Kingdoms of Daniel 2 & 7: The Traditional View

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
User avatar
coccus ilicis
Posts: 776
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Kingdoms of Daniel 2 & 7: The Traditional View

#11 Post by coccus ilicis » 2 years ago

Get out of her wrote:
2 years ago
Bobcat wrote:
What is the "traditional view"? Basically it holds that the metallic image of Daniel 2 is portraying the same kingdoms as the four beasts of Daniel 7. Gold=Babylon, Silver=Medo-Persia, Copper/Brass=Greece, Iron=Rome.

Various explanations and commentary on these two chapters differ on the details. But the so-called 'traditional view' generally holds to this basic comparative structure between those two chapters of Daniel.
Hopefully I can contribute something worthwhile to this discussion...

...Yes I'm insisting that this final horn corresponds directly with the "eighth king" of Revelation 17:11 or "IMAGE of the wild beast...

Agape love;
Sol
Hello Sol,

Although you and I see things from different perspectives - even as a bird's eye view of an object is different from a ground-level view. We each discern that the little horn pictures the 8th king of Rev 17:11.

Rev 13:3-8, 14 focuses on the beast/head that was slaughtered to death and its death-stroke was healed. Revelation chapters 17 and 18 is all about the harlot (Rev 17:1,7) and also focusses attention on the slaughtered head [beast], because it is this beast that carries the harlot in the tme of the end ... the beast [head} that you saw that was, but is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss abyss = death, see Rom 10:7 ...and it is to go off into destruction ...

It is important to note that perspective has changed for John, he no longer has a bird's eye view events as at Rev 13:1-18, but is seeing events as they are at ground level in his day. The beast that is not had been slaughtered to death when he saw this vision. From his perspective it's arising out the abyss/death is future. ... The seven heads ... are seven kings, five have fallen, one is Rome and the other has not yet arrived (Rev 17 :9,10). The other = Danie's 4th beast with iron teeth and copper claws Dan7:7,19 (see post #8 above). John is told that this beast/head must remain a short while (like Rome a few centuries). Then turning his attention once more to the head/beast that was slaughtered, it says ... the wild beast that was but is not, it is itself an eighth king but springs from the seven and goes off into destruction... Rev 17:11.

To recap the 4th beast of Daniel 7 is equal to the 7th head of Rev 17:9,10, the other one that was future from John's day. The 10 horns of Daniel's 4th beast picture all the kings of the earth that are part of this great beast. The little horn emerges from their midst, uprooting three horns in the process (Dan 7:7,24). This occurs in the latter part of this beast's existence. Rev 17:11 says, it springs from the seven [heads]... in as much, as it is the artificially created Frankenstein reconstitution of the head/beast that was slaughtered to death in the first century - namely Isreal.

It is this little horn that has become the 8th king - the reconstructed nation-state of Israel will be/is the one that the harlot rides in the final part of the days and plays a significant role in misleading mankind. Jesus warned us that at that time false prophets and anointed ones would say ... 'Here is the Christ,' or 'There!' do not believe it... (Matt 24:23) This period corresponds to the time when this little horn has grown great and has eyes like a man and is speaking grandiose things and ...will speak words even against the Most High... and continually harasses ... the holy ones themselves... he will intend to change times and law, and they will be given into his hand for a time, times and half a time... Dan 7:8,25

Our current perspective is from ground level - we see events as they are unfolding - a crucial and tricky time for all but particularly for the holy ones (Matt 24:22,24: Rev 13:7,10) ... happy is the one who is keeping in expectation... Dan 12:11,12

Love
LRW~

Get out of her
Posts: 1029
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Kingdoms of Daniel 2 & 7: The Traditional View

#12 Post by Get out of her » 2 years ago

It was nice to hear from you again LRW. It's been some time. As varied as ALL of our perspectives on holy text seem to be in these foretold periods of national "planting" as opposed to "harvest," it's always encouraging and sometimes even interesting when ANY two of us happen to see eye to eye on any given thing.

As far as recognizing the final "horn" on the "fourth wild beast" of Daniel 7 as corresponding with the "eighth king" of Revelation 17:11, it was probably only two or three years ago that I began to understand its symbolic significance in the way I now do. I'm somewhat curious as to how long you have recognized it in the way you do and maybe even what might have moved you to see it in this way.
LRW wrote:
Rev 13:3-8, 14 focuses on the beast/head that was slaughtered to death and its death-stroke was healed. Revelation chapters 17 and 18 is all about the harlot (Rev 17:1,7) and also focusses attention on the slaughtered head [beast], because it is this beast that carries the harlot in the time of the end ... the beast [head} that you saw that was, but is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss abyss = death, see Rom 10:7 ...and it is to go off into destruction ...

It is important to note that perspective has changed for John, he no longer has a bird's eye view events as at Rev 13:1-18, but is seeing events as they are at ground level in his day. The beast that is not had been slaughtered to death when he saw this vision. From his perspective it's arising out the abyss/death is future. ... The seven heads ... are seven kings, five have fallen, one is Rome and the other has not yet arrived (Rev 17 :9,10). The other = Danie's 4th beast with iron teeth and copper claws Dan7:7,19 (see post #8 above). John is told that this beast/head must remain a short while (like Rome a few centuries). Then turning his attention once more to the head/beast that was slaughtered, it says ... the wild beast that was but is not, it is itself an eighth king but springs from the seven and goes off into destruction... Rev 17:11.

To recap the 4th beast of Daniel 7 is equal to the 7th head of Rev 17:9,10, the other one that was future from John's day. The 10 horns of Daniel's 4th beast picture all the kings of the earth that are part of this great beast. The little horn emerges from their midst, uprooting three horns in the process (Dan 7:7,24). This occurs in the latter part of this beast's existence. Rev 17:11 says, it springs from the seven [heads]... in as much, as it is the artificially created Frankenstein reconstitution of the head/beast that was slaughtered to death in the first century - namely Isreal.

It is this little horn that has become the 8th king - the reconstructed nation-state of Israel will be/is the one that the harlot rides in the final part of the days and plays a significant role in misleading mankind. Jesus warned us that at that time false prophets and anointed ones would say ... 'Here is the Christ,' or 'There!' do not believe it... (Matt 24:23) This period corresponds to the time when this little horn has grown great and has eyes like a man and is speaking grandiose things and ...will speak words even against the Most High... and continually harasses ... the holy ones themselves... he will intend to change times and law, and they will be given into his hand for a time, times and half a time... Dan 7:8,25

Our current perspective is from ground level - we see events as they are unfolding - a crucial and tricky time for all but particularly for the holy ones (Matt 24:22,24: Rev 13:7,10) ... happy is the one who is keeping in expectation... Dan 12:11,12
Well, see even though all the things you are beginning to touch on here are directly connected to this topic and very important to understand to at least some extent, you are now getting into some side points which begin to open this discussion up to being much more deep and complex. I'm of course already infamous for causing everyone's eyes to glaze over when endeavoring to go deeper on Bible topics, (Trying to get me into trouble are you? lol) so for now I will just say the following in an attempt to keep things as simple as possible:

First of all, evidently even more so than you I am seeing a connection here between the "slaughtered head that revived" and the "harlot." The first reason is because I personally recognize that when the "great city" or "Babylon the Great" "falls," what actually COMPRISES this "fall" in the first place is the CONVERGENCE of the "dragon, the wild beast, and the false prophet" by means of the unfaithful alliance that is formed between God's appointed shepherding class and the "wild beast," which is of course ALREADY in an alliance with the "dragon" at this point when in a "fallen" condition. (Da 11:30-32) (Re 13:2) This unfaithfulness in turn is explicitly identified in the scriptures as spiritual adultery or "harlotry," hence the "great harlot."

You see what I'm personally seeing in the scriptures is that this entity repeatedly represented as the "king of the north" or "wild beast" actually alternates a total number of "seven times" between a kind of domesticated animal and a "wild" one depending on whether or not the divine marriage covenant is currently in tact or not.

In other words, regardless of whether we (or more importantly the scriptures) refer to it in terms such as the "image of the wild beast," the "antichrist," the "disgusting thing that causes desolation," the "great harlot," or even a "slaughtered head that revived;" throughout the scriptures this entity is not only consistently identified or associated directly with an act of unfaithfulness or spiritual adultery on the part of God's appointed shepherding class, but also with the number or concept of three. (Ez 5:1-6) (2 Sa 18:14) (Re 16:13, 19) This applies even when this "Babylon the Great" entity is found in a "standing" or "upright" condition as opposed to a "fallen" one. (Da 7:4) (Re 14:8) What do I mean by this?

Just as demonstrated/illustrated in accounts like that of Joseph and his fellow Hebrews in ancient Egypt, Daniel and his companions in ancient Babylon, or Esther and Mordecai in ancient Persia, there were relatively brief periods of time in which the relationship between God's people and their foreign host nation was ANYTHING BUT inappropriate or unclean. In these contexts or settings, the "three parts" of Babylon the Great are actually comprised of --God himself, his covenant people, and their foreign host nation.

It was in PRECISELY this "upright"/"standing" or spiritually CLEAN setting actually that ancient King Nebuchadnezzar coined the phrase-"Babylon the Great." (Da 4:30 7:4) Upon simply a closer inspection of the scriptures, it becomes ABUNDANTLY clear that "Babylon the Great" BECOMES the "great harlot" only upon its "fall," which the scriptures in turn ALWAYS associate directly with the relationship between his people and their host nation suddenly becoming inappropriate or spiritually adulterous.

You see it requires just as much pride and unfaithfulness for the "anointed" king of the nation PLAYING HOST to God's people to commit this act of spiritual adultery AS ANYONE! (Isa 45:1) This is why the responsibility for this "harlotry" could just as soon be assigned by God to a figure such as Nebuchadnezzar as it could to whomever the Judean religious leaders happened to be that formed an unfaithful agreement with him! (Da 4:23-25 11:30-32)

The fact is it's only the many years of false teachings concerning what Babylon the Great actually is that continues to create all the confusion in connection with this "great tree" here in Daniel 4 being associated simultaneously not only with Nebuchadnezzar, but even also God. This tree was CLEARLY being used here as a symbol of theocratic power and authority. (God's kingdom even if manifested in a relatively limited form)

Just as demonstrated quite clearly in the book of Esther for example, during these relatively brief periods of spiritual cleanness, among the blessings God bestows upon both his people and their host nation includes the power and authority to bring his judgments against what in these specific time frames would comprise their MUTUAL enemies. Most particularly this would be the three entities that WERE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the latest act of breaking the marriage covenant, which of course would be the CURRENT "head of the wild beast."

This is when the "head of the wild beast" is actually "SLAUGHTERED." The fourth "head" of the "wild beast" HAD in fact basically just been "slaughtered" when John saw this vision. (Evidently between 66-70 CE) However since I recognize these acts of spiritual "harlotry" as exactly what CREATES the next "head of the WILD beast" (as opposed to a domesticated one or one "given the heart of a man") the foretold "FIFTH head" had just been CREATED! Why is this?

Right about this very same time that John is writing Revelation he is also officially announcing the arrival of the next national apostasy or foretold act of spiritual adultery there in 1 John 2:18. The "fifth king" (DOMESTICATED animal as opposed to "wild beast") who basically had just finished aiding God in bringing his judgments upon satan's system of things had therefore just succeeded in becoming the "fifth head of the wild beast," which in turn immediately creates the "SIXTH king" since the "constant feature" is just that, namely "constant." (Da 11:31)

In other words just as illustrated with the apostasy of ancient King Saul, the very moment this occurs God's IMMEDIATELY begins transferring his holy spirit to the "discreet virgins" which in turn always marks the beginnings of the formation of the next "KING." ("Sixth king" in this case since "five have (already) fallen") (Re 17:10)

So one of the key things I'm trying to bring out here is that we need to re-evaluate our common conception of exactly what CONSTITUTES or COMPRISES God's appointed shepherding class during this foretold time frame associated in the scriptures with the "exiled" condition of God's people.

Since there is now no question in my mind that it is actually comprised during this time frame of BOTH God's people AND their host nation, this actually points the finger much more directly at satan and the demons when it comes to the issue of the initiating of this spiritual adultery. It would appear that the foreign "king" is actually viewed by satan as the easiest target to pursue n this setting or context. Upon the overtaking of him, he then uses what is now a compromised foreign power (which God's people by this time would have grown rather comfortable and relatively trusting with unfortunately) to begin pressuring the "holy ones" into some kind of NEW formal alliance. (Re 13:7)

So as per usual I happen to see some things in very much the way you do LRW, and others not so much. But once again that's okay in these foretold time frames of national submersion into these "baptismal" waters as opposed to the exiting out of them. (Mt 3:11) All the more so therefore I hope I am not alone when I remark on how scriptural discussions such as this are so very valuable in helping ALL OF US to continue making forward progress in our scriptural comprehension. They basically FORCE US to continue thinking and reasoning things out as well as either their scriptural foundation or the lack thereof. (Ro 12:1) Ac 17:11) I'll insist that significant leaps forward can sometimes be attributed to the way in which going through these scriptural exercises simply helps us to better codify our thoughts.

Agape love;
Sol

User avatar
coccus ilicis
Posts: 776
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Kingdoms of Daniel 2 & 7: The Traditional View

#13 Post by coccus ilicis » 2 years ago

Get out of her wrote:
2 years ago
It was nice to hear from you again LRW. It's been some time. As varied as ALL of our perspectives on holy text seem to be in these foretold periods of national "planting" as opposed to "harvest," it's always encouraging and sometimes even interesting when ANY two of us happen to see eye to eye on any given thing.

As far as recognizing the final "horn" on the "fourth wild beast" of Daniel 7 as corresponding with the "eighth king" of Revelation 17:11, it was probably only two or three years ago that I began to understand its symbolic significance in the way I now do. I'm somewhat curious as to how long you have recognized it in the way you do and maybe even what might have moved you to see it in this way.
...So as per usual, I happen to see some things in very much the way you do LRW, and others not so much. But once again that's okay in these foretold time frames of national submersion into these "baptismal" waters as opposed to the exiting out of them. (Mt 3:11)

Agape love;
Sol
Hello Sol

I probably came to the same conclusion around the same time. It is interesting how ideas, insights into all manner of things seem to surface at the same time all over the earth. Jehovah says ...I am creating the fruit of continuous peace... (Isa 57:19)

Speaking of the soothsaying woman (Isa 57:3) he says:
...Whom did you fem. become frightened at and begin to fear, so that you took up lying? But I was not the one you remembered. You took nothing to heart... the lofty one who is residing forever... has said... for it will not be to time indefinite that I shall contend, nor perpetually that I shall be indignant ... (Isa 57:11)

And addressing her sons (Isa 57:3) he says:
...At the erroneousness of his unjust gain, I grew indignant, and I proceeded to strike him... while I was indignant. But he kept walking as a renegade in the way of his heart... I have seen his very ways and shall heal him (comp. Matt 13:15) ...and I shall guide him and shall make compensation with comfort to him and his mourning ones ... (Isa 57:17,18)

Then addressing all mankind:
... "I am creating the fruit of the lips. Continuous peace, there will be one that is far away and one that is near. Jehovah has said, "and I will heal him."... (Isa 57:19)

... And the wicked are as the driven out sea, For to rest it is not able, And its waters cast out filth and mire.
... (YLT Isa 57:20)

The beasts of Daniel 7 rise up out of that vast sea of mankind (Dan 7:2). When the 4th beast broke the iron and copper shackles and rose out of the depth it caused a tidal wave that engulfed the earth waking up the sons of the soothsaying woman. Some, seeing what was happening, saw/see it as an opportunity to consolidate their riches and power and yet others, appalled at the clinging filth, see the need to cleanse themselves (Dan 12:2,10) and as they do so they are refined and their heart is healed (Matt 13: 15). As they remove splinter after splinter of the rafter blocking their vision they begin to see things that been hidden from their sight (Matt 7:5).

Love
LRW~

Bobcat
Posts: 3832
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Kingdoms of Daniel 2 & 7: The First Beast = Babylon

#14 Post by Bobcat » 2 years ago

This post picks up from here where it was shown how the Aramaic portion of Daniel chapters 2 thru 7 is arranged in a chiastic or symmetrical structure. The chiastic structure has chapters 2 and 7 in reverse parallelism (also called syntactical inversion) with each other, indicating that the two chapters have some complementary nature about them.

In this post we will endeavor to show the reasons why the vast majority of commentaries understand the four metals of the image in Dan 2 as representing the same kingdoms as the four beasts of Daniel 7. (That is: Gold/1st Beast=Babylon, Silver/2nd Beast=Medo-Persia, Copper/3rd Beast=Greece, Iron/4th Beast=Rome.)

More specifically, this post will concentrate on the gold of Daniel 2 and the 1st beast of Dan 7:4.


The Head of Gold and the First Beast

There is no question about the identity of the head of gold in Daniel chapter 2. It is specifically linked with Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar. (Dan 2:37-38) But what evidence links the first beast of Daniel 7:4 with the gold of chapter 2 and the kingdom of Babylon?

From the book, With the Clouds of Heaven (James M. Hamilton, p. 91), the writer shows why he views the first beast of Daniel 7:4 to be Babylon:
The first beast in Daniel 7 is described in terms reminiscent of Nebuchadnezzar: in Daniel 4:33 Nebuchadnezzar's 'hair
grew as long as eagle's feathers, and his nails were like bird's claws.' In Daniel 7:4, the first beast 'was like a lion and had eagle's wings', and then just as Nebuchadnezzar was restored to his humanity, 'as I looked its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and the mind of a man was given to it' (Dan 7:4). This beast, then, symbolizes the king of Babylon and his time of authority, his kingdom.
Incidentally, Daniel chapter 7 occurs, chronologically or timewise, after chapter 4 and before chapter 5. So Daniel would have been familiar with the vision and events of chapter 4 when he received the vision of chapter 7. (Compare Dan 5:30 with Dan 7:1)

Interestingly, Hamilton also sees a connection between the beasts of Daniel 7, Gen 1-3, and Psalm 8. In his view, Genesis 1-3 has man originally placed as a ruler over the beasts (including the snake). The serpent then usurps man's position when it gets Adam and Eve to sin. And Psalm 8, applied to Christ, foresees him regaining rulership over the beasts. (Heb 2:5-8)


Constable's Notes, quoting also from the New Scofield Reference Bible (p. 907), makes this interesting comment on the differences between the kingdoms represented in the image of Daniel 2 and the beasts of Daniel 7:
The four beasts arising out of the sea represent four kings (Dan 7:17). They personify the nations over which they rule, as becomes clear in the following revelation. They are anomalies, as are the other characters presented, and their abnormalities have significance.
“The monarchy vision of Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 2) covers the same order of fulfillment as Daniel’s beast vision, but with this difference: Nebuchadnezzar saw the imposing outward power and splendor of ‘the times of the Gentiles’ (Lk 21:24; cp. Rev 16:19 . . .), whereas Daniel saw the true character of Gentile world government as rapacious and warlike, established and maintained by force. It is remarkable that the heraldic insignia of the Gentile nations are all beasts or birds of prey.”
Now regarding why Constable views the 1st beast of Daniel 7:4 as Babylon:
The first beast looked like a lion, but it also had wings like an eagle. Other biblical writers had compared Nebuchadnezzar to a lion and an eagle (cf. Jer 4:7; 49:19; 50:17, 44; 49:22; Lam 4:19; Ezek 17:3, 12; Hab 1:8). As Daniel watched, something plucked this beast’s wings off, made it stand on two feet like a man, and gave it a human mind or nature. Many nations have used the lion as a symbol of royal power because it is the traditional king of beasts (cf. 1Ki 10:20; 2Ch 9:19). Similarly the eagle has long represented the king of birds (cf. Ezek 17:3, 7). Almost all interpreters, conservative and critical, believe this lion represents Neo-Babylonia. Huge winged lions guarded the gates of the royal Babylonian palaces. Babylon used both the lion and the eagle as national emblems (cf. Jer 4:7, 13; Ezek 17:3). The cropping of the lion’s wings may allude to the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 4) or perhaps to the deterioration of his kingdom after his death and Belshazzar (ch. 5) are in view. (This last reason is how the WT explains the 'human evolution' of this 1st beast.)

After Nebuchadnezzar’s humbling by God, he became more humane.
Incidentally, regarding Nebuchadnezzar's post conquest years, the online Ancient History Encyclopedia (here) says about him:
Nebuchadnezzar II in other [non-biblical] sources is depicted as a great king who not only restored Babylon to its former glory but transformed it into a city of light. Under his reign, Babylon became a city which was not only wondrous to behold but also a center for the arts and intellectual pursuits. Women enjoyed equal rights with men under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule (though not completely equal in status by any modern-day standard), schools and temples were plentiful and literacy, mathematics, the sciences, and craftsmanship flourished along with a tolerance of, and interest in, other gods of other faiths and the beliefs of other cultures.
The description of Babylon turning from beast like to human like (especially during the latter part of Nebuchadnezzar's reign) is quite accurate.


The Keil and Delitzsch commentary remarks on the "traditional view" (i.e. 1st Beast=Babylon, 2nd Beast=Medo-Persia, 3rd Beast=Greece, 4th Beast=Rome):
Almost all interpreters understand that these two visions [Dan 2 & 7] are to be interpreted in the same way. "The four kingdoms or dynasties, which were symbolized (Daniel 2) by the different parts of the human image, from the head to the feet, are the same as those which were symbolized by the four great beasts rising up out of the sea." This is the view not only of Bleek, who herein agrees with Auberlen, but also of Kranichfeld and Kliefoth, and all church interpreters. These four kingdoms, according to the interpretation commonly received in the church, are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman. "In this interpretation and opinion," Luther observes, "all the world are agreed, and history and fact abundantly establish it." This ["traditional"] opinion prevailed till about the end of the last century [18th or 19th AD], for the contrary opinion of individual earlier interprets had found no favour.
This commentary also goes into great detail about the various differing opinions that have arisen, especially in the last couple of centuries, and the fact that hardly any two of these non-standard views agree with each other. Keil also notes that a common thread running thru many of these alternate viewpoints is the idea that Daniel was not the writer of the book of Daniel and/or the belief that the book cannot have foretold these kingdoms ahead of time. Because of the length of that aspect of the discussion, I will just link to it, here.


Barne's Notes (here) also makes a very detailed examination of each portion of Daniel 7; the portion on Daniel 7:4 being below, with Barne's definitive conclusion at the end of the quote:
The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.

The first was like a lion ─ It is to be assumed, in explaining and applying these symbols, that they are significant ─ that is, that there was some adaptedness or propriety in using these symbols to denote the kingdoms referred to; or that in each case there was a reason why the particular animal was selected for a symbol rather than one of the others; that is, there was something in the lion that was better fitted to symbolize the kingdom referred to than there was in the bear or the leopard, and this was the reason why this particular symbol was chosen in the case. It is to be further assumed that all the characteristics in the symbol were significant, and we are to expect to find them all in the kingdom which they were designed to represent; nor can the symbol be fairly applied to any kingdom, unless something shall be found in its character or history that shall correspond alike to the particular circumstances referred to in the symbol, and to the grouping or succession. In regard to the first beast, there were five things that entered into the symbol, all of which it is to be presumed were significant: the lion, the eagle's wings - the fact that the wings were plucked ─ the fact that the beast was lifted up so as to stand up as a man ─ and the fact that the heart of a man was given to it. It is proper to consider these in their order, and then to inquire whether they found a fulfillment in any known state of things.

(a) The animal that was seen: "the lion." The lion, "the king of beasts," is the symbol of strength and courage, and becomes the proper emblem of a king ─ as when the Mussulmans call Ali, Mahomet's son-in-law, "The Lion of God, always victorious." Thus it is often used in the Scriptures. Genesis 49:9, "Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?" The warlike character, the conquest, the supremacy of that tribe are here undoubtedly denoted. So in Ezekiel 19:2-3. "What is thy mother? A lioness: she lay down among lions, she nourished her whelps among young lions." Here is an allusion, says Grotius, to Genesis 49:9. Judea was among the nations like a lioness among the beasts of the forest; she had strength and sovereignty. The lion is an emblem of a hero: 2 Samuel 23:20, "He slew two lion-like men of Moab." Compare Gesenius zu Isa. i. 851. So Hercules and Achilles are called by Homer θυμολέοντα thumoleonta, or λεοντόθυμον leontothumon - lion-hearted - Iliad e 639, ee 228, Odyssey l 766. See the character, the intrepidity, and the habits of the lion fully illustrated in Bochart, Hieroz. lib. iii. c. 2, pp. 723-745 - Credner, der prophet Joel, s. 100. f. Compare also the following places in Scripture: Psalm 7:2; Psalm 22:21; Psalm 57:4; Psalm 58:6; Psalm 74:4; 1 Samuel 17:37; Job 4:10; Jeremiah 4:7; Jeremiah 49:19; Joel 1:6; Isaiah 29:1-2. The proper notion here, so far as the emblem of a lion is concerned, is that of a king or kingdom that would be distinguished for power, conquest, dominion; that would be in relation to other kings and kingdoms as the lion is among the beasts of the forest ─ keeping them in awe, and maintaining dominion over them ─ marching where he pleases, with none to cope with him or to resist him.

(b) The eagle's wings: "and had eagle's wings." Here appears one peculiarity of the emblem ─ the union of things which are not found joined together in nature - the representation of things or qualities which no one animal would represent. The lion would denote one thing, or one quality in the kingdom referred to ─ power, dominion, sovereignty ─ but there would be some characteristic in that king or kingdom which nothing in the lion would properly represent, and which could be symbolized only by attaching to him qualities to be found in some other animal. The lion, distinguished for his power, his dominion, his keeping other animals in awe - his spring, and the severity of his blow ─ is not remarkable for his speed, nor for going forth to conquest. He does not range far to accomplish his purpose, nor are his movements eminent for fleetness. Hence, there were attached to the lion the wings of an eagle. The proper notion, therefore, of this symbol, would be that of a dominion or conquest rapidly secured, as if a lion, the king of beasts, should move, not as he commonly does, with a spring or bound, confining himself to a certain space or range, but should move as the eagle does, with rapid and prolonged flight, extending his conquests afar. The meaning of the symbol may be seen by comparing this passage with Isaiah 46:11, where Cyrus is compared to "a ravenous bird" ─ "calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsels from a far country." The eagle is an emblem of swiftness: Jeremiah 4:13, "His horses are swifter than eagles;" Jeremiah 48:40, "Behold, he shall fly as an eagle, and shall spread his wings over Moab." See also Jeremiah 49:22; Lamentations 4:19; Habakkuk 1:8.

(c) The clipping of the wings: "I beheld until the wings thereof were plucked" The word used (מרט meraṭ) means, to pluck or pull, as to pull out the beard (compare Nehemiah 13:25; Isaiah 50:6), and would here be properly applied to some process of pulling out the feathers or quills from the wings of the eagle. The obvious and proper meaning of this symbol is, that there was some check put to the progress of the conqueror ─ as there would be to an eagle by plucking off the feathers from his wings; that is, the rapidity of his conquests would cease. The prophet says, that he looked on until this was done, implying that it was not accomplished at once, but leaving the impression that these conquests were extended far. They were, however, checked, and we see the lion again without the wings; the sovereign who has ceased to spread his triumphs over the earth.

(d) The lifting up from the earth: "and it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand upon the feet as a man." That is, the lion, with the wings thus plucked off, was made to stand upright on his hind feet ─ an unusual position, but the meaning of the symbol is not difficult. It was still the lion ─ the monarch ─ but changed as if the lion was changed to a man; that is, as if the ferocity, and the power, and the energy of the lion had given place to the comparative weakness of a man. There would be as much difference in the case referred to as there would be if a lion so fierce and powerful should be made so far to change his nature as to stand upright, and to walk as a man. This would evidently denote some remarkable change ─ something that would be unusual ─ something where there would be a diminution of ferocity, and yet perhaps a change to comparative weakness ─ as a man is feebler than a lion.

(e) The giving to it of a man's heart: "and a man heart was given to it." The word heart in the Scriptures often has a closer relation to the intellect or the understanding than it new has commonly with us; and here perhaps it is a general term to denote something like human nature ─ that is, there would be as great a change in the case as if the nature of the lion should be transformed to that of a man; or, the meaning may be, that this mighty empire, carrying its arms with the rapidity of an eagle, and the fierceness of a lion, through the world, would be checked in its career; its ferocity would be tamed, and it would be characterized by comparative moderation and humanity. In Daniel 4:16, it is said of Nebuchadnezzar, "Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him;" here, if the symbol refers to him, it does not refer to that scene of humiliation when he was compelled to eat grass like a beast, but to the fact that he was brought to look at things as a man should do; he ceased to act like a ravenous beast, and was led to calm reflection, and to think and speak like a man - a rational being. Or, if it refers to the empire of Babylon, instead of the monarch, it would mean that a change had come over the nation under the succession of princes, so that the fierceness and ferocity of the first princes of the empire had ceased, and the nation had not only closed its conquests, but had actually become, to some extent, moderate and rational.

Now, in regard to the application of this symbol, there can be but little difficulty, and there is almost no difference of opinion among expositors. All, or nearly all, agree that it refers to the kingdom of Babylon, of which Nebuchadnezzar was the head, and to the gradual diminution of the ferocity of conquest under a succession of comparatively weak princes. Whatever view may be taken of the book of Daniel whether it be regarded as inspired prophecy composed by Daniel himself, and written at the time when it professes to have been, or whether it be supposed to have been written long after his time by some one who forged it in his name, there can be no doubt that it relates to the head of the Babylonian empire, or to that which the "head of gold," in the image referred to in Daniel 2, represents. The circumstances all so well agree with that application, that, although in the explication of the dream Daniel 7:16-27 this part of it is not explained ─ for the perplexity of Daniel related particularly to the fourth beast Daniel 7:19, yet there can be no reasonable doubt as to what was intended. For

(a) the lion ─ the king of beasts ─ would accurately symbolize that kingdom in the days of Nebuchadnezzar - a kingdom occupying the same position among other kingdoms which the lion does among other beasts, and well represented in its power and ferocity by the lion. See the character and position of this kingdom fully illustrated in the notes at Dan 2:37-38.

(b) The eagle's wings would accurately denote the rapid conquests of that kingdom - its leaving, as it were, its own native domain, and flying abroad. The lion alone would have represented the character of the kingdom considered as already having spread itself, or as being at the head of other kingdoms; the wings of the eagle, the rapidity with which the arms of the Babylonians were carried into Palestine, Egypt, Assyria, etc. It is true that this symbol alone would not designate Babylon anymore than it would the conquests of Cyrus, or Alexander, or Caesar, but it is to be taken in the connection in which it is here found, and no one can doubt that it has a striking applicability to Babylon.

(c) The clipping or plucking of these wings would denote the cessation of conquest - as if it would extend no farther; that is, we see a nation once distinguished for the invasion of other nations now ceasing its conquests; and remarkable, not for its victories, but as standing at the head of all other nations, as the lion stands among the beasts of the forest. All who are acquainted with history know that, after the conquests of that kingdom under Nebuchadnezzar, it ceased characteristically to be a kingdom distinguished for conquest, but that, though under his successors, it held a pre-eminence or headship among the nations, yet its victories were extended no further. The successors of Nebuchadnezzar were comparatively weak and indolent princes - as if the wings of the monster had been plucked.

(d) The rising up of the lion on the feet, and standing on the feet as a man, would denote, not inappropriately, the change of the kingdom under the successors of Nebuchadnezzar. See above in the explanation of the symbol.

(e) The giving of a man's heart to it would not be inapplicable to the change produced in the empire after the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and under a succession of comparatively weak and inefficient princes. Instead of the heart of the lion - of being "lion-hearted" - it had the heart of a man; that is, the character of wildness and fierceness denoted by an untamed beast was succeeded by what would be better represented by a human being. It is not the character of the lion changed to that of the bear, or the panther, or the leopard; nor is it man considered as a warrior or conqueror, but man as he is distinguished from the wild and ferocious beast of the desert. The change in the character of the empire, until it ceased under the feeble reign of Belshazzar; would be well denoted by this symbol.

Did you note the great amount of research and reasoning that went into the views expressed in the references above? The superficial claim that all these commentators hold to the same view simply because they were pressured to by publishers or others is nothing but an ad hominem argument. The arguments of these references are both in depth and well considered. This Wikipedia article attests to how widespread and long held is the traditional four kingdom view. There are, of course, differences in views on details, like the meaning of the 11 horns.

On the other hand, as Keil points out, those who offer a different view are both few and far between, and it is difficult to find even two of them that offer the same opinion. (Mk 14:56)

The idea that the first beast of Daniel 7:4 represents the Babylonian Empire is very well founded.


Bobcat

My Daniel Links

Bobcat
Posts: 3832
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Kingdoms of Daniel 2 & 7: The Traditional View

#15 Post by Bobcat » 1 year ago

Regarding the history of the view that the four metals of Daniel chapter 2 and the four beasts of Daniel chapter 7 are the same, and that they are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, the NAC-Daniel commentary (Stephan R. Miller' p. 96) has a footnote describing the widespread agreement on this (footnote # 76):
R. A. Anderson (Signs and Wonders, ITC [Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1984], 21-22) states: "This interpretation has found wide acceptance among commentators both early and recent. It is to be found consistently in the Talmud (e.g. 'Abod. Zar. 2b) and among medieval Jewish commentators such as R. Saadiah Gaon, R. Moshe ben Maimon, and R. Moshe ben Nachman. This lead has been followed, in the main, within traditional Judaism." Both Jerome (pp. 31-32) in the fourth-fifth centuries A.D. and Calvin (Daniel, 1:172) in the sixteenth century A.D. held this view. Virtually all scholars who subscribe to the sixth-century date [for the writing of the book of Daniel] interpret these kingdoms to be Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome. See Young, Prophecy of Daniel, 275-94.

Bobcat

My Daniel Links

Harpo
Posts: 19
Joined: 4 months ago

Re: Kingdoms of Daniel 2 & 7: The Traditional View

#16 Post by Harpo » 4 months ago

The typical Protestant interpretation is that Daniel 2 and 7 are repeat prophecies.

"Chapter 7 has nothing to do with chapter 2 and not a historical repeat of chapter 2. Why would God find it necessary to repeat the same sequence of kingdoms of Daniel 2 in chapter 7? Two different visions by the same author depicting the same thing? Why the repeat? Were there shortcomings in Daniel 2 that required repetition?"

The progression of empires in Daniel 2 I believe in goes back to the time of Josephus. They are...
Babylon = Head of Gold
Mede's = Arms of silver
Persian' s = Thighs of brass
Greeks = Legs of iron.

In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon is the head of gold. After Babylon...

Daniel 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

Most people believe that Medo-Persia is the arms of silver or the, 'inferior kingdom.'

The only thing said about the second kingdom is that it's inferior to Babylon. What kingdom was inferior to Babylon? Was Medo-Persia the inferior kingdom? Absolutely not! The Median Empire was not only much smaller it was also short lived.

The word inferior is "arah" which means earth, world, and ground. Strong's #H772 'inferior' is only used once in the OT. It is the only place the word inferior is used and translated as, 'ara' or 'GROUND! The word inferior is coupled with the word land which means less LAND. Gesenius says, "the ground, and adverb below, inferior. The interlinear uses the word, 'earthward'. So if inferior means less land, that rules out the Medo-Persian empire as the second empire since it was about three times the size of Babylon. It wasn't 'land inferior' to Babylon. The Median Empire was not only short-lived but it was also much smaller making it the inferior kingdom.
In both Greek and Hebrew inferior means,

to make less,
inferior,
to fall short,
below

One more thing about Daniel 2.

The fourth kingdom, symbolized by the legs of iron, (Greece) and it's end-time offspring, "the toes mingled with iron and clay", doesn't come from Rome but from the Grecian Empire. That's in accord with Daniel 8's little horn which is said to come from the realm of GRECIA, and Daniel 11;2. That Empire didn't cover Rome or Europe as it was a Mid-East Empire just like the others depicted in the statue. Rome was a European Empire and is excluded as the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2. Rome cannot be the origin of the two and ten horned beast. (anti-Christ and false prophet).

The word mixed used to describe the toes mingled with iron and clay is the Aramaic word "arab." It means mixed and it denotes an Arabian or Arabia. (Gesenius) I would like to know how people associate this word with ROME, ITALY.

Daniel 7

It's impossible for the lion to be Babylon in Daniel chapter 7. It was written in the first year of Belshazzar, and can be said that he was the last king of Babylon, (Nabonidus was actually the last)Daniel 7 was written about 35 years after Daniel's vision of the great statue in chapter 2. In other words, the Babylonian Empire had already risen some 50 years before - and was on it's way out - when Daniel 7 was written.

A prophet cannot prophesy about a kingdom RISING that rose some 50 years before without being a false prophet.

There is an Atheist named Kyle Williams that has caught onto these major interpretational blunders. The Protestant interpretation that Daniel prophesied about Babylon RISING is a major blunder about the kingdom because it had already risen! Williams knows that a TRUE prophet cannot prophesy about a kingdom RISING that had risen some 50 years before (and on it's way out) without being classified as a false prophet!

Williams used that 'interpretation' (lion is ancient Babylon) as well as several others in the book of Daniel, to label Daniel a false prophet - which he certainly would be for prophesying about a kingdom rising - THAT HAD ALREADY RISEN - and to ultimately DEBUNK the bible, which would be the case according to the interpretation many of you present!

The four beast in Daniel 7 are NOT a progression of ancient empires. The four are end time empires that exist on earth together in the last days.

The word BEFORE in Daniel 7:7d...

"...and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns."

The word BEFORE doesn't mean 'historically before' but rather 'in the presence of'! The word 'before' is the Aramaic word qodam and it's used 42 times in the OT and EVERY time it is used it indicates 'in the presence of' or in front of! NOT ONCE does it indicate 'historically before. Even the word 'panyim'/before is used as 'in the presence of'!

Kerry Huish
Posts: 410
Joined: 2 years ago

Re: Kingdoms of Daniel 2 & 7: The Traditional View

#17 Post by Kerry Huish » 4 months ago

Harpo wrote:
4 months ago
Why would God find it necessary to repeat the same sequence of kingdoms of Daniel 2 in chapter 7? Two different visions by the same author depicting the same thing? Why the repeat?
Genesis 41:32 The reason the dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided by God, and God will do it soon.
Revelation 10:7 But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets.”

Bobcat
Posts: 3832
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Kingdoms of Daniel 2 & 7: The Traditional View

#18 Post by Bobcat » 4 months ago

Hi Kerry,

That was a good point from Genesis.

The lateness of the vision in chapter seven would also help the reader to appreciate King Nebuchadnezzar's experience in chapter 4 which seems to be alluded to in Dan 7:4.

Another indication that the 1st beast of chapter 7 is Babylon is how the book of Daniel's literary structure. Chapter uses a human metaphor to describe the 4 kingdoms. Chapter 7 uses a beast metaphor. Chapter 8 & 10-12 reverse that pattern: A beast metaphor in chapter 8 and a human metaphor in chapters 10-12. (See here.)

On why and how the kingdoms after Babylon were inferior, I have had an answer for that for several years. I've just chosen not to post it yet.

For the reader, this post goes into detail about why the first beast in chapter 7 is linked to the head of gold in chapter 2.

On Harpo's issue with the 1st beast being spoken of as "will rise" while Daniel is receiving the vision in Belshazzar's rulership, see this post. Someone else had that same issue.


For Harpo: I notice in your posts that you like to label everyone who has a different opinion from you. This is an indication of a narcissistic personality. Many of us here have already had our fill of WT's narcissism. Perhaps if you chose a more reasoned and civil approach you might get a better hearing for your opinions. Also, if you are so passionate about your ideas, you might think about starting your own thread where you can lay out your reasoning for others to analyze. All you've done so far is scatter your opinions across other people's threads. That's hardly the way to be taken seriously.


Bobcat

My Daniel Links

Bobcat
Posts: 3832
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Kingdoms of Daniel 2 & 7: The Traditional View

#19 Post by Bobcat » 1 week ago

Cross-linking for referential purposes to a post regarding the feet and toes of Daniel chapter 2: Here.


Bobcat

My Daniel Links

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests