- This topic has 135 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
This is a trustworthy saying: If we died with Him, we will also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He will also deny us;
Well, I think this topic has finished. From a biblical perspective, the Medes and Persians were the next kingdom in the statue. They are also the second beast, the bear with two uneven sides.
Daniel and Imperial Bodies
Put simply, Daniel is a book of empires. The first half of the book (chapters 1–6) contains six stories that advocate cooperating with foreign kings as Daniel achieves success in an imperial world. In contrast, the second half of the book (chapters 7–12) details apocalyptic visions, which, in large part, center around the end of empires and their replacement with a divine kingdom. Post-biblical interpreters recognized the imperial focus of the book and similarly used Daniel—whether it be with implicit allusions, explicit references, or entirely rewritten passages—when they wanted to say something, even tangentially, about empires. This deployment of the book of Daniel and its motifs became what I have termed else where as the “Danielic discourse.”An important part of this discourse was the four kingdoms motif, which was a larger Near Eastern motif depicting a series of empires and which was originally distinct from Daniel. In Daniel, both the narrative and the apocalyptic imagery incorporate a series of empires. The royal court shifts from that of the Babylonians (Daniel 1–5) to Darius the Mede’s (Dan 5:31) and then, finally, to Cyrus the Persian’s (Dan 6:28). The same three imperial settings repeat in Daniel 7–12. Beyond the historical setting of the chapters, there are visions in Daniel 2 and 7 that portray a four-part imperial series consisting of Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. Daniel 2 does so with a human-like statue and Daniel 7 with four ferocious beasts. In both chapters, the series is inherently anti-imperial as it envisions the end of the final, Greek empire and its replacement with a fifth, divine kingdom. The final redactions of both chapters appear to be reactions to the unstable political situation in Judea prior to the Maccabean Revolt.
As much as Daniel is a book of empires, however, it is also a book of bodies. The four kingdoms are depicted as bodies—human and animal. This is not a coincidence. In the very first chapter, we are introduced to Daniel and his friends with a focus on their bodies—they are “young men without physical defect and handsome” (Dan 1:4). We learn this even before we are told about their wisdom, even though it is wisdom that enables them to be successful in the foreign court (vv. 17–20). The rest of the story in Daniel 1 continues to concern itself with their bodies. Daniel and his friends eat only vegetables so as not to defile themselves with foreign food and, as a result, “they appeared better and fatter than all the young men” (v. 15). Bodies continue to dominate Daniel—in addition to human bodies forming the shape of statues (Daniel 2 and perhaps Daniel 3), human bodies miraculously survive execution (Daniel 3 and 6), and human bodies can be resurrected from the dead (Dan 12:2). Angelic bodies also appear alongside these human bodies. We read about their clothing (Dan 10:5, 12:6), the light streaming from their eyes and face (Dan 10:6), and how they look like men (Dan 3:5, 8:15).
It is the animal bodies, however, that are arguably the most distinctive and varied throughout the entire book as revealed by the following brief overview:
Daniel refuses to eat animals (1:8–17); there is an attempt to feed him to the animals (6:10–24); the king turns into an animal (4:28–37), and animals run amok in the final visions (7–12). The Greek version of Daniel, with its three additional chapters, returns to the animal; Daniel first uses an explosive pitch-laden brisket to slay a monstrous, fire-breathing dragon, before he (alas, again) survives a den of hungry lions (15:23–40).
What is most remarkable about these animals is that they are always connected to imperial power. In fact, they become the actual embodiment of empire. Empires are animals. The same is true in post-biblical interpretations of Daniel as well as in other texts that are contemporaneous with Daniel. In particular, the four kingdoms motif is also reconfigured with animal imagery. This essay will argue that the beastly four kingdoms is itself its own discourse that evinces a specific outlook on empire.Daniel 7
In Daniel 7, Daniel recounts his vision of four beasts coming up out of the sea (v. 3) and an interpreting angel reveals that they represent four kings (v. 17). At first glance, they serve an obvious function—to terrify Daniel (v. 15). And it is no wonder why. Each of the beasts shares features or behaviors with carnivores. The first is like a lion and has eagle wings (v. 4). The second resembles a bear, but one in the midst of eating as it has ribs hanging out of its mouth and it is commanded to devour (v. 5). The third is like a leopard (v. 6). Although the fourth creature lacks a specific animal comparison, it has horns and “great iron teeth” (v. 7). Like the second beast, the fact that it kills is emphasized—it devours, breaks things into pieces, and stomps whatever is left (v. 7).In addition to being carnivores, these animals are wild. The expectation is that they will kill, maim, damage, and eat. In fact, the lion, the bear and the leopard appear in a prophecy by Hosea in which God declares how Israel, depicted as sheep, will be punished:
So I will become like a lion to them,
like a leopard I will lurk beside the way.
I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs,
and will tear open the covering of their heart;
there I will devour them like a lion,
as a wild animal would mangle them
Hosea 13:7–8
These animals are a metaphor for divine punishment, which, “shows that familiarity with animals supplied the Bible’s writers, not only with positive symbols of care and sustenance, but also frightening symbols of danger. It comes from a world in which the risk of losing domesticated animals to wild ones was real.”Yet, Daniel 7’s animals are more than just dangerous—they are outside of divine creation. While the beasts are stirred up by four winds of heaven (v. 2), they are not divine forces, but harken back to the primordial world. The sea is not the Mediterranean, but the watery chaos that existed before creation. The beasts are like those other primordial creatures that inhabit the sea. In Isaiah, we read of two dragon sea creatures: Leviathan (Isa 27:1) and Rahab (Isa 51:9). The sea itself also must be defeated by God. In Canaanite mythology that battle is personified as Yamm, the sea god, is vanquished by the Ugaritic head god Baal. In the biblical text, the sea comes to represent not an opposing deity, but enemy nations. Thus, having beasts from the sea represent enemy empires fits into these already established biblical motifs.
The absence of God in Daniel 7 further suggests that the beasts’ creation positions them against God. Moreover, the beasts are distorted versions of themselves, making them not only “predators but monsters, composite creatures mutated beyond the natural order.” For example, the third beast has four wings and four heads (v. 6). The beasts of this vision are dangerous not only because of their innate predatory behavior, but because they are embodied chaos, defying the categories of human and animal that make up the ordered world. They must be destroyed and, indeed, later in the vision they are (vv. 11–12).
While other scholars have previously argued that the beasts are meant to symbolize the turmoil that is empire, a focus on animal theory helps us to see how the animals relate to the humans in Daniel. As Walter Benjamin writes: “In an aversion to animals the predominant feeling is fear of being recognized by them through contact. The horror that stirs deep in man is an obscure awareness that in him something lives so akin to the animal that it might be recognized.” In other words, animals remind us that we too are merely animals. This realization is made all the more vivid for Daniel who sees that the beasts display human characteristics.
The first beast is “lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a human being; and a human mind was given to it” (v. 4). With the second, like the first, there is an emphasis on its standing; it is raised up on one side and told to “arise!” (v. 5). The fourth has one horn with “eyes like human eyes” and “a mouth speaking arrogantly” (vv. 8, 20). It is no wonder that Daniel says that “my spirit was troubled within me and the visions of my head terrified me” (v. 15) and, even once the interpretation is given, he still relates, “my thoughts greatly terrified me, and my face turned pale; but I kept the matter in my mind” (v. 28). If we consider this in terms of the four kingdoms motif, then the forecasted history of empires is one that is meant to instill horror in the viewer. Daniel can barely react. This is typical of horror, because “unlike fear, which presents a viable strategy (run!), horror denies flight as an option. And it seems to deny fight as an option too.” This mirrors the passivity of the book’s reaction to empire as a whole, which does not advocate rebellion. Instead, all Daniel can do is wait for the resolution of these imperial eras with the arrival of the envisioned fifth, divine kingdom.
The human-animal boundary, however, remains intact in this vision. In contrast to the semi-human beasts, explicitly human figures will usher in the end of empire. The Ancient of Days, representing God, is depicted as humanlike with white clothing and hair. He sits on a throne to decree judgment upon the beasts (vv. 9–10, 22) and gives final authority to another humanlike figure—the son of man (vv. 13–14). The identity of this figure is much debated. Although some scholars have argued that the son of man should be understood collectively as Israel, given that the Ancient of Days as God is more “mythic-realistic” than symbolic, it makes sense to similarly understand the son of man, who comes in with the clouds of heaven, as a divine being.
Thus, in Daniel 7 there are multiple points represented along an animal-human-divine spectrum. Daniel, clearly human, stands on one end. Alongside of him is all that is divine (i.e., the Ancient of Days and Son of Man), which, while not ontologically human, are associated with Daniel via their human imagery. This parallel ultimately enhances the position of Daniel and all of Israel. On the other side are the empires. Their beastly natures dominate, revealing that they are more animalistic than even known animals. While their occasional human characteristics terrify Daniel, they also serve to underscore that although, in actuality, empires are comprised of human rulers and subjects, they do not merit a human depiction.
Contemporaneous Texts in the Hellenistic Period
Given the turbulence experienced under the Ptolemies and Seleucids and, most particularly, during the reign of Antiochus IV, it is no coincidence, then, that a similar combination of animal imagery and the four kingdoms motif appears in two other texts that are contemporaneous with Daniel—the Testament of Naphtali and the Animal Apocalypse. In the Testament of Naphtali, dated to the second century BCE, Naphtali has a dream in which sacred writing predicts, “Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Elamites, Gelachians, Chaldeans, Syrians shall obtain a share in the twelve staffs of Israel through captivity” (T. Naph. 5:8). While the list consists of more than four empires, the beginning of this list echoes the Assyrian-Median-Persian scheme of Tobit and Sib. Or. 4. The Syrians at the end of the list parallel Daniel’s addition of the Greeks to the four kingdom series. The Testament further associates this imperial sequence with a hybrid animal. Before the sacred writing, there appears a vision of “a bull on the earth with two great horns and an eagle’s wings on his back” (T. Naph. 5:6). Given the imperial concerns of the dream, it is plausible that the bull with the horns represents the Seleucids and the Ptolemies and the eagle represents the rising power of the Romans. As in Daniel 7, the seer cannot control this beast, saying, “we wished to seize him, but could not” (T. Naph. 5:6). Instead, like the son of man, it takes an esteemed human figure to conquer the beast—“Joseph came, and seized him, and ascended up with him on high” (T. Naph. 5:7).An even more extensive version of the animalistic four kingdoms motif appears in the Animal Apocalypse, 1 Enoch 85–90, which dates to 164–160 BCE at the end of the Maccabean Revolt. This apocalypse details one of Enoch’s dreams as he retells it to his son Methuselah. Encompassing the entire course of history, the dream begins with an abbreviated recounting of the Watchers’s rebellion (1 En. 86–88) from 1 Enoch 7. In particular, the myth of Shemiḥazah is retold with the Watchers as stars and the humans as cattle grazing. The fallen stars turn into bulls, so that they are able to impregnate the cows. As in 1 Enoch 7, the mating results in distinct progeny. Instead of giants, however, the cows give birth to elephants, camels, and asses. Although these animals in and of themselves are not unnatural, the fact that they are a different species from the cattle who give birth to them and different from one another evokes a sense of disorder similar to what we saw with the hybrid animals in Daniel 7 and the Testament of Naphtali. The behavior of these offspring is also disturbing. Although they are naturally herbivores, they begin to act like carnivores as they “bite with their teeth and devour and gore with their horns” all of the cattle (1 En. 86:5). The offspring then turn on one another (1 En. 87:1). As a result, the response is the same as in Daniel 7—horror. The “sons of the earth began to tremble” (1 En. 86:6) and even the earth itself “began to cry out” (1 En. 87:1).
The elephants, camels, and asses (presumably those that have not yet been killed) are punished with the flood (1 En. 89:6). However, unnatural births continue afterwards, suggesting that something of the original three animals remains. Three bulls, the sons of Noah, begin “to beget wild beasts and birds, so that there arose from them every kind of species: lions, leopards, wolves, dogs, hyenas, wild boars, foxes, conies, pigs, falcons, vultures, kites, eagles, and ravens” (1 En. 89:10). These animals represent the foreign nations of Genesis 10. Like the elephants, camels, and asses, these nations, who are all either predators or scavengers, behave in a vicious manner, biting one another (1 En. 89:11). In turn, some of these nations are empires. For example, the lions and leopards that “devoured and swallowed up most of those sheep” and then “burnt down that tower and demolished that house” (1 En. 89:66) are an allusion to the Babylonians and their destruction of the Temple. The return from exile under Persia follows, but soon eagles began to “devour those sheep and peck out their eyes and devour their flesh” (1 En. 90:2). These are the Greeks under Alexander the Great, who then divide into the Ptolemies, as kites (1 En. 90:2, 4, 11, 13, 16), and the Seleucids, as ravens (1 En. 90:2, 8, 9, 11, 12). The association of the animals with empires is further underscored by the division of animals into four imperial periods, which consist of seventy consecutive “hours” (1 En. 89:72) and are allotted to the care of seventy shepherds. After we read about the destruction of the Temple, the Babylonian period concludes with the statement that “the shepherds were pasturing for twelve hours” (1 En. 89:72). Twenty-three shepherds are allotted to the Persian period (1 En. 89:72). Twenty-three shepherds also correspond to the Ptolemies and, finally, twelve to the Seleucids. This four-part division uses the four kingdoms motif and populates it once more with wild animals.
Thus, we can trace a distinct line from the giants to the first nations to the four empires via their animal symbols, all of which are violent and unnaturally begotten. For the author of the Animal Apocalypse, the implicit message appears to be that the voraciousness of the empires in his present day has its origins in the voraciousness of the giants before the flood. The connection between the antediluvian and post diluvian animals is confirmed by the explicit parallelism of their demise. The antediluvian animals are given a sword to destroy each other (1 En. 88:2), and then they “sank to the bottom” during the flood (1 En. 89:6). Similarly, the post diluvian, imperial animals are also destroyed by sinking into the earth (1 En. 90:18) and by a sword (1 En. 90:19). This lineage underscores the degree to which the empires are ungodly. They stem from the same divine disobedience enacted by the Watchers.
As in Daniel 7 and the Testament of Naphtali, the emphasis on zoomorphic symbols also highlights by contrast the human figures in the text. Since all humans are symbolized as animals in the apocalypse, any humans, in turn, represent angelic beings. The seventy shepherds mentioned above are given power from God to either to protect or to destroy the sheep, or Israel (1 En. 89:59–61). The shepherds do this via the beasts. For example, the shepherds “abandoned those sheep into the hands of the lions. And the lions and leopards devoured and swallowed up most of those sheep” (1 En. 89:65–66). The shepherds are overzealous in their destruction (1 En. 89:61–64), so seven white men, another group of angels, throw them into a fiery abyss (1 En. 90:24–25). It is clear that imperial power is merely an illusion. The interplay of empires is only a reflection of the true power, divine power, as embodied by the humans in the text.
After considering these three texts from the Hellenistic period—Daniel, Testament of Naphtali and Animal Apocalypse—a few aspects of the animalistic four kingdom motif become apparent. Firstly, the animals are all dangerous. Either they are predators, like the lion or the leopard, or they behave wildly, like the bull. The obvious implication is that empires are powerful and apt to destroy those whom they subjugate. Secondly, all of the animals are unnatural. They are either hybrids or have unnatural origins, making them as much monsters as animals. The implication here is that empires are ungodly. They are not part of what should be a divine, ordered world. Moreover, they instill horror. They are unlike any power that has been experienced and so there is no recourse but to wait out the time of empires. Finally, by focusing on the animals our attention is by default honed in on that which is human in the text. The “humans,” even when they represent the angelic, serve to end the four kingdoms. Thus, that which has the power to end empires is antithetical to empires. A binary between animal/human serves to underscore a similar binary between imperial kingdom/divine kingdom.
Roman Period Texts
A change to the neat binary between animal/human, however, occurs in the Roman period. In the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple and under the full weight of Roman imperial rule, two texts—Fourth Ezra and the book of Revelation—continue to use animal imagery to allude to empires. However, they alter the four kingdoms to focus in on one kingdom and they abandon the animal/human binary entirely.The Fourth Book of Ezra (4 Ezra) is a reaction to the destruction of the Second Temple, dating to post-70 CE. Thus, even though the text sounds as if it comes from Ezra of the First Temple era, it actually responds to the imperial rule of the Romans. In 4 Ezra 11–12, Ezra dreams of an eagle with twelve wings and three heads that comes up from the sea (4 Ezra 11:1), a clear echo of the beginning of Daniel 7. The eagle is specifically identified as the fourth beast (4 Ezra 11:40). The author of 4 Ezra must have realized that the fourth beast of Daniel, the Greek Empire, was neither destroyed nor replaced by the anticipated divine kingdom. Instead, the Roman Empire superseded it. As a result, Daniel’s fourth beast was no longer relevant, but needed to be re-imagined as the most powerful beast yet—an eagle. This eagle, in turn, “conquered all the beasts that have gone before” (4 Ezra 11:40). While it is unclear whether the fourth beast was responsible for defeating the other beasts in Daniel 7, there is no such confusion in 4 Ezra.
Less explicitly, however, the eagle’s characteristics incorporate those of the first three beasts in such a way that it appears to have subsumed (or consumed?) them into itself. The eagle resembles the first beast who had the wings of an eagle (Dan 7:4) and the third beast who had wings like a bird (Dan 7:6). The third beast also has multiple heads like the eagle (although four instead of three). Other attributes are echoed, but inverted. While the cosmic winds create the beasts in Daniel 7, the eagle controls the elements, spreading “his wings over all the earth and all the winds of heaven blew upon him and the clouds were gathered about him” (4 Ezra 11:2). Daniel’s third beast received dominion (Dan 7:6), but the eagle takes it for itself: “The eagle flew with his wings to reign over the earth and over those who dwell in it. And I saw how all things under heaven were subjected to him and no one spoke against him” (4 Ezra 11:5–6). In Daniel, the first beast “was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a human being” (Dan 7:4), and the second beast “was raised up on one side” (Dan 7:5). The eagle, in contrast, stands by itself as it “rose upon his talons” (4 Ezra 11:7). Instead of receiving endorsement from an external voice (Dan 7:5), the eagle uses its own voice: “[The eagle] uttered a cry to his wings, saying, ‘Do not all watch at the same time; let each sleep in his own place, and watch in his turn, but let the heads be reserved for the last’” (4 Ezra 11:7–11). The inversion of these beastly characteristics makes the eagle appear more powerful than any of Daniel’s three beasts, who seem passive by comparison.
In addition to amplifying the power of the eagle, the author of 4 Ezra has done something that we have not seen thus far with the four kingdoms motif—he has collapsed it into one kingdom. That one, in turn, is all the stronger for subsuming the identities of the previous three; it commands the winds, it seizes dominion, it rises up, it speaks. The fourth kingdom—the eagle—is not just the most powerful empire, it is ultimately the only one.
Yet, the author does not stop there. As we have seen, the Jewish renditions of the four kingdoms motif have been used to convey an anti-imperial message and the author of 4 Ezra is no different. Although the eagle appears to be far more powerful than any of Daniel’s beasts, a further comparison with them reveals that it is doomed. In Daniel, a voice speaks to the second beast encouraging it to be oppressive—“Arise, devour much meat!” (Dan 7:5). In contrast, when a voice speaks to the eagle, it forecasts its eventual demise: “Hear me, you who have ruled the earth all this time. I announce this to you before you disappear. After you no one shall rule as long as you, or even half as long” (4 Ezra 11:16–17). The second beast in Daniel has three ribs in its mouth (v. 5) and the fourth beast has great iron teeth that it uses to eat (Dan 7:7). The eagle, in contrast, devours itself as “the head turned with those that were with it and devoured the two little wings which were planning to reign” (Dan 11:31) and “the head on the right side devoured the one on the left” (Dan 11:35). The total dominion of the eagle, therefore, only serves to forecast its total destruction. Indeed, we read that its whole body is burnt up (4 Ezra 12:3). Herein lies the motivation behind collapsing the four kingdoms into one: with the eagle’s destruction, the author of 4 Ezra is able to affirm the end of the entire phenomenon of empire, not just one, individual empire.
The specific identification of the kingdom as an eagle gives added force to this altered four kingdom motif. The Romans themselves often equated their rule with the eagle. For example, in 106 BCE, Consul Marius made the eagle the sole symbol of the Roman army’s legions as part of his military reform. Josephus informs us that this symbol was known to those in Judea: “Next the ensigns surrounding the eagle, which in the Roman army precedes every legion, because it is the king and the bravest of all birds; it is regarded by them as the symbol of empire, and whoever may be their adversaries, an omen of victory” (J.W. 3.123). The eagle, then, works precisely because it epitomizes the overwhelming nature of Roman power.
The collapsing of the four kingdoms motif into a one kingdom motif also occurs in another text that reacts to Roman rule—the book of Revelation. Dating to the early 90s CE, its eschatological character and its references to Daniel mean that the book should be considered alongside Jewish apocalypses. In Revelation 12, a dragon that represents Satan stands on the shore (12:18) and then a beast with ten horns and seven heads comes forth (13:1). The dragon then gives the beast his power and his throne and authority (v. 2). In Revelation 17, the seven heads are interpreted as “seven mountains … and they are also seven kings” (17:9–10). The seven mountains are those seven hills upon which Rome was famously built. The beast, therefore, represents imperial power and, more specifically, the Roman Empire.
Images from the four beasts of Daniel 7 figure prominently in the description of the beast. They all rise out of the sea (Rev 13:1). Revelation’s beast has ten horns (Rev 13:1) like the fourth beast (Dan 7:7) and a total of seven heads (Rev 13:1) like all four beasts combined. The beast also has features of a leopard, a bear and a lion (Rev 13:2), paralleling the first three beasts in Daniel (Dan 7:4–6). The beast in Revelation speaks “haughty and blasphemous words” (Rev 13:5) just as the smallest horn of the fourth beast speaks “great things” against God (Dan 7:8, 20). Both Rev 13:7 and Dan 7:21 involve the beast making war against the holy ones. Finally, the beast’s authority will last for forty-two months (Rev 13:5), which is equivalent to three and a half years, the same amount of time that the holy ones in Daniel will be oppressed by the small horn (Dan 7:25). Like the eagle of 4 Ezra, characteristics of all the beasts of Daniel 7 have been subsumed into one beast.
The collapsing of the multiple kingdoms is further symbolized by the whore, identified as “Babylon the great” (Rev 17:5), who rides on the beast. The physical conjoining of the Roman beast and the Babylonian whore signifies the enfolding of the two into one enduring imperial phenomenon. Babylon is Rome: “the representation of Rome as a foreign, peripheral creature … is coupled seamlessly with the depiction of Rome as a wanton prostitute. Beast and Babylon, monsters both, must together submit to the divine will.” This is the same reason that in 4 Ezra the experiences of the author under the Roman Empire can be writ onto Ezra’s own experience in the world of the Babylonian Empire. The fates of the beast of Revelation and the eagle of 4 Ezra are also the same. The horns of the beast “will devour [the whore’s] flesh and burn her up with fire” (Rev 17:16). Since the whore is subsumed into the beast that is Rome, then Rome destroys itself. In a striking parallel, the eagle does the same—both devour themselves and then are burned up (Rev 17:6; 4 Ezra 11:35; 12:3). Revelation also shares with 4 Ezra the notion that the empire’s vast might only serves to ensure its total demise. Because of this, the four kingdoms motif is turned into a “one kingdom” motif.
Both texts also do away with the animal/human binary that was so explicit in the earlier, Greek period texts. The beast’s ten horns fight against an opponent known as the Lamb, who is the “Lord of lords and King of kings” (Rev 17:14). The Lamb, of course, symbolizes the messiah. Similarly, in 4 Ezra, a lion foretells the death of the eagle (11:45–46). The lion is similarly identified as the messiah (4 Ezra 12:32). Unlike Daniel 7’s son of man, the Testament of Naphtali’s Joseph, or the Animal Apocalypse’s shepherds and white men, the entities that signal the end of empire are not depicted as humans. Instead, the entities—the lion and the lamb—that stand in opposition to the empire are much more like the beastly empires. In fact, 4 Ezra’s lion, much like the eagle, is a bit of a hybrid, having a man’s voice (4 Ezra 11:37). Revelation’s lamb, like the beast it goes to war with, has horns as well as multiple eyes (Rev 5:6).
Conclusion
By paying attention to the four kingdoms, we gain insight into how the paradigm was replicated to speak about empire in different texts in early Judaism. But, more significantly, we see how changes to the paradigm signal a shift in the way the imperial phenomenon was conceived. The understanding of the four empires of Daniel 7, the Testament of Naphtali and the Animal Apocalypse could not be sustained in the Roman period. Perhaps Rome was just too powerful or the destruction of the Second Temple and the loss of the Roman Revolt were too traumatic. Whatever the reasons, the authors of 4 Ezra and Revelation chose to portray empire as one, collective kingdom.Additionally, by paying heed to the animal imagery incorporated into the four kingdoms motif, we see that, as Lévi-Strauss argued, animals are “good to think” with. All of these writers share a common set of imagery—empires were unnatural and fearsome beasts unlike any in the known world. This is precisely what a discourse does—it governs the production of truth in a society. This discourse was able to imagine new creatures. Some were based on the animals encountered by an agricultural society and others, like the eagle, mimicked the very images of imperialism itself. Empire as a phenomenon is nowhere conceptualized as one, particular animal. Even the Animal Apocalypse, which uses the most straightforward animal depictions, characterizes empires variously as lions, leopards, eagles, vultures, kites, and ravens. The depictions of empires are all quite literally hybrids—a mixture of beasts—as well as hybrid products that appear to “affirm the authority of the dominant culture … but at another level by creating something inevitably different it unsettles and even mocks the supposed superiority of the colonial/imperial power.” In other words, this animal discourse is playing into the empire’s own view of itself—of course, it is powerful—but by distorting the beastly images, these texts undermine that power. Not coincidentally, this is how the four kingdoms motif itself works. In its original formation by the Persians, it was intended to convey that Persian universal rule was inevitable as it followed on the heels of Assyria and Media. The Romans ended up doing the same, adding themselves and the earlier Greeks to the series. As we have seen, however, when Jewish writers got a hold of this motif, they introduced a different ending—a divine kingdom that would usurp power—and, in this way, they changed a motif that served as imperial propaganda into anti-imperial rhetoric.
The writers also created truth with this discourse by complicating the animal-human binary. In writing about resistance to hegemony in Daniel and the Animal Apocalypse, Anathea Portier-Young argues, “the very binary nature of the hegemonic construction of reality …(inside/outside, center/periphery, good/bad, civilized/barbaric, normal/aberrant) also creates the possibility for resistance to hegemony through critical inversion, wherein categories are retained but the hierarchy of values or assignment of value is turned upside down.” The example she gives is that of the Christian cross, which was transformed from a symbol of death to a symbol of redemption from death. This is what happens in Daniel, the Testament of Naphtali, and the Animal Apocalypse with the two, parallel binaries of animal/human and empire/subjugated. All three texts maintain a distinction between human and animal, but the binary of empire/subjugated is consistently inverted. To use Portier-Young’s categories, the empire, despite what imperial ideology might want to convey, is an animal and as such it is barbaric, not civilized, it is aberrant, not normal, and it is bad, not good. Most significantly, since the human (i.e., the representation of a divine entity) brings about the end of the fearsome beast, imperial power is up-ended; the empire is weak whereas the subjugated Jewish people and their God are strong.
In the two Roman period texts, however, the binary between animal and human is removed. If the hegemonic construction of reality is based on binaries, then the authors of Revelation and 4 Ezra have dissolved the reality of an imperial world entirely. The empire and the Jewish people are both animals. They are on the same playing field, if you will. Moreover, by collapsing the four beasts into one, then that one beast is necessarily all-encompassing. Thus, the eagle and the beast with the whore are, in a sense, larger than life. However, the final lesson of the four kingdom qua one kingdom motif seems to be that the larger they are, the harder they fall.
Medo-Persian Alliance
The Book of Daniel considers Media and Persia as one. In this verse it is represented as a single ram. It has two horns to represent the kings of Media and Persia.
Daniel 8:20
The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat represents the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king.The Book of Daniel considers Media and Persia as one. In this verse it is represented as a single ram. It has two horns to represent the kings of Media and Persia.
Daniel 8:20
The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat represents the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king.Hi Proclaimer, so you can not come out of this great dilemma of second kingdom the Medo-Persia, a single kingdom? But the writer of Daniel clearly distinguished the kingdoms of Media and Persia in his book as per Dan 5:
30 That very night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
Dan 6:
1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred twenty satraps, stationed throughout the whole kingdom, 2 and over them three presidents, including Daniel; to these the satraps gave account, so that the king might suffer no loss.
28 So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Dan 9:
1 In the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans
Dan 11:
1 As for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to support and strengthen him.
And he clearly distinguished the kingdom of Persia from Media..
Dan 6:
28 So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Dan 10:
1 In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia,
20 Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Now I must return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I am through with him, the prince of Greece will come.
Dan 11:
1 As for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to support and strengthen him.
2 “Now I will announce the truth to you. Three more kings shall arise in Persia. The fourth shall be far richer than all of them, and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece. 3 Then a warrior king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and take action as he pleases. 4 And while still rising in power, his kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be uprooted and go to others besides these.
The above clearly distinguishes the three kingdoms,viz. Media, Persia and Greece. Whole of chap 11 talks about the divided kingdom of Greece, the Northern and Southern Empire and no Rome here.
If you want to ignore these facts you are free to do the same.
And where is your so called fourth kingdom Rome in this book? No answer
Proclaimer…….I certainly hope I don’t meet the Jesus you and other false teachers here preach, that’s for sure, ” for “MANY” shall come, in my name saying I am Christ and, DECEIVE, “MANY” .
I WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED , about that if I were you, then rather, if I will meet Jesus, my lord, in the Air or not.
peace and love to you and yours…………gene
Proclaimer…….I certainly hope I don’t meet the Jesus you and other false teachers here preach, that’s for sure, ” for “MANY” shall come, in my name saying I am Christ and, DECEIVE, “MANY” .
I WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED , about that if I were you, then rather, if I will meet Jesus, my lord, in the Air or not.
Yes brother Gene, the one who judges others is questionable in a religion.
Adam…….Especially those who don’t know who “their first love is supposed to be”.
Rev 2:4.peace and love to you and yours Adam …………gene
Hi Proclaimer, so you can not come out of this great dilemma of second kingdom the Medo-Persia, a single kingdom? But the writer of Daniel clearly distinguished the kingdoms of Media and Persia in his book as per Dan 5:
I cannot come out of the truth. Calling it a dilemma is your own biased opinion. Scripture is clear, that in multiple examples, the Medes and Persians have an alliance and are considered one. We see it first in the statue, then in the bear, and finally the ram. In all these examples, we see a single empire with two sides to it. Whereas, you take the fact that the book details each as some how negating this alliance.
I think you have lost all credibility here gadam. It is obvious that you are more interested in hiding this truth at all costs than searching for the truth about what the Book of Daniel is telling us. Even if you do not believe, you still have the choice to represent what is written in a just and fair way. But you do not. When a person does that, it exposes their motives and by extension, their heat is revealed. Such a person deceives himself.
The above clearly distinguishes the three kingdoms,viz. Media, Persia and Greece. Whole of chap 11 talks about the divided kingdom of Greece, the Northern and Southern Empire and no Rome here.
And again. An alliance doesn’t negate that you can talk about each party in the alliance. That is simple logic. How come you never thought of that? Could biased eyes be blinding you?
Case Closed
As I have said before. This topic is done and dusted. It has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Book of Daniel considers the Medes and the Persians as a kingdom united or as an alliance. The symbols show us this clearly. The fact that each might be addressed separately here and there does not negate this fact one bit. We see a breakdown of kings and so why not a breakdown of the king of the Medes and the King of the Persians.
Anyone who wants to continue to debate this fact from here on out is making decisions based on emotions because the text is clear if you are rational.
And again. An alliance doesn’t negate that you can talk about each party in the alliance. That is simple logic. How come you never thought of that? Could biased eyes be blinding you?
Which Alliance you are talking about? There is no alliance in the verses I quoted above. You want to escape from those clear verses showing the four kingdoms as Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece. No Rome in the whole of the book. You are simply forcing your so called fundamentalist views on the book to prove that those predictions are for the distant future. Many had utterly failed in the past like the Millerites and Adventists who took the Numerology of the book for the distant future.
Finally I ask you, can you interpret the Chap 11 of Daniel honestly?
Meaning, symbolism and chronology of Daniel
The message of the Book of Daniel is that, just as the God of Israel saved Daniel and his friends from their enemies, so he would save all Israel in their present oppression. The book is filled with monsters, angels, and numerology, drawn from a wide range of sources, both biblical and non-biblical, that would have had meaning in the context of 2nd-century Jewish culture, and while Christian interpreters have always viewed these as predicting events in the New Testament—”the Son of God”, “the Son of Man”, Christ and the Antichrist—the book’s intended audience is the Jews of the 2nd century BCE. The following explains a few of these predictions, as understood by modern biblical scholars.
The four kingdoms and the little horn (Daniel 2 and 7): The concept of four successive world empires stems from Greek theories of mythological history. Most modern interpreters agree that the four represent Babylon, the Medes, Persia and the Greeks, ending with Hellenistic Seleucid Syria and with Hellenistic Ptolemaic Egypt. The traditional interpretation of the dream identifies the four empires as the Babylonian (the head), Medo-Persian (arms and shoulders), Greek (thighs and legs), and Roman (the feet) empires. The symbolism of four metals in the statue in chapter 2 comes 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 symbolise the same four world empires. The modern interpretation views Antiochus IV (reigned 175–164 BCE) as the “small (little) horn” that uproots three others (Antiochus usurped the rights of several other claimants to become king of the Seleucid Empire).
The Ancient of Days and the one like a son of man (Daniel 7): The portrayal of God in Daniel 7:13 resembles the portrayal of the Canaanite god El as an ancient divine king presiding over the divine court. The “Ancient of Days” gives dominion over the earth to “one like a son of man”, and then in Daniel 7:27 to “the people of the holy ones of the Most High”, whom scholars consider the son of man to represent. These people can be understood as the maskilim (sages), or as the Jewish people broadly. The ram and he-goat (Daniel 8) as conventional astrological symbols represent Persia and Syria, as the text explains. The “mighty horn” stands for Alexander the Great (reigned 336–323 BCE) and the “four lesser horns” represent the four principal generals (Diadochi) who fought over the Greek empire following Alexander’s death. The “little horn” again represents Antiochus IV. The key to the symbols lies in the description of the little horn’s actions: he ends the continual burnt offering and overthrows the Sanctuary, a clear reference to Antiochus’ desecration of the Temple.
The anointed ones and the seventy years (Chapter 9): Daniel reinterprets Jeremiah’s “seventy years” prophecy regarding the period Israel would spend in bondage to Babylon. From the point of view of the Maccabean era, Jeremiah’s promise was obviously not true—the gentiles still oppressed the Jews, and the “desolation of Jerusalem” had not ended. Daniel therefore reinterprets the seventy years as seventy “weeks” of years, making up 490 years. The 70 weeks/490 years are subdivided, with seven “weeks” from the “going forth of the word to rebuild and restore Jerusalem” to the coming of an “anointed one”, while the final “week” is marked by the violent death of another “anointed one”, probably the High Priest Onias III (ousted to make way for Jason and murdered in 171 BCE), and the profanation of the Temple. The point of this for Daniel is that the period of gentile power is predetermined, and is coming to an end.
Kings of north and south: Chapters 10 to 12 concern the war between these kings, the events leading up to it, and its heavenly meaning. In chapter 10 the angel (Gabriel?) explains that there is currently a war in heaven between Michael, the angelic protector of Israel, and the “princes” (angels) of Persia and Greece; then, in chapter 11, he outlines the human wars which accompany this—the mythological concept sees standing behind every nation a god/angel who does battle on behalf of his people, so that earthly events reflect what happens in heaven. The wars of the Ptolemies (“kings of the south”) against the Seleucids (“kings of the north”) are reviewed down to the career of Antiochus the Great (Antiochus III (reigned 222–187 BCE), father of Antiochus IV), but the main focus is Antiochus IV, to whom more than half the chapter is devoted. The accuracy of these predictions lends credibility to the real prophecy with which the passage ends, the death of Antiochus—which, in the event, was not accurate.Predicting the end-time (Daniel 8:14 and 12:7–12): Biblical eschatology does not generally give precise information as to when the end will come, and Daniel’s attempts to specify the number of days remaining is a rare exception. Daniel asks the angel how long the “little horn” will be triumphant, and the angel replies that the Temple will be reconsecrated after 2300 “evenings and mornings” have passed (Daniel 8:14). The angel is counting the two daily sacrifices, so the period is 1150 days from the desecration in December 167. In chapter 12 the angel gives three more dates: the desolation will last “for a time, times and half a time”, or a year, two years, and a half a year (Daniel 12:8); then that the “desolation” will last for 1290 days (12:11); and finally, 1335 days (12:12). Verse 12:11 was presumably added after the lapse of the 1150 days of chapter 8, and 12:12 after the lapse of the number in 12:11
The Little Horn and the Historical Background for Daniel 11
The visions of chapters 7–12 reflect the crisis which took place in Judea in 167–164 BCE when Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Greek king of the Seleucid Empire, threatened to destroy traditional Jewish worship in Jerusalem. When Antiochus came to the throne in 175 BCE the Jews were largely pro-Seleucid. The High Priestly family was split by rivalry, and one member, Jason, offered the king a large sum to be made High Priest. Jason also asked—or more accurately, paid—to be allowed to make Jerusalem a polis, or Greek city. This meant, among other things, that city government would be in the hands of the citizens, which meant in turn that citizenship would be a valuable commodity, to be purchased from Jason. None of this threatened the Jewish religion, and the reforms were widely welcomed, especially among the Jerusalem aristocracy and the leading priests. Three years later Jason was deposed when another priest, Menelaus, offered Antiochus an even larger sum for the post of High Priest.
Antiochus invaded Egypt twice, in 169 BCE with success, but on the second incursion, in late 168 BCE, he was forced to withdraw by the Romans. Jason, hearing a rumour that Antiochus was dead, attacked Menelaus to take back the High Priesthood. Antiochus drove Jason out of Jerusalem, plundered the Temple, and introduced measures to pacify his Egyptian border by imposing complete Hellenisation: the Jewish Book of the Law was prohibited and on 15 December 167 BCE an “abomination of desolation”, probably a Greek altar, was introduced into the Temple. With the Jewish religion now clearly under threat a resistance movement sprang up, led by the Maccabee brothers, and over the next three years it won sufficient victories over Antiochus to take back and purify the Temple.
The crisis which the author of Daniel addresses is the defilement of the altar in Jerusalem in 167 BCE (first introduced in chapter 8:11): the daily offering which used to take place twice a day, at morning and evening, stopped, and the phrase “evenings and mornings” recurs through the following chapters as a reminder of the missed sacrifices. But whereas the events leading up to the sacking of the Temple in 167 BCE and the immediate aftermath are remarkably accurate, the predicted war between the Syrians and the Egyptians (11:40–43) never took place, and the prophecy that Antiochus would die in Palestine (11:44–45) was inaccurate (he died in Persia). The obvious conclusion is that the account must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164 BCE, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem, and the consensus of modern scholarship is accordingly that the book dates to the period 167–163 BCE.
Which Alliance you are talking about? There is no alliance in the verses I quoted above. You want to escape from those clear verses showing the four kingdoms as Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece.
Oh, maybe you missed it? Lol.
“This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold. “After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours.
TEKEL means that you have been weighed on the scales and found deficient. PERES means that your kingdom has been divided and given over to the Medes and Persians.
Boom!
I think you can do it gadam. I think you have what it takes to see what it is saying here.
Lol.
TEKEL means that you have been weighed on the scales and found deficient. PERES means that your kingdom has been divided and given over to the Medes and Persians.
Boom!
I think you can do it gadam. I think you have what it takes to see what it is saying here.
I don’t mis any thing here. I am only bringing to your kind notice that the Media was a separate kingdom apart from Persia as narrated in the book of Daniel. I have already quoted those clear verses for you earlier.
Dan 5:
30 That very night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was killed. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
Dan 9:
1 In the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans
So Media was the second kingdom after the First, the Babylonian as per Dan 2 which was inferior. History shows that Persia was not inferior to Babylon and was a worldwide kingdom unlike Babylon which was similar to the Third kingdom of Dan 2.
Do you need any further proof ?
Forget about second kingdom, please let me know your commentary on Dan 11….
The point is that the kingdom was given to the Medes and the Persians. Whether Darius received it and the Persian counterpart at the same time or one after another, it makes no difference to the metal in the statue. And that is what this is about. The metal in the statue (torso with two arms), the second beast (lopsided bear), and the ram with two horns are the Medes and the Persians.
You can go on all you like about the Medes and the Persians, but none of that changes the facts that the Book of Daniel considers them the second empire.
Adam……..proclaimer is right on this one, the Second Babylonian type kingdom to arise was the Medo/Persian kingdoms, mentioned in the prophesy of Daniel 2 . The Chest and Arms of Silver.
But he is wrong about the Legs of Iron and Clay, being part of the Roman Empire . All the kingdoms are only connected to each other by the way they Economically function down to this very day, the sixth Kingdom of Jesus and the Saint’s will function economically completely different then they do now. The connection to the Babylonian type of governance will be completely broken, for a thousand years and then reappear for a short time for the Seventh Babylonian kingdom on this earth which is a revision of the original Five types of Babylonian type of kingdoms, that existed before the Sixth kingdom of Jesus and the Saint’s .
Then out of the Seventh Babylonian type kingdom comes the Eight kingdom of rule consisting of ten kings under Satan, which shall completely destroy the Seventh Babylonian type kingdom, and turn and attack Jesus and the Saint’s at Jerusalem and fire will come down from Heaven and destroy the ten nations and their armies , and Satan who leads them will be cast into the lake if fire and go into perdition. For ever.
And the Father returns to earth and the kingdom of Jesus and the Saint’s will be turned over to him and all will become subject to God the Father for ever and ever, including Jesus’ himself, who always was subject to him anyway.
Peace and love to you and yours Adam………..gene
But he is wrong about the Legs of Iron and Clay, being part of the Roman Empire . All the kingdoms are only connected to each other by the way they Economically function down to this very day
Each kingdom is succeeded by the next. So the Medes and Persians took the kingdom from Babylon. Then Greece took the kingdom. That leaves the next kingdom. Who conquered Greece?
It’s really quite simple. It was the Roman Empire. Ask any historian. Further, it fits the legs of iron too. Rome actually had two legs. East and West. And it was by all accounts a terrible beast. Jesus can tell you about it. He lived in the time of that beast.
Gene
But he is wrong about the Legs of Iron and Clay, being part of the Roman Empire .
Gene
IT’S THE FEET AND TOES THAT ARE IN IRON AND CLAY, NOT THE LEGS
And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
[42] And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
[43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.ON THE OTHER HAND IRON AND CLAY CAME OUT OF THE FOURTH EMPIRE (ROME)
DANIEL 7 CONFIRMS THIS:
[23]Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. 👇
[24] And the ten horns out of this kingdom(the FOURTH) are ten kings that shall arise:
THESE TEN HORNS(Daniel 7)= TEN TOES OF THE TWO FEET(Daniel 2)
and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
