In Search of the Prophesied Ten Kings–Part One: The Rise of Empires and the Fall of the Commonwealth of Israel
Did Nebuchadnezzar’s vision reveal a future confederation of ten kingdoms? Who were the ten kings of Daniel’s vision? What about the “beast” that John saw in his vision, was it symbolic of a coming world government or a league of governments that will bring the world into conflict? With the defeat of an invading Mesopotamian confederation the patriarch Abraham expectedly gained a measure of political influence among the leaders and rulers of the city-states of Canaan. Observing that historically Abraham’s political influence in Canaan began at an earlier time when he continued his journey from Haran and came into a land of promise, a land that is biblically ascribed to be the capital state of the people of ancient Israel. Leading us to also say that—in the national sense—the people of ancient Israel became a political influence in the land of promise not long after the tribal groupings journeyed out of Egypt. Noting in particular that national Israel’s political presence in the region of Canaan was apparent—for the most part—from the early period of the tribal settlements until the Commonwealth of Israel came to an end in AD 70. Concluding then that the promise of a landed inheritance was foundational to the political influence of Abraham and the people of ancient Israel in the Middle East for the greater part of 1900 years. However, even though the commonwealth was eventually broken up and scattered, something important remained, and that was the promise given to Abraham. But something else also remained. That was the political nature of the promise. Having then political implications for the nation-state of Israel today. And here is why. The promise of a landed inheritance established the context for Abraham’s sojourn in the land of Canaan, and it also established the context for the formalized covenant that God made with national Israel. This meant that the continuance of the promise was subject to stipulations for national Israel that were foundational to the covenant established at Mt. Sinai. The evidence for this is found in the works of the prophets and the apostles who forewarned of national consequences—regarding the promise—should the nation of Israel reject the covenant respective to the law of God (Deut. 4:1-40; Jer. 11:1-5; Mt. 24:1-2). Which is what they did. The nation of Israel did reject the first covenant and the political consequence was the removal of the commonwealth from the land of inheritance, implying that by reason of their disobedience to the moral law of God the right of inheritance was forfeited by national Israel. Importantly, then, with this in mind, we should also consider that the messages of the prophets and the apostles cast the complete fulfillment of the promise forward to a time when a second covenant would be established with the Commonwealth of Israel. Something that was understood by Jeremiah the prophet who wrote that: “the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people [nation]” (Jer. 31:31-33, ASV). (See also, Jer. 31:1-6.) [Author’s emphasis throughout.] This, of course, affirms the continuance of the promise in a coming new covenant that will reestablish the Commonwealth of Israel in all the lands promised to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac, beginning with the return of Christ (Jer. 32:40-41). Bringing us then to a conclusion regarding modern-day Israel. That is the modern nation-state of Israel cannot use the covenant by promise as an entitlement to claim a landed inheritance in Palestine today. Significantly, then, the political nature of the promise gives us a context for understanding current territorial conflicts in the region of Palestine, and it also gives us a context for understanding future prophesied events, because the inherent political nature of the promise is related to the symbolism of some prophetic visions found in Scripture. This is particularly so for those visions that portend to a time when a confederation of nations will be in opposition to the establishment of the kingdom of God at the return of Jesus, who is the surety of the promise given to Abraham. Which brings us to examine three politically relevant prophetic visions found in Scripture. One of which was given to a king of Babylon, and another to a prophet at the king’s court in Babylon, and still another vision was given to a disciple of Christ, who attested to the resurrection of the one who is destined to be the final heir to the throne of David. Making it necessary to examine these biblical prophecies from both an historical and a political perspective in order to understand their future applications, and we begin this examination with a look at the first of five successive empires—the Assyrian Empire—that initiated the diaspora of the people of ancient Israel. Now, the Assyrians were a militarily dominating power in the Middle East by the time of Sargon II, and during Sargon’s reign he effectively dismantled the remaining confederated states of the northern kingdom of Israel. Sargon also repressed the kingdom of Judah and his successor Sennacherib further weakened the commonwealth as captives were taken from the kingdom of Judah and dispersed within the Assyrian Empire. Then with the collapse of the Assyrian Empire came the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nabopolassar who founded a Chaldean dynasty while expanding his empire into the Middle East after the defeat of the last notable Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal. This opened the way for Nebuchadnezzar