Question from Wade:
I was reading the Book of Daniel and I was reflecting on Daniel 2:31-35. In prophecy there is no mention of America when it comes to great kingdoms. Is it possible the feet of the statue in Daniel's dream represents the old Roman kingdom (iron) and American being the clay?
Answer from Pastor Bob:
Most interpreters see the statue as Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon at the time of Daniel. According to Daniel 2:36-40, this refers to kingdoms that come after Babylon, which historically would be Babylon, then the Medo-Persian Empire, then the Greek Empire. The fourth kingdom would refer to the Roman Empire.
I do not think that the prophecy was a direct reference to America. However, Daniel's prophecy shows how kingdoms will rise and fall according to God's direction, and that is an important point for every nation to remember, including the United States of America. No nation or kingdom is greater than the kingdom of God.
Showing posts with label Daniel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daniel. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Who are Daniel's kings of the South and North?
Question from Joseph:
Brother Bob, I was reading Daniel 11, and I don't understand who it is talking about when it describes the "king of the South" and the "king of the North." Who does this mean?
Answer from Pastor Bob:
Although it may bring to the mind of some Americans the Civil War, it does not refer to Confederates and Yankees!
This passage is a prophecy about Alexander the Great ("a mighty king" from Greece mentioned in Daniel 11:2-3), whose "empire will be broken up" (11:4). We know from history that Alexander's empire was divided after his death. "The king of the South" refers to Ptolemaic rulers in Egypt, and "the king of the North" refers to Seleucid rulers whose empire stretched from Syria to part of India. A good study Bible can list the specific rulers and dates of the battles described in the chapter.
The king who exalts himself described in Daniel 11:36 and following seems to shift from kings known in history to the future Antichrist.
Brother Bob, I was reading Daniel 11, and I don't understand who it is talking about when it describes the "king of the South" and the "king of the North." Who does this mean?
Answer from Pastor Bob:
Although it may bring to the mind of some Americans the Civil War, it does not refer to Confederates and Yankees!
This passage is a prophecy about Alexander the Great ("a mighty king" from Greece mentioned in Daniel 11:2-3), whose "empire will be broken up" (11:4). We know from history that Alexander's empire was divided after his death. "The king of the South" refers to Ptolemaic rulers in Egypt, and "the king of the North" refers to Seleucid rulers whose empire stretched from Syria to part of India. A good study Bible can list the specific rulers and dates of the battles described in the chapter.
The king who exalts himself described in Daniel 11:36 and following seems to shift from kings known in history to the future Antichrist.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Why wasn't Daniel in the fiery furnace?
Question from Lauren:
I was reading in the book of Daniel yesterday and came across something I wanted to ask you about. In Chapter 1 it tells the story of how Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were being taught in King Nebuchadnezzar's palace. It tells of how they didn't eat the king's meat or wine, but instead drank water and ate vegetables. Then, in Chapter 2 Daniel interprets the king's dream and is promoted to a high position and at Daniel's request, the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as administrators over the province of Babylon. Chapter 3 is the story of the fiery furnace, where Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to bow to the king's idol and are thrown into the furnace. Of course, the Lord saves them and they are not even singed, but where was Daniel when all this was going on in Babylon? I am certain that he would not bow down to the idol, but where was he?
Answer from Pastor Bob:
Lauren, it is uncertain why Daniel was not present. Here are three possible reasons:
1. Perhaps Daniel was in a different location at the time. Daniel 2:49 mentions that Daniel remained at the king's court, but 3:1 says the idol was set up on "the plain of Dura." Perhaps this was in a different area. Or perhaps Daniel had been sent on a mission and was away at the time.
2. Perhaps as one of the highest administrators, Daniel was immune from the requirement to bow down, whereas Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were lower officials who were not immune.
3. Perhaps Daniel also refused to bow down, but the "certain Chaldeans" (Daniel 3:8) who accused the three men were afraid to accuse Daniel because of Daniel's high position.
I think reason #1 makes the most sense to me, but any of these explanations are possible.
I was reading in the book of Daniel yesterday and came across something I wanted to ask you about. In Chapter 1 it tells the story of how Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were being taught in King Nebuchadnezzar's palace. It tells of how they didn't eat the king's meat or wine, but instead drank water and ate vegetables. Then, in Chapter 2 Daniel interprets the king's dream and is promoted to a high position and at Daniel's request, the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as administrators over the province of Babylon. Chapter 3 is the story of the fiery furnace, where Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to bow to the king's idol and are thrown into the furnace. Of course, the Lord saves them and they are not even singed, but where was Daniel when all this was going on in Babylon? I am certain that he would not bow down to the idol, but where was he?
Answer from Pastor Bob:
Lauren, it is uncertain why Daniel was not present. Here are three possible reasons:
1. Perhaps Daniel was in a different location at the time. Daniel 2:49 mentions that Daniel remained at the king's court, but 3:1 says the idol was set up on "the plain of Dura." Perhaps this was in a different area. Or perhaps Daniel had been sent on a mission and was away at the time.
2. Perhaps as one of the highest administrators, Daniel was immune from the requirement to bow down, whereas Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were lower officials who were not immune.
3. Perhaps Daniel also refused to bow down, but the "certain Chaldeans" (Daniel 3:8) who accused the three men were afraid to accuse Daniel because of Daniel's high position.
I think reason #1 makes the most sense to me, but any of these explanations are possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
