Daniel’s Prophecies: A Historical Interpretation (Part 1)

    The prophecies in the book of Daniel are some of the most debated in the entire Old Testament. There are several different interpretive schools, each of which has a very different perspective. Within the traditional Christian interpretation, some of the prophecies in this book (Dan. 8 and 11) relate to the Seleucid king Antiochus IV’s persecution of the Jews, while others (Dan. 7 and 9) relate to the first coming of Jesus Christ. The dispensationalist interpretation agrees that Dan. 8 and 11 relate to Antiochus IV, but Dan. 7 and 9 are instead moved to the second coming of Jesus and the end of the age. The ‘Concordant’ teacher A. E. Knoch, on the other hand, argues that all of these prophecies relate to the end of the age. Finally, the perspective adhered to by most modern critical scholars is that all of the prophecies relate to the persecution of Antiochus IV. In this series of posts, we’ll examine the prophecies in their biblical and historical context to try to determine which, if any, of these interpretive schools are correct.

    The Ram, the Male Goat, and the Little Horn

    The least ambiguous prophecy in the book of Daniel is that of Daniel 8, which describes a vision about a ram, a male goat, and a ‘little horn.’ This is the only prophecy for which all interpretive schools are agreed on the meaning, since the text explicitly identifies the ram as the kingdoms of Media and Persia and the male goat as the kingdom of Greece (vv. 20-22). Therefore, this is a good place to start elucidating the meaning of Daniel’s prophecies. Regarding the ram which represents Media and Persia, it states:

And I lifted my eyes, and saw, and there was a ram with two horns standing beside the river. It had two horns, and the two horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him, and no one could deliver from his hand. He did according to his will and became great. (Dan. 8:3-4)

    This is a very accurate description of the kingdoms of Media and Persia. Both of these kingdoms were allied, but although Media was the senior partner in the alliance, Persia rapidly overtook it in importance, and Media was subsumed into the Persian Empire during the reign of Cyrus the Great (559-530 BC). Next, Daniel describes how he saw a male goat (Greece or Macedonia) overtake the ram:

And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west across the surface of all the earth without touching the ground, and the goat had a great horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram with two horns which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. And I saw him confronting the ram, and he was moved with rage and attacked the ram, and broke the two horns, and the ram had no power to withstand him. He cast him down to the ground and trampled him, and there was no one to save the ram from his hand. Therefore the male goat grew very great, but when he became strong, his great horn was broken, and in place of it came up four great horns toward the four winds. (Dan. 8:5-8)

    Again, this is a very accurate description of the Macedonian Empire. Under Alexander the Great, this kingdom underwent massive expansion during a series of whirlwind campaigns to the east (336-325 BC). In 333 BC, Persia was defeated and annexed by Macedonia, but Alexander continued campaigning for the next eight years; not a single battle was lost. However, Alexander died in 323 BC, and eventually the empire was divided between his four generals Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus, and Cassander.

    Next, Daniel describes how he saw a ‘little horn’ come up from the Macedonian Empire(s) and become hostile toward Israel:

And out of one of [the four horns] came a little horn which became very great toward the south, and the east, and the Glorious Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven, and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars, and trampled them. He exalted himself even as high as the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. And an army was given over to him to oppose the daily sacrifices because of transgression, and he cast down truth to the ground. He did all of this and prospered... [The daily sacrifices will be stopped] for 2,300 evenings and mornings, and the sanctuary shall be cleansed. (Dan. 8:9-12, 14)

    This is where the ‘Concordant’ (A. E. Knoch) interpretation diverges from the other interpretive schools. Knoch argues that this ‘little horn’ is the final end-times ruler, the Antichrist, who will arise before the second coming of Christ, whereas other interpretations argue that this is the Macedonian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC) who persecuted the Jews. Which is the more likely interpretation?

    First, it’s important to note that the text says that the ‘little horn’ arose out of one of the four horns (Macedonian kingdoms). The last Macedonian kingdom, that of Ptolemaic Egypt, fell to Rome in 27 BC. Therefore, it seems that the ‘little horn’ must be identified with a king before that time, which rules out an end-times ruler. This is confirmed by Daniel’s interpretation of the vision, which states that this king would arise “in the latter time of their [the Macedonian kingdoms’] rule” (v. 23).

    Furthermore, we are told that this king would stop the daily offerings for “2,300 evenings and mornings,” which refers to the evening and morning tamid sacrifices (Exod. 29:38-39). Keeping in mind that the tamid sacrifices were not offered on sabbaths and feast days (Num. 28-29), this period of 2,300 tamid offerings corresponds to exactly three and a half years. [1] Not coincidentally, the sacrifices were stopped for three and a half years in the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, until the temple was re-dedicated in Chislev 164 BC. [2] In the same year that the temple was re-dedicated, Antiochus IV died, allegedly due to a divinely-inflicted disease [3], which agrees with Daniel that “he shall be broken, but not by human hands” (Dan. 8:25). [4]

    In summary, the prophecy in Daniel 8 is a very accurate description of history from the fall of Babylonia to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the mid-2nd century BC. The ram in this vision represents the kingdoms of Media and Persia, while the male goat represents Macedonia, as explicitly stated by Daniel. Contrary to A. E. Knoch, the ‘little horn’ is said to arise in the latter days of the four Macedonian kingdoms, which cannot be any time later than 27 BC. The description of this ‘little horn’ accurately describes the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, even predicting the precise amount of time that the tamid offerings were stopped.

    The Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2

    The next prophecy that we will cover is that of Daniel 2, which describes a statue of gold, silver, bronze, and iron, each metal representing a different kingdom (vv. 37-40). The identification of the first kingdom (gold) is easy, because Daniel explicitly tells us that it is Neo-Babylonia, or more specifically, Nebuchadnezzar himself (vv. 37, 38). However, the next three kingdoms have been interpreted differently. The traditional view is that these three kingdoms are Media/Persia, Macedonia, and Rome; however, the accepted view among most modern scholars is that they are Media, Persia, and Macedonia. Which interpretation better fits the prophecy and its historical setting?

    Fortunately, the book of Daniel isn’t the only text to use a four-kingdom scheme. As the historical events described in this book unfolded, other ancient texts began to use the same motif, so we can turn to these to gain some insight. Before the Greeks even conquered Persia, the ancient historians Herodotus and Ktesias referred to a model of three empires succeeding each other: Assyria, Media, and Persia. [5] The deuterocanonical book of Tobit (14:4) also describes the succession of Assyria by Media, and the canonical prophets Isaiah (13:17-19; 21:2) and Jeremiah (51:11, 27-29) report that Babylonia was succeeded by Media. Dating to the Macedonian period, the Jewish Sibylline Oracles state that four kingdoms succeeded each other: Assyria, Media, Persia, and Greece. [6] This scheme continued to be used by many Roman historians, some of whom added Rome as a fifth kingdom. [7]

    All these texts suggest that the four kingdoms are Assyria/Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. But does this agree with the book of Daniel itself? Let’s examine the prophecy of Daniel 2 in more detail:

“You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom... are the head of gold. After you shall arise a second kingdom inferior to yours”

Very little description of the second kingdom is given, other than that it is inferior to Nebuchadnezzar himself. Does this better fit with Media or Media/Persia?

    First of all, it should be noted that there was no ‘Medo-Persian Empire’, contrary to popular belief. Media was a separate kingdom from Persia until it was subsumed into the Persian Empire, after which it ceased to be a kingdom at all. This is supported by all the texts cited earlier, including the biblical prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, all of which state that Assyria/Babylonia was followed by Media, then Persia (not ‘Medo-Persia’). The book of Daniel is in agreement with this, as it states that the last king of Babylon was succeeded directly by “Darius the Mede” (Dan. 5:30, 31). [8] Furthermore, the description of the second kingdom as “inferior” to Babylon is fitting for Media, but not for the Persian Empire, which at its height covered more than twice the territory as Babylonia. This decidedly favors the interpretation that the second kingdom is Media and not Media/Persia.

    The third kingdom is described by Daniel as follows:

“...and a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth.”

This could conceivably describe either Persia or Macedonia, so it doesn’t help us decide between the two interpretations. The next description is much more helpful:

“And there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron; for just as iron crushes and smashes everything, it shall crush and shatter all these [i.e., the former kingdoms]. As you saw the feet and toes partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it will 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 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.” (Dan. 2:40-43)

    Does this description better fit Greece or Rome? First, the text states that the fourth kingdom conquered all the previous kingdoms. This was not true of Rome, because the Roman Empire never conquered the Parthian Empire, which controlled the former heartland of Babylon, Media, and Persia. However, the Macedonians did conquer all the territory of the former kingdoms. Second, we see that the fourth kingdom would be divided. This better fits Macedonia, which was divided into four kingdoms on the death of Alexander the Great, than Rome, which wasn’t divided until well after the time of Jesus. Finally, Daniel says that this last kingdom would be characterized by a number of failed intermarriages, which simply did not happen to Rome, but did happen in Macedonia, as highlighted later in the book (Dan. 11:6, 17). All of these details about the fourth kingdom fit Greece much better than Rome.

    In summary, the biblical and historical data imply that the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 are Babylonia (Nebuchadnezzar), Media, Persia, and Macedonia. But if that’s the case, then what is the “stone not cut out with hands” that came “during the days of those kings” which represents the kingdom of God (Dan. 2:44, 45)? The description of this kingdom clearly shows that it is the Messianic kingdom, which did not come before the fall of the last Macedonian province in 27 BC. Unfortunately, this problem exists in all interpretive schools, as the Messianic kingdom did not come before the fall of the Roman Empire either. One possibility is that the final kingdom described in John's Apocalypse will originate in Macedonia. Alternatively, the coming of the kingdom of God at that time may have been contingent on a favorable response from the Jews, just like Micah’s prophecy that the kingdom would come in the days of Assyrian domination (Mic. 5:5-9). [9]

    The Four Beasts of Daniel 7

    So far, both of the prophecies that we have examined describe ancient history up to the Macedonian Empire, circa 2nd century BC. Based on this, and the similarities between Daniel 2 and 7, one might be justified in assuming that the four beasts in the vision of Daniel 7 represent the same four kingdoms as the statue in Daniel 2. Nonetheless, let’s examine the actual prophecy in this chapter to see if this view stands up to scrutiny.

    First, what do the beasts in Daniel 7 actually represent? Virtually all commentators agree that they are kingdoms, but A. E. Knoch argues that they are religions instead. However, the interpretation given by Daniel does not fit with this view:

“As for these four great beasts, four kings shall arise out of the earth. But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess it permanently... As for the fourth beast, there will be a fourth kingdom that will be different from the other kingdoms.” (Dan. 7:17-18, 23)

    The four beasts are described as “kingdoms” (Aram: malku) in the same terms as the statue in Daniel 2. Furthermore, the conception of kingdoms as beasts was quite common in ancient Jewish apocalyptic texts like Daniel. [10] So without a very good reason to believe otherwise, we should interpret them as kingdoms like the text says. Knoch’s only reason for believing that these are not kingdoms is that the first three beasts have their lives prolonged after the fourth is destroyed. However, as we will see below, this perfectly describes the history of the kingdoms of this time.

    So if the beasts are kingdoms, which kingdoms should they be identified with? Again, there are two schools of thought: traditionally these kingdoms are thought to be Babylonia, Media/Persia, Greece, and Rome, while modern scholars identify them with Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. Let’s go through the prophecy and see which view best fits the text:

The first [beast] was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then, as I watched, its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a human, and a human mind was given to it.

    Simply based on the identification of the first kingdom in Daniel 2, we might expect this beast to represent Neo-Babylonia. This is seemingly confirmed by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar is described as a lion by Jeremiah (4:7; 50:17). The lion being given a human mind refers to the fact that Nebuchadnezzar was given knowledge of the God of Israel (Dan. 4:34-37).

    The next beast is described as follows:

Another beast appeared, a second one, that looked like a bear. It was raised up on one side, had three ribs in its mouth among its teeth, and was told, “Arise, devour much flesh!”

    Does this better describe Media, or Media/Persia? Again, there was no ‘Medo-Persian Empire’, so it would be strange for Daniel to combine these two kingdoms into one. The fact that this bear is propped up on one side suggests a lack of major achievements despite its ferocity. This doesn’t fit Persia very well, but it does fit Media, which did not make any major gains against Babylon despite going to war with them. The three ribs in the mouth of the bear are sometimes interpreted as the conquests of Persia against Lydia, Babylon, and Egypt; however, it could equally refer to the kingdoms of Urartu, Mannaea, and Scythia, which are said to be allied with Media against Babylon in Jeremiah 51:27-29.

    If the second beast represents Media, then we would expect that the third beast represents Persia. Does this fit the description given by Daniel?

Then, as I watched, another beast like a leopard appeared. It had four wings of a bird on its back and four heads, and dominion was given to it.

The fact that this beast has four wings and heads is often understood to refer to the four kingdoms that arose from Macedonia. However, it could just as easily refer to the four Persian emperors that are singled out in Daniel 11:2. The wings on this leopard symbolize speed, which fits with the description of Persia as a swift conqueror in Isa. 41:3, but could also fit the rapid conquests of Macedonia in the 4th century BC (cf. Dan. 8:5). Therefore, the description of the third beast could fit either Persia or Greece.

    Fortunately, we are told in much more detail about the fourth beast, which will allow us to identify it with either Greece or Rome:

Then I saw in the visions by night a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and very strong. It had large iron teeth and was devouring, breaking in pieces, and stamping what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that preceded it, and it had ten horns. I was considering the horns when another horn appeared, a little one that came up among them. Three of the horns were plucked up before it. There were eyes like human eyes in this horn and a mouth speaking arrogantly... As I looked, that horn made war with the holy ones and was prevailing over them (Dan. 7:7-8, 21)

    According to the interpretation given later in the chapter, the ten horns represent ten kings, and the ‘little horn’ represents an eleventh king before whom three of the ten kings would be deposed. Based on the vision in Daniel 8, the ‘little horn’ should be identified with Macedonian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was indeed the eleventh king in his line. [11] Shortly before he came to the throne, his father Seleucus IV was deposed, as was his younger brother Antiochus and his brother’s regent Heliodorus. This matches Daniel’s vision remarkably well. [12]

    Regarding the ‘little horn’, we are told the following:

“He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the calendar and the law, and they shall be given into his power for a time, times, and half a time. Then the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away to be consumed and utterly destroyed.” (Dan. 7:25-26)

    This matches the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes against the Jews. The cessation of sacrifices during his reign lasted three years and six months — in other words, “a time, times, and half a time.” Furthermore, he was the one who attempted to “change the calendar [of religious feasts] and the law,” according to several ancient Jewish sources. [13] His death, as noted above, was alleged to be the result of a divinely-inflicted disease, rather than by human agency (2 Macc. 9:5-9).

    Following the time of the ‘little horn’, we are told the following:

And as I watched, the [fourth] beast was given over to be burned with fire. But as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. (Dan. 7:11-12)

    This is an accurate description of what happened to Macedonia after the time of Antiochus IV. Although all of the Macedonian kingdoms fell to Rome and were incorporated into its empire by 27 BC, the heartlands of Babylon, Media, and Persia remained under the control of the Parthian Empire, which did not fall until 224 AD. Therefore, it’s quite true that the fourth kingdom (Macedonia) was destroyed (by Rome) while the former three kingdoms (Babylon, Media, and Persia) lost their dominion, but remained ‘alive’ (independent of Rome).

    In summary, the four beasts of Daniel 7 represent the same kingdoms as the statue of Daniel 2: Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Macedonia. This prophecy quite accurately describes the history of the ancient Near East from the sixth century BC until the defeat of Macedonia by Rome. Contrary to futurist speculations about the book of Daniel, the ‘little horn’ of Daniel 7 does not represent the end-times ruler described in the New Testament, but the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes who persecuted the Jews for three years and six months (167-164 BC).

    In the next post, we will look at the longest prophecy in the book of Daniel — Dan. 11:2-12:3 — to see how it fits with these other prophecies.

The view of Daniel 2, 7, and 8 adopted here. Adapted

from this figure.

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/05/daniels-prophecies-historical_01614904781.html

______________________________

[1] Michael Segal, “The Four Kingdoms and Other Chronological Conceptions in the Book of Daniel,” in Four Kingdom Motifs before and beyond the Book of Daniel, eds. Andrew B. Perrin et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 33-34.

[2] Josephus, Wars I.1.1; 1 Macc. 4:52-54; 2 Macc. 10:5.

[3] 2 Macc. 9:5-9.

[4] In contrast, according to Apoc. 19:19-21, the final end-times ruler will be killed by human hands — specifically, the hands of Jesus Christ. This is another strike against Knoch’s interpretation.

[5] Herodotus, Histories I.95; Ktesias, Persian Matters.

[6] Sib. Or. 4.49-101.

[7] Amelius Sura, De annis populi Romani; Polybius, Histories 38.22; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 1.2.2-4; Tacitus, Histories 5.8; Appian, Roman History, preface 9.

[8] The existence of “Darius the Mede,” who allegedly ruled over 120 satrapies (Dan. 6:2; cf. Est. 1:1) and preceded Cyrus of Persia (Dan. 6:29; cf. 6:28 OG) seems contradicted by the historical record, which tells us that Cyrus was the one who conquered Babylon and succeeded the last Babylonian king; see the Babylonian Chronicles and the Cyrus Cylinder, as well as the histories of Herodotus and Xenophon. “Darius the Mede” is not mentioned in any administrative or business texts dating to this period. However, whether or not “Darius the Mede” existed, the point is that the author of Daniel intended us to understand that Babylon was succeeded by Media (which may have been the purpose of adding “Darius the Mede” in the first place).

[9] Note that in this prophecy, Micah gives two possibilities for the Judahites, that the kingdom will come (vv. 5-9) or that God will destroy them (vv. 10-14). Although no contingencies are explicitly mentioned here, we can safely conclude that the coming of the kingdom was contingent on a favorable response from Judah, since the kingdom did not come and Judah was destroyed by Babylonia. The same may be true of Daniel’s prophecy. For a discussion of unstated contingencies in Old Testament prophecy, see Robert Chisholm, “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic,” JETS 53 (2010).

[10] Alexandria Frisch, “The Four (Animal) Kingdoms: Understanding Empires as Beastly Bodies,” in Four Kingdom Motifs before and beyond the Book of Daniel, 62-75.

[11] Alexander the Great; Seleucus I; Antiochus I; Antiochus II; Seleucus II; Seleucus III; Antiochus III; Seleucus IV; Heliodorus (regent); Antiochus (child); Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

[12] Another possibility is that the three “uprooted” kings were the joint rulers of Ptolemaic Egypt, Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy VIII, and Cleopatra II, whom Antiochus IV defeated in 169 BC, and the other seven kings were his Seleucid predecessors (Seleucus I; Antiochus I; Antiochus II; Seleucus II; Seleucus III; Antiochus III; Seleucus IV); see Andreas Blasius, “Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Ptolemaic Triad: The Three Uprooted Horns in Dan 7:8, 20, and 24 Reconsidered,” JSJ 37 (2006). However, this would ignore the infant Antiochus who ruled briefly between Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV, as well as Alexander the Great, which seems odd if the fourth ‘beast’ (kingdom) is to be identified with Macedonia (as a whole) and not just the Seleucid Kingdom.

[13] Josephus, Antiquities 10.275-276; 1 Macc. 1:41-50; 2 Macc. 6:3-6.