Daniel 2 and 7: Are They Equal or Not? Part 1

Former President Ronald Reagan made famous the proverb, Trust, but verify at least he did for me. This pearl of cautious wisdom is certainly apropos as it relates to the doctrinal beliefs taught by the founders of the pretrib position. The more I study prophetic passages without assuming what has been taught by these men, the more I discover fewer and fewer passages that really support any aspect of pretribulationism. Other than the promise of believers removal before the wrath of God falls and the distinction between National Israel and the Church, there is very little in the pretrib position that has explicit scriptural basis. The closer I look at the particular Scriptures many pretribbers use to support their view, the more I see the lack of good Bible study methods demonstrated. Many of their positions are based on assumptions, similarities, presuppositions, and outright false conclusions due to a deficiency of good exegetical skills. Once again I have been forced to reconsider a basic tenant of the pretrib position because a closer look at the text that supports their conclusion does not explicitly say what they say it says. In this case, they argue that Daniel 2 is the same as Daniel 7 as it relates to the four kings/kingdoms. It has long been assumed by most conservatives and some liberals that Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 detail the history of four kingdoms: (1) Babylon; (2) Medo-Persia; (3) Greece; and (4) Rome. To reach this conclusion, most must base it on similarities between these two chapters, because there is no explicit basis for this claim. This is very important. Daniel does not explicitly state that the same four kingdoms are represented in both chapters. The reader needs to know that there are truly significant differences between these two chapters. I was alerted to a possible difference by a book soon to be published by another author that Daniel may have meant four entirely different kingdoms in Daniel 7. The rationale for the belief that Daniel 2 and 7 narrate the same history, although from two different perspectives, is ultimately based on some rather loose and disconnected conclusions. The chart below establishes the points of similarity that ultimately become the basis for those who argue that Daniel 2 and 7 teach the same basic history of four empires.

A Comparison of Prophecies in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 Daniel 2 Daniel 7

Nebuchadnezzars Dream of a Statue Daniels Dream of Four Beasts Head Babylon -Lion- ?

Breasts and Arms Medo-Persian -Bear- ? Belly and Thighs Greece -Leopard- ?

Legs and Feet Rome -Diverse Beast- ?

Babylon Equals the Lion The facts that supposedly support the identification of the lion of chapter seven with Nebuchadnezzar/Babylon of chapter 2 are these:

1. Lion/eagle symbolically represent Nebuchadnezzar as the head of gold. Lion as king of beasts and eagle as king of birds correspond to Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon.

2. Winged lions have been recovered from the ancient ruins of Babylon. 3. Other O.T. prophets referred to Nebuchadnezzar as both a lion and an eagle, i.e. Jeremiah

4:7-lion; Ezekiel 17:3-eagle. 4. The physical changes which the lion undergoes correspond to the changes experienced by

Nebuchadnezzar. 5. Wings of an eagle represent the swiftness of Nebuchadnezzars conquest.

It should be immediately clear to the reader that the case for the identification of the lion with Babylon is circumstantial at best. Lion/eagles as respective kings of their domain is a modern concept read back into the text. The finding of winged-lions in the ruin of ancient Babylon does not prove that Nebuchadnezzar saw himself thus or that such images existed during Nebuchadnezzars time. The Assyrians used the winged lion as a symbol as well. That the winged lion experienced a transformation from animal to human is similar to what happened to Nebuchadnezzar, but there are significant differences. In Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar is depicted first as a tree to be cut down. The fulfillment in that chapter depicts Nebuchadnezzar as wet with the dew of heaven, until his hair was grown like eagles feathers and his nails as the claws of a bird. To say that Nebuchadnezzar became a lion is different from saying that a lion became a man. Nebuchadnezzar did not become anything. He was forced to act like an animal, but he did not become an animal. The primary reason I am less inclined to accept the conservative opinion regarding the relationship between Daniel 2 and 7 is this: the vision Daniel records in chapter 7 occurred at least nine years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Daniel would see Nebuchadnezzar coming up out of the sea. Daniel 7:3 indicates that four great beasts come up out of the sea, different from one another. For Daniel to indicate that Nebuchadnezzar was one of the four beasts breaks with a pattern seen throughout the book. When a future event involved a king then living, that king received a vision or dream from God. However, when future events did not involve a then living king, God gave such visions or dreams to Daniel. Both Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar received visions from God that concerned them directly. However, all other visions were given to Daniel and they always involved future events that did not include the then ruling king of the particular nation ruling over Daniel at the time.

Medo-Persia Equals the Bear The case for seeing the bear of Daniel 7 as equal with the breasts and arms of Nebuchadnezzars statue the latter representing the Medo-Persian empire is based largely on the idea of conquest. Those who support this conclusion argue that:

1. The bear has one side raised higher than the other. This symbolizes the rise of the Persians over the Median empire.

2. Since the legs are raised, this indicates that the bear is about to attack, which symbolizes the Medo-Persian empires desire to conquer.

3. The three ribs in its mouth symbolically depict the Medo-Persian desire to conquer as well.

4. The three ribs symbolically depict Medo-Persian conquest of three countries. Which three countries is unknown.

5. The command to rise, devour much flesh means that the Medo-Persians should continue to make conquests.

It is critical that you as a reader understand upon what basis those who argue for the identification of the bear of Daniel 7 with the medo-Persia beasts and arms of Daniel 2 arrive at their conclusion. The Medo-Persian empire desired to conquer all the earth. It is true that they did conquer more land mass than any previous kingdom, however, the same could be said for both Greece and Rome. Again, their case is purely circumstantial. Nothing about the bear, symbolically or otherwise, depicts the Medo-Persian empire except in the minds of those who want to make a case for it. Greece Equals the Leopard The facts that supposedly support the identification of the leopard of chapter seven with Greece of chapter 2 are these:

1. The leopard symbolically depicts swiftness and is blood thirsty. These were characteristics of the Greeks.

2. The four wings of the leopard symbolically represent unusual speed and action for which supposedly Greece was known in conquest.

3. The four heads mentioned after the speedy conquest and symbolical of the leaders represent the four kings of the split empire of Greece after the death of Alexander the Great.

Again, the proof is circumstantial and largely one of similarity. What each animal symbolizes is more about modern notions than the ancient view of these animals. Whether four wings

represent unusual speed is a matter of guessing. Whether Daniel intended to suggest something special by referring to the wings before the four heads is pure conjecture. That Daniel would make reference to the four kings who ruled after Alexander the Great without giving any significance to Alexander himself is highly unlikely. In both chapters 2 and 8, Alexander is clearly referenced in connection with Greece. Four wings and four heads are the only details that are similar to Daniels depiction of Greece in chapter 2. It is only this similarity that forms the basis of those who argue for compatibility between chapters 2 and 7 of the book of Daniel. That chapter 7 does not clearly identify Alexander the Great in the description of the leopard empire is highly suspect to us. Rome Equals the Diverse Beast The facts that supposedly support the identification of the diverse beast of chapter seven with Rome of chapter 2 are these:

1. The fourth kingdom is characterized by having great strength, which is also the characteristic of Rome.

2. The amount of space given to the diverse beast matches that given to Rome in chapter 2. 3. The diverse beast had teeth of iron as the statue in Daniel 2 had legs of iron. 4. The diverse beast makes its conquest with decisiveness, fearfulness, and terror-inspiring

tactics, which is supposedly characteristic of Rome. 5. The ten horns of the diverse beast require 10 ruling kings at the same time, which did not

occur during the Roman empire. This necessitates a revival of the Roman empire at some point in the future.

It is clear that those who want to make Daniel 2 and 7 the same basic history struggle when it comes to the fourth beast of Daniel 7. There is not one note of weakness about the diverse beast of Daniel 7. However, Daniel 2 makes a big deal of the fact that Rome will be both strong and weak at the same time (iron and clay). The amount of space given to both fourth empires does not prove that they are the same empire. It only points to the fact that both are important as the final kingdoms of a historical sequence. While Rome may have inspired terror in the hearts of those they conquered, the same can be said of the Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks. The fourth kingdom of Daniel 7 is unparalleled in every sense from all the kingdoms that precede it. The final events connected with the diverse beast are significantly different from those of the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2. They have no parallel with anything that happened during the Roman empire. That fact has made it absolutely necessary to conceive of a revival of the Roman empire to find any possible fulfillment in connection with Rome. There is no explicit basis for this claim in Daniel 2, 7, or 11; nor is there any indication of this fact in the Revelation given to

John. The necessity of a revival of the Roman empire is only necessary if one attempts to prove or insists that Daniel 2 and 7 are synonymous. As the reader can see there is no explicit basis for the claim that Daniel 2 and 7 are synonymous. The claim is made on circumstantial evidence at best. Because of similarities and sequencing, this position is put forward. However, there is a better solution. It has grammatical, historical, theological, and contextual support.

Part Two Coming Soon

Daniel 2 and 7: Are They Equal or Not? (Part 2)

It is an assumption that Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 detail the history of the same four empires. In this scenario both chapters supposedly conclude with God coming to earth to rule the universe. However, to make this scenario work, it requires Daniel 2 to end with the beginning of the Roman empire and Daniel 7 to conclude a revival of the Roman empire in the form of 10 kings. Such a position has lead to much wild speculation. The proof that chapters 2 and 7 of the book of Daniel detail the same history of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome is left to the imagination of those who support this conclusion. This is necessary because there is no explicit basis for this claim. Nothing in Daniel 2 or 7 can be used to prove this position. Rather, it is our contention that the opposite is true. Daniel 2 proves that it is not concerned with the same four kingdoms that lie at the heart of Daniel 7. The primary support for this conclusion is the little phrase Daniel used in chapter 2 and verses 34 and 45: By no human hand. By no human hand explains the origin of the stone cut out of the mountain. The phrase by no human hand is critical for understanding who or what the stone cut out of the mountain is. About the origin of the stone, S. R. Millers writes, Its origin was supernatural, for it was cut out of the mountain without human hands.1 Similarly, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown add, So not made with hands, that is, heavenly, 2 Co 5:1; spiritual, Col 2:11not of this world (Jn 18:36).2 Another states, By no human hand - the writer suggests the intervention of God without actually stating it.3 Keil and Delitzsch adds, Without hands, without human help, is a litotes for: by a higher, a divine providence.4

At once, it should be clear to the reader that this special stone did not have a human origin. In fact, the point that the text is making is this: the origin of the stone had no human effort connected with it whatsoever. That the phrase without human hands means free from human influence finds support in Daniel 8:25 where the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanies involves no human effort: by no human hand. To state the case simply: the special stone was neither

1 Miller, S. R. (2001). Vol. 18: Daniel (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (92). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 2 Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. 3 Pt er-Contesse, R., & Ellington, J. (1993). A handbook on the Book of Daniel. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (57). New York: United Bible Societies. 4 Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

created by man, cut out from the mountain by man, nor thrown at the statue by man. Mankind had nothing to do with the stone. This clearly means that the stone cannot be Jesus Christ. Scripture explicitly reports that Jesus Christ was born of a woman (Gal 4:4). The Lord Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of a woman. He is the seed of the Woman (Gen 3:15, Gal 3:16). In the gospel of Mark, our Lord explicitly states that his earthly body was made by human hands. Mark writes, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands. John instructs us that the meaning of the Lords statement is this: He was speaking of his body, (John 2:21). The Lord Jesus is fully God, but he is also fully man. Therefore, the person of Jesus Christ cannot be the stone of Daniel 2:34 and 45. Such an interpretation is a contradiction. Now I can hear your minds turning. The Bible explicitly says that Jesus is the stone. Matthew 21:42 states, Jesus said to them, Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. In this verse, the Lord is quoting Psalms 118:22-23. That this is true is without doubt. However, the context is clear that the stone of Psalm 118 is not the same stone of Daniel 2:34. This stone was first rejected by men before finding its place of significance. That men could first reject this stone argues against the possibility that stone as used in Psalm 118 is used in the same sense as Daniel 2:34. More importantly, context is critical for understanding how a term is used in a passage. Simply because the term stone is used does not give the student of Scripture the right to automatically conclude that it means the same thing every time it appears. This method of Bible study will lead to serious error. The stone of Psalm 118 is a rejected stone that becomes the capstone. This Matthew states to be the perfect will of God. However, the stone of Daniel 2:34 and 45 is victorious at every turn. Daniel 2:44-45 gives the interpretation of Daniel 2:34-35. Daniel explicitly identified the stone cut out of the mountain to be a kingdom setup by God. Just in case you missed it, let me say it again: Daniel explicitly identified the stone cut of the mountain to be a kingdom setup by God. Secular history and The New Testaments confirms that God did inaugurate His kingdom during the early days of the Roman empire. It was inaugurated during the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, it began small and insignificantly, but time has allowed it to grow overtaking all other kingdoms and it will find its culmination during the millennial kingdom. Luke 13:18 teaches that the Kingdom of God would begin small, but grow to become great. The Lord Jesus also taught in Luke 17:20 that The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed. Luke 10:9 confirms that the kingdom of God has come. The Kingdom of God is intimately connected with the person of Jesus Christ. That this is the case is confirmed in Matthew 12:28. The Lord Jesus stated in John 18:36, My kingdom is not from this world. The

details gleaned from the New Testament meet the demands of Daniel 2:34 and 45 and there are no contradictions. Therefore, it is only necessary that God setup or inaugurate his kingdom during the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 for Scripture to be fulfilled. The phase between the stone cut from the mountain and it becoming a mountain itself requires a significant length of time to pass. The New Testament confirms this conclusion. We will have to look elsewhere to find the fulfillment of Daniel 7. We begin that study in Part 3 which follows in a few days.

1

Daniel 2 and 7: Are They Equal or Not? (Part 3)

The fact that the statue of Daniel 2 has 10 toes and the diverse beast of Daniel 7 has 10 horns has clearly led many to suppose that these 2 chapters convey the same basic history about the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. This is a point often pressed to support the conclusion that Daniel chapters 2 and 7 are equal. Leon Woods comments are typical and reflect the reasoning of many who take this position. He states, The toes, and the toes only, carry reference to the millennial kingdom, signifying that it will have ten contemporary kings. The existence of these ten contemporary kings is symbolized also by the ten horns of Daniels first vision.1

It should be stated frankly that there is nothing in the text that forms an explicit basis for this conclusion. It is perfectly clear that nothing happened in connection with the Roman empire that resembles the details outlined in Daniel 7 concerning the fourth kingdom either during the ministry of our Lord, or the later history of Rome. Therefore, to advance their argument, Daniel 2 must stop at a certain point during the Roman empire and then begin again later with the details of Daniel 7 in connection with Daniels final week of prophecy as detailed in Daniel 9:24-27. For those who take this position, it seems to have escaped their attention that the statue of Daniel 2 also had ten fingers. Yet, nothing is made of this fact. The fact that Daniel 2 puts a special emphasis on the toes is not enough to conclude that the toes represent ten kings. Nothing in Daniel 2 supports this conclusion. Throughout the Book of Daniel and the revelation given to John, kings are represented by horns. Daniel explicitly states what the significance of the toes are. When he first relates the basic content of Nebuchadnezzars dream, Daniel does not refer to the toes at all (Daniel 2:31-35) in distinction with his mention of the horns in both the overview of the dream in chapter 7 and the interpretation. The toes of the statue of chapter 2 receive attention in the interpretation only. Daniel relates, And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potters clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdomand as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle (Daniel 2:41-42). It should be immediately clear that the point Daniel is making about the feet and toes is the issue of division: one part strong and the other part brittle. The issue of division will evidence itself in that the kingdom will be both strong and brittle at the same time. The exact nature of this division in the Roman empire is not easily determined. However, we can safely say that based on Daniels statements there is nothing significant to be discerned from the ten toes regarding 10 kings. To draw this conclusion, one has only the coincidental fact that the human body has 10 toes and Daniel makes a point of the diverse beast having 10 horns. One must read backwards to 1 Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973) p. 70.

2

make the association between the toes of Daniel 2 and the horns of Daniel 7. This opinion has no exegetical basis whatsoever. It is nothing more than conjecture based on similarities. Daniel makes the point explicitly that the special stone strikes the statue on its feet. Specifically, he says, It struck the image on its feet of iron and clay. Following the line of reasoning of those who take the traditional view, we would expect the stone to strike the toes. The idea of a revived Roman empire demands far more than the text can support. Nearly fifteen hundred years now exist between the feet and the toes according to the theory, but at some point in the future 10 nations are going to see themselves as the continuation of the 15-century comatose empire. These 10 nations will want to pick up right where ancient Rome left off: weak, divided, and quasi-Christian. The more I personally think about it, the less I am inclined to see the remotest possibility of such an event. There is no indication in the statue of a broken division between the feet and the toes. Another point that is pressed regarding the relationship between Daniel 2 and 7 involves Daniels phrase, in the days of those kings. This phrase is used to argue that Daniel must be referring to the toes of the statute, which in reality are 10 kings even though he never makes this point in chapter 2. Those who take this view assert that since Daniel only refers explicitly to one king in chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar, the toes as represented by 10 kings is the only way to explain the term kings in the plural in verse 44. However, once again this is nothing more than wishful thinking that requires building a case from innuendo and similarities of events. Any student of the Book of Daniel knows that he uses king and kingdom interchangeably at various times. For example, in 7:15-28, Daniel refers to kings and kingdoms without offering any clarification. His first reference in 7:17 indicates that these four great beasts are kings. However, in 7:23, the interpreting angel tells Daniel that the fourth beast is a kingdom. Therefore, it is much more likely that Daniel is doing the same thing in chapter 2. Having described one king who stood for the kingdom of Babylon and three kingdoms making no reference to individual kings per se, Daniel make a summary statement: in the days of those kings. He is referring to the four kings/kingdoms: Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. To suggest otherwise is to introduce a conclusion that does not have exegetical support whatsoever. The phrase in the days of (plural) occurs in the NASB more than 55 times, and differs from the singular form, in the day of. In the plural form it refers to (in) the days of (i.e., life-time, reign, or activity of).2

2 Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (electronic ed.) (399). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.

In other words, the plural term refers to the life-time of a particular person. It can also refer to the years and days, or the length of a kings reign. As this term is generally used throughout the Old and New Testaments, it refers to the life span of the particular

3

person in view. Therefore, Daniel 2:44 must refer to kings living at the time of the events in view. Since Daniel is speaking about the four kings/kingdoms which includes Nebuchadnezzar, it is grammatically impossible for in the days of those kings to refer to kings living 2000 years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. This conclusion would require that the time from Nebuchadnezzar to the final kings of the end-time be included in the phrase in the days of those kings. Therefore, the days from Nebuchadnezzar to the days of the 10 kings would involve more than 2500 years. This includes almost 1500 years when no king was alive on the earth. To take this position requires that Daniel 2:44 be the only biblical example of this phrase being used in this unique way. It is highly unlikely to be the case here. Therefore, God must inaugurate his kingdom during the period that involves the kings/kingdoms of Daniel 2. History confirms that God did, in fact, set up his kingdom during the final kings reign Rome. Only this line of reasoning makes sense of the text and removes contradictions.

Part 4 coming soon!

1

Daniel 2 and 7: Equal or Not Equal Part 4

An Exposition: Daniel 7:1-3 Daniels First Vision -

In the first year of King Belshazzar of Babylon, Daniel had a dream filled with visions while he was lying on his bed. Then he wrote down the dream in summary fashion. 2 Daniel explained: I was watching in my vision during the night as the four winds of the sky were stirring up the great sea. 3 Then four large beasts came up from the sea; they were different from one another (Dan 7:1-3).

Although early chapters of this amazing book record Daniels interpretation of the dreams and visions of other men, the seventh chapter contains the first vision Daniel himself received from God. After chapter 7, all of Daniels visions and dreams ultimately relate to the end of human history as we know it. Few conservatives would debate this point, especially since chapters 9-12 are clearly eschatological in focus. The importance of chapter 8, which focuses on the kingdoms of Medo-Persia and Greece, is seen in that it is the bridge between Daniels time and the eschatological period that begins with the fourth kingdom of Nebuchadnezzars vision. Thus, the overall significance of chapter 7 is that four kings/kingdoms are given authority over the whole earth, but they will be forced to surrender that authority to the Son of Man when he comes to rule universally. We may summarize as follows:

Chapter 7: transition of authority over the earth from man to the Son of Man (7 years). Chapter 8: transition of the age of man to the eschatological end (about 353 years). Chapters 9-12: transition from Israels reproach to reward (7 years).

Having previously demonstrated that chapters 2 and 7 do not cover the same historical period, we move on to an analysis of Daniel 7 to identify ultimately the four kingdoms detailed there. Daniel begins the second half of his book by giving us a historical reference point. He states that the vision came during the first year of King Belshazzar of Babylon, which is just under 10 years after the death of King Nebuchadnezzar. History informs us that Belshazzar became coregent of Babylon during the third year of his father Nabonidus reign. Thus, both father and son reigned over Babylon at the same time, though Nabonidus spent most of the time living in Tayma in Arabia. The Babylonian empire lasted an additional 14 years after this vision was given to Daniel. The timing of the vision, in our opinion, argues against the notion that chapter 7 recounts the history of the same four kingdoms in Daniel 2. The whole of Daniel 2 is concerned with King

2

Nebuchadnezzar to the exclusion of any of the other Babylonian kings who would follow him. Therefore, it would appear strange for Daniel to depict Nebuchadnezzar some ten years after his death as still the most important head of the Babylonian empire. It is also clear that after the death of King Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon began a decline that ultimately led to their downfall at the hands of the Medes. We are satisfied that the first kingdom of Daniel 7 is not Babylon for this as well as other reasons. The text indicates that Daniel was asleep when he received the dreams which consisted of visions about kings/kingdoms. Apparently, Daniel only writes down the sum of the matter. In other words, there are details Daniel did not give us. In verse 2, Daniel continues, I was watching in my vision during the night as the four winds of the sky were stirring up the great sea. The phrase the four winds is one of several phrases that occur throughout the Bible that refer to the ancient worlds understanding of the cosmos. Different expressions occur that have the same basic meaning. For example: (1) the four winds (Jer. 49:32) or (2) the four ends of the earth (Jer. 49:36). The phrase the four winds occurs in the NET Bible a total of 10 times, and is implicit in Job 1:19. The chart below also reflects the usage by several other versions of the Bible. However, for our purposes, we shall focus on the passages exclusively reflected in the NET Bible. It would appear that there are two possible nuances for the phrase, the four winds. Notice the chart.

Bible Version Passage Phrase Context LXX 1 Chronicles 9:24 The four winds Toward NET Jeremiah 49:32 The four winds Scatter to NET Jeremiah 49:36 The four winds Scatter to NLT Ezekiel 12:14 The four winds Scatter to NET Ezekiel 37:9 The four winds Come from Douay-Rheims Ezekiel 42:20 The four winds By the NET Daniel 7:2 The four winds Were stirring up NET Daniel 8:8 The four winds Extending toward NET Daniel 11:4 The four winds Distributed

toward NET Zechariah 2:6 The four winds Scattered ESV Zechariah 6:5 The four spirits These are going

out NET Matthew 24:31 The four winds Gather from NET Mark 13:27 The four winds Gather from NET Revelation 7:1 The four winds

of the earth Holding back

KJV Apocrypha 2 Esdras 13:5 The four winds Gathered from NET Job 1:19 A great wind Struck the four

corners of the house

3

It is clear from our chart that in each case where the four winds refer to directions on the compass, there is contextual language which supports such a conclusion. In examples in which people are to scatter to, or be gathered from or distributed toward are used, it is clear that directions are intended. However, in two passages Daniel 7 and Zechariah 6 our phrase the four winds is the subject of the verb, which indicates the possibility of a significant change in usage. In connection with our study, Zechariah 6:5 is of interest. The NET Bible follows the Hebrew text in Zechariah 6:5, which states, The messenger replied, These are the four spirits of heaven that have been presenting themselves before the Lord of all the earth. Some translations opt to translate the key phrase, the four winds. So we have a choice: spirits or winds. Scholars are not sure of the intended significance of this passage or the correct translation. However, there is a rich tradition that associates spirits (angels) with Gods work on earth (Psa. 130:20). In Zechariah 6:5, The four spirits (or winds) of heaven may refer to angels of divine judgment or to the power of God to accomplish His judicial purposes.1

What is of importance to us is the fact that this text personifies the wind. It is possible that four angels control the four points or quadrants of the compass, thereby indicating that God is the sovereign ruler controlling the earth.

That four winds refers figuratively to the entire known world is clear from the use of the same phrase in Jer. 49:36; Dan. 8:8; 11:4Matt. 24:31; and Mark 13:27; Targ[um] Isa. 11:12 renders the MTs four corners of the earth as four winds of the earth.2

The phrase the four winds refers to the four cardinal points of the compass in Daniel 8:8 and 11:4, i.e., South, North, East, and West, in that order. History proves that the expression the four winds is typically a figure of speech expressing fragmentation. In the case of Alexander the Great, his kingdom and his successors, the sense is more of fragmentation than that of a literal breakup of the kingdom in the four primary directions of the compass. It is evident in Daniel 11 that the directions of the compass do serve to designate the kings of the particular regions in question. For example, the king of South designates the king/kingdom of Egypt in Daniel 11:5ff. Therefore, in light of the four winds, one is able to speak of a king of the South, a king of the North, a king of the East, and a king of the West. This fact is supported in chapters 8 and 11 of Daniel. Significant kings are designated by the direction from which their exploits come. Therefore, if Daniel 7 deals with the end times, and it does, we can expect that the four kingdoms of Daniel 7 are also significantly associated with the compass directions from

1 Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Zec 6:4). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books. MT = Masoretic Text 2 Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation : A commentary on the Greek text (406). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

4

which they come. Clearly, this is Gods intent. Prior to the Lords return, the whole earth will be under the authority of four kings/kingdoms. God will allow these rulers to come forth to initiate the final consummation of all things. When the Son of Man comes to exercise authority over the earth, He will do so by taking that authority from the kings/kingdoms of the earth. When God sends his four angels/winds/spirits out to stir the waters of the great ocean of humanity to raise up the final four kings/kingdoms who will have authority over the whole earth, it will signal the final phase of earths rebellion against Gods rule and the imminent transition of authority from man to the Son of Man. The idea of a righteous man taking control of the whole earth from four wicked men who exercise authority over all of it is not new with Daniel 7. Rather, Daniel 7 illustrates a fulfillment that follows a pattern seen in Genesis 14. This pattern fulfillment is significant. Genesis 14 has proven to be a difficult text for those who do not take Scripture at face-value. Liberal scholars almost universally conclude that Genesis 14 is made-up history invented for the glorification of Abraham long after the Exile, in the Persian or Greek epoch, and devoid of any historical significance.3

In plain speak, liberals believe it never happened except in the mind of the guy[s] who made it all up. However, we believe that God gave this information to Moses, who then recorded the historical realities of Abraham and the individuals and events mentioned in Genesis 14.

The reason liberals take the position detailed above primarily follows from their inability to find any historical proof that the four kings listed in Genesis 14:1 did, in fact, live during Abrahams days in Canaan. Archeologists have found proof for many ancient cities and peoples, but the four kings identified in Genesis 14 have so far not been found in any ancient source or record. Liberals naturally conclude that a writer made it all up 1,000 years after Abraham lived. Parenthetically, one would think liberals would be slow to make these kinds of judgments given the number of times the Bible has been proven correct. The names of the four kings of Genesis 14:1 are: (1) Amraphel king of Shinar; (2) Arioch king of Ellasar; (3) Chedorlaomer king of Elam; and (4) Tidal king of Goiim. The names of the four countries over which these four kings ruled have a tradition to some extent in the Old Testament. Concerning the name Shinar, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament records that Shinar is the OT designation for southern Mesopotamia the alluvial plain between the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. This area was known by the Sumerians as Sumer and Akkad, but later it

3 Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and in Its Babylonian Sources, Michael C. Astour, in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966) p. 65.

5

became known as Babylonia. In two of the eight passages Shinar is called Babylonia in the LXX (Isa 11:11 and Zech 5:11).4

With respect to Canaan (Abrahams new home), Shinar was toward the South of it. The name Ellasar does not occur in the OT. Only until recently have scholars had any certainty whatsoever about the exact country in focus. Astour concludes that the term is easily explained as referring to Assur.5

Readers are accustomed to seeing Assyria in the OT. Assyria was

considered the symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. The country received its name from the tiny city-state Asshur on the western bank of the Tigris River in northern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq)The Hebrew name occurs frequently in the Bible and is translated Assyria (Gen. 2:14; Psa. 83:8; both NET), Assur (Ezra 4:2 KJV, margin), or left as Asshur (Gen. 10:11, KJV).6

Relative to Canaan, Assyria was to the North. The name Elam refers to

a province of Persia, in which stood the capital city, Susa (Ezra 4:9; Dan. 8:2); perhaps in ancient writings it included the whole of Persia.7

In reference to Canaan, Elam was toward the East. The final name on the list is Goiim. As to the location and meaning of this geographical designation, Astour concludes that the name of the king removes any doubt that atti is the intended referent. atti refers to ancient area that would include modern Turkey (a people referred to as The Hittites in ancient times). In relation to Canaan, atti was to the West. The fact that there is no historical evidence of a coalition of the countries of Babylonia, Assyria, Elam, and atti in ancient history has driven liberals to distraction. Astour concludes that Genesis 14 is not authentic and was written at least 1,000 years after Moses. However, he argues that

[T]he selection of these four countries is by no means accidental. In the neo- Assyrian and the neo-Babylonian time that is, at the time when Genesis 14 was

LXX The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament in Greek 4 Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (943). Chicago: Moody Press. 5 Astour, Symbolism in Genesis 14, p. 77. 6 Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (219). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House. 7 Gesenius, W., & Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (622). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

6

written atti became the equivalent of, or substitute for, the more ancient geographical nation Amurru, which occupied the territory west of the Euphrates, and Assyria became the synonym or substitute for the older term Subartu, which designated Upper Mesopotamia to the north of Babylonia. Now the Babylonians, followed by the Assyrians, had divided from time immemorial the entire earth (imaged as circular) into four quadrantswhich bore the names of the correspondingly situated countries. The schema (Figure A) played an enormous role in predictions and astrology. South --- Akkad North --- Subartu, East --- Elam, West --- Amurru.

Figure A. The Babylonian Division of the World. Exactly in this order are the four kings listed the first time (Genesis 14:1). Thus, the symbolism of Genesis 14 is not limited to Palestine. Through the introduction of the kings of the four world quadrants, the author widens his symbolism to universal, even cosmic dimensions.8

Before we proceed further, let it be clear to the reader that we do not in any way agree with Astours fundamental conviction that Genesis 14 is history made-up by someone, even a person living 1,000 years after Moses. We believe that Moses wrote Genesis 14 as instructed by God. The events of this chapter serve to highlight Gods faithfulness to Abraham. God promised Abraham that upon leaving Ur of the Chaldeans, He would give the land of Canaan to him and his offspring (Gen 12:7). Genesis 14 reports that the land of Canaan was under the immediate control of local kings who were vassals to the ultimate authority of four kings who exercised authority over the whole known world at that time. For God to grant Abraham authority over the land of promise, the four kings listed in Genesis 14 had to be defeated. Abrahams victory over the whole world, which was symbolically depicted in the four kings of Genesis 14:1, is a pattern soon to be repeated in connection with the Son of Mans reception of the same authority over the whole world. Abrahams victory over the whole world won him the right to claim the land of Canaan as his own just as God promised. It should

8 Astour, Symbolism in Genesis 14, p. 78-80.

7

not escape our attention that during the days that Abraham lived in the land of Canaan no nation ruled over him. That the land of Canaan (now the land of Israel) will once again be caught under the rule of kings/kingdoms is clearly taught in Daniel 11. In Daniel 11:5-35, a perpetual conflict occurs between the king of the South and the king of the North. Because of the historical allusions referenced in this portion of Daniel 11, scholars generally agree that some aspect of a remnant of Alexander the Greats empire that was divided among four of his generals is in view. Specifically, the king of the South refers to the Ptolemaic throne in Egypt, and the king of the North refers to the Seleucid throne in Syria and Babylonia. About 175 years of history is covered in this section of Daniel. However, in Daniel 11:36-39, a third king is introduced. Unlike in Daniel 11:5-35, this king, who fights with the king of the South and the king of the North, is never tied to a direction on the compass in this chapter. Of interest to the reader should be the fact that he will have problems with both of those kings. And also he will be troubled by news from the East. In the Daniel 11:36-45 reference, there is no mention of the king of the West; the significance of this fact will become more clear later. It is our conviction that the Lion King is the king of the South; the Bear King is the king of the North; the Leopard King is the king of the East; and the Diverse King is the king of the West.

Few would debate the conclusion that the king of the South included Egypt and other nations of North Africa in Daniel 11:5-35. There is no good reason to abandon this conclusion for Daniel 11:36-45. The identity of the king of the North does not enjoy similar certainty. Most conservative scholars conclude that Russia and her satellites are the referent. However, in an excellent study by J. Paul Tanner, entitled Daniels King of the North: Do We Owe Russia An

8

Apology? he concludes: To be hermeneutically consistent, the king of the North ought to be interpreted in light of the meaning the phrase has had throughout the chapter.9

His investigation of all the occurrences of the term north in the Old Testament that refer to nations or peoples when used in connection with the land of Israel is this:

[T]he use of the term north in reference to countries outside of Israel is a frequent expression of the prophets for Israels neighbors of the Middle East, either Babylon, Assyria, Medo-Persia or the Seleucid empire. The reason why eastern countries such as Babylon would be designated as being from the north is to be found in the explanation that an attack upon Israel by these foes always came from the north, whereby the major highways across the Fertile Crescent (along the Euphrates) would take one to the upper regions of Galilee in the northern part of the country. There is not one reference (unless one wants to argue on the basis of Ezekiel 3839) where a country from the north ever means an enemy as far north as present-day Russia. For the prophets, north would always refer to a Middle Eastern neighbor of Israel.10

The Seleucid empire was significant and could prove to be a typological fulfillment for one of the final king/kingdoms to dominate the world. Tanner states,

At times the empire included in addition to Syria the ancient realms of Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Parthia, Bactria, Arachosia, Sogdiana, and much of ancient Anatolia. Translated into terms of todays national boundaries this would include Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, and some of the central Asian republics (the lower parts of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan).11

Tanner ultimately concludes, I would like to submit that the king of the North is a confederation of northern Arab nations that will attack the Antichrist and his forces in this military conflict centered in the Middle East.12

The details of Daniel 11:36-45 fit and possibly explain Daniels vision in chapter 7. As we shall see in this chapter, the fourth king/kingdom is subsequently ruled by Antichrist. However, he only rises after a period of rule by the ten horns. In other words, the fourth king/kingdom does

9 . Vol. 35: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 35. 1992 (3) (327). Lynchburg, VA: The Evangelical Theological Society. 10 . Vol. 35: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 35. 1992 (3) (323324). Lynchburg, VA: The Evangelical Theological Society. 11 . Vol. 35: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 35. 1992 (3) (327328). Lynchburg, VA: The Evangelical Theological Society. 12 . Vol. 35: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 35. 1992 (3) (328). Lynchburg, VA: The Evangelical Theological Society.

9

not become evil during the reign of the final horn. It is evil starting from the time Daniel sees it until its destruction by the Son of Man. The four winds stir up the great sea, which many times in the O.T. refers to the Mediterranean Sea. But that does not seem to be the point of verse 2. In the angels interpretation of the vision, he indicates that the great sea is synonymous with the earth (Dan 7:17). The point appears to be that the four kingdoms are of human origin in contrast to the kingdom of the Son of Man who comes down from heaven. We saw earlier that the phrase the four winds indicates the directions in which Alexander the Greats four generals divided his kingdom after his demise. The four winds (instruments of Gods pleasure) simultaneously produce four kingdoms: one from each direction on the compass. However, a majority of scholars insist that they came up out of the sea successively, one at a time. The decision regarding whether the four beasts ascend from the sea successively or simultaneously can only be made based on ones understanding of the context. If one assumes that Daniel 7 is a rather lose recapitulation of Daniel 2, he or she will immediately assume that the four beasts ascend successively (one after the other over a 400 year period). Nonetheless, this is reading into the text a presupposition from chapter 2 without any exegetical basis. Given Daniels careful attention to sequencing in chapters 2, 8, 9, and 11, it is strange that he would so generalize verse 3 of Daniel 7 that the reader is left thinking simultaneous ascension when successive ascension is intended. Daniel explicitly tells the reader that the four beasts are different from one another. For Daniel to give the reader this fact seems unnecessary given the description of each kingdom which would naturally follow. If in fact the kingdoms follow one another in time, one would hardly need to be told that they are different. Equally, unlike Daniel 2, there is no indication in Daniel 7 that one kingdom will destroy or bring to an end the other. We personally see that Daniels failure to give us this detail means that the four beasts ascend simultaneously. Not only do they ascend at the same time, but they reign upon the earth at the same time each over a quadrant of the earth. Support for this final point is found in Daniel 7:7 which declares, A fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet (Italics added). The importance of the translation of this verse is evident by examining several Bible translations:

10

A fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet (NASB).

A fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet (ESV).

a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it (1895-KJV). a fourth beast terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left (NIV).

The reader should discern that the translations, with the exception of the NIV, place the final clause as the object of all three verbs. Does what was left go with the final verb to stamp or with all three verbs: to devour, to break in pieces, and to stamp? The answer to this question along with the question regarding the meaning of the clause what was left support our contention that the four kings/kingdoms of Daniel 7 reign upon the earth at the same time. If the clause what was left applies only to the verb to stamp, we would have to conclude that the clause refers to the things the beast did not devour or break in pieces. In other words, what was left is everything else the beast is not able to devour or break in pieces. If the beast could not eat it or break it, he stamped on it. The other option is to take what was left as the object of all three verbs: to devour, to break in pieces, and to stamp, which is reflected in most translations. Taken in this sense, what was left represents everything the first three beasts do not control. In other words, the four kings/kingdoms divided the world up between them. The lion-king, the bear-king, the leopard-king, and the diverse-king each get a fourth. Perhaps this would explain why in Revelation 6:8 only a fourth of the earth falls under the immediate control of Death and Hades, which are personifications of the beasts of the earth. In context, what was left is best taken to refer to that part of the earth that did not fall under the control of the first three beasts/kings/kingdoms. The four kings/kingdoms (Dan 7:17, 23) produced by the four winds (instruments of Gods pleasure) of the compass are described as four beasts. Why use the description or designation beasts? The reader must keep in mind that Daniel received this vision from God. It was Gods plan to present the four kings/kingdoms as beasts. By doing so, God is purposely portraying

11

these groups as evil and hostile to his programs and peoples. In both the books of Daniel and Revelation, the term beast represents evil men or nations bent on the destruction of Gods people and/or the willful rebellion of creatures against their creator. This characterization makes it unlikely that the first beast is Nebuchadnezzar or Babylon. The transformation of Nebuchadnezzar from the beast-like form he temporarily became was an act of mercy on Gods part that resulted in good for his people, Israel. This is not the case for the beasts of Daniel 7. There is no redemption for them. Rather, as we shall see, their plans are continually evil and bring only judgment from God. By way of summary, Daniel 7:1-3 indicates that by means of his four wind instruments God will raise up four kings/kingdoms that will exercise complete dominance over the world. Each king/kingdom will exercise authority over a fourth of the earth. This set of events will mark the beginning of the final phase of mans rule over the earth before it is taken away and given to the Son of Man Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 - Equal or not Equal Part 1Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 - Equal or not Equal Part 2Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 - Equal or not Equal - Part 3Daniel 2 and 7 - Equal or Not Equal - Part 4