Whichever scenario one deems best, the final message is the same: God's eternal kingdom will break down and outlast any and every human kingdom."

This is just some reassuring nonsense to put your defences off.

When they say "it doesn't matter", they really mean it doesn't matter
whether you choose "Emperor No-Pants" or "Emperor Dwarf-Boy".

The main thing is NOT to select the obvious traditional Christian and Jewish
interpretation, because:

...the Roman Empire is outside the historical scope of Daniel. ... equating the legs, feet, and toes with Rome and the ecclesiastical divisions that follow is an attempt to make Daniel fit with Revelation. This reads Revelation back into Daniel."

We'll get to whether Daniel and Revelation connect later.

The point is, Rome must not be identified in any part of Daniel (according to critics).

Why?

Look again at the chart:



Two Separate Prophecies in Daniel involve ROME:

(1) The Advent of the Messiah in the 490 years (70 'weeks') of Daniel 9:24.

(2) The Destruction of the Four Empires by the Kingdom made without Hands in Daniel 2:44.

Thus, eliminating Rome and stunting "the scope of Daniel"
completely removes the prophecy of Jesus the Christ's coming (30 A.D.),
and the equally remarkable Victory of Christ's Kingdom in
the Edict of Emperor Constantine (313 A.D.) legalizing Christianity,
and the founding of the Holy Byzantine Empire.

As long as you elminate the support of Daniel for these
two FUNDAMENTAL Events in the history of Christianity,
you can have any interpretation of Daniel you want.

Just remember that according to critics,

its a 'pious forgery' by a lying Jew from 167 B.C.,
a stupendous monument of wishful thinking and fraud for God.

This is what the commentators, critics, scholars, professors, philosophers,
atheists, and secular historians want to sell you, 

the Jewish and Christian public, on the topic of Daniel.

- Or you can accept the traditional Jewish and Christian understanding of the Book of Daniel as a historical and prophetic book by Daniel the Prophet, preserved in the courts of Babylon, cherished by Jews awaiting
the fulfillment of its prophecies, written around 538 B.C.,
and accepted as Holy Scripture by the two major religions of the world.

These two incredible and accurately timed prophecies
make the real authentic Daniel the Prophet,
the last and greatest Prophet of the Hebrew Bible.

Daniel (Pt 12): Dwarf - Boy

In our previous examination, we noted Four obvious 'kingdoms' (Empires),
Each distinguishable from the last, because each introduces a new nation
and a new 'king' (Emperor) with new cultural values.

The Kingdoms are easily demarcated because each is brought in by
a world-size (Empire-size) Conqueror who vanquishes the previous one.

Thus,
Nechabudnazzar ushers in the Babylonian Empire:
Cyrus ushers in the Mede/Persian Empire,
Alexander ushers in the Greek Empire, and
Pompey ushers in the Roman Empire and rule over Palestine (Israel).

Each respectively heralds the beginning of a cultural invasion into the area .

In place of this we have Porphyry's lame attempt to get rid of the Roman Empire 
by making the Greek become (in his mind) TWO Empires.
This is hardly credible however, since Alexander's reign is not
at all conquered, but simply divided into provinces,
while extending the very same influence and cultural invasion.
Furthermore, Daniel does not allow Alexander to be a whole "Kingdom",
and his successors a separate "Kingdom".   Daniel 8 is clear on the point that both Alexander and his successors are ONE Greek Empire with several kings (horns).

The modern critics, in adopting Porphyry's general plan to dump Rome,
attempt to extend the Medio-Persian Empire into TWO Empires,
i.e., the Median Empire and the Persian Empire.
The problem with this new solution is that its hardly any more plausible
than Porphyry's original schema, and only gives a surface-appearance
of a solution.  Daniel 2 (the main image) plainly describes SUCCESSIVE Empires,
and the Medes and Persians CO-ruled at the same time, pretty much as
ONE Empire as far as anyone can tell.

The modern adjustment, while restoring the statue's pants,
leaves him a midget.

Now "modern" Critical Commentaries on Daniel
invoke yet another level of sophistication and obfuscation into the process,
all in order to confuse Christian readers and erode their confidence in Daniel.

They don't openly push the 'critical viewpoint' anymore,
as it is too obvously anti-prophecy and ant-Christian in its impact.
Never mind the impact on commentary sales.

So they instead they present "three views", obscurantizing the flaws,
and also smokescreening the real differences.
Then they 'recommend' the critical view as the 'most reasonable',
without proper evaluation or comparison.

Here is a perfect example of this smoke-screening obfuscation:

Westark Church of Christ on Daniel
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org...7/070603pm.htm

First, the lecturer tells the reader that it doesn't matter which interpretation
of Daniel's vision we adopt (even though only ONE points to Christ).

Then the lecturer presents each as having a 'small problem' or flaw,
making them 'equally plausible'.

Next the lecturer 'helps' the reader by recommending the one
endorsed by "experts" (who are really heretical and skeptical infiltrators).

Finally, the lecturer presents three charts which are made to look
virtually identical, giving more support to the idea that it "doesn't matter",
its all the same.

The Perversions and Deformities of the alternate "interpretations" are completely hidden.

The Perverse doctrines that inspired the alternate "interpretations" are also omitted.

The Three Stooges

One final point must be made regarding the new fadish 'interpretations' of Daniel's Vision.

(1) No Jew has ever or ever will accept these modern interpretations of Daniel.

(2) No historical Christian has ever knowingly embraced these radical schemes of "interpretation" until after the late 18th century, and those who do believe them today have never been told who inspired them and what must be sacrificed to embrace them.


But there is more:

(3) The real (pseudo)Author of Daniel is a complete FAILURE according to critics, because, all Jews and Christians who believed him to be the real Daniel believed the wrong interpretation of his visions.
Thus Daniel succeeded by being unanimously misunderstood for 2,000 years.  The story of the real author becomes a tragedy-comedy of errors.



But the story is even more incredible that one can imagine:

(4) The pseudo-author of Daniel was such a deep, and incredibly sophisticated forger that he anticipated and survived  the harshest and most meticulous examination and analysis, and still left the world's experts in history and linguistics divided,  unable to reconcile their views about this fraud into a single coherent picture.



And the critics expect us to consider that on the one hand

(5) The author of Daniel was a criminal GENIUS of forgery,
yet wrote for the lame and short-sighted purpose of "inspiring Jews during the Maccabean Revolt" to not lose hope.
How can the author be so subtle and sophisticated a linguistic genius, and such a hillbilly provincial simultaneously?
How could such a forger, such a jaded secular humanist even half-heartedly encourage fellow believing Jews to sacrifice themselves and die for what he himself as a crook and a forger must have regarded as the stupidest ideology in history, just as his neo-platonic critics also must also think?



"If only He had used his power for niceness, instead of evil." - Maxwell Smart (Agent 86, C.O.N.T.R.O.L.)



This means that every Christian who ever lived from the time of Christ until the Reformation believed in Daniel and Christ on a mistaken premise, by adopting the spurious writing of a pseudo-prophet who impersonated an ancient hero, and Christ Himself must have been mistaken to quote him as an authority, if we accept the modern view of the book of Daniel.

This is the Trojan Horse these perverts are offering to unsuspecting Christians.

These are easily proven "doctrines of satan" infilterated into the Church by unbelieving moderns.

Daniel (Pt 10): Porphry was an Idiot

The first critic who dismissed Daniel as a pseudo-forgery from the 2nd century B.C. was a Neo-Platonic philosopher (read goofball).

This jerk (reportedly an 'ex-Christian': read - never got it), saw clearly that one of the strongest arguments for Christianity was the prophecy of the Messiah in Daniel.

So he proposed that Daniel wasn't really Daniel at all, but a 2nd century Jewish forger who faked all his prophecies by posing history as prophecy.

This required Porphry to date the book as late as possible (c. 165 BC),
and claim that all the descriptions were in fact prophecies about the Maccabean Revolt.

Of course even Porphry was aware that the book of Daniel also prophesied the Roman Empire as one of FOUR Empires, extending his prophetic vision far into the future and beyond 165 B.C.

Thus it wasn't enough to argue that Daniel chapter 8 was mere history.
Porphyry had to get rid of the Statue in Daniel Chapter 2.

our previous chart showed how Porphyry developed his own system for interpreting the difficult problem of the Four Empires, and mentioned that this nonsense was also adopted by modern critics, starting in about the 18th century.

In this new chart, the juxtaposition of the three different prophecies under consideration shows that even when we date the Book of Daniel as late as 165 B.C., this date slices through the middle of all three prophecies.

Thus the solution doesn't solve the problem.

More than this however, this still doesn't leave us free to adopt any old dating for Daniel.  Because as the chart also shows, the Hebrew Canon was closed around 330 B.C., with Daniel in existence and included, and this is not easily refuted.

Furthermore, even the later Hebrew books like the Writings were all being translated into Greek well before the cut-off date (165 BC) being proposed.

And if the Book of Daniel was translated into Greek (in any condition) prior to the Maccabean revolt, it could not have been composed during that time to encourage persecuted Jews, nor could it contain the detailed description of that severe persecution (if the critics' theory of no prophecy allowed is maintained).

Josephus and Philo also mention the translation of the LXX, and for our purposes it matters not whether the Letter or Aristeas is fake, or whether Josephus is off on his dates.   There is no way that loyal Jews were going to be happily translating Hebrew into Greek during the violent war and rebellion against imposed Greek cultural invasion.  Nor would they be enthusiastic about it after this period, when they finally won their autonomy for a spell.

Its also humorous to note that Porphyry died in 305 A.D., just before Constantine decided to convert the Empire into Christianity.

So he missed the most important event of the 4th century A.D.,
another prophecy of Daniel.

Daniel (Pt 9): The Emperor Has No Pants!

We are now in a position to diagram what the skeptics and critics
do to the Book of Daniel and its prophecies.

The earliest the Book of Daniel can have been completed (by Daniel) is 535 B.C.

The latest the Book of Daniel could have been compiled is admitted to be 167 B.C.,
because most importantly, the book is known to have been in circulation in the Maccabean period,
and is independently quoted and referenced by various authors in that time.
Finally, it was already translated into Greek (the LXX) by about this time (167 B.C.)

It is said by critics to cover events up to the Maccabean period
and is said to have been written to encourage Jews in that time of persecution.

Skeptics date the book at the latest possible point for two basic reasons:

(1) Prophecy is impossible as an axiom.

(2) All the contents posed as prophecy can be assumed to be historical,
and be dated to before this time (167 B.C.),


which is how the critics explain why the book appears to be an accurate prophetic book.

However, the flaws with these axioms are obvious.

The most glaring problem is that Axiom (2) can really only explain
the contents of Daniel chapter 8, and perhaps some of 11 and 12.

The prophecy of Daniel chapter 2 remains a massive stumbling block to
skeptics, because it appears to predict the Roman Empire, which would
then again be a prophecy, so Axiom (1) fails.

The solution for critics is to simply eliminate one Empire (the Roman), and pretend that
the Greek Empire counts for TWO Empires.
That is, Alexander himself is one whole kingdom (the "Third Empire"),
and all the Greek rulers who followed count as the "Fourth Empire".

The "Iron Legs" move over to position 3, and so Empires 3 and 4
are squeezed into the spot just before the latest possible date that
the book can be given.

Voila! The Emperor has no Pants!

Daniel (pt 8): Overview with Daniel 2

In the 2nd chapter of Daniel, the first Dream is given of the Statue of four/five parts:

Head of Gold (Babylon)
Chest of Silver (Media-Persia)
Loins of Brass (Greece)
Legs of Iron (Rome)
Feet of Iron/Clay Mixture (Post-Roman Broken Empire)

And of course the Stone from Heaven, the Kingdom made without Hands (Christianity)

Again we offer a High resolution and Low resolution version
for online viewing and zooming in:

Its both remarkable and important that the kingdoms are not named until
years later (in chapters 7, 8, 9 of Daniel), and are fleshed out in later visions.

Nonetheless there is no doubt at all about the intended identities of these empires:

Click for Large Version

Daniel, AFTER surviving the fall of Babylon to the Media-Persians, certainly knows
who the Second 'Kingdom' (Media-Persia) is, and the angel now names both
Persia and the following Third 'Kingdom' (Greece) in chapter 8:20-21.

It seems natural that Daniel is told of their identity at a point in history when
they are now known to exist and their names have become known.

Even so, this is a remarkable prophecy since Daniel receives a prophecy of
WHO will replace the Persian Empire (which he could hardly be certain of
by normal means, and would not even live to witness), namely the Grecian Empire.
Even at this late point in time (circa 535 B.C.) several contenders for succession would be possible.