Daniel’s Four Beasts (2 of 2)

4 beasts 11

Yesterday I summarized my views on the four beasts in Daniel 7 and the supporting biblical-historical evidence. Most commentators believe that the dreams and visions in Daniel 2 (large statue), 7 (four beasts) and 8 (ram and goat) parallel each other because of their similarities, which help to identify them:

Daniel’s 4 Kingdoms

Today I will explain why I disagree with your author’s rationale. He based his belief on Dan 7:12 “The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time”. Since “ALL FOUR of Daniel’s Four Beasts are said to be IN POWER – IN EXISTENCE” (author’s emphasis), they could not be the four empires of Daniel 2, which were successive. Therefore they must be kingdoms that necessarily EXIST ON EARTH at the time of the Second Coming of Jesus (author’s emphasis). I have problems with two things:

• Direct contradiction with Scripture. Dan 7:12 specifically states that the first 3 beasts were no longer in power, stripped of their authority, though still in existence, contrary to the author’s assertion.
• Jumping to application without proper interpretation. A basic rule in hermeneutics is that before you determine what does the passage mean to you, you must ascertain what it means to the original readers. To jump to the conclusion that Daniel’s four beasts must be immediately before the Second Coming of Christ, without any reference to Daniel’s ancient readers, is poor exegesis. Did the Holy Spirit skip over them and had only twenty-first centuries readers in mind? Hardly!

So does Daniel 7 have nothing to do with Christ’s Second Coming? No, it does, but not in the way your article put it. To apply Daniel 7 to the end times is a valid application, as its four beasts are all rolled into one in the beast of the sea of Rev 13. There are many speculations as to what the seven heads and 10 horns mean e.g. G7, EU etc. As applications, the author’s ideas do have their circumstantial evidence. But to interpret Daniel 7 as having no significance historically, except as it relates to the last days, is not proper interpretation. Hope this helps.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: