The Narrow Path Ministries

I recently read some information online and watched a video that basically described the book of Revelation as being written to warn the Christians not to bow the knee to Domitian. It was presented that the Christians and Jews referred to Domitian as the beast and that Domitian required an offering of incense to him as god before buying and selling could take place at the market in Ephesus. The evidence of this incense offering was a mark on the hand. Also, many other symbols in the book of Revelation were presented as things that Domitian had his followers do or say or things that happened under his reign (i.e.: the format of the letters to the church, the four painted horses, the prayer John witnesses from the saints, etc.). Basically, the video made the point that Revelation was John's way of saying, "I have seen the true God, and He is not Domitian. Whatever you do, do not bow to Domitian."

Personally, I have never heard this view before. Just trying to start a conversation that I can hopefully learn from.

The debate at the link below was between Hanegraaf and Hitchcock on the dating of Revelation. They go over the Domitian theme quite a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6FOx_4wujg

Doug

I have heard similar claims made about Nero's reign (i.e., receiving a mark on the hand, restrictions on buying and selling, etc.). I doubt that these things happened in a literal sense during either Nero's or Domitian's reign. At least, I am awaiting the presentation of documentation from primary sources. I think teachers sometimes assume they know what the setting was, and then extrapolate from the text believable, detailed scenarios to which they think the text may have been referring. I have seen this kind of thing done many times. However, if documentation from early Roman, Jewish or Christian sources can be presented, I am more than willing to acknowledge it.

I have written a good sized book on Revelation (over 600 pages). Here is a little bit on when it was written.

The clearest statement as to the time of writing of Revelation comes from the internal evidence, from the book itself. Here is what Revelation says about when it was written:

Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.
Revelation 17:9-11

It would appear that we have an easy answer here as to Revelation’s date; it was during the reign of the sixth king of Rome. Unfortunately the answer of who the sixth king was is open to debate.

WHO WAS THE SIXTH KING?
Two questions have to be answered before one can begin the count of the eight kings. First, do we start the count with Julius Caesar or Augustus? Second, do we include the three short-lived emperors of AD 68-69 (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius)?
Looking at the first question, many modern historians argue that Julius Caesar was a dictator, not an emperor; thus they say Augustus was the first emperor. While this may be technically correct, many ancients did not make this distinction. Starting the count of the rulers of Rome with Julius Caesar is well attested to in first and second-century writings. Suetonius (c. AD 70-160) in his Lives of the Caesars starts with Julius. Dio Cassius (c. AD 150-235) in his Roman History also begins the count of the emperors with Julius.13 Josephus (AD 37-101) referred to Augustus as “the second emperor”14 (thus counting Julius as the first emperor). Josephus’ testimony is especially significant because he was Jewish and a contemporary of John.

Aune writes the following about how ancient authors reckoned the count of the Roman emperors.

One matter of importance is the way in which the ancient Greeks and Romans themselves enumerated the Roman emperors. Some considered Julius Caesar the first of the Roman emperors, while others regarded Augustus as the first. In the enumeration of nineteen emperors through the numerical value of their name in Sibylline Oracles 5.12-51, the list begins with Julius Caesar and concludes with Marcus Aurelius. Since the generic term Caesar was derived from the name of Julius Caesar, it was natural for ancients to consider him the first Roman emperor. Suetonius (born ca. A.D. 70; died after 122) began his Lives of the Caesars with the biography of Julius Caesar. Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40-after 112) refers in Orations. 34.7 to Augustus as . . . “the second Caesar” ([G.] Mussies, Dio [Chrysostom and the New Testament, Leiden: Brill, 1972], 253) just as Josephus referred to Augustus as . . . “the second emperor of the Romans” (Ant[iquities of the Jews] 18.32), both clearly implying that Julius Caesar was the first emperor. On the other hand, Suetonius reports that Claudius wrote a history of Rome that began with the death of Julius Caesar (Claud. 41; see [A.] Momigliano, Claudius: [The Emperor and His Achievements, Westport: Greenwood, 1981], 6-7), suggesting that he regarded Augustus as the first emperor. Similarly, Tacitus began his Annals with Augustus, whom he considered the first emperor.15

While one can make a case for starting the count of the Caesars with either Julius or Augustus, the weight of ancient authority comes down on the side of starting with Julius. Because of this, and the fact that starting with Julius works consistently in both Daniel and Revelation, I count Julius as the first king. Ultimately I believe we are being shown the spiritual rulers behind the Caesars (note that the eighth king comes out of the abyss, Rev. 17:8-11). Thus, the distinction between a dictator and an emperor is moot to my position. Also, whether one wants to call him an emperor or not, Julius Caesar was the first Caesar.

Looking at the second question, whether to figure Galba, Otho, and Vitellius in the count of the first six kings in Revelation 17:10, my answer is no. The combined rule of all three was about a year and a half. In Daniel 7, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius are the three horns removed before the little eleventh horn (Dan. 7:7-8); this left that beast with eight horns which correspond to the eight rulers of Revelation 17:7-11. Actually, if one begins the count with Julius one never has to worry about Galba, Otho, and Vitellius in figuring who the sixth king was, as Nero is the sixth Caesar (and he reigned right before Galba, Otho, and Vitellius).

THE FIRST TWELVE CAESARS
In determining whether Revelation was written under Nero or Domitian, one has to look at the first twelve Caesars (as Domitian was the twelfth Caesar). The question is, where does “five [kings] have fallen, one is” (Rev. 17:10) put the date of Revelation?

1. Julius Caesar (49-44 BC)
2. Augustus (31 BC- AD 14) [16]
3. Tiberius (AD 14-37)
4. Gaius a.k.a. Caligula (AD 37-41)
5. Claudius (AD 41-54)
6. Nero (AD 54-68)
7. Galba (AD 68-69)
8. Otho (AD 69)
9. Vitellius (AD 69)
10. Vespasian (AD 69-79)
11. Titus (AD 79-81)
12. Domitian (AD 81-96)

With the solution I (and most other conservative preterists) propose, that one starts with Julius Caesar, the five fallen are Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius, and the one reigning is Nero (AD 54-68). This fits perfectly the preterist contention that the book of Revelation was written near the end of Nero’s reign right before the Jewish war of AD 66-70. The latest one can legitimately make the “five have fallen, one is” of Revelation 17:10 would be to start the count of the emperors with Augustus instead of Julius. If one does not count the short-lived emperors (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) this would make the five fallen to be Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, and Nero, and the one reigning Vespasian (69-79). Notice that even using this late-date method of counting, one comes up with Revelation being written in the decade of the 70s. This is approximately two decades short of the proposed time of AD 95 that the late-date advocates maintain.

HOW REVELATION 17:10 SHOULD READ IF REVELATION WERE WRITTEN
DURING DOMITIAN’S REIGN
If Revelation were written during Domitian’s reign, then Revelation 17:10 should either read “eleven have fallen, one is” (if one starts the count with Julius Caesar and includes the three short-lived emperors in the list) or “ten have fallen, one is” (if one starts with Augustus and includes the three short-lived emperors), or “eight have fallen, one is” if one starts with Julius and excludes the three short-lived emperors, or “seven have fallen, one is” (if one starts with Augustus and excludes the three short-lived emperors). Saying that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign simply cannot legitimately be made to fit Revelation’s text of “five have fallen, one is.” As Ladd notes, “no method of calculation satisfactorily leads to Domitian as the reigning emperor . . . .”17

If one wants to see what a book written during the reign of Domitian looks like, look at 2 Esdras (a.k.a. IV Ezra). In that book, the eagle (an obvious symbol of Rome) has twelve wings, representing twelve emperors (Julius-Domitian) and three heads, which are the last three of the twelve emperors (Esdras 11:1-9). The three heads represent the Flavian dynasty, Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian (2 Esdras 12:10-30). The writer of 2 Esdras believed that Rome would fall in his day during the reign of Domitian, the twelfth Caesar.

To summarize, depending on whether one starts with Julius or Augustus and includes or excludes Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, Domitian is either the eighth, ninth, eleventh, or twelfth ruler of Rome. There is no legitimate way to make him the sixth ruler (as Rev. 17:10 requires).

Some commentators attempt to make their theory (of when Revelation was written) fit by starting the count of the emperors with one of the Caesars that came after Augustus.18 These attempts are illegitimate because their methods of counting the emperors have no historical precedent. Robinson writes the following on the “contortions” made by those who attempt to make Domitian the sixth ruler:

The contortions to which the commentators have been driven in the interpretation of ch. 17 are I am convinced self-imposed by the ‘discrepancy,’ as Beckwith calls it, between the clear statement that the sixth king is now living and what Torrey called their ‘stubborn conviction’ that the book cannot be earlier than the time of Domitian. Drop this conviction and the evidence falls into place.19

With the current rise of preterism, the early date for Revelation is regaining some of the acceptance it has had in the past. Smalley writes the following regarding the current reevaluation of the assumption that Revelation was written under Domitian:

It has been frequently assumed that the Apocalypse may be dated to the reign of the Emperor Domitian, the last representative of the Flavian house (AD 81-96), as a response to fierce persecution which took place during his reign. But this view has recently been challenged seriously, both because encouragement in the face of persecution may not be regarded as the single motive behind the composition of Revelation, and also on account of the insecurity surrounding the evidence of imperial oppression during the time of Domitian. This leaves the way open to revive the alternative view, common among nineteenth-century scholars, that Revelation was written between AD 64, as a result of the persecution under Nero, and AD 70, the fall of Jerusalem (see the summary of the research representing these two positions in Robinson, Redating [the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 1976], 224-26). As it happens, I believe that it is perfectly possible to locate the writing of Revelation in the reign of Vespasian (AD 69-79); and I have argued that the book emerged just before the fall of Jerusalem to Titus, Vespasian’s son, in AD 70 . . . I suggest that this conclusion fits the internal and external evidence for the dating of Revelation; it is also supported by the theological thrust of the drama itself. For the members of John’s circle, the earthly Jerusalem and its Temple would have been a central holy place in which to encounter God, and also a spiritual centre of gravity. If Jerusalem were about to be destroyed, the vision in Rev. 21-22 of a stunning and emphatically new holy city, where God’s people will dwell eternally in a close covenant relationship with him, would have provided exactly, and at the right moment, all the spiritual encouragement they needed.20

I find this quote interesting because Smalley is not a preterist but what he terms a “modified idealist” (i.e., he sees Revelation as talking about the timeless conflict between good and evil).21 I believe that Revelation was written approximately five years before AD 70 (c. AD 65). It is talking about the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week, a period of three and a half years that ends with the destruction of Jerusalem by the prince to come (Dan. 9:26-27). This was the soon coming forty-two-month period of AD 67-70 that Titus would spend destroying the Jewish nation (Rev. 11:1-2; cf. Dan. 7:23-25; 12:7; Rev. 11:7-18).

Endnotes:
13. Dio Cassius, Roman History 5.
14. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18, 2, 2. An online version of Josephus’ writings can be found at Early Jewish Writings.com (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html).
15. David Aune, Revelation 17-22, Word Bible Commentary, vol. 52 C, gen. ed. Bruce Metzger, David Hubbard, and Glenn Barker, NT ed. Ralph Martin (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 946.
16. The thirteen-year gap between the reigns of Julius Caesar and Augustus (44-31 BC) was a period when Augustus shared the rule of the Roman Empire, first with Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, then just with Mark Antony. In 31 BC, Augustus became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Josephus did not recognize this as a gap (although he acknowledges that Augustus shared rule for the fourteen years), giving the length of Augustus’ reign as “fifty-seven years” (Antiquities of the Jews, 18, 2, 2). This indicates that Josephus reckoned Augustus’ reign as beginning upon Julius Caesar’s death. Augustus was Julius Caesar’s designated successor and the ruler over Rome proper even when he was sharing rule over other parts of the empire with others.
I might add that the numerical calculation of 2 Esdras 11:17 (“After you [the second king, i.e., Augustus] no one shall rule as long as you have ruled, not even half as long”) only works if you begin Augustus’ rule immediately after Julius’ death. This makes the length of Augustus’ reign to be fifty-seven years; none of the other twelve Caesars ruled for even half as long. If the author of 2 Esdras were recognizing a fourteen-year gap, that would make Augustus’ reign about forty-three years in length. Upon that calculation, the second longest reign (that of Tiberius, AD 14-37 = 23 years) would be longer than half of Augustus’ reign. Thus, like Josephus, the first-century author of 2 Esdras was not recognizing any gap between the reigns of Julius and Augustus.
17. George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 229.
18. For various methods of counting the kings see Aune, Revelation 17-22, 945-50; G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 868-78; J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, The Anchor Bible, vol. 38, ed. William F. Albright and David N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 289-91.
19. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 247-48. Robinson starts the count of the kings with Augustus; he sees Revelation as being written in late AD 68 under Galba.
20. Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 2-3.
21. Ibid., 15-16. Smalley writes: “Revelation is a symbolic portrayal of the timeless conflict between the forces of good and evil, God and Satan. But this involves a final consummation in judgement (sic) and salvation, even if that finality is not depicted in terms which are precisely chronological.”

Some general stuff I have written on the topic of Revelation can be found here.

https://sites.google.com/site/antichris ... two-cities
https://sites.google.com/site/antichris ... on-part-ii
https://sites.google.com/site/antichris ... rlot-motif

Hi Duncan,

I tend to agree with your assessment. It should be mentioned, however, that "kings" might not refer to emperors of Rome. Some would understand the term to be used of the separate kingdoms under whom God's people had been persecuted, rather than of the succession of Roman emperors. Thus, the Roman Empire would be the sixth (following Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece).

Hi Steve,
I touch on that theory here. Revelation is drawing from Daniel and it only shows 4 kingdoms and then the kingdom of God (Dan. 2 and 7), not eight. Ultimately I think the kings in Revelation are like the kings of Persia in Dan. 10:13. For example, the eighth king comes out of the abyss! (Rev. 17:8-11) I touch on this concept of spiritual rulers below.

COULD THE EIGHT KINGS BE EIGHT KINGDOMS?
Some futurists, in an attempt to escape the fact that Revelation shows the Antichrist was “about to come” (Rev. 17:8 NASB), try to make the kings in chapter 17 into kingdoms.22 While kings can represent kingdoms in Scripture (cf. Dan. 7:17), there is no support for the hypothesis that the eight kings of Revelation 17:10-11 are eight kingdoms. Mounce notes the following on this: “The basic problem with this approach is that the Greek word under consideration [Gr. basileus] is everywhere throughout the NT translated ‘king’ not ‘kingdom.’”23 If John was talking about eight kingdoms he would have used the word for kingdom [Gr. basileia]—he did not. Added to this, Daniel 2 and 7 only show four kingdoms and then the coming of the kingdom of God, not eight kingdoms (Dan. 2:36-45; 7:3-12; 21-22). Revelation references this as it shows its beast with the characteristics of Daniel’s four kingdoms (Rev. 13:1-2). Revelation is showing us the fourth of these kingdoms, the one with ten horns (Dan. 7:7).

The eight kings in Revelation 17:7-11 are the same rulers as those of Daniel’s fourth beast. The eighth king of Revelation is the same as the little horn of Daniel’s fourth beast (who became an eighth ruler after three kings were removed, Dan. 7:7-8).see footnote 24 below Thus, to try to make the eight kings of Revelation 17:7-11 into eight kingdoms is without scriptural support. It is an attempt to escape the fact that the coming of the beast, and thus the Second Coming (cf. Rev. 19:11-21), were first-century events about to happen. The NASB correctly translates Revelation 17:8 as, “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss . . . .” That this translation is correct is confirmed by the context; we are told there was only the short rule of one king between the then ruling king (when Revelation was written) and the soon coming individual beast (Rev. 17:8-11). The beast was about to come in the first century, not some two thousand years in the future (cf. 1 John 4:3). It was not a kingdom about to come out of the abyss; rather it was a king—a demonic king (cf. Rev. 11:7).

Endnotes:
22. J.A. Seiss, The Apocalypse (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 393.
23. Mounce, Book of Revelation, 317. Mounce notes, “The argument for kingdoms is usually built upon Dan. 7:17, where the four beasts are said to be four kings although they do in fact stand for four kingdoms.” He notes, however, that the Greek versions of Daniel (LXX and Theodotion) have “kingdoms” in Dan. 7:17, not “kings.” Thus, if John had meant “kingdoms” instead of “kings” in Rev. 17:10 he would have most probably used the Greek word for kingdom. If kingdoms are meant in Rev. 17:10-11 then it would mean only one short kingdom would exist between the fall of Rome (c. AD 476) and the Antichrist. That would put the Second Coming (when Jesus defeats the Antichrist) somewhere in the fifth or sixth century!
24. As I mentioned earlier, the parallels between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the beast of Revelation are the following:
1. The little horn/beast is an eighth ruler (Dan. 7:8; Rev. 17:11).
2. The little horn/beast speaks great blasphemies against God (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20, 25; Rev. 13:5-6).
3. The little horn/beast wages war against the saints and overcomes them (Dan. 7:21; Rev. 13:7).
4. The little horn/beast has a three-and-a-half-year reign of terror (Dan. 7:25, 13:5).
5. The little horn/beast is defeated in AD 70 by the Second Coming (Dan. 7:21-22; Rev. 19:11-13, 19-20).
6. The little horn/beast is thrown into the lake of fire at the time of the Second Coming (Dan. 7:11; Rev. 19:19-20).
7. The kingdom of God is established (what the NT shows as the beginning of the millennium) at the AD 70 defeat of the little horn/beast (Dan. 7:7-11, 21-27; Rev. 19:11-20:4).

I think the point about spiritual rulers in Daniel and Revelation is very important and rarely talked about (that I can see).

SPIRITUAL RULERS
The basic thesis of this work is that the Antichrist was the demonic ruler from the abyss that worked through Titus in his destruction of Israel. The idea of spiritual rulers is foreign to many in our modern Western culture; this was decidedly not so in the Ancient Near East (ANE). Ernest Lucas writes the following along these lines:

The idea that different nations were under the care of different gods was common in the ANE. It is expressed in Rabshakeh’s taunt before the walls of Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 18:33-35). Deut. 32:8-9 says:

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men,
he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the sons of God.
For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

(‘The sons of God’ is the reading of LXX. MT has ‘the sons of Israel’, but 4QDeut supports LXX.) Ben Sirach (Sirach 17:17) understood this to mean: ‘He appointed a ruler for every nation, but Israel is the Lord’s own portion.’ It is generally suggested that behind this idea is the ANE concept of the divine council, which appears in some places in the H[ebrew] B[ible] (1 Kgs. 22:19; Job 1:6; Ps. 82) . . . In a few places in the HB there are hints of heavenly forces that oppose God, and so will meet with punishment (e.g. Isa. 24:21; 34:4-5)3

The phrase “sons of God” is almost always used in reference to angelic beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7—its meaning in Gen. 6:1-4 is hotly debated, however). I believe Ben Sirach’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:7-8 as speaking of angelic rulers over the nations is correct (cf. Luke 4:5-7; 13:2). It is certainly what one finds in the book of Daniel. Consider Daniel 10 and how the heavenly messenger sent to Daniel speaks of fighting against the “kings of Persia” and how the “prince of Greece” would be next.

Then he [the glorious Man of vv. 5-6] said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been alone there with the kings of Persia” . . . Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? And now I must return to fight with the prince of Persia; and when I have gone forth, indeed the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.)”
Daniel 10:12-13, 20-21

The glorious Man of Daniel 10:12-13 was either an angel or more likely a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus (cf. Dan. 10:5-12 with Rev. 1:12-18). The kings and princes against whom he was fighting were not the physical rulers of Persia or Greece but the spiritual rulers over those nations.4 The same is also true of the prince who helped him— Michael, an angelic ruler of the Jews (Dan. 12:1; cf. Rev. 12:7).5 With this in mind, consider Daniel 9:26. The Antichrist is referred to as the prince of the people who would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. This is not simply referring to Titus; ultimately it is referring to a demonic prince of the Roman people—the beast from the abyss (Rev. 11:7)—that would work through Titus.
It is spiritual kings and princes that are being shown in Daniel. Miller, commenting on Daniel 10:13, writes,

The NIV’s “detained there with the king of Persia” could mean that the angel was prevented from leaving the area ruled by the human king of the Persian Empire. Yet the Hebrew word translated “king” is plural, and the concept of the angel’s being “detained with” the earthly kings of Persia seems untenable. In the context of angelic warfare, the “kings” likely were spiritual rulers who attempted to control Persia . . . Who was this “prince of the Persian kingdom” who resisted Gabriel for three weeks? (1) He must have been an angel since no human prince could have withstood Gabriel. Moreover, Israel’s “prince” was the angel Michael (10:21), and it is reasonable to suppose that in the same context the “prince” of Persia was also an angel. (2) Since this “prince” opposed God’s angel, he may safely be assumed to have been an evil angel, that is, a demon. Leupold remarks: “Bad angels, called demons in the New Testament, are, without a doubt, referred to here.” [H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, 1949. Reprint, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), 457] (3) He is called the “prince of the Persian kingdom” so Persia must have been his special area of activity. Therefore this demon was either a powerful angel assigned to Persia by Satan or possibly he was Satan himself.6

Like the kings of Persia in Daniel 10:13, the eight kings in Revelation (Rev. 17:10-11) are ultimately spiritual rulers. This is confirmed by the fact that the eighth of these kings comes out of the abyss (Rev. 11:7; 17:8)—not exactly the place that human rulers come from (cf. Luke 8:30-32; Rev. 9:1-3). Kaiser et al. write the following on the meaning of the abyss to a first-century audience:

In the intertestamental literature we discover what a first-century Jew like the author of Revelation thought of when he wrote “the Abyss.” In 1 Enoch 10:4 a rebellious angel is bound and cast into darkness in a hole. This hole seems to be distinguished from the final place of judgment, a place of fire mentioned in 1 Enoch 18:11 and 21:7, although this is also a pit. With this background we can now understand John’s image. The Abyss is apparently the prison of demons and fallen angelic beings (some Jews believed demons were fallen angels, while others distinguished them as being their offspring). This explains the fear of the demons in Luke 8:31. They wanted to remain free, not be placed in prison. Jesus apparently allows them freedom because the time of judgment has not yet arrived. Likewise it explains why Satan is imprisoned in the Abyss [in Rev. 20:1-3], for it is the standard place to imprison such beings.7

In Ephesians 6 Paul writes the following on the topic of spiritual rulers—what he refers to as the “spiritual hosts of wickedness.”

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Ephesians 6:11-12

Clearly this is a reference to spiritual rulers as opposed to human, “flesh-and-blood” rulers (cf. John 14:30; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2; 1 John 5:19). These spiritual rulers of the pre-AD 70 age would soon be coming to nothing (1 Cor. 2:6; cf. Rom. 16:20). This can be seen in the beast being thrown into the lake of fire at Jesus’ parousia (Rev. 19:11-21; cf. Dan. 7:11, 21-22). This defeat of the Antichrist was not the destruction of a man, nor of the Roman Empire (which had many more emperors than the eight kings Revelation shows),8 but the destruction of the demonic ruler from the abyss that worked through Titus (Dan. 7:7-11).

Endnotes:
3. Ernest Lucas, Daniel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary 20, ed. David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham (Downers Gove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 276.
4. To say that the rulers of Persia here refer to physical rulers does not make sense. It was not a human prince of Persia that resisted the glorious Man. Daniel fell at the glorious Man's feet as if he were dead (Dan. 10:8-9; cf. Rev. 1:17). Human kings and princes would not have been able to withstand the glorious Man for a moment; they would have fallen before him just as Daniel did. It is spiritual kings and princes referred to here.
5. It should be noted that the Hebrew word for “prince” in Daniel 9:26 is nāgîd, while the word for “prince” in Daniel 12:1 is sar. These two words have the same basic range of meaning however (although nagid can carry a sense of a more exalted position). Both words can be variously translated as “prince,” “ruler,” “commander,” or “chief.” Nagid may be used in Daniel 9:26 because of its association with the ultimate Davidic ruler—the Messiah (cf. 1 Sam. 13:14). This verse is contrasting the actions of the Christ and the Antichrist.
6. Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary, vol.18, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and Kenneth A. Mathews (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 284-85.
7. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 763-64.
8. The Roman Empire had well over a hundred emperors throughout the course of its history. The eight kings of Revelation 17:9-11 represent the confederation of demonic rulers behind the pre-AD 70 Roman Empire (cf. Dan. 10:13). That is what was thrown into the lake of fire at AD 70 (Rev. 19:19-20; cf. Dan. 7:11).

One point to consider in paralleling Daniel with Revelation is covenant punishment as described by Chilton. He presents Revelation as the execution of the penalty clause for violating the Mosaic Covenant as described in Deut. 28-32. The four beasts of Daniel represent kingdoms that had played the role of temporary punishment of the Kingdom of Judah at one point or another. Egypt and Assyria had never played that role so there is no point in including them in Daniel's four beast progression. After the execution of this penalty clause the Kingdom of Judah was wiped out forever and a New Covenant with a new people of God was established with the faithful remnant of the Old Covenant as well as all they they could evangelize (see Isaiah 65-66). But, this limits the relevance of Daniel to a point 2,000 or more after Christ because Rome's role in occupying Judah ended a long time ago. This means that Daniel's relevance ended a long time ago.

Doug