Rethinking Daniel’s Fourth Beast: Why the Seleucid Empire, Not Rome, Fits the Prophecy
By JK Sellers | March 1, 2021, Updated April 9th, 2025
The Third Beast: Greece or Alexander's Empire?
Problems with Rome as the Fourth Beast:
- Who conquered Alexander's Empire?
- Origen of the Little Horn
- The Fourth Beast Must Crush the Previous Three
The Seleucid Empire as the Fourth Beast
- The Seleucid Empire Succeeded and Dominated Alexander’s Territory
- The Little Horn as Antiochus Epiphanes
- The Seleucid Empire’s Iron-Like Strength
Objection:The Iron Feet and Toes Mixed with Clay
Objection:The Ten Horns/Kings of the Fourth Beast
Objection:Addressing Other Potential Objections
- Objection: The Seleucid Empire wasn’t as strong as Rome.
- Objection: The Seleucid Empire isn’t prominent in later biblical narratives.
- Objection: The little horn might be a future figure, not Antiochus.
Introduction
For nearly two millennia, scholars, theologians, and early church fathers have identified the fourth beast in the Book of Daniel as the Roman Empire. This interpretation, rooted in the historical context of Roman dominance during the first century AD, seemed logical to those living under Rome’s iron rule. As Daniel 2:40 describes, the fourth kingdom would be “strong as iron, for iron breaks and smashes everything.” Rome, with its legions and vast empire, appeared to fit this description, especially for Jewish and Christian communities enduring Roman persecution, such as the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. The Protestant Reformation further solidified this view, casting Rome—and the papacy—as the ultimate adversary in prophetic narratives.
However, a closer examination of Daniel’s prophecies reveals significant inconsistencies with the Roman interpretation. As I delved deeper into the Book of Daniel, applying principles of
The First Three Beasts
To understand the fourth beast, we must first identify the preceding three beasts in Daniel’s visions. In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a statue with a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, and legs of iron, each representing a successive kingdom. Daniel himself identifies the head of gold as Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian Empire (Dan. 2:37-38), which ruled from 620 BC to 539 BC, dominating Mesopotamia and the surrounding regions (see Map 1: Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian Empire).
Map 1. Daniel's first kingdom, Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, (620-539 BC)
The second kingdom, the chest and arms of silver, is described as a kingdom that would conquer Babylon (Dan. 2:39). This is clearly the Medo-Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great, who defeated Babylon in 539 BC. In Daniel 8, the vision of the ram and goat explicitly identifies this kingdom as “the kings of Media and Persia” (Dan. 8:20). The Medo-Persian Empire ruled from 539 BC to 334 BC, extending its influence across a vast territory from Egypt to India (see Map 2: Cyrus’ Medo-Persian Empire).
Map 2. Daniel's second kingdom, Cyrus' Medo-Persian Empire (539-334 BC)
The third kingdom, the belly and thighs of bronze, is said to “rule over the whole earth” (Dan 2:39). In the vision of the ram and goat, an angel tells Daniel that the goat represents Greece, with its prominent horn symbolizing its first king (Dan. 8:21). This can only refer to Alexander the Great, who conquered the Medo-Persian Empire and established a vast empire from 336 BC to 323 BC, spreading Greek culture and language across Asia and into India (see Map 3: Alexander’s Empire). These three kingdoms—Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Alexander’s Empire—set the stage for the fourth beast, which has long been assumed to be Rome.
Map 3. Daniel's third kingdom, the ram with the dominant horn, Alexander's Empire (336-323 BC)
The Third Beast: Greece or Alexander's Empire?
Before examining the fourth beast, we must clarify the nature of the third beast. While Daniel 8:21 identifies the goat as the “king of Greece,” Alexander’s Empire was not Greece in the modern sense. Greece, or more specifically Macedonia, was a small kingdom on the edge of Europe. Alexander, a Macedonian king, expanded far beyond Greece, creating an empire that stretched from Egypt to India. This distinction is crucial: the third beast is not Greece as a nation but Alexander’s Hellenistic empire, which lasted only 13 years (336-323 BC) before fragmenting after his death (see Map 3). Understanding this Hellenistic context is essential for identifying the fourth beast, as it suggests that the successor kingdom may also be Greek in nature.
Problems with Rome as the Fourth Beast
The traditional interpretation of Rome as the fourth beast faces three significant challenges: (1) Rome did not directly conquer Alexander’s Empire, (2) the origin of the little horn points to a Greek king, and (3) Rome did not “crush and break” the previous three kingdoms as required by the prophecy.
1. Who conquered Alexander's Empire?
In Dan. 8:8, the prominent horn of the goat (Alexander) breaks off, and four lesser horns arise in its place, symbolizing the division of Alexander’s Empire after his death in 323 BC. Unlike the previous kingdoms, which were conquered by external powers (Babylon by Medo-Persia, Medo-Persia by Alexander), Alexander’s Empire was not conquered—it fragmented internally. After his death, Alexander’s generals, known as the Diadochi, fought for control, eventually establishing four kingdoms: Ptolemy in Egypt, Seleucus in Mesopotamia and Central Asia, Cassander in Macedonia, and Lysimachus in Thrace and Asia Minor (see Map 4: The Diadochi Kingdoms).
Map 4. The four horns that replaced the dominant horn of the goat. The four successors (Diadochi). Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander, and Lysimachus. (323-305 BC)
At this time, Rome was a small city-state on the Italian peninsula, far from a position to challenge these Hellenistic powers (see Map 5: Early Roman Republic, 338 BC). Rome’s expansion into the eastern Mediterranean did not begin until much later, with victories over Carthage in the Punic Wars (264-146 BC) and gradual control over Greece by 146 BC. However, Rome never directly conquered the eastern territories of Alexander’s Empire, such as Mesopotamia, Persia, or Central Asia, which remained under Hellenistic or later Parthian control. If the fourth beast must succeed the third, Rome’s timeline and territorial reach do not align with the prophecy.
Map 5. The early Roman Republic and the various tribes of Italy, 338 BC.
2. Origen of the Little Horn
The second problem concerns the “little horn,” a key figure in Daniel’s visions. In Daniel 7:7-8, the little horn emerges from the fourth beast, subduing three of its ten horns (kings) to take power (Dan. 7:7-8; 7:23-24). In Daniel 8:8-9, the little horn arises from one of the four horns that replaced the prominent horn of the goat, meaning it must originate from one of the Hellenistic kingdoms that succeeded Alexander.
If the 'little horn' comes from a Hellenistic kingdom (Dan. 8) and also from the fourth beast (Dan. 7), the fourth beast must be Greek, not Roman. Many scholars, including John J. Collins in The Apocalyptic Imagination (2016), identify the little horn in Daniel 8 as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Seleucid king known for his persecution of the Jews and desecration of the Temple in 167 BC. Antiochus fits the description of a king who rose through intrigue, subduing three rivals—Heliodorus, Demetrius Soter, and young Antiochus—to seize the Seleucid throne. In contrast, no Roman figure matches this profile as closely, as Rome was a republic until 27 BC and lacked a single king who subdued others in this manner during the relevant period.
3. The Fourth Beast Must Crush the Previous Three
Dan 2:40 states that the fourth kingdom “will crush and break all the others.” This implies that the fourth beast must dominate the regions of the previous three kingdoms: Babylon (Mesopotamia), Medo-Persia (Persia and beyond), and Alexander’s Empire (the Hellenistic world). Rome, however, never achieved this. While Rome eventually controlled parts of the eastern Mediterranean, including Judea and Egypt, its legions did not extend into the heartlands of the previous empires. Mesopotamia was briefly occupied by Trajan in 116 AD but was quickly abandoned, and Persia remained under Parthian and later Sassanid control. Rome’s influence was largely confined to the Mediterranean, not the eastern territories of Babylon, Persia, or Alexander’s Empire.
Some proponents of the Roman interpretation argue that Rome’s military might and long-lasting dominion make it a fitting candidate for the fourth beast. However, this view overlooks the specific geographical and historical requirements of the prophecy. Rome’s strength was undeniable, but its failure to “crush” the eastern regions of the previous empires undermines its claim as the fourth beast.
The Seleucid Empire as the Fourth Beast
Given these problems with Rome, the Seleucid Empire emerges as a more fitting candidate for the fourth beast. The Seleucid Empire, founded by Seleucus I Nicator in 312 BC, was one of the four Hellenistic kingdoms that arose after Alexander’s death. It offers a compelling match for Daniel’s prophecy in several key areas.
1. The Seleucid Empire Succeeded and Dominated Alexander’s Territory
Unlike Rome, the Seleucid Empire directly followed Alexander’s Empire, emerging almost immediately after his death. Seleucus I, one of the Diadochi, conquered much of Alexander’s eastern territories, including Mesopotamia, Persia, and parts of Asia Minor, by 305 BC (see Map 6: The Seleucid Empire, 305-63 BC). Historian Susan Sherwin-White, in From Samarkand to Sardis (1993), notes that the Seleucid Empire controlled a vast swath of the Near East, making it the largest and most powerful of the Hellenistic successor states at its peak under Seleucus I and Antiochus III (Antiochus the Great).
Map 6. The Seleucid Empire, (305-63 BC).
The Seleucid Empire also “crushed and broke” the regions of the previous kingdoms. It governed Mesopotamia, the heartland of Babylon, where Seleucus established his eastern capital at Seleucia on the Tigris, effectively replacing Babylon as the region’s political center. In Persia, the Seleucids maintained control over former Medo-Persian territories, integrating them into their administrative system. While the Seleucids did not conquer Egypt (ruled by the Ptolemies, another Diadochi kingdom), they dominated the rest of Alexander’s eastern empire, fulfilling the prophecy’s requirement of crushing the previous kingdoms’ regions in a way Rome never did.
2. The Little Horn as Antiochus Epiphanes
The Seleucid Empire also aligns with the prophecy through the figure of the little horn. As noted earlier, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Seleucid king who ruled from 175 to 164 BC, fits the description in Daniel 7 and 8. Antiochus rose to power through intrigue, subduing three rivals: Heliodorus, who had assassinated Seleucus IV; Demetrius Soter, the rightful heir who was a hostage in Rome; and young Antiochus, whom Antiochus IV proclaimed himself regent for before having the boy assassinated.
Antiochus’s actions further align with Daniel’s description of the little horn. In Daniel 8:11-12, the little horn stops the daily sacrifice and desecrates the sanctuary, events that mirror Antiochus’s historical actions. In 167 BC, he banned Jewish religious practices, outlawed the daily sacrifices, and desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem by dedicating it to Zeus and sacrificing a pig on the altar—an event known as the “abomination of desolation” (1 Maccabees 1:44-54). John J. Collins, in his commentary Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (1993), argues that these actions make Antiochus the most likely historical figure for the little horn in Daniel 8, a view shared by many historical-critical scholars.
Some might object that the little horn represents a future figure, such as the Antichrist in eschatological interpretations. However, the historical specificity of Daniel 8—its focus on the Hellenistic period and the little horn’s actions against the Jewish sanctuary—points to a fulfillment in Antiochus’s time. While later figures like Nero or a future Antichrist might echo the little horn symbolically, they do not fit the prophecy’s Greek context as directly as Antiochus does.
3. The Seleucid Empire’s Iron-Like Strength
Critics might argue that the Seleucid Empire was not as “iron-like” as Rome, given Rome’s longer duration and global influence. However, the Seleucid Empire was a formidable power in its time, particularly under Seleucus I and Antiochus III. Seleucus I defeated rival Diadochi to consolidate control over a vast empire, and Antiochus III, known as Antiochus the Great, waged successful campaigns against the Ptolemies and expanded Seleucid territory to its greatest extent by 200 BC. Historian Paul Kosmin, in The Land of the Elephant Kings (2014), describes the Seleucid Empire as a dominant Hellenistic power that shaped the Near East for over two centuries, exerting military and cultural influence over the regions of the previous kingdoms.
Map 6. The Seleucid Empire, (305-63 BC).
The Seleucid Empire’s duration (312-63 BC) may be shorter than Rome’s, but Daniel’s prophecy emphasizes the fourth beast’s impact during its reign, not its longevity. The Seleucids’ influence on Jewish history, particularly through Antiochus IV’s persecution, was profound, leading to the Maccabean revolt and the establishment of an independent Judea—events that resonate with Daniel’s focus on the Jewish people.
Objection:The Iron Feet and Toes Mixed with Clay
Map 7. Map of the kingdoms that existed just before the fall of the Seleucid Empire, circa 100 BC.
In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, the statue’s legs of iron transition into feet and toes of iron mixed with clay (Dan. 2:41-43), representing a later phase of the fourth kingdom. If the Seleucid Empire is the fourth beast, the feet likely represent its decline, as its vast territory shrank over time. By 100 BC, the Seleucid Empire had been reduced to a small region in modern-day Syria, a mere shadow of its former greatness (Sherwin-White, 1993). The toes, described as a mixture of iron and clay, symbolize the fragmentation of the Seleucid Empire into smaller, independent states. One such state was Judea, which gained independence through the Maccabean revolt (167-142 BC), establishing the Hasmonean dynasty.
Some scholars interpret the feet and toes as a later phase of a Roman Empire, often seen as a “revived Roman Empire” in eschatological views. However, this interpretation assumes Rome is the fourth beast, which we’ve shown does not fit the prophecy’s requirements. The Seleucid decline into smaller states better aligns with the historical context of Daniel’s time, focusing on the Hellenistic period rather than a distant Roman future.
The long temporal gap between the toes and the “last days,” when the kingdom of God crushes all kingdoms (Dan. 2:44), requires explanation. The dream, given to Nebuchadnezzar, was meant to show the fate of his kingdom and its successors. After the Seleucid Empire, the focus of the prophecy shifts to the ultimate triumph of God’s kingdom, skipping over centuries to emphasize the theological point: human empires, no matter how powerful, will ultimately fall before God’s eternal reign. This gap reflects the dream’s purpose—to contrast the transient nature of earthly kingdoms with the everlasting kingdom of God.
Objection:The Ten Horns/Kings of the Fourth Beast
Daniel 7:7 describes the fourth beast as having ten horns, which an angel interprets as ten kings (Dan. 7:24). If the Seleucid Empire is the fourth beast, these horns represent its rulers leading up to the little horn, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The following is a list of Seleucid kings, culminating in Antiochus’s rise:
- Seleucus I Nicator (312-280 BC), founder of the Seleucid Empire.
- Antiochus I Soter (280-261 BC), son of Seleucus I.
- Antiochus II Theos (261-247 BC), son of Antiochus I.
- Seleucus II Callinicus (247-226 BC), son of Antiochus II.
- Seleucus III Ceraunus (226-223 BC), son of Seleucus II.
- Antiochus III the Great (223-187 BC), brother of Seleucus III.
- Seleucus IV Philopater (187-176 BC), son of Antiochus III.
- Heliodorus (176 BC), a usurper who assassinated Seleucus IV.
- Demetrius I Soter, rightful heir to Seleucus IV, held hostage in Rome.
- Young Antiochus, second in line, assassinated by Antiochus IV.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the little horn, subdued these last three—Heliodorus, Demetrius Soter, and young Antiochus—to seize the throne in 175 BC, ruling until 164 BC. This succession of kings supports the identification of the Seleucid Empire as the fourth beast, with Antiochus as the culminating figure of the prophecy.
Objection:Addressing Other Potential Objections
To strengthen the argument, let’s address potential objections to the Seleucid Empire as the fourth beast:
- Objection: The Seleucid Empire wasn’t as strong as Rome. While Rome’s empire was longer-lasting, the Seleucid Empire was a dominant power in its time, with military campaigns under Seleucus I and Antiochus III demonstrating iron-like strength. Its impact on the Near East, particularly on the Jewish people, aligns with Daniel’s focus.
- Objection: The Seleucid Empire isn’t prominent in later biblical narratives. Daniel’s prophecies focus on the Hellenistic period, particularly the events leading to the Maccabean revolt. By the time of the New Testament, the focus shifts to Rome, but this does not negate the Seleucid Empire’s role in Daniel’s historical context.
- Objection: The little horn might be a future figure, not Antiochus. While eschatological interpretations see the little horn as a future Antichrist, the historical details of Daniel 8 (e.g., the desecration of the sanctuary) point to Antiochus IV. Later figures may echo this pattern, but Antiochus remains the primary fulfillment.
Conclusion: Implications of the Seleucid Interpretation
The Seleucid Empire, not Rome, better fits the description of Daniel’s fourth beast. It directly succeeded Alexander’s Empire, dominated the regions of the previous kingdoms, and produced the little horn in the form of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Rome, while a powerful empire, did not conquer the eastern territories of Babylon, Medo-Persia, or Alexander’s Empire, nor does it align with the Greek origin of the little horn.
This reinterpretation has significant implications. First, it shifts the focus of Daniel’s prophecies from a Roman-centric view to a Hellenistic one, emphasizing the historical context of the Jewish people under Seleucid rule. The Maccabean revolt, a direct response to Antiochus’s persecution, becomes a pivotal moment in this narrative, highlighting the resilience of God’s people against oppressive empires. Second, it challenges eschatological interpretations that see the fourth beast as a precursor to a revived Roman Empire. If the fourth beast is the Seleucid Empire, the “last days” kingdom (Dan. 2:44; cf. Rev. 13) may have roots in the Near East rather than Europe, aligning with modern geopolitical realities in the region.
This analysis invites readers to reconsider traditional interpretations of Daniel’s prophecies. By focusing on the Hellenistic context, we gain a deeper understanding of the historical and theological message of the Book of Daniel: human empires, no matter how powerful, are ultimately transient before the eternal kingdom of God. Future studies might explore how this interpretation intersects with other prophetic texts, such as Revelation, and what it means for our understanding of God’s plan in history.
Figure Representing the Symbolisms in the Book of Daniel
References
- Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 3rd ed., Eerdmans, 2016.
- Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Fortress Press, 1993.
- Kosmin, Paul J. The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire. Harvard University Press, 2014.
- Sherwin-White, Susan, and Amélie Kuhrt. From Samarkand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. University of California Press, 1993.
- The Bible (NIV). Daniel 2, 7, 8.
JK Sellers
See also:
The Prophecies of Daniel: Part 1, The Historical Setting
The Prophecies of Daniel: Part 2, Who was Daniel
The Prophecies of Daniel: Part 3, Daniel and Alexander the Great.
The Prophecies of Daniel: Part 4. Chapter 9, 70 Weeks-The Coming of the Messiah.
The Prophecies of Daniel: Part 5. Chapter 2 Nebuchadnezzar's Image.
The Prophecies of Daniel: Part 6. Chapter 7, Daniel's Four Beasts.
The Prophecies of Daniel: Part 7. Chapter 8, The Ram, Goat and the Little Horn.
The Prophecies of Daniel: Part 8. Chapters 10-12, The Wars of the Kings of the North and the South.