Difficulties in Daniel for Biblical Eschatology

Daniel is the only book in the OT that provides a comprehensive and progressive vision of biblical eschatology, starting from the time of Daniel all the way to the Messianic Kingdom and worldwide resurrection. In other major prophecies of NT (Mt. 24, Lk. 21, 1Cor. 15, 1Th. 4, 2Th. 2, Revelation), our Lord and the apostles referred back to Daniel. How they explained Daniel’s prophecy and how they positioned his message in their own teachings on the end time, are illuminating to us. Often the discussion of eschatology has focused on the book of Revelation, while the book of Daniel is glossed over. It is not that Daniel is not discussed, on the contrary, there has been a lot of discussions. The problem is that the difficulty in interpreting Daniel is not fully acknowledged, which leads to some simplistic conceptualizations of the end time. Interpretations are often asserted with a level of confidence not supported by exegeses. Here we look at three issues.

The fourth beast

The following table shows the majority view of Christian orthodox on the kingdom transition in Daniel.

The transition from Babylon to Persia then to Greece and to Rome was well documented in later history. The first major difficulty concerns Rome and the transition from Rome to Christ’s Kingdom. The identity of the fourth beast is puzzling, even to Daniel (Dan. 7:19-22). He “desired to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from the rest”. Indeed it was different. How does the Roman Empire fit the description of the fourth beast? What is transition from the fourth beast to the Messianic Kingdom?

Some interpret the Messianic Kingdom as purely spiritual, which was established at Christ’s first coming. The unanswered question for them is that: a significant amount of prophecy concerning the fourth beast was not fulfilled at Christ’s first coming, e.g., the horns, the destruction of the beast. Besides, this spiritual view is not consistent with the whole narrative since all four kingdoms were earthly kingdoms (at least had an earthly dimension), therefore, to say the last Kingdom is purely spiritual is rather subjective.

Some interpret the Messianic Kingdom as both material and spiritual, a Kingdom on earth. They would argue that the fourth beast was Rome and will be a revived Rome in the future. The unanswered question for them is that where this concept is found. The texts seem to show a continuous transition from the first beast, to the second, then the third, then the fourth, and then the Messianic Kingdom. The fourth beast is one, not two separated in history. So, in what sense Rome is still here now? Are the advocators of this view ready to conclude that Rome will be revived? The historical Rome? Or at what point did the historical Rome cease to exist? If there is an earthly kingdom with global dominance in the future, how does that relate to the historical Rome? Is it just a Rome-like nation? In what sense a Rome-like nation? In what sense is it a Rome-like nation rather than a Greek-like or a Babylon-like nation? There must be something unique about Rome here.

To identify the fourth beast entirely with an evil earthly kingdom in the future would not work either. The sequence Daniel saw (7:6, 7, “after this”) indicates a quick transition, not a gap of several thousand years. Even when one admits the collapse of time frame in OT prophecies, there are not many options: either the fourth beast is Rome or not. If it is Rome, then how come the disappeared Rome show up in the end time? If it is not Rome, then it means Rome is entirely ignored in Daniel’s prophecy and the earthly kingdoms ended with Greek Empire, the idea of which also seems improper.

The horn in Ch. 7 and 8

A horn (horns) is mentioned in Ch. 7 concerning the fourth beast; a horn (horns) is mentioned in Ch. 8 concerning Greece (the third beast in Ch. 7). In each case, a mighty horn among a group of horns. Are these two mighty horns the same? Some say yes, some say no. The reason to distinguish them is that the two horns belong to two different empires/beasts, besides other distinctions. However, the issue is not that simple. The other side points out the connection between the mighty horn in 8:23-26 with the mighty king in 11:36-45. Most agree that the mighty horn in 8:23-26 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes at least in its immediate fulfillment. The prophecy in Ch.11 is confirmed by historical records until v. 35. It is difficult to see the fulfillment of v.36-45 in Antiochus Epiphanes. The description in v.36-45 seems to point to a future mighty king, possibly the Antichrist. If this is the case, both horns in Ch.8 and Ch.11 point to Antichrist.

But how to reconcile this? A Greek king points to Antichrist, so does a “Roman” king. Or does the Greek/Roman identity no longer matter here? Can we have an explanation without being arbitrary? Without being driven by a superimposed scheme? There are explanations from all fronts, but underneath them is an unexplained confusion.

Seventy weeks (seven)

Then is the classic case of seventy weeks (seven). Only futuristic end time views are considered here, as it is certainly wrong to compress all the prophecies into the time up to 70AD or whatever point in the past. Most agree the anointed one cut off pointed to Christ’s crucifixion. What about the last week? In v.26, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is mentioned; in v. 27, someone would make a covenant with many for another seven years. This transition is a major difficulty. If the first seven weeks were immediately followed by sixty-two weeks, it would naturally mean the last seven would come after the middle sixty-two weeks. But we do not see this happened in history. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans occurred in 70AD, which was about forty years after the crucifixion of Christ. Some employ the gap theory to explain this, but where to insert gaps? Is there an exegetical principle? Anywhere we think there is a need?

Another mystery is what happens in the last seven. Half way in the seven years, “he” will put an end to sacrifice and offering. However, the verse before just says the people of price will destroy both the city and temple. If the temple has been destroyed, how come the sacrifice/offering will be ended? There is nothing to be ended.

A holy place (temple of God) associated with end time is also mentioned by our Lord in Mt. 25 and by the Apostle in 2Th. 2. This place/temple certainly corresponds to the sacrifice/offering in Dan. 9:27. Are they talking about a literal/physical temple or an analogous one? It seems not a spiritual one. The apostle speaks of “takes his seat in the temple of God”, which would be absurd if the temple means Christ or Christians. One may argue that this is a reconstructed Jewish temple in the future. This is a conjecture and conjecture only. How does this relate to the preaching of gospel to the end of the earth? Some dispensationalists propose that there would be no Christians left in this seven years of tribulation, only Jews. But the question remains: is the temple built during the seven years? Or at the end of the “Christian era”? Besides the critical point that the separation between Jews and Christians seems self-serving (no NT support).

Most interpretations have underestimated the difficulties in Daniel. There are serious questions unaddressed under the strong assertions on the surface. The clean eschatological programs are not that clean in the end, and the best of them is still muddy. We shall acknowledge this muddiness in our mind, even as we try to clearly understand the biblical revelation.