In Search of the Prophesied Ten Kings–Part Two: A Coming Geopolitical Shift in Global Power
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? When the prophet Daniel revealed the meaning of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of a “great image” he explained that the head of gold represented the Neo-Babylonian kingdom that began with the Chaldean dynasty of King Nabopolassar. However, Daniel did not explain to Nebuchadnezzar that the chest and arms of silver—as depicted in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision—represented the consolidated kingdoms of the Medes and Persians. Nor did Daniel explain that the belly and thighs of brass represented the empire of Greece, and Daniel did not reveal to Nebuchadnezzar that the legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay, represented the Roman Empire or revivals of the Classical Roman Empire. Which leads us to make an observation about Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of a great image. That is that Nebuchadnezzar’s vision is—for the most part—understood in the context of secular history, with the biblical premise being that the head of gold in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision represented the king and kingdom of Babylon. Therefore—according to some expositors—this has implications for understanding a vision given to the prophet Daniel. For Daniel had a vision of four “great beasts” that are assumed to symbolically represent the same four successive empires associated with the vision given to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. So it is commonly concluded that Daniel’s vision has—for the most part—been fulfilled, and this fulfillment is assumed to be confirmed by the record of secular history, just as the record of history is thought to confirm the vision given to Nebuchadnezzar. Which presents us with a problem. Because Daniel’s vision of four “great beasts”—being representative of kings and kingdoms—cannot be confirmed in the record of secular history for the simple reason that Daniel’s vision did not establish a biblical premise that would allow us to associate the symbolic lion-like beast with the ancient kingdom of Babylon. Therefore, we are left with the realization that Daniel’s vision must be understood apart from the record of secular history, making it subject then to an interpretation that casts the fulfillment of Daniel’s vision forward into the future. Something that may be confirmed by the record of secular history. Now, the northern tribes of the Commonwealth of Israel were displaced by the Assyrians beginning generally with the reign of Tiglath-pileser III, and this displacement continued with the reign of his successor Shalmaneser V and his successor Sargon II, leading to the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE. This, of course, meant that the kingdom of Judah, along with many other city-states in the region, would remain under the yoke of the Assyrians for more than 100 years until the coming of the Babylonians under King Nabopolassar and crown-prince Nebuchadnezzar II. Giving us then something to consider in regard to the history of the fall of the Commonwealth of Israel and the early geopolitical configuration of nations that came to successively dominate the Middle East. That is to say that the Assyrian domination not only initiated the commonwealth’s diaspora, while making the kingdom of Judah a repressed vassal kingdom, but its long-term hegemony in the region also influenced—and perhaps forestalled—the political and territorial developments of four successive empires that would come to rule over Palestine. Allowing us then to say that the Babylonian Empire, the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greco-Macedonian Empire and the Roman Empire were relatively contemporaneous in their earliest beginnings respective to the fall of the Commonwealth of Israel and the eventual decline of the Assyrian Empire. For when we examine the period of Israel’s earliest annexation into the Assyrian Empire we find that Babylon was already experiencing a rise in Chaldean influence that began with the vassal King Nabonassar, while the region of Persia was witnessing—in the same general time period—the founding of the Achaemenid royal dynasty under the legendary founder Achaemenes. Noting also that these events generally coincided with the Archaic Period of Greece, which was a time that saw the emergence of the Olympic Games, and a time when the works of Homer were committed to writing, and it was these writings that were influential in the later Classical Age that produced the conqueror Alexander the Great. Which brings us then to the legendary founding of Rome—conventionally dated to c. 753 BCE—that occurred only a few years before Tiglath-pileser III began to expand the Assyrian Empire into the Middle East. (The Roman Republic under Julius Caesar subjugated the region of Palestine before the coming of the Roman Empire.) Therefore, we can reasonably conclude from the record of secular history that the respective empires of the Babylonians, the Medes and Persians, the Greeks and the Romans were relatively contemporaneous in their earliest beginnings, but each in their time came to dominate the region of Palestine in a way that allows us to associate these four particular empires with the symbolic “great image” of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision. However, this historical perspective is predicated on Daniel’s interpretative statement that the head of gold in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision represented the ancient kingdom of Babylon. This is not the case with Daniel’s vision because there is no confirmation for it in secular history related to the four successive kingdoms associated with the vision given to Nebuchadnezzar. Because even though we are able to discern and compare some relative symbolic characteristics in Daniel’s vision with the vision given to Nebuchadnezzar, we have no reason to conclude from Daniel’s narrative that the four “great beasts” represent the ancient empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. And so we are left to take a closer look at Daniel’s vison. Now, in the first year of Belshazzar’s reign over Babylon, Daniel had a vision, and after making some notes about what he saw, he “told the sum of the matters,” which are recorded for us in Scripture. And what Daniel said was this.