Andyews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 34, No.2, 249-268.

"
Copyright by Andrews University Press.

INTERPRETATIONS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD

IN DANIEL 2:44

GERHARDPFANDL
Wahroonga, NSW
Australia

It is a pleasure and a privilege to contribute an article to a volume honoring

the late great scholar Gerhard F. Hasel, who was not only my Doktorvatm,
but also my friend.
The kingdom of God occupies a prominent place in the NT; it is
also evident in the O T (Ps 456; Isa 9 3 . This article surveys the various
interpretations of the kingdom of God in Dan 2:44, particularly during
the patristic period and the last two hundred years. It investigates the
claim that the stone kingdom in Daniel 2 was not interpreted as the
first advent of Christ until the fourth century. It also presents a
definition of the major schools of interpretation during the last two
centuries.
In Daniel 2 the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar sees in a dream
the image of a man whose head is of gold, his breast and arms of silver,
his abdomen and his thighs of bronze, his legs of iron, and his feet part
iron and part clay. While viewing this picture the king sees a stone cut
loose without hands smiting the statue upon its feet of iron and clay
and demolishing the whole statue. The stone then becomes a huge
mountain which fills the whole earth (Dan 2:32-35).
In his interpretation, Daniel identifies the four metal parts of the
statue as four successive kingdoms. The stone is the kingdom of God,
which will crush and bring to an end all the kingdoms of this world
and then stand forever (Dan 2:44).
JmishAuthors
The earliest known interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's image
appears in the writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.' He
does not actually name the kingdoms in his discussion of Dan 2; but in
his comments on Dan 8, which he understood to refer to Antiochus IV
Epiphanes, he says: 'In the very same manner [as he had written
concerning Antiochus IV Epiphanes] Daniel also wrote concerning the

'~laviusJosephusJezuish Antiquities 10. 208-210 (LCL 6:273).

250 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN 1996)

Roman government and that our country should be made desolate by

them."2 Thus, Josephus seems to identify the fourth kingdom as Rome
as did other Jews.3Concerning the stone kingdom Josephus states: "And
Daniel also revealed to the king the meaning of the stone, but I have
not thought it proper to relate this, since I am expected to write of
what is Dast and done and not of what is to be.n4He obviouslv did not
1 J

want to offend the Romans by intimating that their kingdom would be

destroyed by the stone-kingdom of God.
In 4 Ezra (late first century A.D.) Ezra has a dream in which he sees
an eagle come up from the sea. He is told, "the eagle which you saw
coming up from the sea is the fourth kingdom which appeared in a
vision to your brother Daniel" (12:ll). While there is no definite
identification of the eagle, from the context it seems fairly certain that
the fourth kingdom is understood to be R ~ m e . ~
l%e Church Fathers
No comments on the vision of Dan 2 appear in the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers. On the other hand, most of their successors, the
christian interpreters during the first few centuries, understood the four
kingdoms in Dan 2 to be Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.'

Ibid., lo. 276.

3RalphMarcus, LCL 6:3 10-311, note c. B e Babylonian Talmud consistently interprets
the fourth kingdom as Rome; 'Abodah Zarah 2b quotes Daniel 7:23 and remarks: "R.
Johanan says that this refers to Rome, whose power is known to the whole world.* See
also Shehoth 6b.
'Josephus, 10. 210 (LCL 6:275).
5B.M. Metzger, "The Fourth Book of Ezra," O P ,1:550, note b.
&Irenaeus(d. 195), the bishop of Lyons, identified the fourth kingdom as "the empire
which now rules" (Against Heresies 5:26.1 [ANF 135543. Hippolytus (d. 236), presbyter
and teacher in the church of Rome, interpreted the first three empires as Babylon, Persia
and Greece. Of the fourth one he said: "The legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and
terrible expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present" (Treatise on Christ
and Antichrist 28 [ANF 5:210D. The same view was expressed by the great Alexandrian
theologian Origen (185-254) in his Commentary on Genesis 3.37 (PG 12:59); by Eusebius
of Caesarea (265-339), the father of church history, in his Fragmentum Libri XV (PG
22:793); and by Aphraates (d. 345), an ascetic from Mosul, who wrote in reference to the
image in Daniel 2: "Its head is Nebuchadnezzar; its breasts and arms the king of Media
and Persia; its belly and thighs the king of the Greeks; its legs and feet the kingdom of
the children of Esau" (Select Demonstrations 5.14 [NPNF, 2d series. 13:3571). Aphraates,
like the Jewish sages, believed that the Edomites were the first to accept the Nazarene's
creed and that they brought the cult to Rome, where it later became the state religion
(Hersh Goldwurm, Danael: A New Translation with a Commentary, AnthoIogiz8d fiom
Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources, The Art Scroll Tanach Series m e w York:
Exceptions to this general consensus were the Neoplatonist, non-
Christian philosopher Porphyry (233-304); Ephraem Syrus (306-373),the
greatest light of the Syrian church; and Polychronius (d. 430), bishop of
Apamea and brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who identified the
fourth kingdom as Greece or the various Grecian kingdoms following
the demise of the Alexandrian empire.' This view, however, never won
general acceptance in their time.
Thus Cyril of Jerusalem (301-386) could say: That this fourth
kingdom "is that of the Romans has been the tradition of the Church's
interpreters."* This tradition was continued by John Chrysostom (344-
407)9 and Jerome (345-413), who wrote in his commentary on Daniel:
"Now the fourth empire, which clearly refers to the Romans, is the iron
empire which breaks in pieces and overcomes all others."1°
In regard to the interpretation of the stone-kingdom the picture,
unfortunately, is not as straightforward. A study of the sources reveals
that many of the early Christian writers and commentators believed
that "the stone being cut without hands" symbolized Christ's
incarnation.
For example, Justin Martyr (100-165), arguing for the virgin birth
in his dialogue with Trypho, says:
For when Daniel speaks of "one like unto the Son of man" who
received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing?
For he declared that, in saying "like unto the Son of man," He
appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing
he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut
out without hands. For the expression "it was cut out without hands"
signified that it is not a work of man, but [a work] of the will of the

Mesorah, 19801, 105).

'On Porphyry, see Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, trans. G. L. Archer, Jr. (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1985), 15; Ephraem Syrus In Danielem Prophetam, in Opera omnia quae
extant graece, syriace, latine, 6 vols. (Rome: Typographia Pontificia Vaticana, 1737-1743),
2:205-206; Polychronius In Danielem, in Scriptonrm veterum nova collectio e vaticanis
codicibus edita, ed. Angelus Maius, 10 vols. (Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1825-1831), 1:4 (The
pagination begins with "onenfor each book within each volume in this collection. Thus,
1:4 means volume one of the series by Angelus Maius but page 4 of the book by
Polychronius).
'Cyril i%eCatecbetical Lectures 15.13 (NPNF,2d series, 7:108).
qohn Chrysostom Interpretation of the Prophet Daniel 2. 214 (PG 56:206-207).
"Jerome, 32.
252 SEMINARYSTUDIES 34 (AUTUMN 1996)

Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth."

This view, it seems, became the accepted, standard interpretation,
for we find it also explicitly stated by Jerome (345-413) and Theodoret
(ca. 390-458) in the fourth and fifth centuries.
Jerome, who wrote commentaries on almost all the books of the
Bible, explains in his comments on the stone in Dan 2:34,35:
. . . at the final period of all these empires of gold and silver and
bronze and iron, a rock (namely, the Lord and Savior) was cut off
without hands, that is, without copulation of human seed and by
birth from a virgii's womb; and after all the empires had been
crushed, He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.'*
Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus in Syria, in his commentary on
Daniel 2 writes:
Therefore we are taught both by the Old and the New Testament that
our Lord Jesus Christ has been designated the stone. For He was cut
out of the mountain without hands, being born of a virgin apart from
any nuptial intercourse, and the divine scripture had always been
accustomed to name him as having had his origin contrary to nature,
the cutting out of a stone."
However, while the view that "the stone cut out without hands"
refers to Christ's incarnation seemed to be generally held, this does not
mean that the stone smiting the image was therefore also understood to
refer to the first advent of Christ. Some Church Fathers applied it to
the first and others to the second advent.
There is no record of Justin's view concerning the stone smiting the
image, but when discussing the ten kings in Rev 17:12, Irenaeus
compares them with the ten toes in Dan 2: "The ten toes, therefore, are
these ten kings, among whom the moman] kingdom shall be

"Justin Martyr Dtalogue with Trypho, a Jew 76 (ANF 1:236). The same argument was
used by Irenaeus (d. 195), who also speaking about the virgin birth, states: "On this
account also, Daniel, foreseeing His advent, said that a stone, cut out without hands, came
into this world. For this is what 'without hands' means, that His coming into this world
was not by the operation of human hands, that is, of those men who are accustomed to
stonecutting; that is, Joseph taking no part with regard to it, but Mary alone co-operating
with the prearranged plan. For this stone from the earth derives existence from both the
power and the wisdom of God. So, then, we understand that His advent in human nature
was not by the will of man, but by the will of Godn (Irenaeus Against Heresies 21.7 [ANF
1:453$.

Vheodoret Commentary on the Visions of the Prophet Daniel 2.34,35 (PG 81: 1301).
 PFANDL:KINGDOMOF GODIN DANIEL2:44 253

partitioned."14Then after quoting Dan 2:44, 45 he states that "Christ is

the stone which is cut out without hands, who shall destroy temporal
kingdoms, and introduce an eternal one, which is the resurrection of the
just."15
Irenaeus obviously saw a long time period between the cutting out
of the stone, i.e., Christ's incarnation, and the stone smiting the image
which he placed in the future, after the division of the'empire.
Two opinions in regard to the origin of the view which identifies
the stone with the church beginning with Christ's first advent deserve
mention. L. E. Froom in his monumental work 7he Prophetic Faith of
Our Fathers claims that not until the fourth century was there a shift
from interpreting the stone-kingdom as the second advent to viewing it
as a symbol of the church, beginning at the first advent of Christ.16 J.
A. Montgomery and J. G. Gammie, on the other hand, believe that the
identification of the stone with the church is much older. Montgomery
finds the earliest instance of this interpretation in the shepherd of
Hermas.17 But it is questionable whether Hermas is even alluding to

141renaeusAgainst Heresies 5.26.1 (ANF 1:555).

151bid., 5.26.2 (ANF 1:555).
16L. E. Froom, 7he Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, 4 volumes (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1946-1954), 1:309. Froom sees three steps leading to this rhversal in
prophetic interpretation. -0rigen's third-century spiritualization of the resurrection,
blended with his allegorimtion of the prophetic Scriptures, constituted the first in a series
of three fatal steps taken by the dominant church in departure from the earlier advent
faith. These each occurred about a century apart, under Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine
respectively. The second step, following upon the 'conversion' of Constantine, centered
on the revolutionary fourth-century concept of the kingdom of God as the newly establish&
earthly church. The third step, then as yet future, would be, as it unfolds, the fifth-century
position that the thousand-year binding of the devil had begun with the first advent"
(ibid., 349, emphasis mine). Douglas Bennett, following L. E. Froom, states that the literal
interpretation of Scripture was superseded by the spiritual-allegorical method. "This type
of biblical exegesis stood in contradiction to the literal-historicalbiblical interpretation of
the first four centuries and succeeded in turning attention away from the Second Advent
and directing focus upon the first advent" ("The Stone Kingdom of Daniel 2," in
Symposium on Daniel, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, ed. Frank B. Holbrook
Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 19861, 337).
'3. A. Montgomery, Daniel, ICC (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1926), 192. The text
in Hermas, Parable 9, chap. 2 reads "In the middle of the plain he showed me a great
white rock that had risen from the plain. The rock was higher than the mountains,
square, so that it could hold the whole world. And the rock was old, and had a gateway
carved out of it." In chapters 12 and 13 the explanation is given, "This rock and gateway
. . . are the son of God," who builds a tower which "is the church," and "the tower has
become one stone with the rock" (Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apostolic Fathers [London:
254 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN 1996)

Daniel. J. G. Gammie believes that certainly Tertullian (160-220)

identified the stone with the Church. He says, "similarly to Irenaeus,
Tertullian taught that there would be two advents of Christ, except that
the stone of Daniel 2:34 which would crush the image of the secular
kingdom is now understood to be Christ's Church (Against Marcion
3.7)."18
The statement to which Gammie is referring appears in Tertullian's
work Against Marcion, written early in the third century. In the passage
under consideration he discusses the two kinds of prophecies concerning
Christ. These two types of prophecies Tertullian sees presignifying the
two advents of Christ.
Now these signs of degradation quite suit His first coming, just as the
tokens of His majesty do His second advent, when He shall no longer
remain "a stone of stumbling and rock of offence," but after His
rejection become "the chief corner-stone," accepted and elevated to the
top place of the temple, even His church, being that very stone in
Daniel, cut out of the mountain, which was to smite and crush the
image of the secular kingdom. Of this advent the same prophet says:
"Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and
came to the Ancient of days; and they brought Him before H i m , and
there was given H i m dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all
people, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an
everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away; and His kingdom
that which shall not be destroyed."19
The question is, what is the antecedent of "being that very stone in
Daniel"? Is it the word "church" which in the translation and in the
original Latin immediately precedes that phrase? O r is it "He" (Christ)
mentioned earlier in the passage? A careful reading of the passage, I

'8John G. Gammie, "A Journey Through Danielic Spaces," Interpretation 39

(1985): 146.
'Tertullian Against Marcion 3.7 (ANF 3:326). The Latin reads: "Quae ignobilitatis
arguments primo adventui competunt sicut sublimitatis secundo, cum fiet iam non lapis
offensionis nec petra scandali, sed lapis summus angularis post reprobationem adsumptus
et sublimatus in consummationem templi, ecclesiae scilicet, et petra sane illa apud
Danihelem de monte praecisa, quae imaginem saecularium regnorwn comminuet et
conteret. De quo adventu idem prophetes: Et ecce cum nubibus caeli tanquam fdius
hominis veniens, venit usque ad veterem dierum, aderat in conspectu eius, et qui
adsistebant adduxerunt illum, et data est ei potestas regia, et omnes nationes terrae
secundum genera, et omnis gloria famulabunda, et potestas eius usque in aevum, quae non
auferetur, et regnum eius quod non vitiabitur" (Tenullian Against Marcion 3. 7. 3, Corps
Christianorum, Latin Series, part 1 [Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 19541, 516).
believe, indicates that Gammie's interpretation is possible and that
Tertullian may be referring to the church, though it must be admitted
that the passage is ambiguous.20
If Gammie's reading is correct, this passage would then be in
harmony with another statement which Tenullian makes in connection
with Isaiah's prophecy that in the last days the nations would say,
"Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house
of the God of Jacob" (Isa 2:3). "Of Jacob," says Tertullian, "that is of
our 'people' whose 'mount' is Christ, 'praecised without concisors'
hands, filling every land, shown in the book of Daniel."21Christ 'filling
every land" can only refer to his church.
Cyprian (200-258), the converted rhetorician and martyred bishop
of Carthage, argued for a christologicaland ecclesiological interpretation
of the stone-kingdom in Dan 2 by suggesting that the stone which
became a mountain is Christ the bridegroom who with his bride the
church fills the earth with spiritual children.22
The interpretation of the stone as the church which, as we have

'!Froom introduces this quotation with the words, "He specifically declares Christ
to be the stone of Daniel 2 that will smite at H
is second coming the 'secular kingdom'
image of Daniel 2 (Froom, 1:256). Froom obviously reads the passage differently from
Garnmie.
*'Tertullian An Answer to the Jews 3 (ANF 3:154). This was also the position of
Ephraem Syrus (2:206) and Polychronius (1:4) who following Porphyry interpreted the
four empires as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Alexander's empire, and the Grecian kingdoms
following Alexander. The stone-kingdom,therefore, was the church.
=The Treatise of C p k n 12.2.16-19 (ANF 5:515). That Cyprian is not referring to
the second advent is made clear by the context in which propositions 16-19 appear. The
earlier ones refer to Christ's birth and those immediately following to the cross: -11. That
He was to be born of the seed of David after the flesh. 12. That He should be born in
Bethlehem. 13. That He should come in lowly condition on His first advent. 14. That He
was the righteous One whom the Jews should put to death. 15. That He was called a
Sheep and a Lamb who would have to be slain, and concerning the sacrament of the
passion. 16. That He is also called a Stone. 17. That subsequently that stone should
become a mountain, and should fill the whole earth. 18. That in the last times the same
mountain should be manifested, upon which the Gentiles should come, and on which the
righteous should go up. 19. That He is the Bridegroom, having the Church as H is bride,
from whom children should be spiritually born. 20. That the Jews should fasten Him to
the cross. 21. That in the passion and the sign of the cross is all virtue and power. 22.
That in this sign of the cross is salvation for all who are marked on their foreheads." Only
the last three propositions (28-30) clearly speak of the second advent when Jesus should
come as judge and king. Froom spends six pages on Cyprian, but nowhere does he refer
to the above-mentioned propositions. In fact he says that Cyprian "does not expound the
time prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse, nor even the prophetic symbols of Daniel
2 and 7" (Froom, 1:334).
256 SEMINARYSTUDIES 34 (AUTUMN 1996)

seen, did exist in the third century and was continued in the fourth
century in The Apostolic Constitution (c. 380);) was taught as well as by
Augustine (354-430), the most illustrious of the Latin He, more
than anyone before him, emphasized the idea of the kingdom of God
as the church ruling on earth. In his magnum opus The City of God he
writes, "Therefore, the Church even now is the kingdom of Christ, and
the kingdom of heaven. Accordingly, even now his saints reign with
Him."*l In the history of theology, Augustine's thought on this subject
was pivotal. He provided the materials which later writers used to build
the medieval theory of the religio-political state church.
The fact that Augustine, long before the end of the Roman empire,
could say that the stone (Christ) had filled the whole face of the earth
with His kingdom (the Church) indicates that he, and those Church
Fathers who held the same view, saw no conflict between the already-
existing stone-kingdom and the picture of the stone shattering the image
at the feet. They obviously interpreted the shattering of the kingdom
not as a sudden event but rather as a gradual process in which the
Church would finally-in the days of the feet of iron and
clay-overcome all earthly powers.
However, not all Church Fathers agreed with this interpretation.
As we have seen, Irenaeus saw the stone shattering the image as a
picture of the second advent of Christ. His disciple Hippolytus (d. 236),
author of the oldest surviving commentary on Daniel, after discussing
the little horn in Dan 7, which he interprets as the coming Antichrist,
says: "After a little space the stone will come from heaven which smites

23TheApostolic Constitution (5.20) reads: "Him [Christ] Daniel describes as 'the Son
of man coming to the Father,' and receiving all judgment and honour from Him; and as
'the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, and becoming a great mountain, and
filling the whole earth,' dashing to pieces the many governments of the smaller countries,
and the polytheism of gods, but the one God, and ordaining the monarchy of
the Romans" (ANF 7:448).
24AugustineTractate 4 on the Gospel of John 4.4 (NPNF, 1st series, 7:26) "Now then
was the stone cut out without hands before the eyes of the Jews, but it was humble. Not
without reason; because not yet had that stone increased and filled the whole earth that
He showed in His kingdom, which is the Church, with which He has filled the whole
face of the earth." As many before him, Augustine also interpreted the "cutting out
without hands" as the virgin birth. "The prophet wishes that by the mountain should be
understood the Jewish kingdom. But the kingdom of the Jews had not filled the whole
face of the earth. The stone was cut out from thence, because from thence was the Lord
born on His advent among men. And wherefore without hands? Because without the co-
operation of man did the Virgin bear Christn (ibid.).
25AugustineThe City of God 20.9 (NPNF, 1st series, 2:430).
the image and breaks it in pieces and subverts all the kingdoms, and
gives the kingdom to the saints of the Most High. This is the stone
which becomes a great mountain, and fills the whole earth."26
Aphraates (d. 345) leaves us in no doubt that he saw the stone as
the future coming of Jesus. He clearly states, "that stone when it comes
will find the feet alone."27Further, "the stone, which smote the image
and brake it, and with which the whole earth was filled, is the kingdom
of King Messiah, who will bring to nought the kingdom of this world,
and will rule for ever and ever."28
Theodoret (393-485),a contemporary of Augustine, also repudiated
the concept of the stone as the church. "Let them show," he says, "that
the kingdom.of the Romans passed away at the same time that the
Saviour appeared."29Since the Roman empire still existed, he reasons:
If therefore the first coming of the Lord did not overthrow the empire
of the Romans, it properly remains that we should understand [by
this] His second advent. For the stone which was cut out before
without hands, and which grew into a great mountain and covered the
whole earth, this at the second advent shall smite the image upon the
feet of clay. That is, He will come at the very end of the kingdom of
iron, which already has been made weak, and having destroyed all
kingdoms, He will consign them to oblivion, and will bestow His
own eternal kingdom upon the worthy.30
In general the view of the early interpreters concerning the four
kingdoms was accepted in the church throughout the Middle Ages and
the Reformation era." The stone-kingdom was applied by some to

26~ippolytus Fragmentsfrom Commentaries, "On Danieln2.2 (ANF 5:178). In Treatise

on Christ and Antichrist 2.26 (ANF 5:209) he expresses the same thought, "After a little
space the stone will come from heaven which smites the image and breaks it in pieces, and
gives the kingdom to the saints of the Most High." Hippolytus interpreted Daniel 2 and
7 from the historicist point of view. Daniel 8 and 11, however, he placed primarily in the
time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. In Daniel 11 he saw Antiochus only up to verse 35;
verses 36-45 he applied to the future antichrist, as do many futurists.
27AphraatesSelect Demonstrations 5.14 (NPNF, 2d series, 13:357).
281bid.This was also the view of Eusebius of Caesarea prior to the Constantinian
conversion. After this event, it seems, he changed his mind (see Froom, 1:364, 382-385).
Theodoret Commentary on the Vision of the Prophet Daniel (PG 81:1309).

3'Luther (1483-1546) in his exposition of Daniel wrote: "The first kingdom is that of
the Assyrians or Babylonians; the second, that of the Medes and Persians; the third, that
of Alexander the Great and the Greeks; the fourth, that of the Romans. Everyone agrees
on this view and interpretation; subsequent events and the histories prove it conclusivelyn
Christ's second coming, as Theodoret had done;" however, most
interpreters, particularly during the time of the Reformation, saw it
begin at Christ's first advent.)'
Be Modern Period
The post-Reformation era saw an increase of interest in the
prophecies of Daniel. Joseph Mede (1586-1638), one of the foremost
theologians of his time, considered the four kingdoms in Daniel to be
the "ABC of prophecy.")' He interpreted them as Babylon, Medo-Persia,
Greece, and Rome.35The stone-kingdom depicted for him the two states
of the kingdom of Christ:
The First may be called, for distinction sake, the Regnum Lapidis, the
Kingdom of the Stone; which is the State of Christ's Kingdom which
hitherto hath been: The other, Regnum Montis, the Kingdom of the
Mountain (that is the Stone grown into a Mountain etc.) which is the
State of his kingdom which hereafter shall be.36
Thus Mede, as some of the Church Fathers, identified the cutting
out of the stone "without hands" as the virgin birth and the stone
"filling the earth" as the future kingdom of God. Mede's work became
a classic in the field of prophetic interpretation and most writers on
Daniel in subsequent centuries referred to him in some way.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries interpretations and
commentaries on Daniel proliferated. At the beginning of the
nineteenth century we find in operation four-systems for interpreting
the prophecies of Daniel. We will briefly describe the origin,

("Preface to the Prophet Daniel," LW. 35:295). An exception was Joachim of Floris
(Concordia novi ac Veteris Testamenti [Venice, 1519; reprint, Frankfurt a. M.: Minerva,
19641, fol. 127 r.v.), who interpreted the golden head as the kingdom of the Chaldeans,
Medes, and Persians; the silver as Greece; the third kingdom as the Roman Empire, and
the Saracens who seized the territory of Rome were the fourth.
'2For example, Joachim of Floris, fol. 127 v.
"For example, The Venerable Bede, The Explanation of the Apocalypse by Venerable
Beda, trans. E. Marshall (Oxford: James Parker, 1878), 145; Luther, LW, 12:36; 35:296-297;
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Dan&, 2 vols., trans. Th. Myers
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 1:180; George Joye, The Exposition ofDanid the Prophete
Gathered Out of Philip Melanchton, Johan Ecolampadius, Chonrade Pellicane, and Out of
Johan Draconite (Geneva, 1545), 30.
"Joseph Mede, "His Epistles," The Works of the Pious and Profoundly Learned Joseph
Mede (London: Roger Norton, 1677), 743.
%Mede, "Discourses on Divers Texts of Scripture," Works, 104.
%Mede, "His Epistles," Works, 743.
 development and basic premises of %eachand then indicate their
respective understanding of the four empires and the stone-kingdom in
Dan 2.
7be Historicist School
The historicist school of interpretation is the oldest of the four
schools. It can be traced back to the Church Fathers, was taught by
men like Joachim of Floris (1130-1202), and became the standard
interpretation until the time of the Counter Reformation in the
- sixteenth century.
Historicists believe in the divine inspiration of the book of Daniel,
affirm that it was written in the sixth century B.C.,37and assert that its
main prophecies cover the period from the Babylonian Empire to the
second coming of Christ. Historicists generally agree that the four
empires in Dan 2 and 7 represent the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-
Persia, Greece, and Rome," and that the little horn in Dan 7 is the
papacy.j9 A third factor common to all is their use of the year-day
principle in interpreting the time prophecies in DanieL40This use of the
year-day principle makes historicists different from other interpreters.
Finally, there is also general agreement among historicists that Dan 9:24-
27 refers to Jesus Christ and was fulfilled in the in~arnation.~'

3 7 ~ l b e rBarnes,
t Daniel, 2 vols. (1853; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950), 1:45;
Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible, 6 vols. (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, n.d.), 4562;
F. D. Nichol, ed., The Seventhday Adventist Bible Commentary, 7 vols. (Washington DC:
Review and Herald, 1953-1953, 4:743; C. Mervyn Maxwell, God CZzres, 2 vols. (Boise:
Pacific Press, 1981), 1:ll.
"Barnes, 1:156-65; Clarke, 4:57 1, 572; Robert Nevin, Studies in Prophecy
(Londonderry: James Montgomery, 1890), 23; Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and
the Revelation, rev. ed. (Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1944), 93-96; Joseph Tanner, Daniel
and the Revdation, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898), 160; Clarence H. Hewitt, The
Seer of Babylon, (Boston: Advent Christian Herald, 1948), 47-58; Nichol, 4:772-774; George
McCready Price, The Greatest of the Prophets (Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1955), 76-78;
Desmond Ford, Daniel (Nashville: Southern Publishing, 1978), 97; Edmund Filmer,
Daniel's Prdictions, (London: Regency, 1979); Maxwell, 1:36; Frank B. Holbrook, ed.,
Symposium on Daniel, (Washington DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 2:158; Jacques
B. Doukhan, 7%e Vision of the End: Daniel (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press,
1983, 14.
'Wevin, 82; Tanner, 167; Barnes, 236; Smith, 103; Hewitt, 107; Nichol, 4:826; Price,
139; Maxwell, 1:131; Ford, 151.
"'Barnes, 2:74; Smith, 129; Hewitt, 123; Nichol, 4:833; Price, 151; Maxwell, 1:130.
The case for the year-day principle has been cogently argued by Ford in his Daniel, 300-
305.
"For example, Nevin, 18; Clarke, 4:602; Smith, 195; Hewitt, 262; Nichol, 4:853;
260 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN 1996)

All historicists agree that the stone represents C h r i ~ t . 'The

~ Messiah
is the stone which the builders rejected and which became the chief
cornerstone (Matt 21:42). He is the "tried stone," prophesied in Isaiah
28:16, the "precious cornerstone" that is laid in Zion as "a sure
f~undation."~' But is it Christ at his first or at his second coming? We
find both views among historicists.
Some believe that the striking of the image by the stone is a symbol
of the first advent of Christ.44They contend (1) that at that time Christ
established His spiritual kingdom; (2) that this kingdom is the church,
which "became a great mountain and filled the whole earth" @an 2:35);
and (3) that this is in harmony with the manner of growth of the
mustard seed in Christ's parable (Matt 13:3I), symbolizing the growth
of the Church through - the centuries.45In addition, the vision seems to
indicate that after the image has been broken in pieces there is a further
process of crushing to powder the pieces which are then carried away
by the wind (Dan 2:34, 35). This would imply, not only a single shock,
but a continued destruction over a long- time. Furthermore, if the stone
refers to the second advent, the vision would completely ignore the
most important event in history-the incarnation. Also, the phraseology
in Daniel is similar to other texts predicting the birth of the Messiah
(Isa 9:7).46
Others believe that the stone-kingdom will be set up at the second
coming of Christ." They argue (1) that the stone strikes the image at
the feet of iron and clay (Dan 2:34), which symbolize the kingdoms
following the Roman Empire. The stone therefore cannot strike the
image during the time of the Roman Empire when Christ was born; (2)
that the picture of the stone striking the image and shattering it to
pieces suggests a world shaking, catastrophic event rather than an event
almost unnoticed by the world, and the slow beginnings and relatively
slow progress of the Christian church; (3) that the stone-kingdom does
not exist contemporaneously with earthly governments; but destroys all

Price, 239.
"Barnes, 1:176; Hewitt, 71; Smith, 53; Nichol, 4:776; Price, 81; Ford, 99.
"Hewitt, 70.
"Nevin, 44; Clarke, 4:573; Barnes, 1:174-175.

*Taylor, Daniel the Beloved (1878; reprint, New York: G. H. Doran, 1919), 46-47.
47Tanner, 161; Smith, 53; Nichol, 4:776; Price, 81; Maxwell, 42-43.
the preceeding kingdoms and takes their place."
While the first view certainly has some merit, the weight of
exegetical evidence favors the view that the stone-kingdom represents
the future kingdom of God to be established at Christ's second advent.
Today, the historicist principles of prophetic interpretation are
primarily espoused by Seventh-day Adventist scholars.
fie Preterist School
Interpreters of the preterist school consider the book of Daniel as
a revelation from God, but limit the fulfillment of its prophecies to the
time period which runs from the time of Daniel in the sixth century
B.C. to the first coming of Christ49or at most to the end of the Roman
Em~ire."
I

The historical roots of modern preterism go back to the Counter

Reformation. On the basis of the historicist principle of interpretation,
the Reformers applied the biblical prophecies of the Antichrist to the
papacy. Luther, for example, firmly believed that the willful king in
Daniel 11:36, 37-the Antichrist-was the pope."
Several Jesuit scholars undertook the task of refuting this attack on
the papacy. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-162I), head of the Jesuit
College in Rome, attempted to nullify the prophetic year-day principle

"Hewitt, 71-72.
'Wathaniel S. Folsom, Critical and Historical Intwpretation of the Prophecies ofDaniel,
(Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1842); Irah Chase, Remarks on the Book of Daniel (Boston:
Gould, Kendall, and Lincoln, 1844); Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel
(Boston: Crocker and Webster, 1850); Henry Cowles, Ezekiel and Daniel (New York:
Appleton, 1868); William M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved (1878; reprint, New York: G. H.
Doran, 1919);J. E. Thomson, Daniel, Pulpit Commentary (London: Paul Kegan, Trench,
Triibner, 1898); Otto Zockler, 7he Book of the Prophet Daniel, Lange's Commentary (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915); Johannes Nikel, Grundr$der Einleittrng in dasAlten
Testament (Miinster: Aschendorf, 1924); Johannes Goettsberger, Das Buch Daniel, Die
Heilige Schrift des Altens Testaments (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1928); Philip Mauro, 73e
Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (Swengel: Bible Truth Depot, 1944); Robert M.
Gurney, God in Control (Worthington: H. E. Walter, 1980).
''Samuel Lee, An Inquiry Into the Nature, Progress, and End ofpropbecy, (Cambridge:
University Press, 1849).
"In regard to changing the law of God, Luther says: "No one would dare t o do that
except Antichrist-namely, the papacy-who, as Daniel 12 [1l:36] and St. Paul [2 Thess.
2:4] say, sets himself up against God." (LW, 41:212). In another place he says: "Listen t o
what St. Paul says to the Thessalonians [2 Thess. 2:4] 'The Antichrist takes his seat in the
temple of God.' If now the pope is (and I cannot. believe otherwise) the veritable
Antichrist, he will not sit or reign in the devil's stall, but in the temple of God" (LW,
4O:232).
262 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN 1996)

as the main proof for the 1260 years of papal t~ranny.~' Francisco
Ribera (1537-91) projected the Antichrist prophecies into the future.13
Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613) contended that these prophecies were
already fulfilled in the time of the Roman Empire; thus, the papacy
could not be the A n t i c h r i ~ t . ~ ~
Alcazar's interpretation was adopted by Hugo Grotius of Holland,
H. Hammond in England, and others; in time it gained a strong
foothold among Protestants. W. Bousset believes that "with Alcazar
begins the scientific exposition of the Apo~alypse."~~
Some preterists see the four kingdoms in Daniel 2 and 7 as Babylon,
Medo-Persia, Greece, and the kingdoms of the successors of A l e ~ a n d e r ; ~ ~
others have the sequence Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and RomeS5'R.
Gurney has adopted the scheme of Ephraem Syrus, with Babylon,
Media, Persia, and Gree~e.~'
General unanimity exists among preterists as to the identification
of the stone-kingdom. They all agree that the stone refers to the
spiritual kingdom of Christ, that is the church which he established at
his first coming.59For example, Zockler says: "The destroying stone
represents the kingdom of Christ at the time of its introduction on the
historical arena, while the growth of the stone until it fills the earth,
indicates its gradual extension over all the countries of the earth.-
Preterism must be distinguished from the historical-critical school.
While some preterists have adopted the same interpretation of the four
kingdoms as that held by many historical-critical scholars (Babylon,

52L.R. Conradi, ?he Impelling Force of Prophetic Tmth (London: Thynne, 1935), 346.
*See "The Futurist-DispensationalSchool," below, esp. note 79.
%A. Piper, "Johannesapokalypse,"Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3d ed., 7
vols. (Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1959), 3:826. For an extended account of these
developments, see Froom, 2:484-532.
55Wilhelm Bousset, Die Ofenbamng johannis (Gottingem Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1906), 94.
%Folsom,148-5'0; Chase, 19; Stuart, 173; Cowles, 305-08; Z6ckler, 77-78.
57Taylor,41-43; Thomson, 70; Lee, 159; Mauro, 116.
"Gurney, 30-33; cf. John H. Walton, "The Four Kingdoms of Daniel," JETS 29
(1986): 25-36.
59Folsom, 154; Stuart, 67-68; Lee, 151; Taylor, 49; Cowles, 306; Thomson, 73;
Gurney, 39.
 PFANDL:KINGDOMOF GOD IN DANIEL2:44 263

Medo-Persia, Greece and the successors of A l e ~ a n d e r ) they

, ~ ~ clearly
differ in regard to their presuppositions. Preterists believe that Daniel
lived and wrote his book in the sixth century B.c.; historical-critical
scholars do not. Preterists believe that the prophecies in Daniel are true
prophecies; historical-critical scholars do not. They also differ in regard
to the interpretation of the stone-kingdom. While preterists believe the
stone to be a symbol of the Christian church, historical-critical scholars
generally identify the stone with the expected O T Messianic kingdom,
i.e., Israel's dominion over the nations, which, in fact, never
materialized.
Today, preterism has virtually died out. As far as I know, only one
commentary on Daniel published after 1945 espouses the principles of
preteri~m.~' Unfortunately, it is frequently equated with the historical-
critical school, because both schools apply the prophecies of Daniel to
the distant past.
B e Historical- Critical School
The history of the Christian church shows that for about 1700
years the church accepted the book of Daniel as a book of true
prophecy written by Daniel, who lived in the sixth century B.C.
A new direction in scholarship was introduced by the deists and
rationalists of the seventeenth and eighteenth ~ e n t u r i e swho
, ~ ~ began to
lay the groundwork for a study of Scripture that investigated and
analyzed the Bible as the product of human ingenuity rather than divine
inspiration. The humanistic insights which subjected Scripture to the
same principles of criticism as were applied to secular writings led to a
revival of Porphyry's arguments concerning the authenticity of the
book of Daniel and its traditional age.64
Predictive prophecy inspired by God did not fit into the picture
which the Enlightenment had painted of this world. There really could

"see "The Historical Critical School," below.

62Gurney(see above) seems to be the last preterist interpreter.
aFor an excellent review of the rise and development of biblical criticism and the
forces that brought it into existence, see Henning Graf Reventlow, 73e Authority of the
Bible and the Rise of the Modern World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
&Jerome, 15. Porphyry's main theses were: (1) The book was written by an
unknown Jew living in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (2d century B.c.) rather than
by Daniel in the 6th century; (2) In the narration of events up to the time of Antiochus,
we have true history, but anything beyond that time is false, since the writer could not
know the future. The crux of the argument is the presupposition that predictive prophecy
is impossible.
not be any prophecy in the book of Daniel. J. G. Eichhorn (1752-1827),
one of the pioneers of higher criticism claimed, "The prophetic
wording, therefore, should only be an embellished report of history."65
Daniel, living in the second century KC., had the idea "to place a
~ r o ~ h e tcloak
i c around past events."66
One of the results of this kind of thinking was that the
identification of Rome as the fourth empire in Dan 2 was rejected. The
Romans as established rulers in Palestine were still future for a Jew
living in the second century B.C. Hence, the view that Greece was the
four& empire-held by ~ ~ h r a eSyrus,m Polychronius, and a number of
interpreters in church hi~to$~-was revived.6pBasically this is still the
view accepted by mainstream historical-critical scholars today.69
Historical-critical scholars generally agree on the interpretation of
the stone-kingdom. It is the Messianic kingdom in the broad sense of
the term; i.e., it refers to the people of God, not only to the person of
the Messiah." It is not an extraterrestrial k i n g d ~ m ,because
~' "the sphere
of that kingdom is that of its predecessors, only it possesses the
everlasting endurance of the natural rock."" The emphasis is on the

65J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3 vols., 3d ed. (Leip+

Weidmhni, 1803), 3:419.
9bid., 3:417.
67H.HARowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel
(Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1959), 71.
"Eichhorn, 3:419.
T o r example, S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel, Cambridge Bible for Schools and
Colleges (Cambridge: University Press, 1901), 28-29; Karl Marti, Das Buch Daniel, Kurzer
Hand-Commentar Zum Alten Testament (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1901), 15; J. A.
Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ICC
(Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1927), 61; Aage Bentzen, Daniel, Handbuch zum Alten
Testament (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1952), 31; Norman Porteous, Daniel, 2d rev. ed.,
Old Testament Library (London: SCM Press, 1979),47; Otto Ploger, Das Buch Daniel,
Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Gutersloh: Gen Mohn, 1965), 56; Louis F. Hartman
and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1978), 147;
A. Lacocque, The Book ofDaniel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979),51; Jiirgen-Christian Lebram,
Das Buch Daniel, Zurcher Bibelkommentar (Ziirich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984), 56; W.
Sibley Towner, Daniel, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984), 36; John J. Collins,
Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 166.
7DDriver, 30; Bentzen, 31; Porteous, 50; Ploger, 54; Montgomery, 191.
7'Lacocque, 52; Hartman and Di Lella, 149; John E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC 30
(Dallas: Word, 1989), 59-60.
"Montgomery, 191.
people of Israel." "The Divine Kingdom itself," says Driver, "is in the
hands of a people, viz. Israel."" And the time of its establishment was
to be immediately after the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164).75
Today, the historical-critical school dominates the interpretation of
the book of Daniel. Scholarly debate is largely carried on based on the
presuppositions of the historical-critical school which rule out true
prophecy, miracles, and therefore salvation history." Even some
evangelical scholars have found it necessary to use the historical-critical
presuppositions in their interpretation of the book of Daniel."
7he Futurist-DispensationalSchool
This school of interpretation has its roots in the teachings of the
Spanish Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) who, in response to Luther,
applied the Antichrist prophecies in Daniel and Revelation to a future
personal Antichrist who would appear in the time of the end and
continue in power for three and a half years.78
For more than two centuries this view was confined to the Roman
Catholic Church. Then, beginning in 1826, Samuel R. Maitland (1792-
1866), an Anglican clergyman, published a series of pamphlets in which
he denied the year-day principle of prophetic interpretation, placing the
time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation into the future and claiming

7 3 ~ oexample:
r Driver, 30; Marti, 16; Lacocque, 52; Towner, 38; Ploger, 50. The
exception are some Roman Catholic interpreters who identify the stone with the
Christian church; for example Louis F. Hartman, "Daniel," The Jerome Biblical
Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968), 451.

761n1898 Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923) formulated the principles of historical criticism

in his programmatic essay " ~ b e historische
r und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie,"
~esammelte'~chr@en 2 (Tiibingen, 1913): 729-753. According to Troeltsch the historical-
critical method has three principles: (1) the principle of criticism, which implies that
history only achieves probability; (2) the principle of analogy, which takes present
experience as the criterion for the past; (3) the principle of correlation or mutual
interdependence of all historical phenomena, which rules out any supernatural
intervention as a principle of historical explanation.
nGoldingay, for example, in spite of his claim to believe that God is capable of
knowing future events and of revealing them, treats $1 the prophetic visions as vaticinia
ex event#, i.e., prophecies actually written after the events they portray (xxxix).
"Francisco Ribera,. In Sacram Beati Ioannis Apostoli et Evangelistai Apocalypsin
Commentarii (Antwerp: Petrum Bellerum, 1593); see Froom, 2:489-93.
266 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN 1996)

that the pope therefore could not be the Anti~hrist.'~Others who

followed Maitland's lead were William Burgh," James H. Todd," John
Darby," and John Henry N e ~ m a n , the
~ ' famous High Church Anglican
who convened to Roman Catholicism and was made a cardinal by Pope
Leo XI1 in 1879.84
A few years after Maitland had written his first "Enquiry," Heinrich
A. C. Havernick (1811-1845), a German Lutheran theologian, published
his commentary on Daniel, in which he proposed that the division of
the fourth empire in Dan 7 into ten kingdoms was still in the future.85
He further suggested that the little horn in Dan 7 was a future
Antichrist and that the little horn in Dan 8 represented Antiochus IV
Epiphanes as a type of the future A n t i ~ h r i s t Both
. ~ ~ of these views
became trademarks of the futurist-dispensational interpretation, today
predominant among conservative Protestants.
Futurist-di~~ensationalistinterpreters, like historicists andpreterists,
accept Daniel's authorship of the book in the sixth century B.C.;~' unlike

79AnEnquiry Into the Grounds on Which the Prophetic Period of Daniel and St. John
Has Been Supposed to Consist of 1260 Years (London: Hatchard and Son, 1826); A Second
Enquiry into the Grounds . . . (London: C. and J. Rivington, 1829); An Attempt to
Elucidate the Prophecies Concerning Antichrist (London: C . and J. Rivington, 1830); see
further, Froom, 3542-543.
''Irish Futurist who published a treatise on the second advent in which he rejected
the identification of the Antichrist with the Pope. Like Maitland he expected a personal
Antichrist in the future (Lectures on the Second Advent o f o u r Lord Jesus Christ, 2d ed.,
enlarged [Dublin: William Curry,1835], 63, 65).
"Irish scholar and professor of Hebrew at the University of Dublin who declared
that "the fourth kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar's vision is even yet to come," and therefore
cannot be Rome (Discourses on the Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in the Writings of
Daniel and St. Paul [Dublin: University Press, 18401, xii, 61-62).
S2Darbywas the most prominent among the founders of the Plymouth Brethren and
a voluminous writer on a wide range of subjects. His writings on prophecy propagated
futurism. (Stdies on the Book of Daniel: A course of Lectures [London: J . B. Bateman,
18641).
83Newmanmaintains that the Antichrist is yet to come ("The Protestant Idea of
Antichrist," 7be British Critic, and Quarterly Theological Review 28 [1840]: 391-440).
8 4 F ~an
r extended treatment of all these authors, see Froom, 3541, 658-669.
85HeinrichA. Havernick, Commentar iber das Buch Daniel (Hamburg: Friedrich
Perches, 1832), 560-570.

"H. C. Leupold, Exposition ofDaniel (Wartburg, 1949; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker,
them, they generally do not apply the figure of the little horn to the
papacy or another power in the past. Rather, they expect that in the
future a personal Antichrist will appear to fulfill what is said of the
little horn in Dan 7 and of the king of the north in Dan 11:36-45.88
Adherents of this school can be divided into two groups. One
believes that "Israel" in prophecy always refers to literal Israel.
Therefore, they are forced to make a gap or parenthesis in the
fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies from the first coming of Christ-when
literal Israel rejected Jesus-to seven years before his second coming
when literal Israel will accept Him. These are the dispensationali~ts.~~
The second group rejects the gap theory. They believe "that from
the time of the destruction of the Roman Empire to the appearance of
the little horn [in the future] there will be a number of kingdoms [the
ten horns], which may truly be said to originate from the ancient
Roman Empire."90These are the futuristsP1
Most futurists and dispensationalists identify the four empires in
Dan 2 with Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Romee9'Concerning the

1969), 8; G. Maier, Der Prophet Daniel, Wuppertaler Studienbibel (Wuppenal: R.

Brockhaus, 1982), 62; John F. Walvoord, Daniel (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 11; Gleason L.
Archer, "Daniel," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1985), 7:4; Stuart Olyott, Dare to Stand Alone (Durham, Engl.: Evangelical, 1982), 33;
Sinclair Ferguson, Daniel, Mastering the Old Testament (Dallas: Word, 1988), 18.
"Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 163;
Archer, 93; Walvoord, 175; Olyott, 100; Ferguson, 162.
89Wealready mentioned J. F. Walvoord and G. L. Archer. Others include: H. A.
Ironside, Lectures on Daniel the Prophet (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1920); A. C. Gaebelein,
Ihe Prophet Daniel (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1955); Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973); Merrill F. Unger, "Daniel," Unger's Commentary on the
Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1981), vol. 2; John C. Whitcomb, Daniel, Everyman's
Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1985); J. Vernon McGee, Daniel, Through the Bible
Commentary Series (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991); Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, The
New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadrnan and Holman, 1994).
T o u n g , 149.
9'We already mentioned E. J. Young, G. Maier, H. C. Leupold, S. Olyott, and S.
Ferguson. Others are: Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, A Commentary:
Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments, 6 vols. (1866; Reprint,
Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, 1945); Carl F. Keil, The Book of Daniel, Biblical Commentary
on the Old Testament, trans. M. G. Easton (1867; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1949); A. R. Millard, "Daniel," The Intmtionul Bible Commentary, ed. F. F. Bruce
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986).
92Keil, 262; Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, 4:392; Walvoord, 64-68; Wood, 67-68;
Young, 76; Leupold, 287; Olyott, 33; Ferguson, 63.
268 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN 1996)

stone-kingdom, however, the two groups hold different views. Futurists

believe that the stone refers to the Messianic kingdom set up at Christ's
first advent.') Dispensationalists, on the other hand, insist that the
stone-kingdom has reference only to the second and not to the first
advent .94
Today, evangelical Christianity has adopted by and large the
dispensationalist position concerning the exegesis of the book of Daniel.
Only a few current evangelical commentaries are authored by futurists.
Summary
This review of the interpretation of Dan 2:44 has shown that the
Church Fathers generally identified the four kingdoms of Dan 2 as
Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome and that "the stone being cut
without hands" referred to Christ's incarnation. There was also a basic
agreement among the early Church Fathers in regard to the view that
the stone smiting the image symbolized the second advent of Christ.
However, during the third century some writers applied the stone-
kingdom to the church.
During the last 200 years four major schools of prophetic
interpretation have dominated the understanding of the Book of Daniel:
historicism, preterism, futurism/dispensationalism, and the historical-
critical view.
Historical-critical scholars generally identify the stone kingdom
with the O T Messianic kingdom, i.e., Israel's dominion over the
nations, which was supposed .to be established after the reign of
Antiochus Epiphanes, but which, in fact, never materialized.
Preterists interpret the stone-kingdom as a symbol of the Christian
church, beginning with the first advent of Christ. This is also the view
of futurists and some historicists. Most historicists today, however, and
all dispensationalists identify the stone-kingdom with the second advent
of Christ.
Thus, I conclude that the interpretation of the stone-kingdom does
not depend ~ r i m a r i on
l ~ the textual exegesis of Dan 2:44. Rather, to a
large degree, it hangs on the overall understanding of the book and the
presuppositions the interpreter brings to the text.

93Keil,269; Young, 78; Leupold, 123; Millard, 856; Olyott, 35; Ferguson, 65.
"Gaebelein, 35; Wood, 72; Walvoord, 76; Miller, 100; McGee, 49.