Interpreting Daniel's Fifth Kingdom: A Case for Islam

Some believe that the fifth kingdom mentioned in the book of Daniel, which is the Kingdom of God, is actually referring to Islam. This interpretation is based on the fact that Islam emerged after the Byzantine Empire, also known as the Eastern Roman Empire, which is considered to be the fourth beast in Daniel 7 and the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2. How is this interpretation presented?

This interpretation suggests that the fifth kingdom mentioned in the book of Daniel, known as the Kingdom of God, is referring to Islam. The reasoning behind this interpretation lies in the historical context and sequence of events described in Daniel's prophecies.

The four beasts in the book of Daniel represent different kingdoms or empires. The lion with eagle's wings represents Babylon, the bear represents the Medo-Persian Empire, the leopard with four wings and four heads represents the Greek Empire under Alexander the Great, and the fourth beast represents the Roman Empire. These beasts symbolize the succession of powerful empires throughout history.

According to this view, the fourth beast mentioned in Daniel 7 and the fourth kingdom described in Daniel 2 represent the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire. This empire was a significant power during Daniel's time and eventually fell to Islamic conquests.

The proponents of this interpretation argue that since Islam emerged after the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire, it can be seen as a continuation or successor to it. They believe that Islam fulfilled some of the characteristics attributed to the fifth kingdom mentioned by Daniel.

Overall, this interpretation presents a viewpoint suggesting that Islam is seen as fulfilling certain aspects of prophecy within the book of Daniel, particularly regarding its emergence after the fall of Byzantium or Eastern Roman Empire.

The Prophecy of Daniel: Constantine the Great and Muhammad the Prophet

Some believe that Daniel 7, verse 25 alludes to Constantine the Great, who presided over the council of Nicaea, while Daniel 7, verse 13, points to Muhammad’s Night Journey. How is this argument explained?

This is a very controversial argument that is not widely accepted by most biblical scholars and Christians, who believe that Daniel 7, verse 25, and Daniel 7, verse 13, refer to the Antichrist and the Messiah, respectively. However, some people who support this argument explain it in the following way:
They claim that Constantine the Great, who was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity and who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was the little horn of Daniel 7, verse 25, who spoke pompous words against the Most High and tried to change the times and the laws.

They argue that Constantine corrupted the original teachings of Jesus and imposed his own doctrines and creeds on the Christian church, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the observance of Sunday instead of Saturday as the Sabbath, and the celebration of Easter instead of Passover.

They also accuse Constantine of persecuting and oppressing those who did not conform to his version of Christianity, such as the followers of Arianism, who denied the divinity of Jesus.
Arianism sparked significant debates within the Church, particularly during the early Ecumenical Councils. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming the doctrine of the Trinity and the full divinity of Christ. The Nicene Creed established the belief that the Son is "begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father."

Islamic scholars claim that Muhammad, who was the prophet of Islam and who claimed to have a miraculous Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem and then to heaven in 621 AD, was the Son of Man of Daniel 7, verse 13, who came with the clouds of heaven and was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom by the Ancient of Days, that is God.

The term "night visions" directly suggests an event that takes place at night. Muhammad's Night Journey, which is said to have occurred during the night, aligns with this description. In contrast, Jesus' ascension is generally not described as happening at night in Christian texts.

They argue that Muhammad was a true prophet of God who restored the pure monotheism that was lost by Constantine and his followers. They also assert that Muhammad's kingdom is an everlasting kingdom that will never be destroyed, and that all nations and peoples of every language will serve him or submit to his law.
In summary, these are a few points made by Islamic scholars to back the notion that Daniel 7, verse 25, and 7, verse 13, refer to Constantine as the little horn who established the Trinity at the Council of Nicea, and Muhammad as the Son of Man who encountered God on his Night Journey to the seventh heaven.


God permitted Gentiles to rule over the Holy Land, including Babylon (605-539 B.C.), Medo-Persia (539-331 B.C.), Greece (331-146 B.C.), Rome (146 B.C.-A.D. 476), and up to the emergence of Islam. The phases of Gentile dominance are outlined in Daniel Chapters 2 and 7.

An important element of the central theme of God's divine rule is the anticipated arrival of the Messiah to govern the world with splendor, reigning over all individuals (2:35, 45; 7:13, 14, 27). In chapter 2, he is compared to a stone, while in chapter 7, he is likened to a son of man.

What is Bart Ehrman's perspective on the term "son of man" as utilized by Jesus in the gospel?

Bart Ehrman's perspective on the term "Son of Man" as utilized by Jesus in the gospels is nuanced and distinct from the traditional Christian interpretation. Ehrman argues that when Jesus referred to the "Son of Man," he was not referring to himself but to a separate, cosmic figure who would come as a divine judge at the end of history.

Ehrman's Interpretation

Cosmic Judge

Ehrman posits that the cosmic "son of man" figure is derived from passages such as Daniel 7:13-14, in which this character is portrayed as a glorified being, subordinate only to God. However, Ehrman maintains that this figure was still understood to be human rather than divine, as the term "son of man" conveys a human connotation.

Not Self-Referential

Contrary to the view held by many scholars and traditional Christian teachings, Ehrman argues that Jesus did not identify himself as the "Son of Man." Instead, Jesus saw himself as a precursor or herald to this divine figure. This interpretation is based on the analysis of various gospel passages where Jesus speaks about the "Son of Man" in the third person, suggesting a distinction between himself and this figure.

Scholarly Context

Ehrman's view is not universally accepted but is considered a mainstream scholarly perspective. While some scholars agree with Ehrman, others maintain that Jesus did refer to himself as the "Son of Man," interpreting the term as a self-designation that aligns with his messianic role.

Linguistic and Cultural Considerations

Ehrman also engages with the linguistic and cultural context of the term. In ancient Semitic languages, "Son of Man" could simply mean "a human being" or be used as a poetic expression for humanity. However, in the context of Jesus' teachings, Ehrman argues that the term took on a specific eschatological meaning, influenced by Jewish apocalyptic literature like the Book of Daniel, where the "Son of Man" is depicted as a heavenly figure endowed with divine authority.

Conclusion

In summary, Bart Ehrman views the "Son of Man" as a future, divine judge distinct from Jesus himself. This interpretation challenges traditional Christian views and highlights the complexity of Jesus' apocalyptic teachings within their historical and cultural context.