Hugo Mendez

As interpreted by the prophet, Nebuchadnezzar’s vision in Daniel
2 symbolizes a succession of four kingdoms, each represented as a metallic
phase of “a great statue” (2:36-45). Only one kingdom receives explicit
identification in Daniel 2; Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar, “you are the head
of gold” (2:38). Accordingly, the Neo-Chaldean Empire (then governed by
Nebuchadnezzar II) anchors the succession of kingdoms, possessing “kingdom,
power, might, and glory” over the entire realm of earth (2:37-38).
However, the latter three kingdoms mentioned in the chapter receive no
such identification; interpreters debate their respective fulfillments.1
Later chapters (especially 7,8,11) also predict a succession of kingdoms
through prophetic imagery, occasionally identifying the historical
fulfillments of their constituent elements. Dan 2 outlines a succession of
four kingdoms (beginning with Babylon; 2:38), as does Dan 7. Dan 8 and
11 also describe a succession of kingdoms (beginning with Media [8:20]
and Persia [11:2], respectively), both explicitly including Alexander’s Empire
and the Diadochi (8:21; 11:2). Readers sensitive to the unity of the
book observe that these later chapters apparently parallel and detail the
brief prophetic outline submitted in Dan 2.2 Thereby, each vision is set
1. The two most popular interpretive schemes are named after the
historical empires assigned as the fourth kingdom: the “Roman” view and
the “Greek” view. Seventh-day Adventists assume one variation of the
Roman view, listing the succession of four empires as Babylon, Medo-
Persia [Achaemenid dynasty], Greece [Alexandrine Hellenism], and
Rome. By contrast, advocates of the Greek view commonly identify the
four kingdoms as follows: Babylon, Media, Archaemenid Persia, Alexandrine
Hellenism. These designations will appear throughout this paper in
their broadest sense.
2. For a survey of these parallels, albeit towards a defense of the
Roman view: Shea, William H., “Unity of Daniel,” Daniel & Revelation
Committee Series 2, Symposium on Daniel, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Washington,
D.C.: Biblical Research Institute (1986), 165-255. One might here draw
an analogy to a familiar convention of Hebraic poetic verse: parallelism (in
which the poet follows a pattern of exposition and re-exposition).
2
within a larger conversation—illuminating the others towards the crystallization
of an overarching prophetic schema.3
Observing these intratextual relationships, especially that between
Dan 2:41-43 and 11:4,6,17, this survey recommends the Greek view as the
most viable interpretative scheme for Daniel 2. The parallels between
those two chapters equate the fourth kingdom of Dan 2 with the Alexandrine/
Hellenistic political conglomerate explicitly referenced in 11:2-4—a
conclusion in harmony with the other details of the prophecy. This paper
will review the intratextual evidence, and cite additional evidences from
related studies so to complete its survey of the vision entire.4
Survey
“Daniel” introduces the second kingdom and third kingdoms
briefly: “and after you shall arise another kingdom, inferior to yours, and a
third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth” (2:39b).
Following these is “a fourth kingdom, strong as iron; just as iron crushes
and smashes everything, it shall crush and shatter all these” (2:40). This
latter kingdom becomes the subject of the prophet’s attention in 2:41-44,
which notes that the fourth kingdom shall be a divided realm (presumably
in its later days) 5:
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 strength of iron
shall be in it, as you saw the iron mixed with the clay. As the toes of
the feet were part iron and part clay, so the kingdom shall be partly
3. Of note, increasing detail and decreasing breadth apparently attend
each chapter’s re-exposition of the schema (cf. Dan 2 to 7,8, and 11).
4. Evangelical authors have written convincing defenses of the
Greek view in recent decades, most significantly: Gurney, Robert J.M.,
“The Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7,” Themelios 2 (1977) 39-45; and,
Walton, John H. “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel,” JETS 29.1, (1986) 25-
36. Walton’s study is written in conversation with Gurney’s, and refines
several of its arguments. This study compliments, and frequently cites, the
research in both papers, but prefers Gurney’s synthesis of the relevant
data. (Gurney’s complete interpretive scheme for the prophecies of Daniel
is available in a single monograph, recently updated and made available
on the internet: God is in Control: An Exposition of the Prophecies of Daniel, 2nd
Edition (2006), [Online Resource: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/
book_god-in-control_gurney.html].)
5. More precisely, Bradshaw notes that the “fourth kingdom would
have two distinct phases, the first characterised by strength (2:33, 40; 7:7,
23; 8:7), the second by division (2:41-43; 8:8).” (Bradshaw, Robert I. The
Book of Daniel, Table 8 [On-line Resource: http://www.biblicalstudies.
org.uk/article_daniel.html].)
3
strong and partly brittle. As you saw the iron mixed with clay, so
will they mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold
together, just as iron does not mix with clay. (2:41-43)
Daniel concludes his description by prophesying of the coming
Kingdom of God:
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a
kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be
left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring
them to an end, and it shall stand for ever. (2:44)
Details within the text provide clues to identify the fulfillment of each portion
of the prophecy. For example, Daniel ascribes the rise of the second
kingdom to a time “after you [Nebuchadnezzar II]” (2:39), that is, 562
BCE (the year of his death).6
Of note, Daniel explicitly states that the first and third kingdoms
will have universal dominion (2:38,39b). The fourth kingdom is also a
world empire, as it subdues the other three kingdoms (“it shall crush and
shatter all these”; 2:40), two of which exercised global dominion. However,
the second kingdom receives so much comment; it is described only as “inferior”
to the gold kingdom, likely according to its comparative measure of
splendor (symbolized by its place within the hierarchy of metals; cf. Num
31:22; 1 Chr 22:14; 2 Chr 2:7,14).7 The text’s failure to ascribe global dominion
to the kingdom raises the possibility that it possesses none.
The latter two kingdoms are also represented by metals inferior to
gold. These, however, symbolize strength (cf. 7:19), and their use in battle
(e.g., bronze in 2 Sam 21:16; iron in 1 Sam 17:7) suggests that they further
represent military prowess; Daniel states that the bronze kingdom “shall
rule over the whole earth.”
The prophet devotes significantly more attention to the fourth
kingdom, detailing six identifying features: (1) The fourth kingdom will
possess an invincible military, symbolized by iron, the most powerful metal
in ancient warfare (2:40). (2) It will conquer the whole world, by defeating
“all these” that is, the first three kingdoms. (2:40). (3) At some point, the
empire will become “a divided kingdom” composed of smaller realms
(2:40-41). Note that the kingdom is first represented by a single substance
(iron), and at a later time experiences division (iron and clay). (4) These
6. This identification of the “you” in 2:39 with Nebuchadnezzar II
(and not the Neo-Chaldean dynasty as a whole) relates the singular pronoun
“you” in 3:39 to the immediate addressee (“you, O king”; 2:37,38).
Gurney concurs, but emphasizes Daniel’s recurring identification of the
Neo-Chaldean realm with Nebuchadnezzar alone (Gurney 1977, 42).
7. For a brief discussion of this pattern: Shea 1986, 174.
4
realms will still be identified with the original empire (2:41-42): the text
does not speak of succeeding “kingdoms,” but continues to refer to the
fourth kingdom as a single entity. (5) These political divisions will compromise
the strength of the larger empire, so that “the kingdom shall be
partly strong and partly brittle” (2:42). (6) To overcome the political divisions,
the composite realms will attempt to forge alliances or unions by
(royal) intermarriage (2:43). These efforts, however, will not succeed;
though they “mix with one another in marriage… they will not hold together”
(2:43).
The Fourth Kingdom
That final detail is perhaps the most significant in relating this passage
to the book’s many parallel sequences. Daniel again predicts a series
of (failed) alliances and intermarriages between competing kingdoms in
chapter 11. Immediately after describing the rise of Alexander (11:3) and
the untimely division of his Empire (11:4), Daniel focuses on the rivalry between
Seleucia (“the king of the north”) and Ptolemaic Egypt (“the king of
the south”; [11:5]). In the next verse, he predicts:
After some years they shall make an alliance, and the daughter of
the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to ratify
the agreement. But she shall not retain her power, and his offspring
shall not endure. She shall be given up, she and her attendants and
her child and the one who supported her. (11:6)
Another failed intermarriage apparently appears in 11:17, with the note “it
shall not succeed or be to his advantage.”
As the only other texts that detail specific instances of intermarriage
between remnants of a divided kingdom, 11:6,17 are almost certainly
parallel to 2:43. The specificity of the prophecies of Dan 11 further distinguish
11:6,17 as expanded treatments of the same subject matter in 2:43;
where Dan 2 briefly mentions future intermarriages, Dan 11 offers at least
two examples of the same. Any disassociation of the two passages (as if
they treated different subjects) is unthinkable from a strictly exegetical perspective.
On the contrary, the brevity of 2:43 demands the elaboration
11:6,17 provides.
Dan 11:2-3 explicitly delineates the transition from Gabriel’s discussion
of Persian history (11:1-2) to his survey of Alexandrine/Hellenistic
history. All interpreters agree that post-Alexandrine, Hellenistic kingdoms
are in view in 11:6 (and v. 17), including the major Adventist interpreters.8
8. Smith, U., The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, Hagerstown:
Review and Herald (1972). 236-7; 247-51. Most interpreters consistently
identify “the king of the North” and “the king of the South” as the rulers
of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties, respectively; classical Adventist
interpreters do not. Understanding v.6 as a reference to the Seleucids and
5
Consequently, the interpreter is secure in recommending the same Hellenistic
conglomerate as the “divided kingdom” in view in 2:43. The
aforementioned intratextual evidence is decisive on this point.9
In fact, the Hellenistic Empire founded by Alexander easily conforms
to the first five features of Dan 2’s fourth kingdom—more precisely
than does the Roman Empire. (1) Alexander’s forces were invincible, (2)
conquering the entire territory formerly dominated by Babylon, Media,
and Persia in a matter of years.10 (3) After Alexander’s untimely death, his
empire was divided among his four generals; by 200 BCE, its territory
consisted of ten independent realms of Hellenistic heritage: Ptolemaic
Egypt, Seleucia, Macedon, Pergamum, Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia,
Armenia, Parthia, and Bactria.11
(4) All these divisions were united in the Hellenistic culture and
identity they adopted. Collectively, they constituted a “divided kingdom”
[singular]—legitimate heirs (politically and culturally) to the original Alexandrine
realm, however splintered (cf. 11:4). (Advocates of the Roman
view themselves subsume these realms under the kingdom of “Greece,”
testifying to their cultural unity). By contrast, the Barbarian tribes succeeding
Rome in the Roman view were not contiguous (culturally or politically)
with the Empire they overthrew. They were succeeding kingdoms—not
constituents of “a divided kingdom.”
Additionally, (5) the strength of the post-Alexandrine Hellenistic
Empire was compromised, so that some realms were more powerful than
their neighbors. Dan 11:4 ff. largely chronicles the confrontations between
these entities as they gained, lost, and recovered their prowess: detailing
the brief summary given in 2:41-43. The two passages are natural com-
Ptolemies, they assign v.17 to the final interactions between the Roman
Republic and the Ptolemies (specifically Cleopatra). Overlooking the demerits
of this paradigm, one sees that Adventists relate 11:6,17 to the
Hellenistic period—not the later divisions of the Roman Empire.
9. Most proponents of the Greek view note this parallel, but none
(to my knowledge) ground their identification of the fourth kingdom primarily
upon it. By contrast, this survey considers it the most decisive piece
of evidence available to the interpreter.
10. Roman armies never advanced into Media or Persia, potentially
undermining the claim that the Roman Empire “crushed and
shattered” at least one of the kingdoms presumed by the Roman view (as
2:40 demands; Gurney 1977, 40,44; Walton 32). In fact, Rome never subsumed
most of the territories once controlled by the Medo-Persian and
Greek Empires (especially those east of Susa). However, the flexibility of
prophetic historiography cautions us against reading too far into these
facts. Nevertheless, I agree with Gurney that Dan 2:40 does find a more
fitting fulfillment in the conquests of Alexander.
11. Walton 32.
6
pliments, if not necessary ones (as 2:41-43 demands a more comprehensive
treatment of the events described therein, which the Roman view denies
it). Again, all intratextual indications recommend the identification of Alexander’s
Empire with the fourth kingdom. 12
Second and Third Kingdoms
Having isolated the historical fulfillments of the first and final kingdoms
of the sequence, only the second and third kingdoms remain.
Alexander conquered the world empire ruled by the Achaemenid dynasty
of Persia (commonly referred to as the “Persian” or “Medo-Persian” Empire);
8:20-21 and 11:2-3 are explicit on this point. Undoubtedly, this
empire is the third kingdom.
Media emerges as a probable choice for the second kingdom when
considered as an individual power (that is, in its twelve years as the region’s
major power, prior its subjugation to Cyrus, c. 550 BCE). Although
Media and Persia were politically integrated at the time of their concerted
conquest of Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt, the book of Daniel lists them as
discreet entities (5:8). Dan 8:3,20 even suggest that the two are temporally
distinct (“the longer one was coming up last”), so that Media precedes Persia
in a succession of kingdoms. In that light, it is easy to consider the two
12. Critics of the Greek view excoriate its failure to recognize the
achievements of the Roman Empire (in not listing it among the four kingdoms).
However, few interpreters find a place for Islam within the
prophecies of Dan 2,7,8,11, despite the fact that it has remained the dominant
political force in the Middle East for fourteen centuries.
Interpreters must respect the conventions of prophetic historiography,
which countenances omissions in favor of brevity/simplicity. For
example, Gabriel predicts the reigns of “four more kings” in Persia before
Alexander (11:2-3), overlooking seven later Persian rulers. Instead, he
transitions directly from a reference to the “fourth” Persian king (Xerxes,
who launched a great invasion of Greece, 11:2) to the first Greek king (Alexander,
who conquered Persia; 11:3), presumably because these two kings
are pivotal in tracing the transfer of prestige from Persia to Greece (itself
the singular focus of 11:2-3; cf. Shea, William H., “Why Antiochus IV is
Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8,” Daniel & Revelation Committee Series 1, Second
Edition, Symposium on Daniel, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Washington,
D.C.: Biblical Research Institute [1992], 40-41) Intermediate rulers, being
less significant to this prophetic movement, are quietly disregarded.
Spiritual interests especially govern the text’s presentation of world
affairs. Daniel presumably fails to reference the nascent Roman Empire in
view of the realm’s triviality beside the advent of the Messianic kingdom
(outlined later in this essay). After the decree of the heavenly court (7:9-
13,26), the world’s major power is the Messianic kingdom; all temporal
political entities (from Rome to Islam) thereafter fade into inconsequentiality.
7
as sequential kingdoms, though the former does not achieve global dominion
until its integration into the latter.13
Notwithstanding, some difficulty surrounds the contention that
Media arose “after” the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (Dan 2:39a). Media
was a rival and contemporary kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon; after
562 BCE however, Gurney observes that Media “became the stronger of the
two because the power and wealth of Babylon immediately declined… the
scales had tipped in favour of the Medes.”14 As evidence, Walton cites
Median military expansion into Babylonian territory after 562 BCE, especially
the annexation of Susa and Elam under Astyages. 15
One must recognize the flexibility inherent in the verb “arise,”
used by Daniel to describe the advent of kingdoms. It almost never denotes
the initial establishment of a national unit, but more commonly describe its
political reorganization (e.g., a new dynasty) or a period of significant
growth (e.g., territorial annexation or international prominence).16 Media’s
ascendancy between 562-550 BCE readily satisfies this broader conception
of the political processes in view in 2:39. 17
13. This qualification is well within the parameters of the prophecy,
which (as mentioned earlier) do not require that the second kingdom
be a world empire, instead stressing its inferiority. Walton observes: “The
bronze kingdom is one that is characterized by world dominion as over
against the inferiority of the silver kingdom. [Dan 2:39] Again, to see Persia
as worldwide in comparison to the inferior kingdom of the Medes is
logical. The same contrast between Greece and Persia would not be suitable
(Walton 31).” Also: “It may also be noted in passing that the
inferiority of the second empire when compared to the first (Dan 2:39)
would fit Media much more readily than Medo-Persia” (Walton 30).
14. Gurney 1977, 41.
15. Walton 30.
16. For example, though Greece existed centuries earlier, it is said
to “rise” (as the third [or fourth] kingdom of Dan 2) through the conquests
of Alexander (11:2-3). Gurney provides a comprehensive model of succession,
suggesting: “the order of Daniel’s kingdoms is the order of their rise to the
height of power and prominence” (Gurney 1977, 41).
17. By contrast, unnecessarily narrow definitions of the political
processes envisioned in 2:39 are frequently used to exclude Media from
consideration, as Gurney reports: “The assertion that there was no Median
empire between the Babylonian and Persian empires seems to be
based on a misconception…. that Persia succeeded Babylon as dominant
world power when it overthrew Babylon in 539 BC. Persia in fact became
the dominant world power some years before Babylon fell…. If it be admitted,
and so it must, that Persia became dominant world power before the
actual fall of Babylon, it can also be admitted that Media may have been
the dominant world power before Persia.” (Gurney 1977, 41). This model
8
Cyrus’ establishment of the Achaemenid dynasty marked the end
of Median independence, and the rise of Persian primacy in the Ancient
Near East. Accordingly, Cyrus’ successful rebellion against Media (553-
550 BCE) demarcates the transition between the second and third kingdoms.
Illustrative of the former’s absorption into the latter, Daniel
considers the two kingdoms as separate entities in Dan 2,7, but as composite
and consecutively emerging elements of a single entity in Dan 8 (two
horns on a single ram, the latter more exalted than the first).18 Thereby,
both schemes provide us complimentary views of these two powers. Dan
2,7 informs us that the two powers are distinct; Dan 8 (maintaining that
distinction) adds that the two are allied, and relates their united rise to
global dominion under the leadership of Persia (the “higher” horn in
8:3).19
may be reflected in Dan 7:12, where the loss of dominion by the first three
beasts is distinguished from their later destruction (assuming that “destruction”
is equivalent to political conquest or ruin).
18. Most interpreters agree that three of the kingdoms referenced
in Dan 2,7 are also in view in Dan 8, albeit under the figure of only two
beasts. Advocates of the Roman view resolve this numerical discrepancy
by submitting that Dan 8 combines two entities in Dan 2,7 (the third and
fourth kingdoms) into a single entity (where Rome is subsumed as a horn
upon the goat representing Greece [8:9,20-23]).
Unfortunately, this solution raises new difficulties. Subsuming the
fourth kingdom (expressly distinguished from its predecessors on multiple
occasions [cf. 2:39-40; 7:7,19,23]) as a constituent element of the third
kingdom proves disagreeable, especially when Gabriel explicitly refers to
the entire prophetic figure of the goat as “the kingdom of Greece” (8:21).
The Greek view more aptly reconciles the sequence in Dan 2,7 to that in
Dan 8, preserving the integrity of each kingdom (i.e. Media, Persia,
Greece), and combining any two only according to the stated design of
8:20-21.
19. Gurney adds a telling observation: “Note also the way in which
Daniel groups together the second and third kingdoms [in 2:39]. The second
kingdom is passed over quickly with a brief and belittling remark,
possibly indicating that its term of supreme power is comparatively insignificant
and short-lived, as well as being inferior in wealth and magnificence.
It is grouped with, and closely followed and overshadowed by,
the world-ruling third kingdom. The whole description is strongly suggestive
of the Medo-Persian situation, because the comparatively insignificant
Median empire was absorbed and eclipsed by the subsequently enormous
Persian empire only a very short time after it (Media) had itself surpassed
Babylon. The description of the second and third kingdoms fits the Median
and Persian empires far better than it fits the huge, wealthy, longlived
Persian empire and the… Greek empire.”(Gurney 1977, 42)
9
The Stone Kingdom
A full discussion of the chapter’s Messianic image lies outside the
limits of this paper20; however, attention is due the historical relationship
between the “stone kingdom” and the fourth kingdom (as understood by
advocates of the Greek view). Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that “in the
days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall
never be destroyed” (2:44).21 This process is said to occur in two stages: (1)
the stone strikes the image, pulverizing the kingdoms, then (2) the stone
becomes a mountain and fills the whole earth (2:34-35; 44-45). Apparently,
the text anticipates the destruction of the fourth kingdom before the
rise of the Messianic kingdom.22 A parallel passage (7:9-13,26-27) indicates
that the transition between the two kingdoms occurs by decree of a heavenly
judgment (equivalent to the decrees of “the God of heaven” in 2:44),
again resulting in (1) the destruction of the fourth kingdom, followed by (2)
the Messiah’s reception and assumption of power.23 Evidently, the stone
kingdom encapsulates all these divine activities, beginning with the cosmic
judgment, and culminating with the universal conquests of the Messiah.
All Christian interpreters link the stone kingdom to the Christ
event; some however (including Adventists), restrict that identification to
the parousia. This view fails to note the breadth of events subsumed in the
“stone kingdom,” including the bestowal of universal, political dominion
upon the Messiah, which the New Testament explicitly assigns to the time
of Christ’s first advent: Mt 28:18; Eph 1:20-22; Rev 1:5 12:10.24 At that
time, the “kingdom of heaven” was established (cf. Lu 23:42-43; 17:20-21),
whose spread (“the mountain” of 2:44) will culminate in the visible reign of
Christ at His second advent.
20. A historical survey of the major Christian interpreters is found
in: Bennett, Douglas, “The Stone Kingdom of Daniel 2,” Daniel & Revelation
Committee Series 2, Symposium on Daniel, ed. Frank B. Holbrook,
Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute (1986), 333-345. A defense
of the Adventist reading of Dan 2:44 (which strictly assigns the stone kingdom
to the parousia) follows on p. 346-377.
21. Scholars debate the antecedent to “those kings,” suggesting either
the four kingdoms (“all these kingdoms” in 2:44b), or the rulers of the
divided kingdom (Bennett 356-361; Walton 35). In either case, one anticipates
the stone kingdom to arrive at the end of the prophetic sequence
(after the events in 2:41-43, ushering in the end of the fourth kingdom).
22. Gurney 1977, 40.
23. Gurney, Robert J.M., “A Note on Daniel 11:40-45,” TSF Bulletin
47 (1967): 11.
24. Gurney 1977, 41.
1 0
Interpreters must also recognize the ambiguity of Old Testament
messianism, which precludes our narrowly defining the stone kingdom as
the final political triumph of Christ.25 No Old Testament prophet expressly
distinguishes between the first and second advents of the Messiah (a
nuance of New Testament eschatology), confirming Walton’s suspicion
that “Daniel himself was not necessarily distinguishing between two advents
of the Messiah” in 2:44.”26 By contrast, most critiques of the
“Greek” reading of Dan 2:44, unmindful of this ambiguity, rely upon an
“either-or” dichotomy foreign to the Old Testament material.
As expected, the Christ event was preceded by the destruction of
the fourth kingdom, which process began in the mid second-century,27 and
was consummated in 30 BCE with the fall of the last Diadochian dynansty:
Ptolemaic Egypt.
Conclusion
The interpretive task demands that a given text, so far as possible,
interpret itself. An observable pattern of exposition and revisitation in the
Book of Daniel integrates the book’s historical-political visions (chaps.
2,7,8, and 11) into a network, encouraging a form of intratextual study
that illuminates each individual chapter by the whole. By relating elements
of one vision to those in another, the reader gathers additional data from
which to extract his interpretation of any single chapter.
Any increase in data narrows the interpretive possibilities for certain
variables, precluding eisegetical abuses. For example, many features
proper to the fourth kingdom (e.g. intermarriage between rulers; 2:43) are
true of any number of historical realms. Supplementing that general description
with more particular details (as expounded in parallel chapters)
reduces the text’s ambiguity. In the case of Dan 2, references to intermarriages
between the remnants of a divided kingdom link 2:41-43 to
11:4,6,17, the latter passage explicitly assigning these actions to kings of rival
Diadochian dynasties. Accordingly, one should anchor the fourth
kingdom of Dan 2 in the history of the Alexandrine Empire and its successors—
effectively permitting the author of Daniel to interpret the vision.
25. Although the chapter emphasizes the ultimate political consequences
of the Christ event (in keeping with the chapter’s socio-political
orientation), it hardly excludes their processual realization.
26. Walton 35.
27. Daniel 7:11 indicates that the cosmic judgment of the little
horn (identified as Antiochus IV [Epiphanies] by Greek-view scholars) decrees
the destruction of the fourth kingdom. Therefore, the destruction of
the “Greek” empire should date from the time of Antiochus IV—a process
first evident in the Roman defeat of Macedon in 168 BCE (the heart of Alexander’s
former empire), and the beginning of the Maccabean war in 167
BCE (Gurney 1967, 11).
1 1
Competing interpretative schemes have their merits; but the
divorcement of a passage from its literary context violates a fundamental
law of exegesis. Although this scheme is not without its inherent
limitations, as all are, it remains sensitive to the overarching design of the
author, manifested through the literary conventions noted earlier.
1 2
Works Cited
Bennett, Douglas. “The Stone Kingdom of Daniel 2,” Daniel &
Revelation Committee Series 2. Symposium on Daniel. Ed. Frank B. Holbrook.
Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986. 331-377.
Bradshaw, Robert I. The Book of Daniel. Table 8. On-line Resource:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_daniel.html.
Gurney, Robert J.M. “A Note on Daniel 11:40-45.” TSF Bulletin 47
(1967): 10-12.
Gurney, Robert J.M. God is in Control: An Exposition of the Prophecies of
Daniel. 2nd Edition (2006). Online Resource: http://www.biblicalstudies
.org.uk/book_god-in-control_gurney.html.
Gurney, Robert J.M., “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7,”
Themelios 2 (1977): 39-45.
Shea, William H. “Unity of Daniel.” Daniel & Revelation Committee
Series 2, Symposium on Daniel. Ed. Frank B. Holbrook. Washington, D.C.:
Biblical Research Institute, 1986. 165-255.
Shea, William H. “Why Antiochus IV is Not the Little Horn of
Daniel 8,” Daniel & Revelation Committee Series 1, Second Edition, Symposium
on Daniel. Ed. Frank B. Holbrook. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute,
1992. 31-66.
Smith, Uriah. The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. Hagerstown:
Review and Herald, 1972.
Walton, John H. “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel,” JETS 29.1,
(1986) 25-36.
© 2006 Hugo Mendez. Second Draft; Fourth Edit.
DiesDomini.com

Advertisements

0 Responses to “THE HELLENISTIC WORLD AS THE FOURTH KINGDOM OF DANIEL 2: AN INTRATEXTUAL DEFENSE OF THE GREEK VIEW”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Blog Stats

  • 21,688 hits

How you can support this blogsite

If you make your online purchases from amazon.com via this link you will be supporting this site as well as saving money for yourself. UK customers can access amazon.co.uk via this link. Please also consider purchasing one of the books in our bookstore at the bottom of the sidebar on the right.

Bookstore

Product Description With the dawn of a new millennium, what could be more appropriate than The Millennium Bible? Readers desiring to learn more about what the Bible itself says concerning the last days on planet earth and the Second Coming of Christ will appreciate this book. It includes the complete text of every Bible verse from Genesis to Revelation that directly or indirectly deals with the Second Coming, plus the enlightening commentary of hundreds of respected Bible scholars. At this point in history, Biederwolfs in-depth study on the Bibles prophetic teachings concerning the last days and Christs Second Coming is especially relevant. About the Author William Edward Biederwolf was a well-known and respected evangelist who also served as president of the Winona Lake School of Theology.

%d bloggers like this: