When the judge asked the man why he parked in a no parking
zone, the man replied that the sign said, "Fine for parking." Most of
the mistakes made in life are due to false interpretation of words and
symbols. We read into to words what is not intended by their
author. When Jesus said that He had meat to eat that they knew not
of, His disciples thought He meant that He had gotten something to
eat from some other source. Jesus was saying, however, that His
meat was to do the will of His Father in heaven. Meat was being
used to refer to soul food, and the drive and energy He received from
doing God's will. They misunderstood Jesus also when He said they
should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. He meant their
teaching, but they thought He was talking about literal bread.
Nicodemus also jumped to an overly literal conclusion and
wondered how one could enter again into his mother's womb and be
born again. We could go on and show that within the Bible itself
there are many misunderstandings because of improper
interpretation of language. Interpretation is important, for one does
not really know what words mean until he interprets them so as to
understand the message their author meant to communicate.
Sometimes words can mean several different things, and only the
context can make it clear which is the true meaning. For example,
the sign that said, "Fine for parking," on a public street will mean
there is a penalty for parking there. If you send a group on ahead to
select some good camp sights in the woods and you come upon a sign
tacked to a tree which says, "Fine for parking," you can be assured
that in that context it means this is a good spot to park. The very
same words convey opposite meanings, for in one context they say
don't park here, and in another context they say do park here.
The Bible is probably the most misunderstood book in the world,
and Daniel is one the most likely books to be misinterpreted.
Figurative, symbolic and imprecise language lends itself to all kinds
of subjective speculation. Men seek to mold such language into a
variety of systems, and they interpret this book on the basis of
preconceived ideas. Some say this dream was fulfilled before Christ;
some say at the time of the first coming, and others say at the time of
the second coming. Someone has to be reading in subjective feelings
and speculation. How can we be sure that we are getting the message
of Daniel and not some subjective message of other men?
We must keep the court open and put every author on trial. We
must listen to and examine the evidence. This means we must
approach the study of difficult parts of the Bible like a jury. Since
godly men differ very sincerely, just as two eyewitnesses may differ
on their interpretation of an event, we must continuously weigh the
evidence and be on the lookout for fallacies and unsupported
assertions. It is so easy to slip in and idea here and there which is not
in the text, but only in the mind of the interpreter. If we are aware of
the dangers, and approach with a critical and cautious attitude we
may not understand everything, but we will avoid a great many
misunderstandings. The conclusion we come to on this dream
determines our whole outlook on the rest of the book. If we
misunderstand here, all of the rest will be out of line as well. If we
understand this the rest will fall into place.
In verse 38 Daniel says very clearly that the head of gold on the
great image represents Nebuchadnezzar himself. All agree here, for
it is too plain to dispute. No kingdom had so much gold as Babylon.
All interpreters begin at the same point, but as move along they
begin to digress, and by the time we come to the feet of the image
they are miles and ages apart.
In verse 39 Daniel says that after you shall come another
kingdom inferior to you. This inferior kingdom is represented by
silver. The vast majority of interpreters agree that this kingdom is
the Medo-Persian kingdom. Both sacred and secular history record
that Cyrus conquered Babylon. He first conquered all of the East
except Babylon. The people of this great city went within the vast
walls of it and laughed at the Medes and Persians. They had
provisions for 20 years and had enough land to raise crops within the
city walls. They were, by all human calculations, secure and they
slept in peace.
Beltshazzar the king ignored the fact that his city was under
siege. He had a big feast and drinking party. This is recorded in
chapter 5. Secular history tells us how Cyrus took advantage of their
over confidence. He had his soldiers divert the water of the river
running through the city. When the water was low he had soldiers
on both ends of the city enter under the walls in the riverbed. They
were able to kill the guards and the king. In their careless
presumption the Babylonians went to bed a free people, and they
woke up as slaves of the Persians. In 517 B. C. they rebelled and
Darius the Persian king destroyed the gates of the city and tore down
the walls from 200 down to 50 cubits. This marked the beginning of
the destruction of Babylon. Alexandria the Great tried to restore the
city, but after employing 10 thousand men for 2 months in clearing
away the rubbish he died, and the work ceased.
In 294 B. C. Seleucus Nicater built the new Babylon in the
neighborhood of the old city. He used much material from the old
city, but the old city was left in ruins, and to this day has been
inhabited only by wild beasts. Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel did not
know all these details of the fall and ruin of Babylon. They had only
a prophetic outline whereas we have a detailed history because we
live after the event. The only disagreement in this second kingdom is
with those who feel Daniel also lived after the events described here,
and so they make the second kingdom refer to the Medes only, and
the third kingdom they say is the Persians, and then the fourth is the
Greeks, and so they make it possible for the whole thing to have been
written around 168 B. C., and so they eliminate the prophetic nature
of it. This is the liberal interpretation of the book that rejects Daniel
as the author. There is no basis for the division of the Medes and
Persians into two different kingdoms. The law of the Medes and
Persians referred to in Daniel indicates they were one kingdom, and
the only reason any doubt it is because they want to get through
these four kingdoms as to end with the Greeks rather than the
Romans. The evidence plus the authority of history, however,
assures us that his second kingdom was the Medo-Persian kingdom.
Then Daniel says a third kingdom shall rule over all the earth.
Again the majority of interpreters agree that this is the great
kingdom of Alexander the Great, or the Greek kingdom. He
conquered the whole known world, and his kingdom is represented
by the bronze. Homer in the Odyssey refers to "The bronze quoted
Greeks." Some of the well-known battles of history took place
between the silver kingdom of the Persians and the bronze kingdom
of the Greeks. Salamis, Thermopylae, and Marathon will recall
memories to those who have studied Greek history. The Persian
umpire was famous for its colossal defeats and foolish adventures.
Daniel says the second kingdom was inferior to Babylon, and it truly
was both in glory and in wisdom. In 3:31 ten Persian kings faced
Alexander the Great and were defeated, and thus ended the silver
kingdom.
Josephus has an interesting sidelight on history at this point.
Alexander the Great became angry at the Jews when they would not
supply his men with provisions, but remained loyal to Darius the
Persian. He marched on Jerusalem with the intent to destroy it.
Jaddua the high priest went out to meet him in a procession of priests
and other people dressed in white. Alexander was so impressed that
he spared the city. Jaddua showed him the prophecies of Daniel that
indicated he would conquer the Persians. Alexander offered sacrifice
and granted the Jews freedom. Alexander did not destroy Jerusalem
as most conquerors did. He did much good in the world, and he
spread Greek culture everywhere. He was foolish, however, and
drank so heavily that he killed his friend in a frenzy of drunkenness.
He was seized with a violent fever and died 11 days later on June 13,
323 B. C. at the age of 32. His kingdom was divided and became
weaker and weaker until swallowed up by the Romans.
In verse 40 Daniel refers to the fourth and last kingdom, which
was the kingdom of iron. Except for those who end with the Greeks,
this has always been thought to be the Roman Empire. Some feel
that since the Roman Empire was not destroyed by the coming of
Christ it has to be that the fourth is the Greek kingdom. This is
meaningless for Jesus came after the Greek kingdom was gone, and
so His coming did not destroy it anymore than it did the Roman
Empire. Dispensationalists feel they have discovered a solution of
how to maintain an absolute literalism. They say that in the last days
there will be a revival of the Roman Empire that will be literally
destroyed at the second coming of Christ. This is a solution that has
no basis and only adds more problems.
The image is a unity, and one kingdom leads to another. It is no
accident that the traditional interpretation, which has been the view
of the church through all the centuries, takes these four kingdoms to
be the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman. History
supports this view and no other. If we tamper with this unity and
skip great ages we need to have good reason to support that this is
what God intended to convey to Nebuchadnezzar, and that this is
what Daniel intended in his interpretation. Our task will be to show
that keeping the unity leads to a logical and sensible interpretation of
Daniel's words.
