Four kingdoms of Daniel

The four kingdoms refers to four monarchies, or world empires, described in dreams and visions in the Book of Daniel of the Hebrew Bible. The actual term "four kingdoms" occurs once, found in Daniel 8:22. These four kingdoms are described in different ways throughout Daniel, beginning with chapter 2 and paralleling with chapter 7, chapter 8 and chapter 11. Since Classical antiquity, expositors on Daniel have offered various identies for each of the "four kingdoms", often with a historicist approach.

Contents 1 Schools of thought 1.1 Roman Empire schema 1.1.1 Use with Book of Revelation 1.1.2 Second temple theory 1.2 Maccabean thesis 2 Traditional views 2.1 Protestant Reformation 2.2 Fifth Monarchists 2.3 Seventh-day Adventist view 3 See also 4 Appendix 5 Footnotes 6 References 6.1 Further reading 7 External links

Schools of thought

Interpretations of the prophetic content of the Book of Daniel differ as to its significance, if any, in historical terms. Some secular historians and certain critics would 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. Idealists, and the advocates of Realized/Sapiential Eschatology, would say that the Book of Daniel is primarily historical, but also significant as godly instruction.

A summary of leading Christian readings of Daniel 7 is in the table in the Daniel 7 Appendix. Many scholars have held that Rome was the fourth beast; a few that the fourth beast was the Ptolemies and Seleucids. From the time of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the 'four monarchies' model became widely used for universal history, in parallel with eschatology, among Protestants. There were still some defenders of 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, based on the distinctive nature of medieval Latin.^[1] The modern historicist interpretations and eschatological views of the Book of Daniel with the Book of Revelation, closely resemble, and are a continuation of, some 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 is in Aemilius Sura,^[2] who is quoted by Velleius Paterculus. 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 from Christian millennarian ideas.)

An interpretation that has become orthodox after Swain^[3] is that the 'four kingdoms' theory became 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 in Herodotus and Ctesias.^[4] This dating and origin has been contested by Mendels, who places it later in the century.^[5]

Jewish Reconstructionists and Full Preterists believe that Daniel is completely fulfilled, and that the believers are now working to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.

Two main schools of thought on the four kingdoms of Daniel, is:

1. The traditionalist view, supports the unison of Medo-Persia and identifies the last kingdom as the Roman Empire.
2. The Maccabean thesis, a view that supports the separation of the Medes from the Persians and identifies the last kingdom as the Seleucid Empire.^[6]

Roman Empire schema

The following interpretation is 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 believe that the kingdoms in Daniel (with variations) are:

1. Neo-Babylonian Empire
2. Medo-Persian Empire
3. Macedonian Empire of Alexander and his successors to the Ptolomaic and Seleucid Empires together, and
4. Roman Empire, with other implications to come later.

This was the scheme described by Jerome in his Commentary on Daniel.^[7] Within this framework there are numerous variations.

Use with Book of Revelation

Christian interpreters typically read the Book of Daniel with the New Testament's Book of Revelation. In Revelation 17:10, John divided the kingdoms the same way as the Jews of his day would have, speaking of five kings that "were" (from Babylon to the Seleucids), one that "is" (the Roman Empire), with a seventh that was "yet to come" which would "become an eighth, but is of the seven." A beast in Revelation 13 was also interpreted as the empire of Rome.^[8] The "city on seven hills" in Revelation is understood by the majority of modern scholarly commentators as a reference to Rome.^{[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]}

Second temple theory

Full Preterists, Idealists, certain Reconstructionists and other non-futurists likewise typically believe in the same general sequence, but they teach that Daniel's prophecies ended with the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, and have little 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.

Maccabean thesis

A typical pre-Roman scheme includes:

1. the Neo-Babylonian period of involvement from c. 587–539 BCE,
2. the Medo and Persian period of involvement from c. 539–332 BCE,
3. the Macedonian period of involvement, starting with Alexander the Great and continuing through the Diadochi from c. 332–305 BCE to
4. the Ptolemaic period of involvement from c. 305–219 BCE, and
5. the Seleucid period of involvement starting with Antiochus III Megas and culimating in the events of the Maccabean Revolt and the confrontation with Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Most secular historians and higher critics, and some contemporary Jewish and Christian scholars, advocate a scheme of interpreting the kingdoms in the Book of Daniel within the context of these kingdoms that had ruled over Judea, for something over 400 years. The Maccabean Revolt concluded with the Jews' victory over the Seleucids on the Day of Nicanor, 161 BC.^[22] This school of interpretation references the development of the Jewish canon, which ended during the Hasmonean period, to date the Book of Daniel.^[23]

Traditional views

The traditional interpretation of the four kingdoms, shared among Jewish and Christian expositors, for over two millennia, is that 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 been supported by the Jewish Talmud, medieval Jewish commentators, Christian Church Fathers, Jerome, and Calvin.^[24]

Jerome specifically identified the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 in this way.^[25] 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.^[26]

During the Medieval ages, the orthodox Christian interpretation followed the commentary by Jerome on the Book of Daniel.^[27] 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.^[28][29] The principle of translatio imperii was used by Otto of Freising, who took the Holy Roman Empire to be the continuation of the Roman Empire (as fourth monarchy).

Protestant Reformation

The eschatological theory of four monarchies was particularly emphasized by a series of Protestant theologians, such as Jerome Zanchius, Joseph Mede, and John Lightfoot.^[30] 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.^[31] 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.^[32][33][1] 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.^[34] 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.^[35]

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.^[37]

Fifth Monarchists

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'.^[38] 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.^[38]

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 Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. They also hold to the traditional view that the "little horn" in Daniel 7:8 and 8:9 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.^[39] The "time, times and half a time" (Daniel 7:25) represents a period of 1260 years spanning 538 CE and 1798 CE, when the Roman Catholic Church dominated the Christian world.^[40] The feet of the statue in Daniel 2, made of mixed iron and clay, represent modern Europe.^[41]

See also

• Book of Daniel
• Daniel Chapter 7

Appendix

Footnotes

References

• 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. 

Further reading

• 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 9780813213101. 

External links

• John H. Walton, "The Four Kingdoms Of Daniel," JETS 29 (1986), 25-36.
• Utopian and Historical Thinking: Interplays and Transferences (PDF)