Daniel was one of many Hebrew young men in particular taken captive by the Babylonians. He had been very well educated in his native Israel which is why he as well as others were chosen to be trained for service in the Babylonian king's household. This was a dark time for the people of Israel, and the Babylonian Captivity was a judgment by God upon them for forsaking His Commandments and instructions. God had forewarned Israel many times prior to this.
"Belteshazzar" was the Babylonian name given to Daniel, which undoubtedly referred to a Chaldean deity. Daniel's writings cover the Israeli Captivity under Babylon and also the Mede-Persian Empires. He served under several kings and was always favored for his wisdom, which he attributed to God.
In chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a statue made of four different materials, identified as four kingdoms:
In chapter 7, Daniel has a vision of four beasts coming up out of the sea, and is told that they represent four kingdoms:
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."
From the time of the "Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, the "four monarchies" model became widely used by all for "universal history, in parallel with "eschatology, among Protestants. Some continued to defend its use in universal history in the early 18th century.
"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 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 from Christian "millennarian ideas.)
An interpretation that became orthodox["citation needed] 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 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:
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.
"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.
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).
A series of Protestant theologians, such as "Jerome Zanchius (1516–1590), "Joseph Mede (1586–1639), and "John Lightfoot (1602–1675), particularly emphasized the eschatological theory of four monarchies. Mede and other writers (such as "William Guild (1586–1657), Edward Haughton and "Nathaniel Stephens (c.1606–1678)) 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 that 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.
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.)|