Page 193 - Daniel

It is probably fair to say that liberals are not conscious of their
prejudice in this matter, but Rowley himself gives the matter away in his
later discussion. After describing the bewildering variety of views, both
in support of the Roman and of the Greek Empire interpretations,
Rowley states:

Within the circle of those who hold the Greek view, therefore, there is

wide divergence on this point, and while up to the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes, their reading of history and of the visions run
concurrently, and they may be considered together, the only form of
the Greek view which is here claimed to fit the prophecies is that
which locates the composition of these chapters, at any rate in the
form in which they now stand before us, in the Maccabean Age. On

this view, the author was a man who was moved of the spirit of God
to encourage his fellows to resist the attack of Antiochus Epiphanes
upon the religion and culture of his race, and who rightly perceives
that the victory must lie with them, if they were to be loyal unto their
God, but whose message was coloured with the Messianic hopes that
were not to be fulfilled. 36

In other words, Rowley himself says that the only sensible support for
the Greek interpretation is that the book of Daniel is a second-century

production. This amounts to a major admission that identification of the
fourth empire as Greek depends on the thesis that the book of Daniel is a
37
late forgery. Rowley completely fails to support the Greek
interpretation by any consensus among its followers, and his discussion
is a hopeless maze of alternating views, which he either rejects or

accepts often as matters of opinion.
The diversity of interpretation is indeed confusing to any expositor of
this portion of Scripture. But if the book of Daniel is a sixth-century
writing, and therefore genuine Scripture, it follows that the Roman view

is more consistent than the Greek Empire interpretation. This is
especially true for those following premillennial interpretation. The
Roman view is supported in the exegesis of the passage that follows.

Daniel described the fourth beast in verse 7 as a fascinating spectacle.
It was “terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong.” This description