Hope of Israel Ministries (Church of YEHOVAH):

Daniel's Four Kingdoms

John D. Keyser

Chapters 2 and 7 of the book of Daniel contain visions which symbolically portray the rise and fall of four unnamed world empires. Futuristic interpreters of the Church of God bent identify the four empires as: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. The whole idea of a future "Great Tribulation" stems from the fact that the events depicted under the dominion of the fourth empire cannot be identified in Roman history. Therefore, claim these futurists, these events must be fulfilled in a future tribulation period. This article will demonstrate, through detailed analysis, that Daniel did not consider the second empire to be Medo-Persian, nor did he consider a tribulation period in the far, distant future. Instead, scholarly consensus has it that the four empires of Daniel are Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece -- and the tribulation occurred during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes!

The "Times of the Gentiles"

Futuristic interpreters fix their identification of the four world empires from a twenty-first-century perspective, accompanied by their misguided understanding of the "time of the end" in the book of Daniel. Futurists assume that phrases such as the "time of the end" refer to the second advent of the Messiah. Hence, the sequence of events in the four world empires, anticipating "the end," is interpreted as prophecy leading up to the second advent. Futurists assert that the visions in chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel span a period called the "times of the Gentiles," extending from the days of Nebuchadnezzar's first siege of Jerusalem to the second coming of the Messiah. As a result, futurists understand the four world empires to be a prophesied panorama of history extending now to almost 2,600 years. Extolls William F. Dankenbring --

This dream [in Daniel 2] outlines all the major world kingdoms since Babylon, represented by Nebuchadnezzar himself. The dream-prophecy has been fulfilled, right down to our very day and time. All that now remains is for the final "ten toes" -- the final union which will comprise the last revival of the Roman Empire -- to get together, and when they do, they will last but a very short time (Escape From Armageddon. 1983: Triumph Publishing Co., Altadena, CA. P. 41).

Is this really true?

At the heart of the futuristic interpretation of these two subject chapters is what is known as the Roman view, which identifies Rome as the fourth empire. Futurists cite the prophecy's fulfillment from Nebuchadnezzar to the height of the Roman Empire (lst century A.D.). Since the events under the dominion of the fourth empire are unidentifiable in Roman history, a 2,000-year gap is inserted to bring the prophecy up to the present time. Futurists contend that the prophecy resumes fulfillment in the last days with the rise of a "revived Roman Empire" ruled by the Antichrist. Complete fulfillment, so they claim, will occur during the seven-year tribulation period, culminating in the second advent of the Messiah.

Viewing history from a twenty-first-century perspective, the Roman view, with its accompaning period of "Great Tribulation, appears credible and has long been held to be the accepted view. There is, however, a problem with this scenario. Ask yourself this question: WHY did YEHOVAH God use the figure of a statue? Shouldn't there be some correspondence as to time? In other words -- shouldn't the statue BE PREPORTIONATE to what it predicts? Absolutely -- and so it does!

The head of the statue was barely 69 years (unless you date it from Nebuchadnezzar's first taking of Babylon, which would add a few more years) before the portions of the chest and arms (Median kingdom) and the waist and thighs (Persian kingdom) came and went -- consuming some 204 years from Darius the Mede to Alexander the Great. If we date the beginning of Alexander's expansion to 336 B.C., and trace it down to Antiochus Epiphanes, we have a further 172 or so years. This would make the trunk, upper torso and head to be 273 years long, and the rest of the body 172 years long. If you use these proportions you will clearly find that not only did Daniel accurately predict the coming four empires but also gave an accurate prediction of their proportionate lengths compared with that of the human body. History does indeed match the proportions of the statue!

But what if the toes are way out in the future and the image hasn't yet been struck in the toes, as some claim? Since there were 507 years from Actium to the fall of Rome, and the fall of Rome should be the time of the appearance of the ten toes, according to the futurists, that would make the toes over 1500 years long and still growing!! There is obviously something very wrong with this interpretation!

The position of the futurist has to be wrong simply because the figures and symbols that are given in the prophecy are so grotesquely destroyed by this scenario. The symbol in Daniel 2 is of a statue predicting future history (from Daniel's time) -- NOT a statue with deformed toes!

Daniel's intended identification of these four world empires is the primary consideration in this article, not an identification that depends on a retrospective view. Daniel attached special significance to the depiction of the visions' events. Therefore, an identification of the four world empires must be sought from the book of Daniel with primary consideration given to the author's historical perspective.

Nebuchadnezzar's Troubling Dream

The vision in Daniel 2 is a troubling dream experienced by King Nebuchadnezzar -- one which he could not remember the next day. The king summoned the "magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans" (verse 2) to tell him the dream and its meaning. The wise men failed. But Daniel, aided by YEHOVAH God, was able to relate the dream to the king as well as tell him what it meant:

"As you looked, O king, there was a great statue! That statue was huge, its appearance surpassing, standing before you, and its appearance was terrifying. As for that statue, its head was of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its waist and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly clay" (Daniel 2:31-33, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

Daniel informed King Nebuchadnezzar that his dream was of a "great statue" composed of various metals. The statue's head was made of gold; the chest and arms of silver; the waist and thighs of bronze; and the legs of iron. Daniel also explained the dream's significance --

"You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the might, and the glory; into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, human beings, the wild animals, and the birds of the air, and whom he has made ruler over them all -- you are the head of gold. After you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours, and then a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over the entire earth. Then there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron; just as iron crushes and shatters everything, it shall crush and smash all these, like iron which crushes, all the earth" (Daniel 2:37-40, ibid.).

Daniel explained to the king that the four metals represented four successive kingdoms that would rule on the earth. Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian kingdom is identified as the "head of gold," to be followed by an "inferior kingdom," represented by the chest and arms of silver. A third kingdom of "bronze" is represented by the waist and thighs. The fourth kingdom, the legs of iron, will be "strong as iron," and will "crush and shatter" the previous kingdoms. Daniel then describes events under the dominion of the fourth kingdom.

"Just as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the hardness of iron shall be in it, as you saw the iron mixed with common clay. Just as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. And just as you saw the iron mixed with clay, so will they intermingle with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay" (Daniel 2:41-43, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

Symbolized by the "feet and toes," the fourth kingdom -- the legs of iron -- will be divided. The divided kingdom will retain some of the strength of iron, but it will also have weaknesses, represented by the clay. There is also the mixing of iron and clay, indicating "marriage" between peoples of the divided kingdom. However, these marriage ties will not be binding because "iron does not mix with clay."

"And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be delivered to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and put an end to them, and it shall stand forever; just as you saw that a stone was hewn from the mountain by no human hand, and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has revealed to the king what shall be in the future. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is reliable" (Daniel 2:44-45, ibid.).

Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that during the time of the divided kingdom, the "God of heaven" will establish a kingdom that "shall never be destroyed." YEHOVAH's kingdom will "crush" all previous kingdoms and "stand forever." Daniel concludes by emphasizing that "the dream is certain, and its interpretation is reliable."

The Animals from the Great Sea

Four beasts, which also symbolize the same four world empires, are found in Daniel 7. The vision of the beasts is given to Daniel and interpreted by an angel, much in the same way that Daniel interpreted the dream image of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2 -- notice!.

I, Daniel, saw in my vision by night the four winds of heaven stirring up the great sea, and four great animals emerged from the sea, each different from one another. The first was like a lion but with eagles' wings. I kept watching until its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand up on two feet like a human; and it was given a human mind. Another beast appeared, a second one that looked like a bear, but raised up on one side, and with three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told: "Arise, devour much flesh!" After this, as I looked, another appeared, like a leopard. The animal had four wings of a bird on its back and four heads; and dominion was given to it. After this I was watching in the visions by night, and a fourth beast appeared, terrifying and dreadful and very powerful. It had great iron teeth that devoured, crushed, and trampled residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that preceded it, and it had ten horns (Daniel 7:2-7, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

Daniel's vision describes four beasts: a lion, a bear, a leopard, and an unidentified fourth beast. Each beast has specific unnatural features and qualities. An angel appears to Daniel and explains the vision's meaning.

As for these great beasts, which number four, four kings shall spring up out of the earth (Daniel 7:17, ibid.).

The four beasts are identified as four kings (or kingdoms). The first three beasts are not described further; they exist simply to build for the reader an historical bridge from the time of Daniel in Babylon, to the time of the fourth kingdom. Just as he did in Daniel 2, the author depicts the fourth kingdom as the most powerful. The vision continues with a more detailed explanation of the breakup of the fourth kingdom.

As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall spring up and another shall spring up after them. This one shall be different from those before him, and shall lay low three kings (Daniel 7:24, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

On the head of the fourth beast are ten horns, representing "ten kings" to arise out of the fourth empire. Particularly interesting is an eleventh horn which succeeds the ten and is "different from those before him."

Then kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the entire heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them (Daniel 9:27, ibid.).

Here, too, the divided kingdom of the fourth empire is replaced by YEHOVAH God's kingdom, just as it is in Daniel 2. All of the earth's kingdoms will be replaced by the "holy ones of the Most High," and their kingdom "shall be an everlasting kingdom."

Babylon: The Gold Kingdom

While there is considerable debate concerning the identity of the last three kingdoms, there is mutual consent among interpreters that the Neo-Babylonian Empire is the first kingdom. The statue's head of gold is explicitly stated to represent Nebuchadnezzar's dominion. Daniel tells the king, "you are the head of gold" (2:38).

Even Dankenbring understands this when he says: "The head of gold was the Babylonian Empire" (Escape From Armageddon, p. 40).

The Babylonian Empire is also recognized as the first beast in Daniel 7, a "lion that had eagles' wings." Also notice that the lion is used as a symbol for Babylon in the book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 4:7; 49:19; 50:17), and eagles symbolize Babylonian armies (Jeremiah 49:22).

Furthermore, the lion's "wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand upon two feet like a human; and it was given a human mind" (Daniel 7:4). Most interpreters see here a parallel to Nebuchadnezzar's seven-year madness described in Chapter 4 of Daniel. In this account, Nebuchadnezzar was reduced to the level of the beasts for seven years, after which he was restored to human form. Therefore, it may be safely established that the Babylonian Empire is the first of the four world empires.

Futurists, however -- including Dankenbring -- mistakenly identify the remaining three empires as Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Events depicted under the fourth empire's dominion, which cannot be identified in Roman history, are projected by them out into a future tribulation period. A study of each of the three remaining empires within the context of Daniel will reveal, however, that Daniel had in mind Media, Persia, and Greece as the last three kingdoms -- leaving absolutely no room for some future "Great Tribulation"!

Media: The Ferocious Silver Bear

In all theories seeking to chart the course of world history from the visions of Daniel, the identity of the second of the four world empires directly affects the identity of the third and fourth empires. If Daniel intended Medo-Persia as the second empire, Greece and Rome would complete the sequence as futuristic interpreters contend. But if Daniel distinguished Media and Persia as separate kingdoms, and if he intended Media to be identified as the second empire then, obviously, the other two kingdoms would be Persia and Greece. We will demonstrate that Media is indeed the second empire of Daniel. From this viewpoint it will be evident that there is no room left for extending the sequence of four world empires beyond the beginning of the new millennium.

Ram's Horns Represent Individual Kingdoms

In Chapter 2 of the book of Daniel, the second empire is likened to the "chest and arms of silver" (verse 32). It is further described as an "inferior" kingdom (verse 39) which will succeed the Babylonian Empire. In Chapter 7 of Daniel, the second empire is symbolized by a beast that "looked like a bear" (verse 5).

Futuristic interpreters that adhere to the Roman view understand the second kingdom to be the combined Medo-Persian power. This identification is based primarily on the vision of the Ram and the Goat, where the "kings of Media and Persia" (Daniel 8:20) are represented by the ram's two horns (Daniel 8:3). Futurists maintain that this singular beast, which follows the Babylonian Empire in sequence, represents a combined Medo-Persian Empire. Therefore the second beast in Daniel 7 likewise represents a single empire.

In the vision of the Ram and the Goat, however, Daniel states that the two horns of the ram represent the "kings of Media and Persia." The horns are distinguished from each other, the shorter horn representing Media, and the longer horn representing Persia (Daniel 8:3). Thus it is the two horns that are identified as representing individual kingdoms, and not the ram itself. The ram represents the combined power of the two separate kingdoms.

The Jewish historian Josephus (c. 37-c. 101 A.D.) clearly states that the ram signifies KINGDOMS (plural) -- not one combined kingdom. Notice!

...God interpreted the appearance of this vision [of the ram] after the following manner: He said that the RAM signified THE KINGDOMS OF THE MEDES AND PERSIANS, and the horns those kings that were to reign in them; and that the last horn signified the last king, and that he should exceed all the kings in riches and glory (Antiquities of the Jews, Book x, chapter XI, section 7).

If you check out the text in verse 20 in the original Hebrew, you will find that it literally reads: "The ram that you saw the kings of Media and Persia." The verb to be (are) is not in the main clause, so this raises a legitimate question of interpretation. Did Daniel mean to say, "The ram that you saw IS the kings of Media and Persia," or did he mean to say that the "horns ARE the kings of Media and Persia"? There are many reasons to think that he meant to say that the HORNS were the kings of Media and Persia.

Writes Farrell Till --

First of all, we have to wonder why the writer [Daniel] didn't say that the ram was the kings of Medo-Persia if he meant for the ram itself to symbolize a combined Medo-Persian empire. Why did he clearly distinguish between the Medes and the Persians as he consistently did throughout the book [of Daniel]? In his interpretation of the handwriting on the wall, Daniel told Belshazzar that his kingdom was divided and given to the Medes AND the Persians (5:28), so he had previously spoken of Media and Persia as separate kingdoms. If the writer knew that there was at that time a combined "Medo-Persian" empire, this would have been an excellent opportunity for him to say that the kingdom was being given to the Medo-Persians, but he didn't say that. He said that the kingdom would be divided and given to the Medes AND the Persians. In other words, Daniel's interpretation of the writing was that part of Babylonia would be given to the Medes, and part of it would be given to the Persians, and so the interpretation indicated that the writer [Daniel] thought that Media and Persia were separate kingdoms that would divide the territory of Babylonia between them (What Medo-Persian Empire?)

In what sense would Daniel have meant that the Baylonian kingdom would be divided if he thought that the whole kingdom was going to be absorbed by a combined "Medo-Persian" empire? The division of territory conquered by ALLIED KINGDOMS was not uncommon in those times, just as it isn't uncommon today -- witness the division of Germany after WWII to the victorious allies. The Medes had, in fact, formed an alliance with Babylonia against the Assyrians in 529 B.C. and the capture of Nineveh in 527 B.C., for all intent and purposes, ended the Assyrian Empire. It managed to hold on to Haran for two more years under the leadership of Ashur-uballit, but it, too, fell to the Babylonians, Medes, and Scythians in 524 -- see the New Bible Dictionary (Inter-Varsity Press, 1994, p. 101).

The fall of the Assyrian Empire did not, however, result in the formation of a Medo-Babylonian kingdom. The conquered territories were simply divided by the ALLIED FORCES. That this custom of dividing conquered territories indeed took place at the fall of Babylon explains why Daniel had interpreted the handwriting on the wall to mean that Belshazzar's kingdom would be divided between the Medes AND the Persians rather than given to the "Medo-Persians."

When Cyrus rose up and defeated the Medes in 468 B.C. (11 years before the fall of Babylon), he did not absorb the kingdom of the Medes but maintained it as a separate entity with many of the rights and privileges of a trusted ally. This we read in A History of Greece by J.B. Bury -- notice:

...Astyages was hurled from the throne of Media by a hero, who was to become one of the world's mightiest conquerors. The usurper was Cyrus the Great, of the Persian family of the Achaemenids. The revolution signified indeed little more than a change of dynasty; the Persians and Medes were peoples of the same race and the same faith; the realm remained Iranian as before (Random House, NY, p. 213).

Also, in the Encyclopedia Britannica (1943) we find --

By the rebellion of Cyrus, king of Persia, against his suzerain Astyages, the son of Cyaxares, in 553 [actually, 471 B.C.], and his victory in 550 [actually, 468 B.C.], the Medes were subjected to the Persians. In the new empire they retained a prominent position; IN HONOUR AND WAR THEY STOOD NEXT TO THE PERSIANS; the ceremonial of their court was adopted by the new sovereigns who in the summer months resided in Ecbatana, and many noble Medes were employed as officials, satraps and GENERALS (Volume 15, p. 172).

While Cyrus was the overall commander of the forces arrayed against Babylon, Darius the Mede was the commander or general of the separate but equal Median forces. While history hasn't recorded his reasoning, Cyrus allowed the Median forces under his command to storm Babylon rather than his own Persian troops.

Josephus confirms this in his Antiquities of the Jews -- observe!

...but when Babylon was TAKEN BY DARIUS, and when he, with his kinsman Cyrus, had put an end to the dominion of the Babylonians, he was sixty-two years old. He was the son of Astyages, and had another name among the Greeks (Book x, chapter XI, section 4).

There is absolutely no reason, then, to think that the ram represented a single "Medo-Persian" empire. The ram's horns represented the kings of Media and Persia, so one horn was Media, and the other one was Persia.

Explains Farrell Till --

Even the descriptive language of the vision supports this interpretation of the horns: "Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last" (8:3). The fact that both horns were high would symbolically express power, and the one that was higher than the other would suggest that the power of this king was greater than the king represented by the other horn. The higher horn also "came up last," so the imagery here is consistent with known historical facts about the kingdoms of Media and Persia. Media was a powerful kingdom that had allied itself with Babylon to conquer Assyria and then divide its territory, but Persia had later conquered Media under the leadership of Cyrus and absorbed its territory. Quite naturally, then, the power of Persia was greater than the power of Media, so in that sense, the horn that had come up last was higher than the first horn, but obviously the two horns were separate from each other, just as Media and Persia had been separate kingdoms (What Medo-Persian Empire?).

Also, in Daniel 2 and 7, the author is dealing with a sequence of four individual world kingdoms. In the vision of the Ram and the Goat, the author's purpose is to demonstrate the overwhelming strength of Alexander's forces, which devastated the combined power of two kingdoms -- Media and Persia. Therefore, identifying the second empire based on the vision of the Ram and the Goat, as futuristic interpreters do, ignores the fact that individual kingdoms are represented by the ram's two horns, not the ram itself!

The important point to remember here is that Daniel CONSISTENTLY used horns to symbolize kings, so this is a convincing reason why we should understand that the horns on the ram -- and NOT the ram itself -- represented the kings of Media and Persia: "As for the ram which you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia" (Daniel 8:20).

The Question of Duality

In Chapter 8 of Daniel, the two horns of the ram are distinguished as representing separate and unequal kingdoms. Interpreters overwhelmingly agree that Persia is the "longer one [horn] that came up second" (Daniel 8:3). Since futurists contend that Medo-Persia is the second empire, it follows that such a distinction should be made in the symbolic representation of the second empire. Futurists attempt such a comparison in Daniel 2 by supposing that the chest and arms of the metallic statue represent the duality of the Medo-Persian union. Robert D. Culver states:

The duality of the kingdom is obviously represented by the duality of the breasts and arms ("Daniel," in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1987, p. 780).

Clarence Larkin, a prominent dispensational writer of the early twentieth century, goes so far as to specify which arm of the metallic statue represents which kingdom. In his words:

Thus we see that while the Babylonian Empire was single-headed, the Medo-Persian was a dual Empire, represented by the "two arms" of the Image and the "two horns" of the Ram. The left arm of the Image representing Media the weaker, and the right arm Persia the stronger kingdom (The Book of Daniel. Philadelphia: Rev. Clarence Larkin Est., 1929, p. 44).

Even though the two horns of the ram are specifically distinguished from each other, such distinction is in no way represented by the metallic statue. The text identifies the second empire simply as the "chest and arms." Had Daniel intended to symbolize Media by one arm, and Persia by the other arm, he would have made some sort of distinction, such as depicting one arm as being stronger, or larger, as Larkin imagines.

Clear indication is provided whenever specific body parts are to have interpretive value, as will be demonstrated by the thighs, feet, and toes of the statue. No such indication is given here, however. The text goes no further than to name the next part of the statue, the chest and the arms, as the second kingdom. Daniel attaches no significance to the two arms or chest; thus, whether the arms are alike or different is of no concern, since Daniel is not using them to represent particular kingdoms, as he is with the horns of the ram. Daniel is simply using these body parts in composing a human figure for his symbolic message.

However, if Media is recognized as the second kingdom, and Persia the third kingdom, such a distinction may be found in Daniel 2. Media, the shorter horn, is pictured as the "inferior kingdom" that arose after the Babylonian Empire. Persia, the longer horn, is then the greater kingdom which will "rule over the whole earth." The relationship between Media and Persia as the second and third kingdoms, respectively, is thus exemplified, and distinguished in Daniel 2 in the same way that the two horns of the ram are.

Duality in the Bear?

Futurists also find duality in the symbolism of the bear that is "raised up on one side" (Daniel 7:5). John F. Walvoord, in his book The Key to Prophetic Revelation, subscribes to this view by stating:

Although the Scriptures do not answer directly, probably the best explanation is that it [raising up on one side] represented the one-sided union of the Persian and Median Empires. Persia at this time, although coming up last, was by far the greater and more powerful and had absorbed the Medes. This is represented also in chapter eight by the two horns of the ram with the horn that comes up last being higher and greater (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, p. 156).

The author's position is one supposed by not recognizing that Daniel is dealing with a sequence of four world empires in Chapter 7, while in Chapter 8, the ram is composed of two individual kingdoms. The context of Daniel does not indicate that the bear's being "raised up on one side" symbolizes a combined power of the Medes and Persians. Again, no distinction exists between the raised and lowered shoulders of the bear that compares with the distinction made between the two horns of the ram.

A closer look at the continuing description of the bear shows that it had "three tusks" (or "ribs," KJV) in its mouth and was given the command, "Arise, devour many bodies!" (Daniel 7:5). Clearly, the aggressiveness of the bear is the intended symbolism, and the bear's raising up on one side must be understood within this context. Critical scholar S.R. Driver has stated:

Perhaps, on the whole, the most probable view is that the trait (raised up on one side) is intended to indicate the animal's aggressiveness: it is pictured as raising one of its shoulders, so as to be ready to use its paw on that side ("The Book of Daniel," in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge University Press, 1922, p. 82).

The bear is depicted in the process of consuming three ribs, and is told to rise up and whet its appetite further by devouring more bodies. The image of the bear as being "raised up on one side" should then be understood as the bear rising up to a striking position to "devour many bodies," as Driver suggests. Therefore Daniel's depiction of the bear suggests that he viewed the second empire as a brutal conqueror that devoured its enemies. This corresponds to the description given of the Medes in Isaiah 13:15-18 which will be explored later in this article.

Daniel Distinguishes Between Medes and Persians

Not to be dismayed, futuristic interpreters point to other texts in the book of Daniel speaking of the Medes and Persians in an attempt to prove that Medo-Persia is the second empire. Walvoord cites Daniel 8:20-21, 5:28 and 11:2 to illustrate that ". . . Daniel has in view here Medo-Persia and Greece, empires which he later identifies by name" (Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, p. 66).

Robert D. Culver adds Daniel 6:8, 12 and 15 to his list of references to the laws of the Medes and Persians -- laws which were adhered to by Darius the Mede. Culver contends that Darius the Mede represents Medo-Persia. (Daniel and the Latter Days, p. 112).

To the contrary, however, every time the Medes and Persians are mentioned in Daniel they are distinguished from one another, indicating that Daniel viewed them as two distinct groups of people. The first mention of the Medes and Persians occurs in Daniel 5:28 which depicts the fall of the Babylonian Empire. The Babylonian Empire is to be "divided and given to the Medes and Persians." H.H. Rowley, in Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, explains:

Clearly, therefore, the author supposed that just as on the fall of Nineveh the Assyrian dominions were divided between the Medes and the Chaldaeans, so the Babylonian Empire was now divided, and part of it fell to the Medes and part to the Persians, as two separate but allied powers (Cardiff: University of Wales Press Board, 1959, p. 148).

That Media and Persia are distinguished as separate nations by the two horns of the ram is a point made repeatedly throughout the book of Daniel. Daniel always identifies the two nations as either the "Medes and Persians," or "Media and Persia." The fact that he viewed the two nations as separate entities is demonstrated by the statement that Belshazzar's kingdom was divided between them. After the fall of Babylon, Daniel places the city under Median rule:

In the same night was Baltasar the Chaldean king slain. And Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom, being sixty-two years old. And it pleased Darius, and he set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps, to be in all his kingdom; and over them three governors, of whom one was Daniel; for the satraps to give account to them, that the king should not be troubled (Daniel 5:30-32; 6:1, 2, The Septuagint).

While some interpreters contend Darius was a subordinate of Cyrus, assisting in the rule of Medo-Persia, the text is very clear that "Darius the Mede received the kingdom," not Cyrus. Darius the Mede, representing the Median Empire, is presented as a sovereign ruler over "the whole kingdom," and is referred to as "King Darius" throughout Daniel 6. In Daniel 9 he is further identified as "king over the realm of the Chaldeans" (Daniel 9:1).

This fact is verified by the cuneiform tablets that archaeologists have uncovered from ancient Babylonia. These tablets provide us with evidence that the title, "King of Babylon," WAS NOT USED for Cyrus in the contracts dated to him during the FIRST YEAR after Babylon's conquest in October, 457 B.C. Only the title, "King of Lands," was applied to him in his capacity as king of the Persian Empire. Late in 456 B.C., however, the scribes added the title "King of Babylon," to his list of titles; and this continued throughout the remainder of Cyrus' reign and those of his successors down to the time of Xerxes.

Xenophon, the Greek historian, says in his Cyropaedia that Gobryas was the general whose troops conquered Babylon. He is, in all likelihood, the Darius the Mede mentioned by Daniel. According to the well-attested Nabonidus Chronicle -- an important cuneiform tablet describing the fall of Babylon -- Gobryas' name was Ugbaru. The Chronicle states that he appointed governors in Babylonia (cf. 6:1) and resided in Babylon until he died there one month before the title, "King of Babylon," was added to Cyrus' titles. Darius was very likely Ugbaru's throne name.

While we do not know Ugbaru's ancestry, the Nabonidus Chronicle states that he was the Babylonian governor of Gutium who defected to the Persians and became general of the Persian (Medean?) army that overthrew Babylon. The Anchor Bible Dictionary (vol. 2, p. 34) points out that the Babylonians used the word "Gutium" to refer to the Northeast, and the MEDES were in the northeast part of the Persian Empire. The dictionary also mentions that the historian Berossus lists Gutium with the tyrants of the Medes.

There is another possibility -- Gubaru/Gaubaruwa (whom Xenophon the Greek confused with Ugbaru) was also appointed the governor of Babylonia by Cyrus. Other cuneiform texts show that Gubaru continued living for 14 years as governor not only of the city of Babylon but also of the entire region of Babylonia -- as well as of the "Region beyond the River." Gubaru was ruler over a region that extended the full length of the Fertile Crescent, basically the same area as that of the Babylonian Empire. Darius the Mede, we should remember, is spoken of as being "made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans" (Daniel 9:1), but not as "the king of Persia," the regular form for referring to King Cyrus (Daniel 10:1; Ezra 1:1, 2; 3:7; 4:3). So the region ruled by Gubaru would, at the very least, appear to be the SAME as that ruled over by Darius the Mede. Unless further evidence comes from the histories of the time, it is unclear which of these two individuals is the "Darius the Mede" of the scriptures.

Following the reign of Darius is Cyrus the Persian. Daniel is said to have "prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian" (Daniel 6:28). Daniel clearly distinguishes between Darius and Cyrus by their race. Darius, a Mede, controlled Babylon until Cyrus, a Persian, took the throne. Daniel also speaks retrospectively of Darius the Mede (Daniel 11:1) in a vision that is set "in the third year of King Cyrus of Persia" (Daniel 10:1).

Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that Daniel presents the fall of Babylon as occurring at the hands of both the Medes and the Persians. Median rule of Babylon is presented in the form of the historically identifiable Ugbaru or Gubaru, one of whose throne name was probably "Darius the Mede." He was succeeded by the Persian rule of Cyrus the Persian. Thus, from Daniel's record of Babylon's fall, and that of the cuneiform tablets, Media is the empire which succeeded the Babylonian Empire -- not Medo-Persia!

Daniel Vs. the Futurists

Adherents to the Roman view of the four world empires reject Daniel's conception of an intervening Median Empire, contending that the scenario is not supported by other historical data. According to them, the Median Empire was contemporaneous with the Babylonian Empire and both empires fell to the Persian Empire -- the former in 468 B.C. and the latter in 457 B.C. Futurists therefore argue that it is incorrect to interject Median control of Babylon between the reigns of Belshazzar and Cyrus since Media was already incorporated into the Persian Empire at the fall of Babylon. H.H. Rowley, however, points out that it is Daniel, not the book's interpreter, who distinguishes between Median and Persian control of Babylon. He explains:

Thus, it is argued that it is an historical error to suppose that a Median kingdom intervened between the fall of Babylon and the reign of Cyrus, and that we have no right to father on to the author of the book of Daniel so grave an error [supposedly] in the interests of our theory...It is he [Daniel] who states that Darius the Mede succeeded Belshazzar, and who elsewhere speaks of "Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldaeans." It is he who says that Daniel prospered "in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian." It is he who represents one as coming to Daniel in a vision which he saw in the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, and speaking to him retrospectively of the first year of Darius the Mede. It is therefore he who distinguishes between the race of Darius and that of Cyrus, and who sets a Median control of Babylon between Belshazzar and the Persian rule, and the principle that the visions are to be interpreted by the view of the course of history which the author reveals elsewhere in his book leads unmistakably to the identification of the second empire with the Median (Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, pp. 147-148).

The kingdom of Belshazzar was followed by the kingdom that was divided between the Medes and Persians. Darius the Mede received the kingdom for an unspecified length of time (i.e., Median control). His rule was followed by that of Cyrus of Persia (i.e., Persian control). These empires are distinguished as separate kingdoms in the unequal horns of the ram, and a distinction is made between the Medes and the Persians throughout the book of Daniel. Therefore it is clear that Daniel intended for the Median kingdom to be recognized as the second of the four world empires.

Jeremiah's Prophecies Against Babylon

Based on Daniel's view of power transfer, from Babylon to Media to Persia, it seems evident that he used the Old Testament writings to buttress the visions he experienced. More specifically, the book of Jeremiah, which predicts Babylon's destruction at the hands of the Medes, clearly influenced Daniel's work.

In the first year of Darius the son of Assuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who reigned over the kingdom of the Chaldeans, I Daniel, understood BY BOOKS the number of the years which was the word of the Lord to the prophet Jeremias, even seventy years for the accomplishment of the desolation of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:1-2, The Septuagint).

Daniel says there were "books" which contained the writings of the prophet Jeremiah. Also, these prophecies were "the word of the Lord" concerning the "seventy years" of Babylonian captivity, and were "perceived," or studied, by Daniel. From these two verses, it is obvious that Daniel was familiar with the prophecies of Jeremiah -- especially those relating to the Babylonian captivity. Further, from his statement that Jeremiah was transmitting the "word of the Lord," it may also be concluded that Daniel relied on these "books" as an historical source. Jeremiah is very specific in his prophecy against Babylon. A total and complete destruction of the city is predicted in 50:8-46, a passage too long to quote and, in chapter 51, he repeats the prophecy even more graphically and clearly indentifies the MEDES as the instrument of YEHOVAH's anger against Babylon --

"Make the arrows bright! Gather the shields! The Lord has raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes. For his plan is against Babylon to destroy it, because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance for his temple" (Jeremiah 51:11, NKJV).

"Prepare against her [Babylon] the nations, with the kings of the Medes, its governors and all its rulers, all the land of his dominion. And the land will tremble and sorrow; for every purpose of the LORD shall be performed against Babylon, to make the land of Babylon a desolation without inhabitant " (Jeremiah 51:28-29, NKJV).

Jeremiah prophesies Babylon's complete destruction at the hands of the "kings of the Medes," and "every land under their dominion." Jeremiah's railings against Babylon (Jeremiah 50; 51) make no mention of the great Persian Empire as a conqueror of Babylon. Jeremiah specifically refers to the Medes.

In Daniel 9:2, Jeremiah is cited as having recorded the "word of the Lord," therefore, there could be no questioning of this "word," delivered by the great prophet Jeremiah, prophesying Babylon's fall to the Medes -- not the Persians!

Isaiah Also Prophesies Median Destruction

The book of Isaiah also prophesies that "the Medes" will destroy Babylon, thereby providing Daniel with a corresponding historical source. Further, it can be demonstrated that Isaiah's depiction of the Medes corresponds to the symbolic portrayal of Daniel's second empire. Isaiah's "burden" against Babylon begins at chapter 13, where he launches into a condemnation of the Babylonian threat to Israel. "The day of YEHOVAH is at hand," he proclaims. "It will come as a destruction from the Almighty" (v. 6). Beginning at verse 17, he identifies the MEDES as the instrument that YEHOVAH God would use to bring about Babylon's destruction --

Everyone who is found will be thrust through, and everyone who is captured will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes, and their houses will be plundered, and their wives taken. Indeed, I am stirring up the Medes against them [the Babylonians], people who have no regard for silver and no pleasure in gold. Their bows will destroy the youth, and on infants they will have no pity, and their eyes will have no compassion on children. Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty and pride of the Chaldeans, will be like Sodom and Gomorrah when God overthrew them. It will never again be inhabited; it will not be lived in from generation to generation. Arabs will not pitch tents there; shepherds will not make their flocks lie down there. Rather wild creatures will lie down there, and their houses will be full of jackal. Ostriches will live there, and wild goats will dance there. Wolves will howl in their towers and jackals in their luxurious palaces. Its time is drawing near, and its days will not be drawn out any further (Isaiah 13:15-22, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

This was obviously a prophecy predicting a complete and permanent destruction of Babylon. The prediction was that the destruction was imminent ("time is drawing near," v. 22) and that the destruction WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE MEDES ("I am stirring up the Medes against them," v. 17).

Isaiah offers a graphic depiction of the Median destruction of Babylon. Isaiah says that anyone caught by the Medes, whom he describes as brutal and merciless, will "fall by the sword"; those captured will be "thrust through"; infants will be "dashed to pieces"; houses "plundered"; and wives "taken."

Then, in Isaiah 21:2, the prophet proclaims --

A distressing vision is declared to me; the treacherous dealer deals treacherously, and the plunderer plunders. Go up, O Elam! Besiege, O Media! All its sighing I have made to cease (NKJV).

These portrayals echo the description of Daniel's second beast, which is also fierce and brutal. Daniel's second beast, a bear, is raised up in a striking position. The bear has three ribs "in its mouth, and is told, 'Arise, devour many bodies!"' (Daniel 7:5). Daniel ascribes the same qualities to Babylon's conqueror as Isaiah does to the Medes. The difference is that Isaiah calls the Medes by name, whereas Daniel uses symbolic references.

The Three Ribs

The three ribs in the bear's mouth may be further identified with Isaiah's description of the Medes. Traditionally, interpreters have understood the three ribs to represent nations conquered by the second empire, even though the text does not state, nor does it indicate, that the ribs represent defeated nations." Howard B. Rand, in his Study in Daniel, claims that

the three ribs, or a translation by Ferrar Fenton, the three tusks in its mouth among its teeth represent the three main systems of human endevour -- political, economic and religious -- which have devoured much flesh in the form of the oppression which follows in their wake (Merrimac, MA: Destiny Publishers, 1985, p. 179).

Marshall W. Best maintains that

the three ribs may represent the kingdoms of Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt which were all eventually conquered by this empire (Through the Prophet's Eye. Enumclaw, WA: WinePress Publishing, 2000, p.56).

Ralph Woodrow also follows this line of reasoning when he states that:

The mention of "three ribs" in the mouth -- between the teeth where a bear crushes its prey -- is possibly a reference to the fact that Medo-Persia [?] crushed the three provinces that made up the Babylonian kingdom: Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt (Great Prophecies of the Bible. Riverside, CA: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, Inc., 1971, p. 135).

H.H. Rowley concludes, however, that "whatever meaning it [the three ribs] had for the author is irrecoverable" (Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, p. 154). S.R. Driver suggests another approach to determining the meaning of the ribs. He states that

... it is quite possible that the ribs in the creature's mouth are meant simply as an indication of its voracity, and are not intended as an allusion to three particular countries absorbed by the empire which it represents ("The Book of Daniel" in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, p. 82)..

From the standpoint of Driver's suggestion, the ribs in the mouth of the bear may be seen as symbolizing the three groups of Babylonians that Isaiah points to as particularly vulnerable to Median attack. Isaiah says the Medes will:

1) "slaughter young men";
2) "have no mercy on the fruit of the womb (infants, NIV)";
3) "not pity children."

It is thus reasonable to conclude that the young men, infants, and children devoured by the Medes are represented by the ribs in the mouth of the bear. Said another way, the three ribs in the mouth of the beast represent Median conquest of Babylon. While this identification is inconclusive, it is supported by the context of Daniel and corresponds well with Isaiah's portrayal of the Medes, which seems to have greatly influenced Daniel.

Persia Is the Third Kingdom

With the Median Empire having been identified as the second empire, Daniel's third empire logically is Persia. Daniel describes the third empire in Daniel 2 as the "waist and thighs of bronze" (verse 32) that shall "rule over the entire earth" (verse 39). In Daniel 7, the third empire is symbolized by a leopard that has "four wings of a bird on its back and four heads" (verse 6). Futuristic interpreters, insisting that Medo-Persia is the second empire, understand Greece as the third empire:

Correspondence between the Medo-Persian empires of chapter two, symbolized by the breast and arms of silver and the two-horned ram of chapter eight is unmistakable. That ram is specifically said to be "Media and Persia," and the he-goat kingdom of chapter eight, which succeeded it, is said to be Greece. The Bible clearly identifies the third kingdom as Greece (Daniel and the Latter Days, p.113).

Robert D. Culver's statement here relies on interpreting the second kingdom as Medo-Persia, which was proven invalid earlier in this article.

Again, the proof text is Daniel 8:20, 21 -- notice! "The ram which you saw, having the two horns -- they [the horns] are the kings of Media and Persia. And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king [Alexander]" (NKJV)..

Futurists also attempt to support their position by pointing out that the "four heads" of the leopard stand for the fourfold division of Alexander's Greek Empire. But there is no indication in the text, other than in the coincidental use of the number four, that the four heads represent Greek subdivision. It is worth noting that in texts which address this division (Daniel 8:8, 22; 11:4), Alexander himself is first identified, then the division of his kingdom is described. The heads of the leopard indicate no such transition of power.

Rather, the four heads of the leopard may be identified with kings of the Persian Empire -- Cyrus, Cambyses II, Darius Hystaspes and Xerxes. While Cambyses is not mentioned in the Bible, the other three are. The Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah has often been considered to be a king who followed after Xerxes, however there is much evidence to indicate that Artaxerxes and Xerxes were one and the same king!

In the ruins of Persepolis can be found reliefs of the “three” kings of the Persian dynasty who were involved with building the city -- Darius I, Xerxes and Artaxerxes. While the faces on the reliefs have been chiseled off, other parts of the reliefs can be used to make our point. It’s very subtle, but nonetheless conclusive -- it’s the famous hand of Artaxerxes! Artaxerxes right hand was LONGER than his left one, and this was so unusual it became his trademark and hence the name “Artaxerxes LONGIMANUS (longimanus is Latin for “long hand”).

A very famous relief at Persepolis showing Darius seated on the throne followed by his son “Xerxes” shows Xerxes with his right hand turned vertically in order to show off his hand for all to see. The hand was carved with great detail showing all the palm creases, etc. You will notice, by comparison, that it is clearly LONGER THAN HIS LEFT! It is because of this unusual hand that Xerxes later became known as “Artaxerxes Longimanus” -- after changing his name locally to Artaxerxes upon becoming king of Persia. This was a common practice among the Persian kings.

Some scholars, including Porteous, understand the four heads to represent "the extension of the Persian Empire in all directions," and the four wings "swiftness."

Since Media is easily recognizable as the second kingdom, identification of the third kingdom as Persia does not depend on a positive identification of the leopard's four heads. Such an effort, while it might be intriguing, would, nevertheless, produce an inconclusive result. It has already been established that Media is the second kingdom, and it will be proven in the rest of this article that Greece is the fourth kingdom. By this sort of backdoor approach we arrive at the identity of the third kingdom, which is Persia. The separate, but allied, kingdoms of Media and Persia are, respectively, the second and third empires of Daniel.

Greece, the Dreaded Iron Empire

More than 70 percent of the verses concerning the four world empires directly pertain to the fourth empire and its breakup in relationship to Palestine. Daniel 7:19 relates that the fourth empire is "different from all the rest." Furthermore, it will "crush and shatter" all previous kingdoms (Daniel 2:40). Futuristic interpreters, who identify Rome as the fourth empire, contend that events depicted under the dominion of the fourth empire will be fulfilled in a future revived Roman Empire and tribulation period.

One reason for this belief is voiced by W. Sibley Towner:

According to the text of Daniel 7.9-27, the great judgment of the kingdoms of the earth and the establishment of "one like a son of man [NRSV: human being]" (7.13) -- who may be "the holy ones of the Most High" themselves (7.19 -- should have occurred during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the "little horn" with the "mouth speaking arrogantly" (7.8). Such an eschatological crisis did not, of course, happen in the reign of Antiochus. The canonizers themselves must have known this; perhaps they had already reinterpreted the four beasts who rise out of the sea in chap. 7 in such a way as to make ROME the fourth beast and the little horn some Roman emperor. By means of reinterpretation of the symbols of the apocalypse, it would have been possible to keep the timetable of events leading up to the last judgment open, and it was that openness that enabled the writer of Revelation 20 to transform Daniel 7 into a vision of the imminent worldwide crisis known as the day of judgment (The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Metzger and Coogan. NY: Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 152).

On the contrary, however, we will present evidence that clearly shows Greece is properly the fourth empire. Such argument will be based not only on the prior identification of Media as the second empire, but also on tangible evidence that events depicted under the dominion of the fourth empire were actually fulfilled in the history of the Greek Empire, and thus have no future literal significance!

As we have seen, the first three gentile kingdoms in the book of Daniel are Babylon, Media and Persia. But what is the identity of the fourth kingdom?

Let's pause for a moment and contemplate the implications of Nebuchadnezzar's image. Babylon was the first kingdom (head of gold) which covered the Mesopotamian area (this was also the area Assyria had covered). Media existed long before it conquered Babylon and was, in fact, an ally of Babylon when they captured the city of Nineveh and overthrew the Assyrian Empire. When Media and Persia conquered Babylon in 457 B.C., Media made the Mesopotamian area its world-center and became the second kingdom (chest and arms of silver) of Daniel's prophecy. Likewise Persia existed long before it conquered Babylon with the Medes; and when Cyrus took over control of Babylon from Darius the Mede, he also made Mesopotamia his world-center. This was Daniel's third kingdom (waist and thighs of brass).

In a similar fashion, Greece existed long before it conquered Persia; yet it did not become the fourth kingdom (legs of iron ) of Daniel's prophecy until it made the Mesopotamian area its world-center. This is the only way we can explain the fact that Alexander the Great was the first king (Daniel 8:21). Alexander was NOT the first king of Greece -- yet he was the first king of Greece with the Mesopotamian area as its world-center! Writes G.H. Lang --

It is thus with the fourth empire as might surely be expected....This may be inferred from the fact that a VERTICAL IMAGE is employed to picture the whole period; for the CENTER OF GRAVITY of each successive portion is EXACTLY UNDER that of the portions above, so that the feet stand DIRECTLY BENEATH the head, breast, and body (The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel. London: The Paternoter Press, 1950, p. 29).

So how does this square with the idea of Rome being the fourth kingdom? While it is true that Rome reached all the way to the Indus River for a period of seven years, this was only a weak hold that lasted but a short time. ROME NEVER ESTABLISHED THE MESOPOTAMIAN AREA AS ITS WORLD-CENTER!! Argues Henry Cowles in Ezekiel and Daniel:

Rome NEVER was Asiatic, NEVER was oriental; NEVER therefore a legitimate successor of the first three of these great empires (NY: D. Appleton, Co., 1868, p. 355).

Adds Otto Zockler --

The four world kingdoms are developed without exception on one and the same geographical stage,...thus harmonizing with the Biblical representation under the symbol of a SINGLE colossal image (The Book of Daniel. NY:Lange, 1876, p. 84).

Lang adds his observation --

Rome never trampled upon or dominated Babylon or Persia, and certainly NEVER consolidated its power there (The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel, p. 84).

Farrel Till notes that Alexander the Great ABSORBED INTO his empire all the territories of the previous three -- which is something the Roman Empire never accomplished! Notice --

Daniel's interpretation of the dream depicted the iron kingdom as one that would "crush and shatter all these [prior kingdoms]" but would itself become "a divided kingdom" (2:40-41) as symbolized by the feet that were part clay and part iron. In this sense, the Hellenistic Empire fits the description of the iron kingdom much more exactly than does the Roman Empire. Alexander the Great absorbed into his empire all of the territories in the Neo-Babylonian, Median, and Achaemenid (Persian) Empires, but the Roman Empire came nowhere close to doing so. The Hellenistic Empire reached as far east as China, but the Roman Empire, whose territory was more western, fell far short of crushing and shattering all sectors of its predecessor empires. Furthermore, the RAPIDITY with which Alexander's empire fragmented into the kingdoms mentioned above fits the description of the brittle feet of iron and clay much better than the Roman Empire whose disintergration was much slower (What Medo-Persian Empire?)

If Rome was the fourth kingdom, we should look to Europe for the fulfillment of the prophecies assigned to the fourth kingdom -- but the Biblical picture CONSISTENTLY POINTS US to the Middle East! The book of Daniel as a unified whole clearly and consistently points to a fourth kingdom situated in the Mesopotamian area of the Middle East -- in the area of Syria/Iraq today.

Futurists and the Fourth Empire

Futuristic interpreters maintain that Rome is the fourth empire; their notion is based primarily on an erroneous identification of Medo-Persia as the second empire. Futurists understand Greece to be the third empire, which is naturally followed by the Roman Empire. The immediate problem facing this view, and which has already been alluded to above, is that the events depicted under the fourth empire's dominion cannot be linked historically with events taking place within the Roman Empire. John F. Walvoord states:

The interpretation identifying this [fourth empire] as Rome immediately has a major problem in that there is no real correspondence to the Roman Empire historically in the phrase, "and it had ten horns" (Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, p. 162).

Understanding this dispensational futurists, such as Walvoord, find it necessary to project this prophecy out into the distant future! To this end, Walvoord reasons that the only possible fulfillment of this prophecy would be that "ten actual kingdoms will exist simultaneously in the future consummation" (ibid., pp. 162, 169).

Walvoord's answer to the dilemma is tribulationism. The events (toes, horns, little horn) which cannot be reconciled under the Roman view are simply projected into the future, thereby escaping the bounds of historical correspondence. According to futurists, the toes and ten horns represent a ten-nation revived Roman Empire. The little horn is a future antichrist that will gain control of this confederacy just prior to the tribulation period. The result of this interpretation is constant speculation among modern-day prophecy writers (such as Dankenbring, et al) as to the identity of the ten-nation confederacy, and Antichrist, and timing of the tribulation period.

The futuristic view also faces a second major difficulty. The text clearly states that the little horn came up among the ten horns that were on the head of the beast (Daniel 7:20). The ten horns, and the little horn, rose up before the fourth kingdom was destroyed. How, then, is it possible for the little horn to be identified as a future antichrist when the Roman Empire came to an end in the fifth century A.D.? The solution offered by futuristic interpreters stretches the imagination and exposes the speculative basis of their theory. John F. Walvoord suggests a way out of the dilemma:

Probably the best solution to the problem is the familiar teaching that Daniel's prophecy actually passes over the present age, the period between the first and second coming of Christ or, more specifically, the period between Pentecost and the rapture of the church (ibid., p. 72).

According to this interpretation, the book of Daniel bypasses 2,000 years of Christianity: Daniel wrote concerning Jewish history from the time of Nebuchadnezzar (523 B.C.) to the first coming of the Messiah (31 A.D.). Since Daniel was not aware of the New Testament church age, so this theory goes, his prophecies leap over the Christian era and will resume following the "rapture" of the church. At that time, Daniel's prophecies will be fulfilled as YEHOVAH God again deals with the Jews as a nation during the seven-year tribulation period.

Since Daniel wrote about these events no later than 500 years before the Messiah, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that he was not aware of the church age. But the notion that the church age constitutes a "gap" or "parenthesis" in history based on such lack of knowledge is the brainchild of interpreters who insist on identifying Rome as the fourth empire. The "gap" theory should therefore be viewed as a questionable consequence of this identification -- not as a confirmation that nonconforming events await fulfillment in a future time!

The Fourth Empire in Daniel 2

"Just as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the hardness of iron shall be in it, as you saw the iron mixed with common clay" (Daniel 2:41, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

The fourth kingdom is represented by legs of iron in the metallic statue. The iron kingdom is divided into feet of iron and clay representing a "divided kingdom." The fourth kingdom, then, would be an unstable one that would become "divided," and this imagery aptly describes what happened to the Grecian Empire after the death of Alexander. It was divided among four of his generals. Notes Farrell Till --

The continuation of the four-kingdom scenario in Daniel's own visions that came later gives strong support for the view that the fourth kingdom of iron and clay was the Grecian empire. In chapter seven Daniel saw "four great beasts [that] came up from the sea, each different from each other (v. 3). The first three beasts were described quickly in only three verses (a single verse for each beast), but the writer [Daniel] then devoted the rest of the chapter (21 verses) to describing and discussing the fourth beast. This is a clear indication that the fourth beast was THE FOCAL POINT of the writer's interest.

Continuing, Till goes on to say:

This beast was described as "dreadful and terrible" and was "exceedingly strong" with "huge iron teeth (v. 7). It had ten horns, and while Daniel was "considering the horns," another horn, "a little one" came up among the others and plucked up three of the biggest horns (vs. 7-8). Daniel was told that the four beasts were four kings that would arise out of the earth (v. 17), and he expressed a desire to "know the truth about the fourth beast" and the ten horns that were on its head and the other horn that came up before which three horns fell (vs. 19-20).

"Obviously, then," according to Till,

the writer's primary interest was in this fourth beast or kingdom. That interest can be explained by something that Daniel said in his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream when he identified the iron legs, with feet of iron and clay, on the "great image" that Nebuchadnezzar had seen in his dream. This "iron" kingdom was also the fourth kingdom in the dream, and Daniel said that "in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed" (2:44). This was why the focus of chapter 7 was on the fourth beast. It symbolized the kingdom in whose days the God of heaven would establish an everlasting kingdom, so naturally Daniel's focus would be on it (What Medo-Persian Empire?).

Much to the chagrin of many of the Churches of God, who want this fourth kingdom to be the Roman Empire, there is absolutely NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE to support that wish, because it is apparent to all who want to see Daniel's intention that the iron kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar's dream and the fourth beast in chapter 7 were the same kingdom as the male goat in chapter 8.

The type of "duality" which futurists attempt to force on the "chest and arms" is illustrated here. Daniel attaches specific interpretive value to the feet and toes as symbols of a divided kingdom composed "partly of potter's clay and partly of iron." The iron apparently symbolizes the strengths of the divided kingdom, while the clay symbolizes its weaknesses.

Undoubtedly, Daniel has in mind the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires, two of the four kingdoms that arose from the division of Alexander's Greek Empire. This point is easily demonstrated by noting the correspondence that exists between Daniel 2:41 and the vision in Daniel 11, in which Daniel immediately singles out the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires after the breakup of Alexander's dominion (verses 5, 6). Likewise, in Daniel 2 the author readily limits himself to these two kingdoms. H.H. Rowley explains:

The author was primarily interested in the Jewish people, and he therefore ignored those parts of the Greek empire which had no relation to Palestinian affairs, especially since the human form of the image, by the natural duality of its legs, helped to impose this limitation (Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, p. 96).

Rowley also points out that in Daniel 8, once the ram's great horn is broken, Daniel moves directly to the persecuting "little horn," thereby "ignor[ing] all that does not concern his own people."

Daniel's interest revolves around Palestine and the Jewish people. Following the breakup of Alexander's Empire in 312 B.C., Daniel's attention turned to the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires which vied for control of Palestine. The various battles between the two rival kingdoms are described in Daniel 11:5-30.

Marriage Alliances Between the Seleucids and Ptolemies

"And just as you saw the iron mixed with clay, so will they intermingle with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay" (Daniel 2:43, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

Not only were the toes of the statue made of "part iron and part clay," but they also consisted of "iron mixed with clay." Daniel explains that attempts were made to unify the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires through "marriage," but these efforts failed because "iron does not mix with clay." While no further identification of these marriages is provided here, in the corresponding vision of Daniel 11, two marriage alliances are specifically recollected.

"After some years, an alliance will be made, and the daughter of the king of the south will come to the king of the north to effect the agreement, but she will not maintain her strength, nor will his strength endure. She will be surrendered together with those who exorted her and the one who begot her and helped her during those times" (Daniel 11:6, The Tanakh).

After a few years Antiochus Theos came to the throne of Syria in the north. In Egypt Ptolemy Philadelphus became the king of the south. Antiochus made war against Ptolemy but, due to an insurrection in the eastern part of Antiochus' dominion, it became necessary for him to stop the conflict with Ptolemy. Ptolemy made peace with Antiochus and sealed the agreement by giving his daughter, Berenice, in marriage to Antiochus in 247 B.C.

We read in Daniel "to effect the agreement." This agreement was the marriage alliance -- but it didn't work out. Ptolemy took advantage of the situation and compelled Antiochus to divorce his wife Laodice, disinherit her two sons and take Berenice as his wife. It was Ptolemy's purpose to thus give the crown of Syria to the royal house of Egypt, and he specified that Berenice's children should be heirs to the Syrian throne.

So Antiochus, king of the north, made the agreement, divorced Laodice, disinherited her children and made Berenice his wife. However, it proved to be of no help to Ptolemy, for he soon died and Antiochus put Berenice and her son away and recalled Laodice.

Laodice poisoned her husband Antiochus and placed her son, Seleucus Callinicus, on the throne. Berenice and her son, with an Egyptian guard, were returning to Egypt when Laodice and her sons caught up with them, killing Berenice, her son and the Egyptian guard. All was given up in death as prophesied by Daniel. This event did nothing but create more tension between the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

"He shall set his mind to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of peace and perform them. In order to destroy the kingdom, he shall give him a woman in marriage; but it shall not succeed or be to his advantage" (Daniel 11:17).

The Romans backed up the interests of Ptolemy. Antiochus the Great conquered Egypt and, in 198 B.C., gave his daughter, Cleopatra, in marriage to Ptolemy Epiphanes as part of another peace treaty between the two warring kingdoms. Antiochus' ulterior motive was to gain access to the Ptolemaic throne through his daughter's influence on her husband. The plan failed when Cleopatra disobeyed her father and sided with her husband Ptolemy. She even congratulated the Romans when they finally triumphed over Antiochus the Great. Thus, another intermarriage failed.

Summary of the Fourth Empire in Daniel 2

There is clear and complete confirmation between Daniel 2 and Daniel 11 regarding the fourth empire, which provides a solid foundation for identifying the fourth empire as Greece. The duality of the statue's feet is easily seen as the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires to which Daniel limited himself in Daniel 11. Further correspondence is evidenced by the mixture of iron and clay in the toes. Marriage alliances between the two rival kingdoms are indicated and confirmed in Daniel 11. A reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that the fourth empire of Daniel 2 is not Rome, but Greece as represented by Alexander the Great and his successors. The vision in Daniel 2 has been literally fulfilled in history, thereby rendering it a moot point that a future revived Roman Empire is symbolized by the statue's toes.

Greece Is the Fourth Beast and the Male Goat

Since interpreters agree that the same four kingdoms are symbolized in Daniel 7, the fourth beast may also be identified with the Greek Empire. Confirmation can be had by identifying the beast's ten horns and the "little horn" that came up among them. In conjunction with the toes of the statue, futurists identify the ten horns as a future revived Roman Empire, and the little horn as an end-time Antichrist. However, if Daniel's author intended the "little horn" to be identified as Antiochus Epiphanes, and the ten horns as Seleucid kings, then it will be confirmed that the fourth kingdom of Daniel 7 is also Greece.

The male goat in Daniel chapter 8 also represents the fourth beast or Greece. A part of Daniel's vision in this chapter was a male goat that came from the west and had "a horn between his eyes" (v. 5). The goat attacked the ram, broke his two horns, trampled him into the ground, and then grew "very powerful," but after he had become strong, the goat's large horn was broken and "four horns facing the four wind of heaven" sprang up. Then out of one of these horns came a "little horn which grew exceedingly great" (vs. 6-9). In verse 21, Daniel began an interpretation of this part of the vision: "The he-goat is the king of Greece, and the great horn between his eyes is the first king. As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four more arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation, but not with his strength." He then continued to explain that in the "latter time" of the divided kingdom, a king would arise who had "fierce features," and this king was undoubtedly the one who had been symbolized by the "little horn" that came up from one of the four that sprouted after the notable horn was broken off.

There is a general consensus that the male goat represented the Grecian Empire and that its "notable horn" was Alexander the Great. Of this there can be no doubt because Daniel himself clearly said that the male goat was the kingdom of Greece (v. 21) and that the horn between its eyes was "the first king" (v. 21). The four horns that came up after the breaking of the notable one were Alexander's four generals who became kings upon the division of the Grecian Empire. These four kings were:

(1) Cassander -- Greece
(2) Lysimachuas -- Asia Minor
(3) Seleucus -- Syria, and
(4) Ptolemy -- Egypt

The little horn that grew out of one of them was Antiochus Epiphanes.

Antiochus, the "Little Horn"

"I was considering the horns, when another horn appeared, a little one coming up among them; to make room for it, three of the earlier horns were plucked up by the roots. There were eyes like human eyes in this horn, and a mouth speaking arrogantly" (Daniel 7:8).

"...and about the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn that sprang up and before which three of them fell, the horn which had eyes and a mouth that spoke arrogant things, and which appeared greater than its fellows. As I watched, this horn made war against the holy ones, and was victorious over them, until the Ancient of Days arrived; then judgment was pronounced for the holy ones of the Most High, and the time came when the holy ones took possession of the kingdom" (Daniel 7:20-22, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

"This one shall be different from those before him, and shall lay low three kings. He shall speak words against the Most High, shall oppress the holy ones of the Most High, and shall think of changing the times and the law; and they shall be handed over to him for a time, two times, and half a time" (Daniel 7:24b, 25, ibid.).

Daniel's beastly vision climaxes with his focus on the "little horn," who "made war with the holy ones." Attributes of the little horn are its "human eyes" and a "mouth speaking arrogantly," indicating that it represents a human being. In Daniel 7:24, confirmation of the horn's mortality is found: The ten horns are determined to be "ten kings." The little horn is an eleventh king which "shall arise after them."

The characteristics and actions ascribed to the little horn in Daniel 7 may be compared to the traits attributed to Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel 8; 11:2-35. Such comparison makes clear that the evil Antiochus -- not a future Antichrist -- is again in view. The table below illustrates the correspondence.

The energetic "little horn" in Daniel 7 that speaks words against the Most High, changes religious worship and laws, and wears out the holy ones (verse 25), is the same "little horn" that in Daniel 8 acts arrogantly against YEHOVAH God, takes away the daily sacrifice (verse 11), and destroys the holy ones (verse 24). Both "little horns" arise from the latter stages of the Greek Empire, and they each blaspheme YEHOVAH, persecute the Jews, and outlaw Judaism. Thus it is evident that the "little horn" of Daniel 7 is not a future antichrist, but Antiochus, the "madman" whose actions were prophesied in the writings of Daniel.

Time Period Corresponds with Persecution of Antiochus

"... and they shall be handed over to him for a time, two times, and half a time" (Daniel 7:25).

The duration of the little horn's persecution is "a time, two times, and half a time." The word "time" here is generally taken to mean "year," and the entire phrase understood by most interpreters (futurists included) to represent roughly three and a half years. Futurists maintain that this phrase should be interpreted as the last half of the seven-year tribulation period.

However, the period of persecution occurs during the reign of the little horn, which is clearly Antiochus. Further, this three-and-a-half-year period corresponds closely to the 1,150 days (three years and two months) mentioned in Daniel 8. Both reflect the historical period of Jewish persecution under Antiochus from 167 B.C. to 164 B.C.

The fact that three and a half years is four months longer than 1,150 days is an apparent, but insignificant, discrepancy. Daniel may or may not have intended the two time periods to correspond exactly. The phrase "time, two times, and half a time" may be understood as an approximation of the more specific 1,150-day interval. Elsewhere the author uses both approximate (cf. 9:27; 12:7) and specific (cf. 12:11, 12) figures regarding the same time frame.

Another possibility is that in Daniel 7 the author was referring to the general period of persecution, during which time "they shall be given into his power" (verse 25). The lesser period of 1,150 days then deals specifically with the cessation of the daily sacrifice and Temple desecration.

In any event, it is sufficient to recognize the amazing correspondence that exists between the two time periods. Both deal with Jewish persecution under the tyrannous Antiochus, and correspond historically with the time of desecration of the Temple. This evidence provides ample support for identifying the three-and-a-half year period in Daniel 7 with events contemporaneous with Antiochus Epiphanes.

The Horns Represent Seleucid Kings

". . . It was different from all the beasts that preceded it, and it had ten horns" (Daniel 7:7).

"`As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall spring up and another shall spring up after them. This one shall be different from those before him, and shall lay low three kings"' (Daniel 7:24, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

The fourth beast has "ten horns" on its head, which the Scripture identifies as "ten kings." Futurists' contention is that these ten kings represent a future revived Roman Empire. How can this be, however, since the ten kings precede Antiochus, since Antiochus "shall arise after them"? The ten kings are identified as one group; therefore, the general conclusion can be reached that, all together, they provide a recognizable bridge of royalty between the great "iron" empire of Alexander the Great (334-312 B.C.) and Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.).

Scholars differ in their reckoning of the ten kings. Some identify them exclusively with Seleucid kings, while others proffer various combinations of Seleucid and Ptolemaic kings. Most interpreters identify seven of the horns as the first seven Seleucid kings following the breakup of Alexander's empire:

(1) Seleucus I Nicator, 312-281 B.C. (founder of the Seleucid Dynasty);
(2) Antiochus I Soter, 281-261 B.C.;
(3) Antiochus II Theos, 261-246 B.C.;
(4) Seleucus II Callinicus, 246-226 B.C.;
(5) Seleucus III Ceraunus, 226-223 B.C.;
(6) Antiochus III the Great, 223-187 B.C.; and
(7) Seleucus IV Philopator, 187-175 B.C.

The remaining three kings are represented by the three horns that were "plucked up by the roots" in order to "make room" for the "little horn" that "came up" among the ten (Daniel 7:8). Considering that the three were "plucked up by the roots," the likely candidates for identification with the three horns are three aspirants who would have had the opportunity to become king of the Seleucid Empire were it not for the devious acts of Antiochus. The three would-be kings are

(1) Heliodorus, a usurper who poisoned Seleucus Philopator in an attempt to secure the throne;
(2) Demetrius, son of Seleucus, the rightful heir after his father's death; and
(3) Ptolemy VI Philometor, king of Egypt and nephew of Antiochus who desired to gain the Seleucid throne.

The fact that Antiochus gained the Seleucid throne by deceit is confirmed in Daniel 11:21, where the author states that "royal majesty had not been conferred" on him. This is Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175 B.C. - 164 B.C.) the brother of Seleucus IV and the "contemptible man" of Bible prophecy. He escaped from a prison in Rome where he was being held as a hostage. He returned to Syria and through bribes and corruption wormed himself into a position of power. He over-rode all the rightful heirs to the throne -- Seleucus IV's son Demetrius and his sister Cleopatra I of Egypt and her son Ptolemy VI.

Furthermore, "he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom through intrigue." This statement clearly indicates that Antiochus secured power suddenly and abruptly. It is noteworthy too that Daniel refers to the division of Alexander's dominion as being "uprooted" (cf. 11:4). Just as the empire of Alexander did not go to his son and heir, the Seleucid Empire likewise did not go to Demetrius, the rightful heir of Seleucus Philopator; both were "uprooted."

The "Son of Man"

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him" (Daniel 7:13 KJV).

Futuristic interpreters hold that the "one like the Son of man" is none other than Yeshua the Messiah, and that the passage depicts the Messiah's second coming. While the futurists are correct in maintaining that the "one like the Son of man" is Yeshua the Messiah, this passage does NOT depict the Messiah's second coming to prepare the way for the return of YEHOVAH God! This passage in Daniel 7:13 depicts the Messiah arriving before YEHOVAH God in heaven shortly after his resurrection!

Observes the Bible dictionary Insight On the Scriptures --

In vision, Daniel saw "someone like the son of man" coming with the clouds of the heavens, GAINING ACCESS to "the Ancient of Days," and being granted "rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him," his Kingdom being an enduring one.

...Therefore the prophecy of the coming of the Son of man INTO the presence of the Ancient of Days, Jehovah God, clearly applies to an individual, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The evidence is that it was so understood by the Jewish people. Rabbinic writings applied the prophecy to the Messiah.

...After Jesus had died as a man and hade been resurrected to spirit life, Stephen had a vision in which "the heavens opened up" and he saw "the Son of man standing at God's right hand." (Acts 7:56)....The coming of the Son of man TO the Ancient of Days [YEHOVAH God], then, apparently corresponds in time to the situation presented at Revelation 12:5-10, when the symbolic man-child is brought forth and CAUGHT UP TO GOD'S THRONE (Vol. 2. Brooklyn, NY: International Bible Students Association, 1988, pp. 1002-3).

Rather than this passage in Daniel referring to a future time when the Messiah returns to this earth to rule the nations under YEHOVAH God, it refers to the time shortly after the Messiah's resurrection in 31 A.D. when he appeared in heaven to take up his position at the right hand of YEHOVAH God.

The context of Daniel is in complete agreement with the interpretation known as the Greek view (Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece). The visions contained in Daniel 2; 7 correspond completely with the visions in Daniel 8; 11:2-35. Each vision covers the same era of history and culminates in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel's purpose was to illustrate that YEHOVAH God's plan for the rise and fall of pagan nations was to come to fruition BEFORE the time of the Messiah!

Our Examination of Daniel's prophecies show that virtually all of them have been fulfilled in their entirety centuries ago. They play NO ROLE whatsoever in describing the Messiah's return; and eliminating these scriptures from the end-time scenario completely shatters the foundation of the common theories taught today amongst the Churches of God and others.

Note: Chronology in this article closely follows that of Dr. Martin Anstey's book The Romance of Bible Chronology.