I used this as a little time-filler at my UU church's last spirituality meeting when the main topic went a little short. It begins with a synopsis of Daniel 2 for those who were unfamiliar with it and then goes into a possible interpretation that I think fits better than the two traditional ones if Daniel 2 is an actual prophecy. Feel free to pick apart what I've given here.
The chapter begins by informing us that in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he had a dream which troubled him. Taken literally, that causes a problem with chronology, as this would place the events of this chapter before Daniel was taken into his service according to the previous chapter and yet Daniel is the one who will interpret the dream. I resolve the apparent discrepancy by taking the time reference to be to the second year of Daniel’s service in the court of Nebuchadnezzar.
Nebuchadnezzar demands his historians, ašafs
*, enchanters, and astrologers (literally Chaldeans) not only interpret his dream but tell him what he dreamt. The astrologers say they can’t interpret the dream unless the king tells them what he dreamt, even when the king threatens them with death. They say no historian, ašaf, or astrologer could do as he command, but only the gods.
Angered by this response, Nebuchadnezzar orders all his wise men be killed, including Daniel and his three friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Inquiring why this is so, he asks Arioch, the king’s commander for a little time. Daniel goes home and tells his three friends to ask for God’s mercy so that they and the other wise men of Babylon might be spared.
In the night Daniel dreams the same dream as Nebuchadnezzar and is granted by God the key to interpreting it. In the dream there was a statue with a head of gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle of bronze, its legs of iron, and its feet of a mixture of iron and clay. A stone uncut by human hands is thrown at the feet causing them to crumble and the entire statue to fall to pieces. The head of gold is stated to be the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar and the layers below are various succeeding kingdoms that eventually are replaced by a kingdom of God.
Nebuchadnezzar then praises God and Daniel and appoints Daniel as chief of the province of Babylon. Daniel recommends his friends and they too are given positions of importance.
* Ašaf is a word of uncertain meaning found only in Daniel 1:20 and Daniel 2:2. The word khartom which I have rendered as historian is used only in two contexts: here in Daniel and also in the Pentateuch to refer to certain officials of Pharaoh. The etymology indicates that they consulted their writings to determine what advice to give, but the manner of consultation is not explicitly given, tho astrology has traditionally been the method ascribed to them. However, I think it likely that the anachronistic word historian fits their likely function better, especially since another term is used unambiguously here to refer to astrologers.
So what are the four kingdoms? The traditional interpretations are either Neo-Babylonia, Medeo-Persia, Greece, and Rome or Neo-Babylonia, Medea, Persia, and Greece. The latter views the dream as an example of
vaticinium ex eventu written to support the Maccabean revolt. The former is amenable to an interpretation of Christ as the stone. But I don’t find either interpretation all that compelling, if one takes this as an actual prophecy.
I think many are led astray by Daniel 2:37-38, which states that Nebuchadnezzar is king of kings and lord of all. Taken literally, that would seem to support the view that Rome should be one of the successors as one of the most powerful realms of its day. But also taken literally, it makes Daniel 2:37-38 a lie told by Daniel to butter up Nebuchadnezzar. I think the best interpretation of those verses is that Daniel is stating that Nebuchadnezzar is powerful enough that within his realm he is the man whom all obey and they does not have to kowtow to any other ruler, not that he literally rules all the world.
Keep in mind that these kingdoms are to be successors to Nebuchadnezzar’s. Rome never did establish control of Mesopotamia
* which was the heart of his kingdom, so the Roman Empire can’t truly be viewed as a successor to Nebuchadnezzar. And to dismiss Daniel as mere propaganda neglects the possibility it could be more than even the author may have intended. In terms of successor kingdoms to the Neo-Babylonians in Mesopotamia, there is first the Achaemenid Empire of Cyrus the Great (Medeo-Persia), then the Greek Empire of Alexander and Seleucus, then the Parthian Empire, followed by the Sassanian Empire. Now the Parthian Empire throughout its history was riven by internal faction to a degree not seen in the previous three empires, and the Sassanian Empire was a monotheistic Zoroastrian realm. If one interprets the rock as monotheism in general, then the Sassanian Empire is an excellent candidate for being that rock. This also argues against including a separate Medean Empire in the four kingdom scheme, as the Medes, unlike their Persian cousins were already a monotheistic society, worshiping Ahura Mazda as the one true creator deity. (Sort of a proto-Zoroastrianism, as Zoroaster's views on Ahura Mazda were but one of several current in sixth century BC Medea.)
Thus I think one can best interpret the four kingdoms as being Neo-Babylonia, the Achaemenid Empire, the Seleucid Empire, and the Parthian Empire. Even after the Sassanians were conquered by the Caliphate, their state institutions to a large extent provided the blueprint for the administration of the Muslim world. While the Sassanian Empire was fairly hostile to Christianity, in large part because it had become the state religion of its rival Rome, it was tolerant and welcoming to the Jews in their midst, so it hardly seems out of place to ascribe its realm as marking the start of Godly rule in Mesopotamia. If one is to take this dream as actual prophecy, regardless of whether it was actually dreamt by Daniel or created as part of Maccabean propaganda, then I think the interpretation I’ve laid out here fits history better than either of the two traditional interpretations.
What of the the other example of four kingdom imagery in Daniel in Daniel 7? Well first off, there is no reason to believe that both must be referring to the same four kingdoms. Indeed, Daniel 7:11b-12 makes it fairly clear that the vision of four kingdoms as four beasts given there is not referring to a succession of kingdoms as is the case with Daniel 2. As those verses make clear, the four beasts of Daniel 7 are contemporaneous with each other, with the most powerful and last mentioned of them being overthrown but with the other three still existing, tho much reduced in power. Whatever may be the best interpretations of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, it is clear that the two visions are not describing the same four kingdoms because Daniel 2 has a succession of kingdoms while Daniel 7 has four contemporaneous kingdoms.
* Rome did have a province called Mesopotamia, but other than briefly for a year or two during the Roman-Parthian Wars, it never controlled Babylon, but merely the northern part of Mesopotamia.
