Did Daniel See Beyond AD 70?

By John Evans

Although I am now well past the age when I began drawing my maximum Social Security benefits—I shall be seventy-four this month—it has only been in the past few years that I have come to call myself a “Preterist.” It is not that the basic ideas of Preterism are unfamiliar to me—I was a Preterist before I knew what one was! For almost twenty years, I have believed that the prophecies of Revelation apply to the first century and that the prophecies of Matthew 24 were all fulfilled in the first century, and I regard Dispensationalism with about as much enthusiasm as I could muster were I given the opportunity to go swimming in Lake Superior on the first day of May.

Until very recently, however, I had no awareness that there were lots of folks out there possessing a grasp of the implications of first century fulfillment. I knew there had to be people who disagreed with their local pastors about how Matthew 24 should be understood, but I was unblissfully ignorant of the extent to which such subversive views had seeped into the ranks of Christians who seek to think for themselves. The discovery via the Internet that there are numerous individuals around whose understanding of Preterist eschatology far exceeds mine in scope and depth has been one of the greatest thrills of my lifetime, and I am grateful beyond my ability to express for the opportunity that has been provided to me to post articles on this website. I firmly believe that the Preterist movement is poised to become mainstream Christianity in the decades ahead and I am eager to make whatever contribution I can to the movement’s success.

 

I made the decision over a decade ago that should I ever find the energy and the nerve to tackle a biblical topic seriously enough to write about it, I would undertake a defense of the proposition that the Book of Daniel is genuinely prophetic. When I began studying Daniel seriously, however, I did so without having thought through whether I was going to allow any element of Futurism into my interpretation. My main concern in undertaking my Daniel project was to discredit critical-historical scholarship, which I found to be more biased against objective standards of evidence evaluation than a Dan Rather newscast. In order to make the case against the critics, I relied heavily on the best work by conservative scholars that I could find. That work was generally performed by futurists and historicists, not Preterists. Early in my research, however, I came across Philip Mauro’s Seventy Weeks; and somewhat later, I stumbled onto the Biblical Horizons website of James B. Jordan. In time, I discovered additional material on the Net that enhanced my understanding of Daniel and solidified my belief that an interpretation that embodies the Preterist framework of analysis is, by a large margin, the only approach to the interpretation of Daniel that is tenable.

 

The proposition that Daniel is best interpreted from the Preterist perspective is, of course, at odds with what is generally believed. Many conservatives still insist on looking to the future for the fulfillment of Daniel’s end-time prophecies. In particular, they maintain either that the Roman Empire never really fell or that some kind of revived Roman Empire will emerge—and may be here now—to fulfill the prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7, and they insert a gap of over two thousand years between the end of the sixty-ninth “week” of Daniel 9:24-27 and the beginning of the seventieth and last “week.” Also, of course, they assign to the future the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel 12. On the other hand, liberals take the position that one should not look beyond the early part of 163 BC for the fulfillment of Daniel’s “prophecies,” which they regard as after-the-fact creations designed to promote the belief that the eternal kingdom of God that would spring into being upon the death of Antiochus IV, the tyrannical Seleucid king who attempted to suppress Judaism and thereby provoked an ultimately successful revolt under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus. Muddying the waters are those conservatives who accept much of the Maccabean interpretation of Daniel endorsed by liberals but mix elements of that interpretation with the belief that the end time portions of Daniel 7 and 12 await future fulfillment.

 

Although I come down strongly in favor of a Preterist interpretation of Daniel in my recently published book on Daniel’s four kingdoms, I have noticed on two websites that it has been classified as “Partial Preterist.” This classification somewhat mystifies me since I state in the preface that I am inclined to accept the belief that the Parousia occurred in AD 70 and never suggest that there will be a Parousia II. Evidently, however, there is something about my book that warrants the partial Preterist label in the eyes of some. In seeking to understand why that is, one possibility that pops into my mind is that at the end of my first chapter, I have: “I do not . . . rule out the possibility that an apocalyptic outcome resembling the one foretold in Daniel 7 could be awaiting us.” To this statement I add, however, the comment that “such an outcome is not foretold in the amazing Book of Daniel.”

 

I suspect that what it is about my book that may warrant the partial Preterist label for some is the fact that I recognize two major exceptions in Daniel to the general proposition that its prophecies were fulfilled by AD 70. The first is that the prophecy of the rock in Daniel 2 has some application to our future. The second is that the correct exegesis of the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7 points to the survival of these kingdom in some sense for a considerable time after AD 70. In neither case, however, do I find anything in Daniel that points to an end time that lies in our future. Indeed, my position is unambiguously that the time of the end to which the prophecies of Daniel refer is the period during which the Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant and that this period was completed with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple late in the summer of AD 70.

 

The prophecy of the rock and Daniel’s interpretation of it are found in 2:34-35 and 2:44-45. Recall that Daniel 2 presents Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in which the Babylonian king sees a great statue whose different parts are formed from four metals that symbolize successive dominant kingdoms and whose feet consist of iron mixed with clay. In 2:34, a stone is cut out without hands and strikes the statue on its feet. In 2:35, the four metallic components of the statue and the clay are all crushed at the same time and become like chaff on the summer threshing floor. Their residue is then carried away so that no trace of them remains, but the rock that destroyed the statue becomes a huge mountain that covers the entire earth. In verse 44, Daniel gives us this interpretation: “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever” (NIV). In the next verse, he adds: “This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.”

 

I argue in chapter four of my book that as one moves down the great statue, its four metals symbolize Babylonia (gold), Medo-Persia (silver), Greece (bronze), and Rome (iron), that the clay in the feet symbolizes the Jews of the Old Covenant, and that the rock that strikes the feet of the statue; i.e. the portion consisting of both iron and clay, symbolizes the coming of Christ and the Christian religion. I also suggest that it is reasonable to interpret the striking action of the rock as signaling “the relatively short period of the First Advent and the time of the Apostles that culminated in the events of AD 70” and that the growth of the rock into the great mountain that covers the earth can be viewed as a lengthy process that has yet to be completed. I conclude my section on the prophecy of the rock with this statement: “The theology of Preterism is one of religious optimism in which the world understands of God’s true nature and presence has grown in the past 2,000 years and continues to do so.”

 

It is my belief that what Daniel foresaw was that there would be a time in the distant future when a “kingdom” established by God would come to dominate the earth. It is also my belief that this “kingdom” is the Christian faith. That does not mean, however, that I read into Daniel 2 the idea that this kingdom is to be set up in a future apocalypse. In contrast to the belief typically advanced by futurist interpreters of Daniel that the coming of the rock represents the Second Advent of Christ that is to take place in the future, I maintain that the striking action symbolized by the rock took place in the first century. In retrospect, I might have done better to insert into my chapter four an emphatic statement to the effect that the striking action WAS the Second Advent, but I prefer to think of it as being symbolic of the entire period between the Crucifixion and the destruction of the Temple.

 

One of the important questions in the interpretation of Daniel 2 is whether or not the first three kingdoms survive into the time of the fourth so that that when the rock strikes the statue, it destroys all four, not just the fourth. My research indicates that both liberals and conservatives often presume that when the rock strikes the feet of the statue, the fourth kingdom is the only one of the four still in existence. In my judgment, this presumption is incorrect. The proper interpretation of the material about the statue is that the first three kingdoms survive in some sense—perhaps cultural as opposed to political—into the time of the fourth. The fact that the rock strikes the feet of the statue indicates that although the event that destroys the four kingdoms occurs within the territory of the fourth kingdom, the impact of that event ultimately destroys all four. The soundness of this interpretation becomes clear, I believe, when you closely examine Daniel 7, and it frankly has surprised me to observe a number of instances where distinguished scholars seem to have overlooked how Daniel 7 connects on this point with Daniel 2.

 

I contend that the destruction of the four kingdoms symbolized by the prophecy of the rock should be viewed as a gradual process that extends well past the first century AD. I concede that it is perfectly natural to view the statue’s destruction as a sudden event at first, but I believe that a close examination of the prophecy and its context supports the conclusion that the amount of time that elapses in order to complete its fulfillment has to be substantial. The most obvious reason for believing this is the commonsense understanding that the imagery of a rock turning into a gigantic mountain suggests a lengthy period of time for this process to work itself out. Beyond that, however, notice the wording in verse 35 that the components of the statue “were broken to pieces . . . and became like chaff on a threshing floor.” Thus, the statue is not instantly pulverized but first breaks into pieces before being reduced to the equivalent of dust.

 

If one grants that the process of the rock growing into the mountain is a lengthy one, does it necessarily follow that the process of removing the chaff continues until the mountain has become full-grown? My answer is no. The Book of Daniel looks primarily at the future of the Jewish people and the duration of their Covenant with God. Accordingly, the details of its prophetic “roadmap” focus on the events occurring during the covenant period, particularly its end. Those details take us to the arrival before God of “one like a son of man” (7:13), who receives authority to rule over the earth and all its peoples. Although Daniel informs us that a new and permanent kingdom will be established under the authority of this being, it does not provide details about that kingdom. Neither does it specify how long it will take for the kingdom to attain maturity.

 

The four kingdoms of Daniel 2 reemerge in Daniel 7, where they are symbolized by four great beasts. Of particular interest in Daniel 7 is a judgment scene that fills in details associated with the prophecy of the rock. The judgment scene begins with the appearance in verses 9-10 of the Ancient of Days (God). After He appears, the fourth beast is destroyed and thrown into the river of fire that emanates from God (v.11). Verse 12 informs us that the other beasts, though stripped of authority, are allowed to live for a period of time, but it does not state just when they are destroyed. The son of man arrives in the next verse, and in verse 14, He is given authority over all the people of the earth and is worshipped by them. Verse 14 also informs us that “his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” The parallel between these verses in Daniel 7 and the prophecy of the rock is obvious.

 

An important feature of Daniel 7 that has no parallel in Daniel 2 is the appearance of rulers of the fourth kingdom who are symbolized as horns growing on the head of the beast. Of particular interest is the eleventh of these rulers, the “little horn” of verse 8, who uproots three of the beast’s ten horns in order to take his place. The little horn is more imposing than the other rulers (v.20), speaks boastfully (v.8, 11, 20), blasphemes against God (v.25), and wars successfully against the “saints” until God pronounces judgment in their favor (v.21-22, 25-26). We are told in verse 26 that “his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever,” but we are not told here or elsewhere that when the little horn disappears from the scene, the beast goes with him. From this fact emerges the question of whether or not the beast and the little horn are destroyed at the same time.

 

Futurist eschatology takes it for granted that the fourth beast and the little horn are both to be destroyed during the apocalyptic end time that awaits us. Liberals likewise assume that the beast and the little horn “go out” together, though they, of course, would assign these “end-time” events to 164-163 BC. It may seem initially that Preterists can also assume that the beast and the little horn “exit” together. For them, however, there is a major problem in doing so, namely that as a matter of historical fact, the fourth beast (Rome) survived the little horn by hundreds of years. Incidentally, my personal choice for the little horn is the emperor Vespasian, who commanded the Roman troops attacking Judea from early in AD 67 until leaving Judea in the fall of 69 to assert his claim to become emperor. He ruled as emperor until his death in 79. Some Preterists have advanced other “candidates” for the little horn “position,” but at least they agree that the little horn disappeared from the world scene in the first century AD.

 

How can Preterist exegesis be satisfactorily accommodated to the fact that the Roman Empire survived well past the first century AD? To me, this is a vital question that must be addressed if the Preterist approach to the interpretation of Daniel is to be shown to be superior to the alternatives. Notice, by the way, that in Daniel 7, the death of the fourth beast occurs in verse 11 but that the one like a son of man does not appear until verse 13. If the one like a son of man is Jesus Christ, as conservatives generally insist must be the case, how can one reconcile that identity with the fact that the fourth beast appears to die before Jesus arrives?

 

I shall deal with the second of these two questions first. Although the fourth beast is slain in 7:11, while the figure of Christ does not appear until 7:13, there is no explicit statement in Daniel 7 that the beast dies first. Moreover, it should be noted that although Daniel 7 is generally understood to be a single vision, the text actually states (v.1) that “In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind.” Note the plural. In other words, what we have here are several visions, one of which comes to an end with verses 11 and 12 and another of which begins with verse 13. One cannot necessarily assume, therefore, that the coming of the one like a son of man takes place after the death of the beasts. Besides, recall that the deaths of the beasts are alluded to in verses 11 and 12 but that the scene in which judgment is passed against them begins in verse 9. This allows the interpretation that the deaths of the beasts occur after AD 70. Finally, if you insist on having the one like a son of man arrive after the beasts have been killed, cannot the grant of authority to Him be understood to represent the completion of the process of converting the rock into the mountain? Notice, however, that if verse 13 follows verses 11-12 in time, the arrival of one like a son of man at the judgment scene does not represent the Parousia that occurred in AD 70, but the completion of the process of ceding to Him dominion over the earth.

 

In my book, I favored the position that the appearance of the one like a son of man in 7:13 is better understood as a coming to earth than as a coming to heaven. I am now not so sure of this. As I am suggesting in the last paragraph, it could be that what 7:13 indicates is recognition of a mission accomplished. In that case, 7:13 would become equivalent to the symbolism of the rock having grown into the mountain and the coming of the one like a son of man would represent a going from earth to heaven.

 

I turn now to the explanation of how Daniel 7 can be seen to be compatible with the idea that the Roman Empire survived beyond the time of the little horn. I shall begin my defense of the proposition that it is compatible with this idea by relying on the exegetical principle of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. In particular, I summon for the defense Revelation 17.

 

Revelation 17 features a woman called “Babylon the Great” and “The Mother of Prostitutes”—commonly identified as “the Harlot”—who sits astride a scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns. In my view, and in the view of Preterist authorities whose knowledge of Revelation vastly exceeds mine, the woman symbolizes Jerusalem. The beast symbolizes Rome, and the seven heads symbolize seven sequential Roman rulers, of whom the sixth is Nero and the seventh is his successor, Galba. Incidentally, I enumerate Nero as the seventh of the eleven rulers symbolized by the horns of the fourth beast in Daniel 7, and I believe that the numbering of emperors differs between Daniel and Revelation because Daniel’s enumeration begins with Pompey—the first Roman ruler of Judea—while Revelation’s begins with Julius Caesar. As Ken Gentry has brilliantly shown in Before Jerusalem Fell, Vespasian, whom I believe to have been the little horn, is identified in Revelation 17:11 as “an eighth king” (not THE eighth king) who belongs with the seven. Because Revelation was written to alert Christians to events that were about to happen and is not much concerned with what was to occur after AD 70, it was sufficient to identify Vespasian as “an eighth king” instead of the tenth king. The two rulers between Galba and Vespasian each held power for only a few months and were inconsequential.

 

Although Revelation does not provide detail about events that were to occur after the Jewish War of AD 66-70, I believe that it does indicate that the life of the beast symbolizing Rome was to extend well after the termination of that conflict. In similar fashion, Daniel 7 focuses upon events leading to and including the Jewish War, but I believe that Daniel is even less specific than Revelation about what was to happen to the Roman Empire after the war. Thus, while Daniel does not explicitly tell us that the beast survives the little horn; neither does it tell us the contrary. On the other hand, I believe that Revelation does give us some indication of the Empire’s future.

 

Several passages in Revelation point to a surprising revival of the beast that corresponds to the recovery of the Empire from the turmoil associated with Nero’s reign. For example, consider Revelation 13:3: “One of the heads of the beast seemed to have a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.” Many analysts have taken this and similar passages to refer a myth that circulated in the Empire, particularly in the east, that Nero had been brought back to life. Gentry argues convincingly, however, that this “Nero Redivivus Myth” was not incorporated into Revelation and that the passages about the recovery of the beast (cf. 13:14, 17:8, and 17:11) must be understood as referring to the revival of the Empire that occurred under Vespasian. Since the revival under Vespasian took place mainly after AD 70, if Gentry is correct, then we have an instance in which Revelation looks, at least briefly, beyond the date of AD 70.

 

Now recall that in Revelation 17, the beast that the Harlot sits upon not only has seven heads, but also ten horns. If the seven heads are successive Roman rulers up to the time of Galba (in AD 68), who, or what, are the ten horns? In my admittedly limited study of Revelation, the most popular explanation of them that I have encountered among Preterists is that they are the ten governors of Rome’s imperial provinces at the time Revelation was written. Let us look, however, at Revelation 17:12, which reads: “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast.” To me, the clear implication of this verse is that the ten horns represent future Roman emperors who are to follow Vespasian. I cannot turn provincial governors into kings, and I believe that in this instance, the number ten is used symbolically as opposed to specifying a precise number of future rulers. In any event, however, if Gentry is correct about Revelation referring to Vespasian’s revival of the Empire, then we have evidence that Revelation’s prophetic periscope extends at least somewhat beyond AD 70; and that increases the likelihood that Daniel’s “periscope” does as well.

 

In conclusion, I contend that the Book of Daniel does envision a distant future in which Jesus Christ does, at last, hold full dominion over the earth. I also hold that Daniel is consistent with the idea that the fourth beast (Rome) and the first three beasts all have lifespans that extend somewhat beyond the time of the little horn of Daniel 7. I do not, however, find any evidence in Daniel to support the idea that the rule of Christ is to be established through some kind of future apocalyptic process that dispensationalists and other advocates of futurist exegesis have somehow managed to discover. Because I find no such evidence, I consider myself to have more in common with those who call themselves “full” Preterists than I do with those who fall into the “partial” category.

 

End Notes:

 

1. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, rev. ed. (Atlanta: American Vision, 1998), 414-15.

 

2. Ibid.

------

John Evans is a columnist for PlanetPreterist.com. John is a retired professor of economics at the U. of Alabama at Tuscaloosa, and a dedicated student of Preterism, especially of the book of Daniel.