|
|
|
|
Daniel's
Interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's Dream |
Many Bible skeptics have tried to dismiss the book of Daniel as a late composition, perhaps second century B.C., because it is so accurate in prophesying the future. According to these non-believers, the only way that Daniel could have foretold the coming kingdoms, following that of Nebuchadnezzar, is that it had to have been written after it happened. One of the earliest known skeptics, Porphyry, writing in the third century A.D., also arrived at this conclusion because he believed that future prediction in prophecy was impossible. In reality, wording choices within the text, including calling Nebuchadnezzar "the king of kings", are reflective of someone writing many centuries earlier utilizing terminology of that era. As more inscriptions and materials from the period have been found, they have confirmed that Daniel was one who knew and wrote in both Hebrew and pre-Hellenistic Aramaic, as can be seen from his word choices. In very few places, some have tried to say that spelling choices show a later date, yet updating and correcting spelling to current usage is commonly found in manuscript transmission to allow the immediate reader to understand and better recognize what the word is. Fragments of the book of Daniel, found at the Dead Sea, date back to the second century B.C. and show how the book was revered and utilized as Scriptures. Additionally, they are copies showing that they are derived from an earlier edition. If Daniel was a late forgery, as the skeptics profess, it would never have gained widespread acceptance as Scriptures in a short period of time (assuming that the Jews would even accept or promote a forgery as such). It had to have been written earlier, and if any earlier, then some of it had to be a future prophecy that was later fulfilled. Logically, if some of it is a valid future prophecy, then why not all of it? Their reason for dismissing it falls. Before considering the timeframes referenced in this prophecy of the sixth century B.C., take time to read the entire passage:
Part 1 - Head of Gold (Daniel 2:32a, 37-38) The text clearly states that King Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold. This ruler of the Babylonian empire reigned from circa 605 B.C. to 562 B.C., but if we use dating in terms of his dynasty's control over the Jewish world, 586 B.C. to 539/538 B.C. would better encompass the "kingdom" of gold. Part 2 - Chest and arms of Silver (Daniel 2:32b, 39a) This piece of the prophecy was very soon to be fulfilled, thus acting as a testable authentication of Daniel as a prophet by the people. The kingdom of silver, inferior to Nebuchadnezzar's, is that of the Medes and Persians, biblically associated with the rulers Cyrus and Darius. That the vision used the chest and arms, two different yet adjoining parts to represent this kingdom is likely with intent. With the fall of Babylon in 539 (or perhaps 538 B.C.), Cyrus' kingdom - built with a joining of the Medes and Persians - began the Persian (Achaemenian) Empire. The power of this empire in regards to Israel, dates from 539/538 to 332 B.C. Part 3 - Stomach and thighs of Brass (Daniel 2:32c, 39b) The empire of Alexander the Great and his successors came almost two centuries after the time of Daniel. With it, the culture of Greece swept through the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern world. The death of Alexander resulted in an empire that was divided politically yet united in Hellenistic culture. The Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties, as such, were a cultural continuation of Alexander the Great's. The dynasty of the Ptolemy's was founded by a general who had been under Alexander and continued rule over Egypt as Pharaohs. The dynasty of Seleucus, another military leader under Alexander, ruled from the Mediterranean to the eastern extents of the earlier Babylonian empire (almost to India). Both the Ptolemy's and Seleucid's sought to exercise control over Israel, which was a border area for both kingdoms. The time period represented by Alexander's kingdom and subsequent daughter kingdoms is 332 B.C. until 63 B.C. (Some use slightly earlier or later dates for the latter, but I use 63 B.C. as a definitive date for when Jerusalem was conquered by the Romans). Part 4 - Legs of Iron and feet of Iron and Clay (Daniel 2:33) The Roman Empire was the fourth kingdom in view. The strongest of the metals listed, iron symbolized the amazing strength and power of Rome. Seemingly unconquerable and expanding throughout the known world, the empire ended up fragmenting. The greatest of this fragmentation was the east versus the west, with Constantinople and Rome subsequently having competing claims. The vision's mixture of Iron and clay showed how fragile and apt to break the remaining pieces became. Roman rule came to Israel in 63 B.C. As for an end date for the Roman Empire, many can be given. The Western empire perhaps could date to 476 A.D. following the fall of Rome. The Eastern Empire likewise could date to 1453 A.D. following the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims. Others see no end to the Roman Empire as pieces of it continue in various forms even to the present, including through the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church. Part 5 - The Messianic Kingdom of the Stone
There is no question that this prophecy refers to a coming Messianic kingdom - something that both Christians and Jews will agree to. Dispute arises in regards to interpretation of what is meant by this kingdom. Those who are postmillennialists and amillennialists see complete fulfillment of the establishment of Christ's kingdom at his first coming. Premillennialists and other chiliasts see this as a partial fulfillment expecting the fullness of this kingdom only at the Second Advent or return of Jesus Christ.1 The Rock is clearly shown to not be established by humans but by God himself. With the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ in A.D. 31, this kingdom could be said to have begun "in the time of those kings," if the "those" generally refers to the era of all the kings referenced by the statue. The "kingdom" in this view would be spiritual and not physical. Preterists agree with this view and tend to claim a full fulfillment of this prophecy by A.D. 70 with the destruction of the temple. Some passages do point to a spiritual kingdom, but not to the exclusion of a later physical kingdom:
This, too, is the kingdom which Isaiah also foresaw in Old Testament times.
Unless taken somewhat figuratively, Isaiah's vision of the future kingdom seems to better point to a future and more complete fulfillment of a visible Messianic kingdom. This aligns with Daniel where the text better allows for later kings, represented by the feet, who will be ruling when Jesus returns to establish his physical kingdom. All the kingdoms prior were physical, from head to legs, so too will be the eternal kingdom of our Lord. |
End Notes 1. It is certain that the church is an aspect of Christ's kingdom. This is clearly seen in a number of verses...
The dispute is whether the internal kingdom which exists within the church is the totality of Christ's kingdom on earth. Their greatest argument, that the kingdom will have a future more visible fulfillment, is founded in the fact that each of the kingdoms previously referenced in Daniel's prophecy had a very visible external political domain. Revelation 20:1-6 provides a Scriptural basis for placing this external kingdom into a millennial reign of Christ. Revelation 19:11-21 also provides a sudden destruction of the remaining kingdoms of earth (successors of Rome), in a single act, preparing the way for the immediate establishment of the final kingdom of Christ. For those who claim that the church will conquer the world (a view that exists in both Protestant and Roman Catholic perspectives), Scriptures rather infers that the end will come with great apostasy. This would require God's intervention to setup a final visible kingdom.
The parable of the wheat and tares (weeds) in Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43 also doesn't show a church that has removed the weeds or rules over them. It is Christ at the end of the age that purifies His kingdom. |
Article by Brent MacDonald, Lion Tracks Ministries (c) 2008, 2013.
|