In Daniel, Chapter 2, we read about the famous dream of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. This dream was more like a nightmare, so the king called in the astrologers to interpret his dream -- but they all failed. This resulted in an order to slay all the wise men in Babylon, which would include Daniel and his personal Judahite friends.

However, upon seeking YEHOVAH God in prayer, Daniel was given the same dream, but this time accompanied by the interpretation -- which he then explained to Nebuchadnezzar. The prophet described the revelation from YEHOVAH, showing that FOUR great Gentile Empires must rise and successfully rule the world of that time, and dominate Palestine during Israel's dispersion.

Daniel then recalled to Nebuchadnezzar that in his dream he had seen an image of a man composed of FOUR METALS, and each metal represented an Empire. These Empires would follow one upon the other, and would appear as follows --

1) BABYLON -- Illustrated by GOLD, the then ruling power, ending in 457 B.C.

2) MEDIA -- Formed of SILVER, and described in Daniel 5:28, but ending in 336 B.C.

3) PERSIA -- Formed of BRASS, and also outlined in Daniel 5:28, and ending in 336 B.C.

4) GREECE -- Formed of IRON, described in Daniel 2:40 and 8:21, and ending in 62 B.C.

For more information on the identity and sequence of these world empires, read our companion article, Daniel's Four Kingdoms.

The dream further showed that, during the existence of these four empires, there would be a FIFTH EMPIRE, outside the image or Gentile world. This 5th power was symbolized in the dream by a "STONE," cut out of the earth without human hands, which Daniel interpreted as signifying its Divine origin. The prophet then saw war between the "stone" kingdom and the nations represented by the feet of the image -- resulting in their destruction. The "stone" kingdom then expanded into a "GREAT MOUNTAIN," or worldwide empire, which finally covered the whole earth.

A Literal Kingdom?

In his interpretation of the meaning of the stone, which Nebuchadnezzar saw strike and destroy the image, Daniel stated that it represented a kingdom which would be set up by YEHOVAH God of Heaven. Notice Daniel 2:44-45:

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be delivered to other people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and put an end to them, and it shall stand forever; just as you saw that a stone was hewn from the mountain by no human hand, and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has revealed to the king what shall be in the future. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is reliable (The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

We are told by some that this 5th Empire -- or Stone Kingdom of Daniel 2 -- does not represent a literal kingdom like the gold, silver, brass and iron empires, but that it is the spiritual kingdom of YEHOVAH God -- having no material aspect whatsoever! These people seem to be totally unaware of the illogical position they find themselves in. For, if the four metals which made up the image are literal kingdoms, and are as much a part of the earth as the ore from which the metals were refined, then by what method of reasoning or logic do they make the stone represent a spiritual kingdom only -- since it is just as much a part of the earth as the ore was? Not only that, but it was also cut out of the same mountain from which the ore was taken! The only difference between the ore and the stone is that the ore was taken from the mountain by men who refined it into the metals in which it appeared in the image; and the stone -- though also of the earth -- was cut out of the mountain without the assistance of men. Daniel declared "that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands."

The Aramaic word for "kingdom" in Daniel 2:44 is malkuw, and means (a) royalty, kingship, kingly authority; (b) kingdom; (c) realm (of territory) and (d) reign (of time) -- Strong's #4437. It means a literal, physical, earthly kingdom in this instance, and is the exact same word that is used for "kingdom" in the verses that refer to the four literal, physical, earthly kingdoms of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians and Greeks!! There is nothing ethereal or spiritual about it -- nor does it in any way refer to Yeshua the Messiah or his Church!

There are a number of reasons why the "Stone Kingdom" is NOT the Church, as many have taught --

1) The Church of YEHOVAH God had nothing to do with the "breaking in pieces" of Babylon because Babylon fell in 457 B.C. -- over 400 years before the Church was formed!

2) The Church of YEHOVAH God could not have "broken" Media because the Median Empire fell in 336 B.C. -- over 300 years before the Church was born at Pentecost in 31 A.D.

3) Similarly, the Church did not "break in pieces" Persia because the Persian Empire also came to an end in 336 B.C. -- over 300 years before there was any Church of YEHOVAH God!

4) The Church did not "break in pieces" the Grecian Empire because it came to an end in 62 B.C. by the hammer blows of the Parthians -- who, as we shall see, were of the House of Israel!

It is exceedingly clear, therefore, that the Church is NOT the "Stone Kingdom" -- considering that the "Stone" was to break those four Empires, and the Church was not around to "break" a single one of them!

Many in the Churches of God have taught that Yeshua the Messiah himself is the smiting "Stone," and that this will take place at the Second Coming. This is totally without basis for the following reasons --

1) The smiting "Stone" was to destroy the kingdoms of Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece -- at the HEIGHT of their power -- and NOT at the end of the Christian dispensation! How could Yeshua be the smiter if Babylon was overthrown 400 years before he was born?

2) In Nebuchadnezzar's dream there is nothing to indicate that this 5th Kingdom is any different physically from the four kingdoms of the image -- except that it had a Divine origin and a Divine destiny. It was not purely a spiritual kingdom only.

3) While it is true that Yeshua is "the stone which the builders rejected," and he also is the "head of the corner," it is clearly indicated that the "smiting stone" was based on a NATION -- not on himself!

The Church is not the "Stone" Kingdom because it did not destroy the Empires of Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece in the days of their power. Similarly, Yeshua the Messiah is not the smiting "Stone" because those four kingdoms were to be broken at the height of their power -- not at the end of the Christian age!

The "smiting stone" was based on a literal NATION -- not on Yeshua the Messiah or the Church! Notice what Matthew 21:33-46 says. This is the Parable of the Husbandmen. The owner of this vineyard left it in the care of husbandmen and, at the time of the harvest, sent his servants to collect his share of the fruit. But the husbandmen maltreated and killed the servants and even slew the owner's own son. Yeshua here was plainly referring to the Judahites (his listeners) who had the Temple and the Law in their midst and alone remained as YEHOVAH's servants or husbandmen. Yet the Judahites had slain YEHOVAH's prophets -- and were now about to crucify the Messiah, who became YEHOVAH's first-born son. Yeshua then went on to drive home to his listeners the fact that they were the wicked husbandmen of the parable, which they quickly realized, for "the chief priests and Pharisees...perceived that he spoke of them." Let's now compare the following verses --

Matthew 21:43 -- "Therefore, I tell you that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to the kind of people that will produce its fruit!"

Daniel 2:34 -- "As you continued looking, a stone was cut out by no human hand and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay and broke them in pieces."

Matthew 21:44 -- "Whoever falls on this stone will be broken in pieces; but if it falls on him, he will be crushed to powder!"

Daniel 2:35 -- "Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold all together were broken in pieces and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floor; and the wind carried them away, so that no trace of them could be found."

In this parable Yeshua quoted from the Book of Daniel and his prophecy, to show that the "Stone" was a NATION -- and that "whoever falls on this stone will be broken in pieces." Yeshua was not referring to himself as the "stone," but the NATION Israel. Up until this time the Judahites had been the "husbandmen" of the Kingdom but, because of their rejection of him as their prophesied Messiah, they were to loose that privilege.

The Judahites were descendants of the House of Judah, which comprised of two tribes -- namely Judah and Benjamin. The House of Israel, on the other hand, was formed of the other ten tribes. Although it is often thought that those called Jews today are descendants of all the 12 tribes, the Jews themselves make it quite clear today that a large percentage of them are descendants of Judah and Benjamin ONLY. We can now understand more concisely what Yeshua meant, as we read his statement to the Judahites in light of these facts. Notice Matthew 21:43 --

Therefore I say unto you [Judahites of the House of Judah], the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation [House of Israel -- Britain, U.S. and the countries of Northwestern Europe] bringing forth the fruits thereof.

In spite of all their faults and failings, Britain and the U.S. are "bringing forth the fruits thereof" by sending out missionaries and Bibles throughout the world -- more than any other country. And -- more importantly -- they have not denied the Messiah! The Judahites of the House of Judah are still in unbelief, and still reject Yeshua as their Messiah.

In the Days of Those Kings

The fact that the stone smashes the image by physical contact is further proof that is must also represent a kingdom which has a physical presence upon the earth. The fact of the matter is that not one shred of evidence exists in Daniel to justify the idea that the prophet in any way intended to portray the first four kingdoms as representing earthly governments but that the fifth was not of the earth -- being entirely spiritual. Let's follow Daniel's explanation and see if we can further identify the time when this 5th world empire, or Stone Kingdom would strike the image. Daniel clearly states the very time when the 5th kingdom would be organized. Notice!

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed...(Daniel 2:44).

Ferrar Fenton renders it this way --

But in the days of those kings, the God of Heaven will establish an Everlasting Empire, and Indestructible.

Just who are "those kings" in whose days YEHOVAH God of Heaven would set up a kingdom? Many in the Churches of God jump right off the track at this point when they "spiritualize" the Kingdom and tell us that the days of the future end-time confederation of ten European kings or kingdoms (represented by the toes of the image) will occur when Yeshua returns to usher in the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God and rule Israel. Then -- and not until then -- they say, the entire image will be destroyed. Now if this interpretation were true, the stone should be shown as hitting the toes of the image, not its feet. Daniel indicates, however, that not only the toes but the feet of the image were made of clay and iron and definitely states that the stone struck the feet of the image (Daniel 2:34). This one fact alone completely invalidates the contention and arguments of these spiritualizers that the stone is to appear, at some future date, when the nations represented in the ten toes have appeared on the world scene are about to come to their end. So what is the identity of the 10 kingdoms or toes -- and when did they appear on the world stage?

The fourth kingdom is represented by legs of iron in Daniel's metallic statue. The iron kingdom is divided into feet of iron and clay representing a "divided kingdom." The fourth kingdom, then, would be an unstable one that would become "divided," and this imagery aptly describes what happened to the Grecian Empire after the death of Alexander. It was divided among four of his generals. Notes Farrell Till --

The continuation of the four-kingdom scenario in Daniel's own visions that came later gives strong support for the view that the fourth kingdom of iron and clay was the Grecian empire. In chapter seven Daniel saw "four great beasts [that] came up from the sea, each different from each other (v. 3). The first three beasts were described quickly in only three verses (a single verse for each beast), but the writer [Daniel] then devoted the rest of the chapter (21 verses) to describing and discussing the fourth beast. This is a clear indication that the fourth beast was THE FOCAL POINT of the writer's interest.

Continuing, Till goes on to say:

This beast was described as "dreadful and terrible" and was "exceedingly strong" with "huge iron teeth (v. 7). It had ten horns, and while Daniel was "considering the horns," another horn, "a little one" came up among the others and plucked up three of the biggest horns (vs. 7-8). Daniel was told that the four beasts were four kings that would arise out of the earth (v. 17), and he expressed a desire to "know the truth about the fourth beast" and the ten horns that were on its head and the other horn that came up before which three horns fell (vs. 19-20).

"Obviously, then," according to Till,

the writer's primary interest was in this fourth beast or kingdom. That interest can be explained by something that Daniel said in his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream when he identified the iron legs, with feet of iron and clay, on the "great image" that Nebuchadnezzar had seen in his dream. This "iron" kingdom was also the fourth kingdom in the dream, and Daniel said that "in the days of these kings [of the fourth or iron kingdom] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed" (2:44). This was why the focus of chapter 7 was on the fourth beast. It symbolized the kingdom in whose days the God of heaven would establish an everlasting kingdom, so naturally Daniel's focus would be on it (What Medo-Persian Empire?).

Much to the chagrin of many of the Churches of God, who want this fourth kingdom to be the Roman Empire, there is absolutely NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE to support that wish, because it is apparent to all who desire to see Daniel's intention that the iron kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, and the fourth beast in chapter 7, are both the SAME kingdom as the male goat in chapter 8.

The type of "duality" which futurists attempt to force on the "chest and arms" of the image is illustrated here. Daniel attaches specific interpretive value to the feet and toes as symbols of a divided kingdom composed "partly of potter's clay and partly of iron." The iron apparently symbolizes the strengths of the divided kingdom, while the clay symbolizes its weaknesses.

Undoubtedly, Daniel has in mind the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires, two of the four kingdoms that arose from the division of Alexander's Greek Empire. This point is easily demonstrated by noting the correspondence that exists between Daniel 2:41 and the vision in Daniel 11, in which Daniel immediately singles out the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires after the breakup of Alexander's dominion (verses 5, 6). Likewise, in Daniel 2, the author readily limits himself to these two kingdoms. H.H. Rowley explains:

The author was primarily interested in the Jewish people, and he therefore ignored those parts of the Greek empire which had no relation to Palestinian affairs, especially since the human form of the image, by the natural duality of its legs, helped to impose this limitation (Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, Cardiff: University of Wales Press Board, 1959, p. 96).

Rowley also points out that in Daniel 8, once the ram's great horn is broken, Daniel moves directly to the persecuting "little horn," thereby "ignor[ing] all that does not concern his own people."

Daniel's interest revolves around Palestine and the Judahite people. Following the breakup of Alexander's Empire in 312 B.C., Daniel's attention turned to the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires which vied for control of Palestine. The various battles between the two rival kingdoms are described in Daniel 11:5-30. The duality of the statue's feet is easily seen as the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires to which Daniel limited himself in Daniel 11. Further correspondence is evidenced by the mixture of iron and clay in the toes. Marriage alliances between the two rival kingdoms are indicated and confirmed in Daniel 11. A reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that the fourth empire of Daniel 2 is Greece -- as represented by Alexander the Great and his successors.

The Horns Represent Seleucid Kings

". . . It was different from all the beasts that preceded it, and it had ten horns" (Daniel 7:7).

"As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall spring up and another shall spring up after them. This one shall be different from those before him, and shall lay low three kings" (Daniel 7:24, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible).

The fourth beast has "ten horns" on its head, which the Scripture identifies as "ten kings." The Futurists' contention is that these ten kings represent a future, end-time revived Roman Empire. How can this be, however, since the ten kings PRECEDE Antiochus -- since Antiochus "shall arise after them"? The ten kings are identified as one group; therefore, the general conclusion can be reached that, all together, they provide a recognizable bridge of royalty between the great "iron" empire of Alexander the Great (334-312 B.C.) and Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.).

Scholars differ in their reckoning of the ten kings. Some identify them exclusively with Seleucid kings, while others proffer various combinations of Seleucid and Ptolemaic kings. Most interpreters identify seven of the horns as the first seven Seleucid kings following the breakup of Alexander's empire:

(1) Seleucus I Nicator, 312-281 B.C. (founder of the Seleucid Dynasty);
(2) Antiochus I Soter, 281-261 B.C.;
(3) Antiochus II Theos, 261-246 B.C.;
(4) Seleucus II Callinicus, 246-226 B.C.;
(5) Seleucus III Ceraunus, 226-223 B.C.;
(6) Antiochus III the Great, 223-187 B.C.; and
(7) Seleucus IV Philopator, 187-175 B.C.

The remaining three kings are represented by the three horns that were "plucked up by the roots" in order to "make room" for the "little horn" that "came up" among the ten (Daniel 7:8). Considering that the three were "plucked up by the roots," the likely candidates for identification with the three horns are three aspirants who would have had the opportunity to become king of the Seleucid Empire were it not for the devious acts of Antiochus. The three would-be kings are

(1) Heliodorus, a usurper who poisoned Seleucus Philopator in an attempt to secure the throne;
(2) Demetrius, son of Seleucus, the rightful heir after his father's death; and
(3) Ptolemy VI Philometor, king of Egypt and nephew of Antiochus who desired to gain the Seleucid throne.

The fact that Antiochus gained the Seleucid throne by deceit is confirmed in Daniel 11:21, where the author states that "royal majesty had not been conferred" on him. This is Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175 B.C. - 164 B.C.) the brother of Seleucus IV and the "contemptible man" of Bible prophecy. He escaped from a prison in Rome where he was being held as a hostage. He returned to Syria and through bribes and corruption wormed himself into a position of power. He overrode all the rightful heirs to the throne -- Seleucus IV's son Demetrius and his sister Cleopatra I of Egypt and her son Ptolemy VI.

Furthermore, "he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom through intrigue." This statement clearly indicates that Antiochus secured power suddenly and abruptly. It is noteworthy too that Daniel refers to the division of Alexander's dominion as being "uprooted" (cf. 11:4). Just as the empire of Alexander did not go to his son and heir, the Seleucid Empire likewise did not go to Demetrius, the rightful heir of Seleucus Philopator; both were "uprooted."

The Stone's Identity

Now that we have determined the ten toes of Daniel's statue were the ten kings of the Seleucid dynasty that appeared after Alexander's death, we can turn to the task of identifying the stone that crushed these kings and brought the entire statue crashing to the ground!

Since we have also determined that the stone or 5th Kingdom is a literal, physical kingdom that played a part on the world scene, WHAT kingdom, in the days of the petty Grecian kingdoms, could have completely brought the image down? Notice what Bo Reicke has to say --

About 250 B.C., the PARTHIANS, coming from Transcaspia, began to threaten the Seleucid Empire. They conquered Hyrcania and Parthia, the modern province of Khurasan southeast of the Caspian Sea, and fortified the caravansary of Hecatompylos. From their base in northern Iran, the PARTHIAN KINGS and their horsemen undertook surprise raids toward the east and along the Median highway to the southwest. Under Mithradates I, about 150 B.C., they conquered Mesopotamia. After this, the kings of the Parthian dynasty of the Arsacids were able to control the trade routes between the Roman and Chinese empires throughout the pre-Christian and early Christian periods. They remained the most dangerous enemies of the Romans....Ecbatana, in Media, and Seleucia, on the west bank of the Tigris, were the royal capitals of the Parthians (The New Testament Era. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1968, p. 7).

Then, in the Encyclopedia Britannica, we read:

...Mithridates I....became the founder of the PARTHIAN EMPIRE. Mithridates I. (c. 170-138 B.C.) had to fight hard with the Greeks of Bactria, especially with Eucratides (q.v.); at last he was able to conquer a great part of eastern Iran. Soon after the death of Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (163) he conquered Media, where he refounded the town of Rhagae (Rai near Teheran) under the name of Arsacia; and about 141 he invaded Babylonia. He and his son Phraates II. defeated the attempts of Demetrius II. (139) and Antiochus VII. (129) to regain the eastern provinces, and extended the Arsacid dominion to the Euphrates (1943, Vol. 17, p. 345).

In 1992 Steven M. Collins published a book entitled The "Lost" Ten Tribes of Israel...Found! in which he devotes two entire chapters to the Parthians and their empire. Herein he writes --

Parthia's first great opponent was the SELEUCID GREEK EMPIRE, which was heir to much of the conquests of Alexander the Great, including the land of the Parthians...

Parthia, a province of the Seleucid Empire, was located southeast of the Caspian Sea and declared its independence from the Seleucid Greek Empire in 256-250 B.C.....

While the Parthians had been a distinct, SEMITIC PEOPLE ever since their ancestors were transplanted from ancient Israel to Asia, they had been subjects of the Assyrians, the MEDO-PERSIANS [actually, the MEDES AND the PERSIANS], and then the SELEUCID GREEKS (Boring, OR: CPA Books, p. 226).

George Rawlinson comments that "the PARTHIAN KINGDOM was thoroughly anti-Hellenic" (Parthia, p. 47), and revolted from the Seleucids at a time "when the Seleucids were weakened by warfare with the Egyptian Ptolemies" (The "Lost" Ten Tribes of Israel...Found!, p. 226). Collins then goes on to examine the region's political climate at the time of Parthia's attempt to become independent -- notice:

After the death of Alexander the Great, his empire had been divided into four separate kingdoms, the STRONGEST of which became the Seleucid Empire of Asia [king of the north] and the Ptolemaic Empire of Egypt [king of the south]. The four way division of Alexander's Empire was a fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 11:1-4 about a mighty Grecian king who would supplant the Persian Empire [third kingdom of Daniel's statue], die in his prime and have his kingdom divided into four sections....

The Greek Seleucids and the Egyptian Ptolemies then fought a series of wars, one of which made it possible for PARTHIA to revolt in approximately 250 B.C. without an immediate response from the Seleucids. With the Seleucids weakened by warfare, the Parthians were emboldened to annex another Seleucid province. The Seleucid king then attacked and defeated the upstart Parthians, causing Arsaces [king of the Parthians] to flee to his kinsmen (the Scythians) to seek refuge and reinforcements....

The Sacae [Scythians] gave the Parthian king military support, as did the Bactrians. This alliance defeated the army of the Seleucid Empire in a CRITICAL BATTLE which made the independence of the Parthians a reality. It was an historic turning point, and Rawlinson records that the Parthians long observed the anniversary of this battle as "a solemn festival" (The "Lost" Ten Tribes of Israel...Found!, pp. 226-227).

From the above quotes we can see that the PARTHIAN EMPIRE occupied a fascinating period of history, widely unrecorded in the history books of today, that was closely connected to Persia and Greece. Ruling from 247 B.C. to 228 A.D. in ancient Persia (Iran), the Parthians defeated Alexander the Great's successors, the SELEUCIDS, conquered most of the Middle East and southwest Asia, controlled the Silk Road and built Parthia into an EASTERN SUPERPOWER. The Parthians were able to reestablish an Iranian empire which rivaled the colossus of Rome to the west. They rose to power under King Mithradates the Great (171-138 B.C.) and occupied all of modern Iran, Iraq and Armenia, parts of Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan and -- for brief periods -- territories in Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine. The Parthians established their first treaty in 92 B.C. with their future rivals, the Romans, in an effort to defeat their common enemy, the Seleucids. As the Seleucids weakened, the Parthians absorbed much of their territory. By the middle of the first century B.C., the PARTHIAN EMPIRE was at its zenith, both stable and strong.

Delving further into Parthian history, Steven Collins adds that "another war with the Seleucids occurred almost forty years after Parthia's original 'declaration of independence.' Although the more-powerful Seleucids temporarily captured the Parthian capital city, the war ended with a peace treaty calling for the Seleucids' withdrawal in 206 B.C. and Parthia remained independent....[This] was followed by a period of GREAT EXPANSION which extended its rule over much of south central Asia" (ibid., p. 228).

Continues Collins --

After Phraates I captured the Caspian Gates for Parthia, the next Parthian monarch, Mithridates I, expanded the Parthian power to TRUE EMPIRE STATUS....By the time of his death, Mithridates I had placed Bactria, MEDIA, BABYLONIA, PERSIA, and other territories under Parthian dominion, ruling "from the Hindu Kush to the Euphrates...a distance of 1500 miles from east to west"....Virtually all of Parthia's expansion came at the expense of the SELEUCID GREEKS (ibid., p. 229).

In 129 B.C. the Seleucids attacked the new Parthian Empire with a troop strength of more than 400,000, while the Parthian army numbered only 120,000. After some initial victories the Seleucids occupied some cities that were under Parthian rule and acted so arrogantly that the city-dwellers attacked the unsuspecting Seleucid troops within their garrison towns. The Parthian regulars crushed the Seleucid monarch and his remaining troops in a final battle that resulted in the death of Antiochus along with 300,000 of his troops. "This battle," writes Collins, "was another turning point in world history, because it BROKE THE BACK OF THE SELEUCID EMPIRE, which gradually withered away to nothing, trapped between the two growing powers of Rome in the west and PARTHIA in the east" (The "Lost" Ten Tribes of Israel...Found!, p. 230).

Clearly, PARTHIA was the only superpower capable of filling the role of the "Stone Kingdom" or 5th empire of Daniel 2:44!

"Cut Out of the Mountain Without Hands"

The fact that the Stone Kingdom of Daniel was "cut out of the mountain without [human] hands" indicates that it was of Divine origin -- that it was personally set up by YEHOVAH God Himself! This would be a dominant empire that would last forever, a world-dominating nation brought into power on the world scene PRIOR to the Messiah's return, and one that he would assume control of in the new world order. This nation, starting out as a mere rock, would turn into a huge mountain that would gain power, leadership and dominance that would vastly outsize anything the world has ever seen. As a result, the earlier empires would fade from memory and would simply be relegated to the dust bin of history. Could this be the PARTHIAN EMPIRE? What are the origins of this Middle Eastern superpower?

According to Justin's History of the World, "the Parthians in whose hands the empire of the east now is, having divided the world, as it were, with the Romans, were originally EXILES FROM SCYTHIA. This is apparent from their very name; for in the Scythian language exiles are called PARTHI....The Parthians, being forced to quit Scythia by discord at home, gradually settled in the deserts betwixt Hyrcania, the Dahae, the Arei, the Sparni and Marsiani."

"The Scythians," writes Steven Collins, "were also frequently called the 'SAKA,' or 'SACAE'" (The "Lost" Ten Tribes of Israel...Found!, p. 174). The Encyclopedia Britannica reveals that the terms "Saka (Sacae)...and Scyths...were regarded as synonymous. It is difficult to always judge whether given information applies to the Sacae (Saka) or the Scyths" (Vol. 20, p. 238). Collins goes on to say that

it is very significant that the Scythians were also known as Sacae or Saka. Genesis 21:12 contains the promise that Abraham's descendants would, in the future, be known by the name of Isaac. The ancient Hebrew language did not list vowel sounds; therefore, the name Isaac would then be represented by the consonants S-C or S-K (reflecting the fact that the "c" in Isaac is pronounced like a "k"). The word Sacae represents the word Isaac with the Latin plural "ae" attached. That these "Sacae" are recorded as being near the Black Sea soon after the Israelites migrated to Asia supports the contention that they were relocated Israelites. Historians unfamiliar with (or hostile toward) the Bible speculate that the Scythians came from the Asian interior. However, their name (a form of the Hebrew name Isaac) and their arrival in Asia soon after the Israelites relocated from Palestine into Asia indicates that they were Israelites (pp. 174-175).

Raymond McNair, in his manuscript In Search of the Lost Ten Tribes, asks the question

Why is the origin of the Scyths so obscure? Why were these numerous, talented and powerful peoples unknown until the 600s B.C.? The simple answer for this is as follows: When the Assyrians conquered and deported about seven million Israelites from Palestine to the region of Assyria and Media in 721 B.C. [actually, 640-638 B.C.], this unleashed on the ancient world a torrent of turbulent peoples who soon escaped from under the Assyrian yoke and in confederation with the Medes, even helped humble the Assyrians. Only one hundred and nine years after the Ten Tribes of Israel were deported to the Caucasus-Caspian Sea area, these Israelite tribes (KNOWN AS SCYTHS) joined with the Medes in their attack against the capital of Assyria (Nineveh) and broke the power of that once-proud empire (pp. 198-199).

McNair goes on to link the Scythians to the Danae and the PARTHIANS --

Meanwhile the Medes had become masters of Persia. They considered the Scythians' increasing might a real threat to their own security, and they decided to concentrate their efforts in launching a decisive attack against the tribesmen. Their better disciplined troops eventually contrived to push the Scythians northward, whence they had first appeared, some retreating through Urartu....When forced by the Medes to retreat, some of them likewise settled between the Caspian and Aral Seas, where they intermingled with their DANAE kinsmen to produce the people who, some three centuries later, were to become known as the PARTHIANS...(ibid., p. 180).

Latham, in his Ethnology of Europe, uncovers the origins of the Danae by saying "that the eponymus of the Argive DANAI [DANAE] was no other than that of the ISRAELITE TRIBE OF DAN..." (p. 157).

So, putting all this together, the Parthians were descended from the intermarriage between two groups of the 10-tribed northern kingdom of Israel -- the Scythians and Danae!

The Israelite origins of the PARTHIANS are confirmed by Steven Collins when he relates that

There is a record from Diodorus, a Greek historian of the first century B.C., that the Parthians had "passed from the dominion of the Assyrians to that of the Medes...to a similar position under the Persians." Rawlinson also notes that early historians regarded the PARTHIANS TO BE "EXILES"....two waves of ISRAELITE CAPTIVES were exiled into Asia by the Assyrians, and that some of them were located in the cities of the Medes. After the fall of Assyria's empire, it is logical that the ASIA ISRAELITES would come under the dominion of the Medes and Persians. Since the Parthians were related to the SACAE SCYTHIANS (who bore the name of Isaac), and since there is no record of any Parthian being in Asia until AFTER THE ISRAELITES WERE BROUGHT THERE, it seems evident that the Parthians were exiled members of the ten tribes of Israel. Supporting this view is the fact that the Parthians were regarded as "exiles," an apt description for the displaced Israelites (The "Lost" Ten Tribes of Israel...Found!, p. 207).

The science of linguistics also points to an Israelite origin for the Parthian Empire -- notice!

That the Parthians utilized an ARAMAIC ALPHABET (and imposed it within their empire) powerfully indicates that the Parthians originated in the region of Syria and Palestine where the Aramaic language originated. The FACT that the Parthians used a Semitic alphabet clearly indicates that their native language and racial origin were Semitic! Also, since early historians strongly maintain that the Parthians were a Scythic people, the Semitic nature of Parthia's language further argues for a Semitic origin for the Scythians. That the Parthian language was related to the Hebrew language also indicates that the Parthians were among the descendants of the ten tribes of Israel, a large mass of Semitics who were transplanted into Media and other Asian regions (ibid., p. 208).

Yet another proof of the Israelitish origins of the Parthians is found in the names of their ruling family. YEHOVAH God had promised that the southern tribe of JUDAH would produce kings and rulers -- see the "scepter" promise of Genesis 49:10. King David was promised that he would always have descendants ruling over the House of Israel (northern ten tribes), as confirmed by the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 33:17. "Jeremiah's prophecy," according to Collins, "was made AFTER the relocation of the House of Israel (the northern ten tribes) into Asia. Therefore, because of the timing of Jeremiah's prophecy, we should expect to find descendants of King David ruling over the ten tribes of Israel after they moved to Asia" (ibid., p. 212). Collins continues by saying --

there are many Parthian kings with names containing the root word "Phares" (indicating David's royal bloodline). From the eastern edge of Parthian rule and influence to the western edge, Parthian kings regularly included the "Phares" name. A Parthian king who ruled in the area of West India was names GONDOPHARES, and several kings ruling over the Caucasus mountain kingdom of Iberia were named PHARASMANES (The "Lost" Ten Tribes of Israel...Found!, p. 212).

"The above examples alone show that David's descendants of the House of PHARES were ruling over separate groups of the ten tribes of Israel from the Caucasus Mountains to the territory of modern India. Also, many KINGS OF PARTHIA itself had names indicating that they were also royal members of the Davidic line of Judah. Such names include the KEY consonants of PH-R-S in Hellenized forms of their Parthian names (such Parthian royal names as Phraates, Phraortes, and Phraataces are examples)." Over the centuries YEHOVAH God kept his promise to David by allowing David's descendants to rule over many of the Israelitish nations -- including the PARTHIANS in Asia.

Another clue to the Parthians' origins can be found in place names located within their extensive empire:

[A] prominent city of Parthia was named ASAAK, where Arsaces was crowned king, which clearly represents a form of the name "ISAAC." The name of Isaac had also been attached to geographical areas in Asia long before Parthia ever became independent. Strabo [Greek geographer and historian, c. 63 B.C. - 24 A.D.] records that Alexander the Great noted a region named ASAACANUS which was traversed in Alexander's expedition to India (ibid., p. 216).

Building on this, Collins goes on to inform us that

the Parthian province of Media Atropatene was located southwest of the Caspian Sea. The noted historian, George Rawlinson, records that (in Parthian times) "Its chief city was GAZA." This city was apparently named after the famous old Palestinian city of the same name, arguing its inhabitants had come from Palestine....

In the Parthian province of Hyrcania (located on the southeast shores of the Caspian Sea), we find that two of its chief cities were named "SAMARIANE" and "CARTA." These names are clear evidence of the presence of Israelites from the former ten-tribed kingdom of Israel. Israel's capital city was named Samaria, and II Kings 17:6-7 records that its inhabitants, after a three-year siege, were transplanted by the Assyrians into Asia after the city fell. Centuries later, we find a PARTHIAN CITY, Samariane, bearing the name of the capital city of the old Kingdom of Israel....The city named "CARTA" bears the same Semitic root word which is present in the name "CARTHAGE"...(The "Lost" Ten Tribes of Israel...Found!, p. 216).

The identity of the Parthians is no longer a mystery! The information we have just provided is but a small sample of the evidence available to prove that the Parthians were the "covenant" people of the northern ten tribes of Israel who were then living in Asia. In fact, their very name declares to us that they were the "covenant" people. The Hebrew word for "covenant" is "Berith," with the consonants B-R-TH. If we represent the "B" as a "P" (these letters were interchangeable in the ancient world), the consonants become P-R-TH, the exact consonants of the word PaRTHia! Indeed, an early king of their Scythian kinsmen named Partatua (c. 626 B.C.) included the P-R-T root word which foreshadowed the later name "PARTHIA."

In conclusion, let us review the mass of overwhelming evidence that the Parthians were descended from the ten tribes of Israel who had migrated to Asia. It is a fact that the Parthians were never recorded as being in Asia until AFTER the ten tribes of Israel were relocated to Asia. The Old Testament reveals that these tribes were placed in the "cities of the Medes," and Parthia's homeland happened to be next to the territory of the Medes!

In the Parthian homelands we find the names of subtribes of Ephraim, and history tells us that the Parthians were the kinsmen of the Scythian Saka/Sacae -- showing that the Parthians were also known as descendants of Isaac!

The Judahite historian Josephus wrote that the ten tribes of Israel were extremely numerous --

...the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by number (Antiquities of the Jews, XI, V,2).

This "immense multitude" was none other than the Parthians and Scythians. At the time Josephus wrote (1st century A.D.), the Euphrates River had long been considered the border between the Roman and Parthian Empires. "For Josephus to write (from his perspective within the Roman Empire) that the ten tribes were 'beyond the Euphrates' River was another way of saying the ten tribes were 'IN PARTHIA,' even as many Americans would recognize the phrase 'beyond the Rio Grande' as a euphemism for 'in Mexico'" (The "Lost" ten Tribes of Israel...Found!, p. 220).

Many Parthian cities were given Hebrew names, such as Asaak, Dara and Samariane. Many of those who were worshipping YEHOVAH God in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost after the Messiah's death (31 A.D.) were from the Parthian Empire. The Parthians had Hebrew/Semitic words in their language (which was known as Aramaic) and they placed Semitic inscriptions on their coinage. The Arsacid dynasty of the Parthians included the name of Isaac and many of the kings in this line had names that included the term "Phares" -- thus fulfilling YEHOVAH God's promise to King David that his descendants would always have rulers over the House of Israel.

The very name "PARTHIA" contains the Hebrew word "B-R-TH" (with the "B" shown as a "P"), clearly revealing that they were "the covenant people" of the Bible. The FACTS are indisputable -- the PARTHIAN EMPIRE was an EMPIRE OF ISRAELITES who, having thrown off the yoke of their captors, were now ruling over their previous masters in a vast empire that rivaled that of Rome. The Parthian Empire was the "STONE KINGDOM" or 5th kingdom of Daniel! Not only that, but it was the House of Israel in the form of the Parthian Empire that brought down Daniel's statue which symbolized the four most powerful kingdoms of the ancient world.