Basic HTML Version
of iron.
It
is the last kingdom of
Daniel. Though the original Roman
Empire died, it was said lo be suc–
cessively resurrected. On this poinl,
Daniel gives us more details with
another visionary image.
He sees four crealures rise out of
the sea: the firsl
is
like a üon, the
second like a bear, the third like a
leopard and lhe fourth is "dreadful
and terrible , and slrong ex–
ceedingly; and il had
great iron
teeth"
(see Daniel 7: 1-7).
Interestingly enough , here are
four creatures, corresponding to the
number of parts in Daniel's image
in the second chapte r. The last crea–
lure is the kingdom of iron in chap–
ter two. The fourlh creature has iron
leelh in chapter seven. The implica–
lion thal bolh visions represent the
same four powerful empires is too
strong to be disregarded.
This is especially so since Daniel
makes it clear lhal he is lalking
about four powerful empires in llis
seventh chapter. "These four greal
beasls are four kings who shaU arise
out of the earth .... lhe fourth
beast ... shall be a
fourth kingdom
on earlh ..." (verses 17, 23, RSV).
This fourth kingdom is so powerful
that it appea rs to devour the whole
earth and break it into pieces.
The Visions of John
Remarkably enough, another
man of God - living hundreds of
years la ter - also discusses this se–
quence of empires. He is John ; the
book is the Revelat ion.
John sees a monstrous animal
arise from the sea.
lt
has seven
heads. "And the beast," says John,
"which
1
saw was like unto a
/eop–
ard,
and his feet were as the feel of a
bear, and bis mouth as the mouth of
a
/ion ... "
(Revelation 13:2).
John's beast, with characterislics
of lhe bear, leopard and lion, is
idenlical with Daniel's beasts which
resembled a lion, a bear, anda leop–
ard. But the wild beasl John saw
is
the fourth kingdom which had all
the characterislics of the previous
empires, but was stronger than any
of them. Both prophets are speak-
PLAIN TRUTH May 1974
ing ofthe same sequence of empires.
One of the heads of this remark–
able beast which J ohn saw is
"wounded to death; and his deadly
wound was healed: and all lhe
world wondered after the beast"
(R eve lation 13:3). Co uld lhis
"death-wound" be on the fourth
kingdom, the Roman Empire which
officially died in the West in 476,
only to be resurrected or "healed"
by Justinian in 554 and by Charle–
magne in 800?
The theologians and scholars of
the Middle Ages, such as Otto of
Freising, understood it in sorne such
fashion as this. So did the emperors
and meo of government. The Ro–
man Empire which had "died" was
thought to have been revived by
s uch outstanding luminaries as
Charlemagne, Otto the Great and
Frederick
l.
But whal of the slark fear lhal the
age of Anticbrisl would be ushered
in upon the final coUapse of lhis
resurrected Roman Empi re? That
fear was one of the mosl tragic mis–
understandings in lhe thought of the
Middle Ages.
God or Antichrist?
Both Daniel and John (in Revela–
tion) reveal that God 's kingdom, not
a government of Antichrist, will be
ushered in when the last reviva! of
the fourth kingdom or empire fa lls.
In his seventh chapter, Daniel pic–
tures the Ancient of Days having a
garment as white as snow, hair like
pure wool , and sitting on his throne.
Daniel sees in the night visions one
/ike the Son of man
coming to the
Ancient of Days, "And there was
given him dominion, and glory, and
a kingdom, that aH people, na tions,
and languages, should serve him:
his dominion is an everlasting do–
minion, which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom that which shall
not be destroyed" (Daniel 7: 14).
The kingdom that was to begin
after the last reviva! of the fourth
empire was tbe kingdom of the
Messiah, not the kingdom of An–
tichrist. It is in fact the revived Ro–
man Empire that is opposed to the
Messiah and is, therefore, Anti–
christ.
Later, Daniel says, "The kingdom
and dominion ... shall be given lo
lhe people of lhe saints of the
most
High "
(Daniel 7:27). Here again.
lhe Messiah, not Antichrist, reigns
once the four empires under ques–
lion have been destroyed.
In Daniel 2, we fiad him stressing
the same thing; it is God who rules
afler the successive revivals of the
Roman Empire end: "And
in
the
days of these kings" - not after -
"shall the
God of heaven
set up a
kingdom, which shall never be de–
stroyed: and the kingdom shall not
be left lo other people, but it shall
break in pieces and consume all
these kingdoms. and it shall stand
for ever" (Daniel 2:44).
But why did the thinkers of the
Middle Ages make such a gross er–
ror in their understanding of what
Daniel had written? Why, besides
misinterpreting
when
the resurrected
empire was to be obliterated. did
they a lso grossly misunders tand
who would take over rule of the
earth?
lt
was fundamentally because
they assumed that the Holy Roman
Empire was really holy in the sense
of already being God's kingdom on
earth.
Had they accepled their Euro–
pean empire for what it was - a
crea tion of human and sometimes
unholy
men - they would not have
assumed tha t its destruction could
only come about by an unholy, fear–
some Antichrist.
Had they then carefully studied
Daniel 2 and 7 and Revelat ion 13
and 17, the thinkers of the Middle
Ages could have seen that the aui–
tude of the emperors was already
ant ichrist - opposed to Christ's rule
- because they had pul themselves
and the ir laws in place ofChrist and
his law. They could have seen that
the biblical writers foretold that the
kingdom of God wou ld replace
human government and tha t the
Messiah would replace the very em–
perors who thought of themselves as
ruling in Christ's place.
o
25