Daniel 7:1

Practically all scholars, whether liberal or conservative, are convinced that the prophecy of this chapter follows the same pattern as that in Daniel 2, and that the "four beasts" appearing here are to be identified with the four parts of the great image with the head of gold which appeared in Daniel 2. This means also that the same critical errors alleged in their interpretations of Daniel 2 are repeated in this chapter, where against all reason, and opposed to the plainest facts, critical enemies of the Bible insist on identifying the fourth of the world empires prophesied here as that of the Greeks and Macedonians under Alexander the Great.

The greatest minds of human history, as well as many of the intellectual giants of our own millennium, have unanimously and invariably identified the "four beasts" of this chapter as Babylon, Medo-Persia, the Greeks, and the empire of the Romans. Note the following:

"The traditional theory is that the fourth empire is the Roman."[1]

"The common Jewish belief much earlier than the fourth century was that the fourth empire was the Roman."[2]

"The Fourth Book of Esdras (dated near the beginning of the Christian era) describes the Roman power as an eagle and expressly identifies the Roman empire as the fourth beast of Daniel."[3]

The apostle John, as we found in our studies of the Revelation, did not hesitate to identify the beast with the ten horns as Rome.

"The apocalypse of Baruch which was written about 60 B.C. expressly designates Rome as the fourth beast of Daniel."[4]

The Bible teaches that the kingdom of God was to be established in the days of the "fourth beast"; and that of course was during the times of the Roman empire. Trying to force the interpretation that Alexander's kingdom was the fourth beast reduces the prophecy to an absurdity.

"The interpretation commonly received in the church (throughout history) is that these four kingdoms (or beasts) are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman. On this opinion, Martin Luther wrote, 'All the world are agreed, and history and fact abundantly establish it.'"[5]

"Sir Isaac Newton stated that the fourth beast is undoubtedly that of the Roman empire and devoted an entire chapter to his exposition of how the little horn rooted out three of the ten horns."[6]

From the above, it is absolutely clear that when this prophecy is approached intellectually, the traditional and we believe authentic understanding of the prophecy is absolutely valid. The greatest minds of two millenniums could hardly be wrong about what the language says and means. Besides, anyone who will put his mind to the task of discerning what is meant by the words of these chapters (Daniel 2 and Daniel 7) cannot fall to discern the truth.

How then does it come about that the near-unanimous opinion of critical scholars today shifts from the true interpretation? It is very important that this be properly understood.

The a priori bias of the critical schools today which deny the supernatural, reject any such thing as predictive prophecy, reject all ideas of the miraculous, do not believe in the inspiration of Bible writers, and in fact reject every major premise of Christianity, including all of its fundamentals such as the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment - this bias, this necessity which they have taken upon themselves to deny everything in the Bible that contradicts their godless prior assumptions forces them to deny a book like Daniel.

Keil stated that the true understanding of Daniel prevailed until about the end of the last century; but when faith in the supernatural origin and character of Biblical prophecy was shaken by Deism and Rationalism, the prophecy of the Roman Empire under the figure of the fourth best was denied. On what grounds? Here is the logic (?). Since there is no such thing as predictive prophecy, the author of Daniel could not have prophesied anything that he had not seen and witnessed; and, since the very earliest that they dared to allege the date of Daniel had to be placed subsequent to what is prophesied, they misinterpreted clear and undeniable references to the Roman Empire as being references to the empire of Alexander! Then they arbitrarily, and against all evidence and all reason, moved the date of Daniel to the times of the Maccabees (about 165 B.C.). This meant, of course, that Daniel could not have written the book.

The whole fraudulent position of critical enemies of the Bible is apparent in such shenanigans as that!

Furthermore, look at the writings of the whole fraternity of the Bible enemies; there is not an original idea in all of them put together. They are all parroting the same outdated, exploded, disproved and ridiculous arguments that were first advocated a hundred years ago. We are willing to admit this: if one is willing to give up all hope, reject the claims of the Christian religion, and enter upon a sensuous unbelieving existence apart from God and without hope in the world, these critical enemies of God's Word are exactly the crutch that he needs. Any truth in their evil postulations? Certainly not.

Daniel 7:1

"In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream and told the sum of the matters."

"This dream and the visions were special, divinely-imposed revelations from God, as the rest of the chapter shows? We are here dealing, not with an ordinary dream of Daniel, but with a revelation from God.

Some of the inscriptions excavated from Babylon indicate that Nabonidus was actually king, leading to charges that this contradicts the Biblical account where Belshazzar is seen as the king when the nation fells But, as Thomson said, "We now know that for five years during the nominal reign of his father Nabonidus, Belshazzar was acting as king."[9] This solves the difficulty.