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 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.