The Book of Daniel - Greece or Rome ?

Many Christians believe that the Book of Daniel is largely prophecies of Rome. However, it is also said that it is about the Hellenistic kingdoms formed in the wake of Alexander. It is my intent in this thread to examine the relevant parts of Daniel to show which view fits the text.The first of these prophecies is found and explained in Daniel 2:31-45 with the vision of the statue. There are two main interpretations. Daniel 2:38 explains that the first is the neo-Babylonian empire of "Nebuchadnezzar". However interpretation differ on the remaining three.One interpretation has the second as the Persians, the third as Alexander and his successors and the fourth as Rome. The other places the second as the Medes, the third as the Persians and the fourth as Alexander.Both have problems with the second, Silver, Empire. The second Empire is said to be inferior to the first, yet the Persian Empire was greater. On the other hand the book usually treats the Medes and Persians as a unit.Both have a credible candidate for the third, Bronze Empire, so no more need be said on that point.Thus the choice of which of these interpretations is the intended meaning must be based on the later chapters. If Daniel describes a divided Empire with weak and strong rulers and we can work out which it is - Greece or Rome - that will give us the best answer. I will address this in subsequent posts in this thread, chapter by chapter.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Chapter 6 contains the next prophecy of interest. The prophecy of the four beasts, who are said to represent kings (7:17) altough the fourth is said to represent a kingdom (7:23).This fourth beast corresponds to the fourth Empire of the vision of the statue, since both will be followed by a divinely appointed, everlasting kingdom (7:27, 2:44).This prophecy is even less clear than the prophecy of the statue, however it does introduce the figure of the "little horn", a blasphemous ruler of the fourth kingdom who will wage war against "the saints".Fortunately chapter 8 contains a prophecy which is explained in far greater detail and with greater clarity. We are told that the Medes and Persians will attack, but they will be themselves attacked and overcome by a Greek ruler. His kingdom will be split into four (8:23) and the "little horn" will be the ruler of one of these successor states (8:9).So, chapter 7 tells us that the Little Horn will be a ruler of the fourth and final Empire and chapter 8 tells us that the Little Horn will be a ruler of one of the Hellenistic states formed from Alexander's Empire. So the fourth Empire appears to be Greek - and we have yet to see any clear reference to Rome.

An apology in advance as I think this may be a lengthy post. Here's my take on Daniel:Ch 2. Prophecy:Gold- Babylon
Silver- Medo-Persia. The two worked as a unit at first until Persia realized they wanted to be on top with out threat, so they kicked out the Medes. Compare this to how the rulers are Darius the Mede, and then shortly after Cyrus and Artaxerxes.
Bronze- Greece. Is is fitting as well that Greece should be bronze because (correct me if I'm wrong) but the greeks armor and weapons were primarily made from bronze.
Iron- Rome. Fitting as well as Rome was known for it's legions which were armored and armed with Iron.
Feet- Modern Day.
Rock- we all know that right? : )I think this is the interpretation because it is referring to "inferior" kingdoms in more than just their military might. For example Russia was previously extremely poor, even though they had vast nuclear power, because of that, one could say russia was overall 'inferior' to another country such as Britain.
So Babylon was a wealthy nation. They had all the gold that had remained in the Jewish temples. They had conquered many other civilizations, and with it, had built many things: Giant gold statues, hanging gardens, etc. So as far as luxuries go, Babylon was ahead of the Medes and Persians.The connection between it all, is that these prophecies are the same. They all talk of the same events, only they go over the same events, but in greater detail. Ch. 7:The first beast is a lion with eagles wings. This is Babylon again. Lions were a Babylonian symbol, as you would often find them sculpted into walls and such around Babylon.
second. Bear. Medo-Persia again. I cannot go into as much detail on this at the moment because I cannot remember the significance of everything (the ribs and such).
Third. Leopard Alexander, and then his four generals, hence the four wings and four heads.
Fourth. Rome. Iron, as said before, in addition it represents might. Which no one will question Rome had a lot of.The other prophecy that connects to this one is ch. 8.
It interprets the same things. Just in varying degrees of detail.
As you said, both in effect lead to a divinely appointed kingdom.The split horn in 8 is one of Alex. generals who helps lead Rome to glory. I cannot remember his name at the time, but one of his generals went and either stirred up the people, or conquered them, or something to that effect.Look forward to further thoughts. : )

quote:

---

Silver- Medo-Persia. The two worked as a unit at first until Persia realized they wanted to be on top with out threat, so they kicked out the Medes. Compare this to how the rulers are Darius the Mede, and then shortly after Cyrus and Artaxerxes

---

That's not entirely true. The Persians were a subject people of the Median Empire until they turned the tables and made the Medes their subjects. However this was historically before the conquest of Babylon. The reference to "Darius the Mede" lends some weight to the view that the Silver Empire was meant to be the Median Empire, since it suggests that the author (incorrectly) believed that the Medes were still in charge when Babylon was conquered.

quote:

---

Bronze- Greece. Is is fitting as well that Greece should be bronze because (correct me if I'm wrong) but the greeks armor and weapons were primarily made from bronze.

---

That depends when you are talking about. At the time of the Trojan War they would have used bronze. By the time of Alexander iron was used.

quote:

---

Feet- Modern Day.

---

There's zero support for that in the text.

quote:

---

I think this is the interpretation because it is referring to "inferior" kingdoms in more than just their military might. For example Russia was previously extremely poor, even though they had vast nuclear power, because of that, one could say russia was overall 'inferior' to another country such as Britain.
So Babylon was a wealthy nation. They had all the gold that had remained in the Jewish temples. They had conquered many other civilizations, and with it, had built many things: Giant gold statues, hanging gardens, etc. So as far as luxuries go, Babylon was ahead of the Medes and Persians.

---

Well you're wrong there. The Persians conquered not only Babylon - getting their hands on all that wealth - but Egypt and Lydia too. Perhaps you've heard the expression "as rich as Croesus" ?. Croesus was the king of Lydia - until the Persians conquered his kingdom.

quote:

---

The connection between it all, is that these prophecies are the same. They all talk of the same events, only they go over the same events, but in greater detail.

---

Exactly my point since Chapter 8 clearly identifies the "Little Horn" as the ruler of one of the Hellenistic successor-states.

quote:

---

The split horn in 8 is one of Alex. generals who helps lead Rome to glory. I cannot remember his name at the time, but one of his generals went and either stirred up the people, or conquered them, or something to that effect.

---

No, the horn is split into four, indicating all four successor states. The only thing I can find about Alexander's generals and Rome is Pyrrhus' wars against the Roman Republic. Pyrrus lost and abandoned Italy.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I agree with you that the descriptions of chapters 2 and 7 seem to line up pretty well. You then equate the "little horns" of chapters 7 and 8 and conclude that this is speaking of Greece.I would challenge your assumption that these two "little horns" are speaking of the same king/kingdom. The two chapters have a number of details which imply that these horns are different. Consider these differences:Little horn of chapter 7--comes from fourth kingdom, follows 10 horns of indescribable beast, oppression for 3 1/2 yearsLittle horn of chapter 8--grew out of one of four horns of the goat (third kingdom), oppression for 2300 days (about 6 years)It seems that the author intends us to understand that these "horns" are different characters. Yes, there are also lots of similarities, so he also intends us to see the horns as related in some way.So I conclude that they are speaking of two distinct rulers who have similar characteristics.

So what's your basis for the claim that the "little horn" grew out of the "third kingdom" ? Aren't you begging the question by assuming that the Greek Empire is the 3rd Kingdom ?The fact is that the Little Horn of chapter 7 can be identified as coming from the 4th Kingdom.The Little Horn of chapter 8 comes from the Greek Empire which is a candidate for the 4th Kingdom, It is described as divided which fits the 4th Kingdom. We have yet to see any clear reference to Rome.Daniel is very vague on durations - your "three and a half years" is usually given as "time, times and half a time"As we go on we will see more evidence that Greece is the fourth Kingdom.

Chapter 9 includes a prophecy that is often cited - the "seventy weeks". It is relevant to our present discussion only in that the "Prince of the people who is to come" - who attacks Jerusalem at the end of the 69th "week" appears to be the "little horn" again. Ths tiem he rules over Jerusalem for a "week" (usually taken as 7 years) and makes the sacrifices stop in the "middle of the week".Chapters 10-12 are one long vision. Chapter 10 cotaisn nothing of interest to the point under discussion.Again it starts with Persia which will provoke Greece, and a "mighty king" will arise, whose Empire will be split into 4. Again this fits Alexander.The kingdoms are, this time, identified by the points of the compass. Of these the Kings of the North and the South are identified. Usually they fight each other.The King of the North is the one who will desecrate the Sanctuary and forbid the daily sacrifice. And in chapter 12 we are told that this will be for 1290 days - 3 /2 years. This fits with both Chapter 7 and Chapter 9.And where is Rome ? Scholars who matche the events of Chapter 11 to those of history say that the "ships of Kittim" in 11:30 are Roman forces.One more feature of Chapter 12 is of interest. Daniel is informed in his vision that his words will be hidden until the End Time (12:9). So the End Times of Daniel 12 should be the point where the Book of Daniel first becomes known. This fits well with the views of mainstream scholars, who identify both the time of writing and Daniel's "End Times" with the Maccabean struggle against the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes (who fits very well with the events "prophesied" on Chapter 11, except for the last couple of verses). Those who take a contrary view have some explaining to do.In summary, Daniel has two references to a divided Empire. Neither fits Rome. Both fit the Greek Empire of Alexander and his successors. There is no clear reference to Rome as being any one of the kingdoms. Accordingly we should conclude that the 4th Empire is Greece.

Sorry, you are correct. The "little horn" of chapter 8 grew out of the goat. Which kingdom this corresponds to in chapters 2 or 7 (if any) are TBD. Agreed. Agreed.But aren't YOU begging the question by assuming that the "little horns" of chapters 7 and 8 are identical? What is your evidence for this equation?I have presented evidence that the two little horns are distinct. If so, the fact that the little horn of chapter 8 is Greece has no bearing on the identity of the little horn and fourth kingdom of chapter 7.Edited by kbertsche, : clarified wording

Agreed. Let's look a bit closer at the symbolism. Medo-Persia is a ram with two horns, one higher than the other. (Many interpret this to mean that Persia was more powerful than Media.) Greece is the goat which defeats the ram and has one prominent horn (Alexander the Great). This horn is cut off, and 4 others appear, in the north, south, east and west (Alexander's 4 generals). Out of one of these 4 Greek kingdoms comes the "little horn".Now, let's look back at the descriptions of the kingdoms of chapter 7. The second beast of chapter 7 is a bear "raised up on one side" with three ribs in its mouth. The third beast is a leopard with four wings and four heads. The fourth beast is indescribable, with iron teeth and ten horns.How do these descriptions of chapter 7 match with the two creatures of chapter 8?You suggest that the fourth beast of chapter 7 is the goat (Greece). But I don't see much similarity in the descriptions at all. It seems to me that a better match is the following:The bear "raised up on one side" matches with the two-horned ram with one horn higher than the other. Both descriptions emphasize a two-sided creature/kingdom with one side more prominent than the other.The leopard with four heads matches with the goat which produces four horns. Both descriptions emphasize a four-part kingdom.Hence, interpreting chapter 7 in light of chapter 8, it seems that the best fit is the Bear (Beast 2) as Medo-Persia and the Leopard (Beast 3) as Greece. This means Beast 4 is post-Greece, and Rome is the logical choice.

The question before us is which historical empire is Daniel focussing on. Whcih is the 4th Empire that will be followed by the establishment of the everlasting Kingdom o0f God. YOur objection th the identification of the Little Horn in chapter 7 and 8 was based on the assumption that the 4th Empire was Rome. That begs the question - you are assuming the conclusion in order to dismiss this line of evidence. Assuming that the two little horns are the same does not beg the question. Instead of assuming the conclusion, the idenitification is based on the obvious use of the same imagery - a "little horn". Further Daniel 8:17-19 tells us (twice) that the vision of Chapter 8 refers to the end times. Thus the Little Horn of chapter 8 must be from the final Empire.One last point. As I have pointed out in my later post, Chapter 11 confirms that the Littler Horn of chapter 7 will come from the Greek Empire.

Firstly it is clear that there is no good fit between the images of Chapter 7 and the very brief descriptions in Chapter 8 at all. Nor should we expect there to be given these facts. Firstly the beasts of Daniel 7 are said to represent Kings rather than Kingdoms (8:17). Secondly there is very little information given on which to make a match. Thirdly if Persia and Media are treated as largely one in Daniel 8 and separately in Daniel 7 we should not expect a good match to either one.On the other hand you have no clear description of Rome anywhere in Daniel to match the fourth beast, to, which is in itself a damning criticism of your conclusion. And as I have pointed out the Little Horn of chapter 8 is said to rule in the end times, which also contradicts your conclusions. These are far clearer and storgner points than the vague resemblance.

Absolutely not. Did you read my post, or the descriptions in the text? I conclude that the two "little horns" are different because their descriptions do not seem to be compatible with one another. No, it DOES beg the question. The little horn of chapter 8 is clearly from Greece--the text says so. By assuming that this is the same little horn of chapter 7, you've assumed your conclusion that beast 4 is also Greece, irrespective of other imagery to the contrary. You are making a very questionable assumption. There are lots of horns in these chapters. They are not necessarily the same. If the details are incompatible, like the two little horns in chapters 7 and 8, I CONCLUDE (not ASSUME) that they are speaking of two different rulers. The fact that they are both "little horns" indicates that they are "kindred spirits" and probably speaks to their rise to power (starting small, then becoming prominent).

I agree that no fit is quite perfect, but what I've suggested seems to fit fairly well. But we agree that Daniel 7 matches well with Daniel 2. Daniel 2 speaks of kingdoms and Daniel 7 of kings. So the terms seem to be somewhat interchangeable in Daniel. True. But if they are treated as one in BOTH, as I suggest, then we get a fairly good match. This gives a more consistent interpretation. (Medo-Persia viewed as a dual, unequal union in both descriptions)Your interpretation, by assuming the equality of the two little horns, leaves a poorer match in the details of the kings/kingdoms, as well as in the descriptions of the little horns.

quote:

---

No, it DOES beg the question. The little horn of chapter 8 is clearly from Greece--the text says so. By assuming that this is the same little horn of chapter 7, you've assumed your conclusion that beast 4 is also Greece, irrespective of other imagery to the contrary.

---

No, it's quite simple. You assumed that the 4th Empire was NOT Greece to argue that the little horns were different people. I did NOT assume that the 4h Empire was Greece at all, that was the conclusion I came to AFTER identifying the two little horns as the same individual.

quote:

---

You are making a very questionable assumption. There are lots of horns in these chapters. They are not necessarily the same. If the details are incompatible, like the two little horns in chapters 7 and 8, I CONCLUDE (not ASSUME) that they are speaking of two different rulers. The fact that they are both "little horns" indicates that they are "kindred spirits" and probably speaks to their rise to power (starting small, then becoming prominent).

---

But there is only one little horn in each. I also have the fact that Chapter 8 is identified as dealing with the end times which rules out your interpretation.Against me your only incompatibility is that two periods of time seem to be different. However the first depends on interpreting a rather vague statement (What if "times" menat not 2 years, but 5 ?) and fails to work in the wider context.IN the larger view we have the longest and most detailed prophecy in chapters 10-12. This has just one individual who seems to correspond to both little horns. He, too, is a ruler from the Greek Empire. However in Chapter 12 the time given for the period of desecration of the Temple is given as 1290 days (12:11). which matches your 3 1/2 years. It also matches the prophecy at the end of chapter 9 which is also an end-time prophecy (9:24) . This raises the possibility that the figure of 2300 days is minor textual corruption - with an original figure of 1300 days.Therefore if you match the ruler of chapters 10-12 with the little horn of chapter 8 you cannot rely on the difference in the number of days to indicate that the two are separate, since chapter 12 gives the "right" figure. Yet, your other problems - that the prophecies refer to the end times, that neither of the two clearest prophecies give any indication of any Empire after the Greek, that the division of the Greek Empire is mentioned and relevant to the prophecies which cannot be said of any other Empire - remain.But if you identify the ruler of chapters 10-12 with the little horn of chapter 7 and not that of chapter 8 you are left with the fact that the ruler is still Greek.