Four kingdoms of Daniel
- 1 The four kingdoms
- 2 Schools of thought
- 3 Traditional views
- 4 See also
- 5 Appendix
- 6 Footnotes
- 7 References
- 8 External links
The four kingdoms
It is generally accepted that the Book of Daniel originated as a collection of folktales among the Jewish community in Babylon and Mesopotamia in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods (5th to 3rd centuries BCE), and was later expanded by the visions of chapters 7-12 in the Maccabean era (mid-2nd century).
The "four kingdoms" theme appears explicitly in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, and is implicit in the imagery of Daniel 8. Daniel's concept of four successive world empires is drawn from Greek theories of mythological history; most modern interpreters agree that the four are Babylon, the Medes, Persia and the Greeks, ending with Seleucid Syria and Ptolemaic Egypt. The symbolism of four metals in the statue in chapter 2 is drawn from Persian writings, while the four "beasts from the sea" in chapter 7 reflect Hosea 13:7–8, in which God threatens that he will be to Israel like a lion, a leopard, a bear or a wild beast. The consensus among scholars is that the four beasts of chapter 7, like the metals of chapter 2, symbolise Babylon, Media, Persia and the Seleucids, with Antiochis IV as the "small horn" that uproots three others (Antiochus usurped the rights of several other claimants to become king).
In chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a statue made of four different materials, dentified as four kingdoms:
- Head of gold,
explicitly identified as King Nebuchadnezzar.[v.37-38]
- Chest and arms of silver.
Identified as an "inferior" kingdom to follow Nebuchadnezzar.[v.39]
- Belly and thighs of bronze.
A third kingdom which shall rule over all the earth.[v.39]
- Legs of iron with feet of mingled iron and clay
Interpreted as a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, but the feet and toes partly of clay and partly of iron show it shall be a divided kingdom.[v.41]
In chapter 7, Daniel has a vision of four beasts coming up out of the sea, and is told that they represent four kingdoms:
- A beast like a lion with eagle’s wings;
- A beast like a bear, raised up on one side, with three ribs between its teeth;
- A beast like a leopard with four wings and four heads;
- A fourth beast, with large iron teeth and ten horns.
This is explained as a fourth kingdom, different from all the other kingdoms; it "will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it."[v.23] The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom.[V.24] A further horn (the "little horn") then appears and uproots three of the previous horns: this is explained as a future king.
In chapter 8 Daniel sees a ram with two horns destroyed by a he-goat with a single horn; the horn breaks and four horns appear, followed once again by the "little horn."
Schools of thought
Interpretations of the prophetic content of the Book of Daniel differ as to its significance, if any, in historical terms. Some[quantify] secular historians and certain[which?] critics would[original research?] say that the Book of Daniel has little to no significance beyond its own contemporary historical setting. From some Christian and Jewish religious points of view, the relevance of the Book of Daniel to our own and future time is upheld.[by whom?] Idealists, and the advocates of Realized/Sapiential Eschatology, would say that the Book of Daniel is primarily historical, but also significant as godly instruction.
From the time of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the "four monarchies" model became widely used[by whom?] for universal history, in parallel with eschatology, among Protestants. Some continued to defend its use in universal history in the early 18th century; but the periodization with a "Middle Age" came in strongly from philology, with Christopher Cellarius (1638-1707), based on the distinctive nature of medieval Latin. The modern historicist interpretations and eschatological views of the Book of Daniel with the Book of Revelation closely resemble and continue some[which?] earlier historical Protestant interpretations.
There are references in classical literature and arts that apparently predate the use of the succession of kingdoms in the Book of Daniel. One appears in Aemilius Sura, an author quoted by Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 BC – c. AD 31). This gives Assyria, Media, Persia and Macedonia as the imperial powers. The fifth empire became identified with the Romans. (After the 17th century, the concept of a fifth monarchy was re-introduced[by whom?] from Christian millennarian ideas.)
An interpretation that became orthodox after Swain (1940) sees the "four kingdoms" theory becoming the property of Greek and Roman writers at the beginning of the 1st century BCE, as an import from Asia Minor. They built on a three-kingdom sequence, already mentioned by Herodotus (c. 484–425 BC) and by Ctesias (fl. 401 BC). Mendels (1981) contests this dating and origin, placing it[clarification needed] later in the century.
Two main schools of thought on the four kingdoms of Daniel, are:
- the traditionalist view, supporting the conflation of Medo-Persia and identifying the last kingdom as the Roman Empire.
- the Maccabean thesis, a view that supports the separation of the Medes from the Persians and identifies the last kingdom as the Seleucid Empire.
Roman Empire schema
The following interpretation represents a traditional view of Jewish and Christian Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, Partial Preterists, and other futuristic Jewish and Christian hybrids, as well as certain Messianic Jews, who typically identify the kingdoms in Daniel (with variations) as:
- the Babylonian Empire
- the Medo-Persian Empire
- the Greek Empire of Alexander
- the Roman Empire, with other implications to come later
Use with Book of Revelation
Christian interpreters typically read the Book of Daniel along with the New Testament's Book of Revelation. The Church Fathers interpreted the beast in Revelation 13 as the empire of Rome. The majority of modern scholarly commentators understand the "city on seven hills" in Revelation as a reference to Rome.
Second temple theory
Full Preterists, Idealists, certain Reconstructionists and other non-futurists likewise typically believe in the same general sequence, but teach that Daniel's prophecies ended with the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, and have few to no implications beyond that. Jewish and Christian Futurists, Dispensationalists, and, to some degree, Partial Preterists believe that the prophecies of Daniel stopped with the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem; but will resume at some point in the future after a gap in prophecy that accounts for the Church Age.
Most secular historians and higher critics, and some[which?] contemporary Jewish and Christian scholars, hold that the Book of Daniel was written in approximately 165 BCE as a vaticinium ex eventu of the events leading up to that era. Chapters 8 and 11 describe the conquest of Persia (334-323 BC) by Alexander the Great, the wars between his successors: the Seleucids and the Ptolemys (the King(s) of the North and the King(s) of the South), and the desecration of the Jerusalem temple (ca. 167 BC) by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175-164 BC) in detail. The four kingdoms are viewed as four empires that the author believed had ruled from the time of the mythic Daniel until the time of Antiochus:
- the Neo-Babylonian Empire
- the Median Empire, anachronistically implied in the Book of Daniel to be the successor to the Neo-Babylonian Empire rather than contemporaneous
- the Achaemenid Persian Empire
- the Macedonian (Greek) Empire of Alexander, and continuing through the Diadochi, the successors to Alexander's empire (in particular the Seleucid Empire) up until the time of Antiochus, seen as the "little horn" king of chapters 7 and 8
"Four kingdoms" are mentioned again in chapter 8, now referring to the kingdoms of the four main successors to Alexander's empire, (the Diadochi, also mentioned in 11:4) - Seleucus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus (c. 360 – 281 BC), and Cassander (ca. 350 – 297 BC)
The traditional interpretation of the four kingdoms, shared among Jewish and Christian expositors for over two millennia, identifies the kingdoms as the empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. This view conforms to the text of Daniel, which considers the Medo-Persian Empire as one, as with the "law of the Medes and Persians"(6:8, 12, 15) These views have the support of the Jewish Talmud, medieval Jewish commentators, Christian Church Fathers, Jerome, and Calvin.
Jerome specifically identified the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 in this way. The "four monarchies" theory existed alongside the Six Ages and the Three Eras, as general historical structures, in the work of Augustine of Hippo, a contemporary of Jerome.
The alternative view which sees the sequence ending with Greece and the Diadochi, thus excluding Rome, is not without historical precedent however. The pagan critic of Christianity, Porphyry, suggested a variation of this interpretation in the third century CE. In the following centuries, several Eastern Christians espoused this view, including Ephrem the Syrian, Polychronius, and Cosmas Indicopleustes.
During the Medieval ages the orthodox Christian interpretation followed the commentary by Jerome on the Book of Daniel. It tied the fourth monarchy and its end to the end of the Roman Empire; which was considered not to have yet come to pass. This is the case for example in the tenth-century writer Adso, whose Libellus de Antichristo incorporated the characteristic medieval myth of the Last World Emperor. Otto of Freising used the principle of translatio imperii and took the Holy Roman Empire as the continuation of the Roman Empire (as fourth monarchy).
The eschatological theory of four monarchies was particularly emphasized by a series of Protestant theologians, such as Jerome Zanchius, Joseph Mede, and John Lightfoot. Mede and other writers (such as William Guild, Edward Haughton and Nathaniel Stephens) expected the imminent end of the fourth empire, and a new age. The early modern version of the four monarchies in universal history was subsequently often attributed to the chronologist and astrologer Johann Carion, based on his Chronika (1532). Developments of his Protestant world chronology were endorsed in an influential preface of Philipp Melanchthon (published 1557).
The theory was topical in the 1550s. Johann Sleidan in his De quatuor imperiis summis (1556) tried to summarise the status of the "four monarchies" as historical theory; he had already alluded to it in previous works. Sleidan's influential slant on the theory was both theological, with a Protestant tone of apocalyptic decline over time, and an appeal to German nationalist feeling in terms of translatio imperii. The Speculum coniugiorum (1556) of the jurist Alonso De la Vera Cruz, in New Spain, indirectly analysed the theory. It cast doubts on the Holy Roman Emperor's universal imperium, by pointing out the historical 'monarchies' in question had in no case held exclusive sway. The Carion/Melanchthon view was that the Kingdom of Egypt must be considered a subsidiary power to Babylon: just as France was secondary compared to the Empire.
The Catholic Jean Bodin was concerned to argue against the whole theory of 'four monarchies' as a historical paradigm. He devoted a chapter to refuting it, alongside the classical scheme of a Golden Age, in his 1566 Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem.
In the conditions leading to the English Civil War and the disruption that followed, many Protestants were millennarians, believing they were living in the 'end of days'. The Fifth Monarchists were a significant element of the Parliamentary grouping and, in January 1661, after Charles II took the throne following the English Restoration, 50 militant Fifth Monarchists under Thomas Venner attempted to take over London to start the 'Fifth Monarchy of King Jesus'. After the failure of this uprising, Fifth Monarchists became a quiescent and devotional part of religious dissent.
Seventh-day Adventist view
The Seventh-day Adventist Church shares the traditional view that the four kingdoms of Daniel, as paralleled in chapters 2 and 7, correspond to the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Achaemenid Empire, the Macedonian Empire and the Roman Empire. Furthermore, they hold the view that the ram and goat correspond to the Achaemenid Empire, and the Macedonian Empire. They also hold to the traditional view that the "little horn" in Daniel 7:8 refers to the Papacy; the reference to changing "times and law" (Daniel 7:25) refers to the change of the Christian sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, and the attack on the sanctuary (Daniel 8:11) to the mediatorial ministry of Roman Catholic priests. The "time, times and half a time" (Daniel 7:25) represents for Adventists a period of 1260 years from 538 CE to 1798 CE, when the Roman Catholic Church dominated the Christian world. The feet of the statue in Daniel 2, made of mixed iron and clay, represent modern Europe. The Adventist interpretation depends on the day-year principle", the established idea that when used in prophetic context, a day is equivalent to a year.
|Interpretations of the Four Monarchies|
|Chapter||Interpretation of Daniel as understood by Reformation Historicists|
|Chest & 2 arms
|Belly and thighs
|2 Feet with toes
Clay & Iron
God's unending kingdom
left to no other people
|Daniel 7||Winged Lion||Lopsided Bear||4 Heads/4 Wings
|A son of man comes in clouds
Given everlasting dominion
He gives it to the saints.
|Daniel 8||2-horned Ram
|Uni- / 4-horned Goat
4 Winds (Greece)
A Master of Intrigue
|Cleansing of Sanctuary
Leads to: -->
|(Kingdom of God)|
|North & South Kings
4 Winds (Greece)
|North & South Kings
Person of Intrigue
Pagan & Papal Rome
|North & South Kings
|Michael stands up
Many dead awake
To everlasting life
|(Nations in parentheses are interpretation of symbols as given in the text. Nations in small italics are Historicist interpretation. "One like a son of man" and "Michael" are understood to be the same being.)|
- Collins 1984, p. 29,34-35.
- Niskanen 2004, p. 27,31.
- Towner 1984, p. 34-36.
- Collins 1984, p. 80.
- Matthews & Moyes 2012, p. 260,269.
- Herbert Butterfield, Man on His Past (1955), pp. 45-6.
- John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (1998), p. 93.
- Swain, Joseph Ward (January 1940). "The Theory of the Four Monarchies: Opposition History under the Roman Empire". Classical Philology (University of Chicago Press) 35 (1): 1–21. ISSN 0009-837X.
- Erich S. Gruen,The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (1986), p. 329.
- Mendels, Doron (Autumn, 1981). "The Five Empires: A Note on a Propagandistic Topos". The American Journal of Philology (Johns Hopkins University Press) 102 (3): 330–337. ISSN 0002-9475. Check date values in:
- John J. Collins, A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (2007), p. 282
- "St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (1958). pp. 15-157".
- "The four beasts of Daniel, however, reappear in the monster of Chapter 13 of the Book of Revelation, with ten horns, seven heads, bear's feet and a lion's mouth, which the Fathers of the Church took to be the Roman Empire.", Gelston, et al., "New heaven and new earth prophecy and the millennium: essays in honour of Anthony Gelston", p. 297 (1999).
- Wall, R. W. (1991). New International biblical commentary: Revelation (207). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
- Bratcher, R. G., & Hatton, H. (1993). A handbook on the Revelation to John. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (248). New York: United Bible Societies.
- Davis, C. A. (2000). Revelation. The College Press NIV commentary (322). Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub.
- Mounce, R. H. (1997). The Book of Revelation. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (315). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
- Beckwith, Isbon T. The Apocalypse of John. New York: MacMillan, 1919; reprinted, Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001.
- Caird, G. B. A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine. Black’s New Testament Commentaries, edited by Henry Chadwick. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966.
- Bruce, F. F. The Revelation to John. A New Testament Commentary, edited by G. C. D. Howley. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969.
- Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Revelation (1977). Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1977.
- Leon Morris, The Book of Revelation, An Introduction and Commentary (1987). Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
- Roloff, J. (1993). A Continental Commentary: The Revelation of John (198). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
- Aune, D. E. (2002). Vol. 52C: Word Biblical Commentary : Revelation 17-22. Word Biblical Commentary (944). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
- Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Re 17:9). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
- Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed.) (Re 17:7–18). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.
- F.F. Bruce (1975). "A Reappraisal of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature" (PDF). Review and Expositor (72): 305–315.
- McDowell, Sean (2009). Apologetics study Bible for students: hard questions, straight answers. Nashville, Tenn: Holman Bible Publishers. p. 899. ISBN 978-1-58640-493-2.
- "Jerome identified the four kingdoms analogously with the interpretation of the prophecy of Daniel 2, in a diachronic system. In the first kingdom, symbolized by the lion, he saw the Neo-Babylonian empire. He identified the bear with the Persian kingdom, the leopard with the Macedonian rule, and the fourth beast with the Roman empire." Fröhlich, "Time and times and half a time: Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras', JSP Supplements, pp. 71-72 (1996).
- Isabel Rivers, Classical and Christian Ideas in English Renaissance Poetry: A Student's Guide (1994), p. 56.
- Beatrice, Pier Franco (1991). "Pagans and Christians on the Book of Daniel". Studia Patristica XXV: 27.
- Chris Given-Wilson, Chronicles: The Writing of History in Medieval England (2004), p. 115.
- C. A. Patrides, Joseph Anthony Wittreich, The Apocalypse in English Renaissance Thought and Literature: patterns, antecedents, and repercussions (1984), p. 45; Google Books.
- "Apocalypse". Apocalyptic Ideas in Old English Literature.
- "Bishop John Lightfoot's Works (1684)".
- Bryan W. Ball, A Great Expectation: eschatological thought in English Protestantism to 1660 (1975), p. 140; Google Books.
- Alexandra Kess, Johann Sleidan and the Protestant vision of history (2008), pp.83–5; Google Books.
- Anthony Grafton, What was History?: The Art of History in Early Modern Europe (2007), p. 171.
- David Andrew Lupher, Romans in a New World: Classical Models in Sixteenth-Century Spanish America(2006), p. 163.
- Paula Findlen, Athanasius Kircher: the last man who knew everything (2004), p. 177; Google Books.
- "PAL:Anne Bradstreet(1612?-1672)".
- "Jean Bodin". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Capp, 1972
- Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (2005). Seventh-day Adventists believe (2nd ed). Pacific Press. pp. 356–357, 293–295.
- Seventh-day Adventists believe (2nd ed), pp. 184-185
- Seventh-day Adventists believe (2nd ed), p 376
- Uriah Smith, 1944, Daniel and Revelation, Southern Publishing Association, Nashville, TN
- Roy Allan Anderson, 1975, Pacific Press Pub. Assoc., Unfolding Daniel's Prophecies, Mountain View, CA
- Daniel 7:13-27 see verses 13, 14, 22, 27
- H. H. Rowley (1935), Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel. A Historical Study of Contemporary Theories
- Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Four World Empires of Daniel 2 Against its Near Eastern Environment," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 1979 4: 17-30
- Bernard Capp (1972), Fifth Monarchy Men: Study in Seventeenth Century English Millenarianism, Faber ISBN 0-571-09791-X
- Ministerial Association, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (2005). Seventh-day Adventists Believe (2nd ed). Pacific Press.
- Deferrari, Paulus Orosius ; translated by Roy J. (2001). The seven books of history against the pagans (1st short-run reprint ed.). Washington: Catholic University of America Press. ISBN 978-0-8132-1310-1.