So, silver representing the kingdom of Medo-Persia, the bellion thyself bronze representing Greece, the legs of iron representing Rome, and the feet of ironing clay representing the divided kingdoms that have existed ever since. That's not how the author wanted you to understand this imagery, however. How did he want us to understand it, Mr. McClellan? How did he want us to understand it? And welcome back to another episode of the millennial medic here on Eschatology Matters part of the Fight Lafayst network. So I came across this short that I had to just react to. It's of a supposed Bible scholar named Dan McClellan. It has quite a bit of a following on YouTube. And he made this short specifically talking about how Christians have renegotiated the prophecies of Daniel and the dating of Daniel to make it relevant for today, but in reality. It was actually written in about the 160s. Usually they'll say like 165 in order to encourage the Jews during the Mac. Be in period under the salucid empire of the Greeks. Let's examine this video because it's pretty hysterical some of it. So let's go ahead and look at this. The prophecies of the book of Daniel were composed in the early 160s BCE in the hopes they would be fulfilled by the middle of the 160s BCE. And when they weren't, they had to be renegotiated. Hey everybody, I'm Dan McClellan. I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion. And I want to talk about one example of this renegotiation. Not as to do with the statue that King Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream, which is described in Daniel 2. You're probably used to seeing it represented like this and interpreted like this with the head of gold representing Babylon, the chest and the arms of silver representing the kingdom of Medo Persia, the bellian thighs of bronze representing Greece, the legs of iron representing Rome and the feet of iron and clay representing the divided kingdoms that have existed ever since. That's not how the author wanted you to understand this imagery, however. How did he want us to understand it, Mr. McClellan? How did he want us to understand it? I actually have to pause here real quick just because I actually, for the most part, I would agree with that interpretation of Babylon, then media, sorry, media Persia and then Greece and then Rome. But what I wouldn't agree on is how he said that the legs of partly iron and partly clay are these divided future kingdoms. Maybe a pre-millennial, maybe a dispensationalist would believe that. But I do not at all believe that that is actually what is happening. I think generally what it's going to be interpreted as is one of two things. Somebody like John Calvin would say that the divided aspect of the feet of iron and clay would represent the divided provinces of Rome. They would have multiple provinces that were fracturing the unity of the kingdom. Then you have other interpretations which would say that the clay would be Israel and that the iron would be Rome, that there was a merging between two distinctly different nations that would end up creating a weakness in the empire as a whole. I wouldn't agree in some aspect, but for the most part, the four main kingdoms I would say that that is actually correct. So let's see what it actually means, what the author actually meant us to understand by it. Initially, the chest and arms of silver represented the kingdom of the Meeds, the belly and thighs of bronze represented the Persian kingdom, the legs of iron represented Greece, and the feet of iron and clay represented the Diodohi, the succession crisis that occurred after the death of Alexander the Great, which resulted in the fracture of his kingdom into a bunch of smaller kingdoms, one of which the salucid kingdom was heavily persecuting and oppressing the Jewish people in the early 160s BCE. And these prophecies were written in the hopes that they would catalyze God's intervention and destroy the salucid kingdom so the Jewish state could be restored again. When that didn't happen, this had to be renegotiated. All right. So the way that he is interpreting this is saying it's going to go Babylon, media, Persia, Greece, and then it's going to be fractured into the four main splits between the generals of that came after Alexander like salucid empire, the Tullamaic empire and such. So the problem with this is right in Daniel too. So he brings up Daniel too. He brings up the imagery, the statue, but he doesn't actually read the rest of Daniel too because it gives us the understanding of why biblically that cannot be the way that we interpret this. So let's go to Daniel too. Let's start in, let's say verse 42. So we're all going to be talking about right here the fractured, partly iron, partly clay feet. So it says in verse 42, chapter 2, as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay. So some of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be brittle. And in that you saw iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another in the seed of men, but they will not adhere to one another even as iron does not combine with pottery. In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed and that kingdom will not be left for another people. It will crush and put it into all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. This is the problem. The reason we know it could not be Greece is because when God has chosen to bring Christ and bring the kingdom that stone that was cut without human hands that would crush the statue was in the days of the kings of the fourth empire. We can see that just from the flow, he's talking about the fourth empire, talking about the feet and then he says in the days of those kings, God is going to establish his kingdom. And we know exactly that that is what happened. Christ came during the time of the Roman kingdom, not the Greek kingdom, right? It cannot fit a Greek interpretation. The other thing is he keeps mentioning this 160's BC writing. So a lot of these people, like I said, will be writing or taking the view that it was written during the Mac and B in period to encourage the Jews during their time under the solucid empire. The problem with that is we have a lot of details about how even the language and the literature used in the book of Daniel is much, much older than the things that they found later on in the 160's. So those people in the 160's would not have had the ability really to write in the form that they used to write back when Daniel was actually written. Usually people would say that's about 533, 534 BC shortly after he had the vision. So let's continue on. The way they did that was to squish together the needs and the Persians to create the idea of the kingdom of Medo Persia. No such kingdom existed, but no such kingdom of the needs existed either. The needs had already been assimilated into the kingdom of Babylon before the Persians ever showed up. That was just inaccurate history on the part of the author of these. Oh my goodness. This is a supposed Bible scholar, guys. Oh my goodness. So no evidence of a Medo Persian empire. Not only that, he goes to say that the needs didn't even exist when the Persians came along. Oh my goodness. It's like a Bible scholar who's never read any history at all. So not only do we have a little bit more modern stuff like Josephus who writes all about it, we can actually look at stories from Herodotus and xenophon and Barosis and all of these guys who detailed the events of the Medea and Persian empire conquering Babylon. We have stories of Cyrus taking Syaxories who was the king of the needs. So Syaxories the second who we would believe is actually deriast the need. If you guys have not watched the episode on deriast the need that I've done, go ahead and watch that. But we have stories of Cyrus while Syaxories was drunk taking some of his soldiers and going off into battle and Syaxories wakes up and he's mad at Cyrus. So there was actually a joint empire there between, sorry, a joint army there that went in actually sacked Babylon that night that ended up killing Belch's are in sacking the city of Babylon. It was Cyrus using both the army of the needs and the Persians. So to say that they didn't exist at the same time is absolutely crazy. On top of that, let's actually look at some of the stuff from xenophon. This is from xenophon's cyropedium. So it's actually going to talk about the marriage of Syaxories the second daughter to Cyrus and him leaving him the kingdom. So it says, sorry, and the princess placed the crown on Cyrus's head. Syaxories said, and the maiden herself, my own daughter, I offer you as well, Cyrus, to be your wife. Your father married my father's daughter, whose son you are. This is she whom you used often to pet when you came to visit us when you were a boy. And whenever anybody asked her whom she was going to marry, she would say Cyrus. And with her, I offer you all media as a dowry for I have no legitimate male issue. Syaxories the second says, I don't have an heir. So take my daughter, not only take her, but take the kingdom of media as an inheritance. I'm leaving it to you. And what do we see in the book of Daniel? We see the conquering of Babylon by Cyrus and the combined army of the needs of the Persians. And then Darius the Meade takes over. This was Syaxories. He was 62 years old at the time. The uncle of Cyrus. Cyrus would have only been, most people say, probably in his thirdies around this time. He wouldn't have even been old enough to be this Darius, the meat character. Darius the meat character was Syaxories the second who was median who fits all the categories of the descriptions of this character. And then after who takes over, Cyrus, Zinnevan tells us that he left the empire to Cyrus. And that's exactly what we see in the book of Daniel. So no, it's not in accurate history. You just haven't read the history, Mr. McClellan. So let's continue. See what else you may have to say. It's prophecies. But once you squish together the needs and the Persians, that allows you to reinterpret the legs and the feet to represent Rome and then all of the kingdoms that existed after Rome so that the prophecy can continue to be relevant down to this very day. But it was never intended as a prophecy about our day. It was always written to be fulfilled immediately so that the Jewish people could be freed from the oppression of the Solucid Empire and of Antiochus IV epiphanies. And again, that didn't happen so it had to be renegotiated. Okay. So that's the end of it. So there's actually a part where I agree. It was not meant to be relevant for our day, but it was meant to be fulfilled through the coming of the kingdom of God through Christ during the time of the fourth empire which was Rome. So it was future to Daniel. But it's passed to us. I agree. But it had nothing to do with the Solucid Empire in the 160s being fulfilled immediately. This is just secular scholarship showing that they have no interest in being just a legitimate with the way that they actually study without being crooked and already bringing their presuppositions that prophecy can't be true to the table. Because that's ultimately what this is. This is simply a case of somebody denying that prophecy is real. And having to create a new dating system to understand when the book of Daniel was written, having to rein figure out what the prophecy actually meant other than what it actually says it means. And the clear reading of scripture, the clear reading of history is going to show us that it was Babylon, Meadow Persia, Greece, and then Rome, and Christ's kingdom coming during that final fourth kingdom. So I hope you guys enjoyed this. Hope it was helpful to see kind of a reaction video. If you guys like more stuff like this, let me know. Till next time, God bless.