Light in Babylon: A Commentary on Daniel (Chapter 2)

The Book of Daniel – Chapter 2

Part 1: A Prophetic Dream

Reading time: 15 minutes

1: And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; and his mind was agitated, and his sleep was finished upon him.

2: And the king said to call the scribes, the enchanters, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, to declare to the king his dreams. And they came in and stood before the king.

3: And the king said to them, “I dreamed a dream, and my mind is agitated to know the dream.”

4: And the Chaldeans said to the king, “[Aramaic] May the king live forever! Tell the dream to your servants, and we will show the interpretation.”

5: The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, “The word proceeding from me is firm: if you do not cause me to know the dream and its interpretation, you will be chopped to pieces, and your houses will be laid in ruins;

6: and if you tell me the dream and its interpretation, you will receive gifts, and reward, and great honor from before me; only tell me the dream and its interpretation.”

7: They answered a second time and said, “Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will tell the interpretation.”

8: The king answered and said, “I know of certainty that you are acquiring time, because you see that the word proceeds from me,

9: that if you do not let me know the dream, one is your decree. For you have agreed among yourselves to speak a false and distorted word before me, until the time is changed; but tell me the dream, and I will know that you can show me the interpretation.”

10: The Chaldeans answered before the king and said, “There is no man on the land who is able to declare the king’s matter: for which cause no great and powerful king has ever asked such a thing as this of any scribe, enchanter, and Chaldean.

11: And the thing that the king asks is peculiar, and there is not another who can declare it before the king, except gods whose dwelling is not with the flesh.”

12: Because of this the king became angry, and he became very enraged, and he said to destroy all the wise men of Babylon.

13: And the decree gone forth, and the wise men were being slain, and they sought Daniel and his companions to be slain.

14: And Daniel returned counsel and tact to Arioch captain of the slaughterers of the king, who was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon.

15: He answered and said to Arioch, “Officer of the king, why is the decree from before the king so pressing?” And Arioch made the thing known to Daniel.

16: And Daniel went in and sought of the king that he would give him an appointed time, and that he would declare the interpretation to the king.

17: Then Daniel went to his house, and he made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions,

18: and to seek mercies from before the God of heaven concerning this secret, that they destroy not Daniel and his companions with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

19: And the secret was revealed to Daniel in a vision at night, and Daniel praised the God of heaven.

20: Daniel answered and said, “Praised be the name of the God from the age to the age, for the wisdom and the power—for they are his!

21: And he is the one who changes the times and the periods, who removes kings and raises up kings, who gives the wisdom to wise men and the knowledge to knowers of understanding.¹

He is the one who changes the times and the periods. In the symbols that Daniel saw in his vision, Daniel identified kingdoms destined to rule the world—each with its designated time or period of dominance—one succeeding the other until the time when God would cause his own kingdom to rule over the whole earth forever. That is why, right after receiving this vision, Daniel praised God by making mention of His power to change the times and the periods.

This change of times or periods is closely related to the removal and rise of political powers. God changes the times by putting an end to a nation’s period of dominance and causing another nation to rise to power, thus bringing about another time. “‘Lord, will you at this time restore the reign to Israel?’ And he said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or periods which the Father has set by his own power.'” (Acts 1:6-7)

“The assertion [he changes the times and the periods] is made, undoubtedly, in view of the revolutions in empire which Daniel now saw, from the signification of the dream, were to take place under the Divine hand. Foreseeing now these vast changes denoted by different parts of the image (Daniel 2:36-45), stretching into far-distant times, Daniel was led to ascribe to God the control over ‘all’ the revolutions which occur on earth. There is no essential difference between the words ‘times’ and ‘seasons [periods].’ The words in Chaldee denote stated or appointed seasons [periods]; and the idea of times ‘appointed, set, determined,’ enters into both. Times and seasons are not under the control of chance, but are bounded by established laws; […].” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible, Daniel 2:21)

Who removes kings and raises up kings. The reason why God puts an end to the dominion of an empire or allows it to remain is brought to our knowledge in the following words: “A king who is fair to the weak, his throne will be established for ever.” (Proverbs 29:14) “[…] a throne is made firm by righteousness.” (Proverbs 16:12) “Therefore, O king, let my advice be acceptable to you, and your sins by righteousness break off, and your perversity by pitying the poor, behold, it is a lengthening of your prosperity.” (Daniel 4:27) “[When the king’s heart] became arrogant and hardened with pride, he was deposed from his royal throne and stripped of his glory.” (Daniel 5:20) “Love and truth keep a king, and with love he maintains his throne.” (Proverbs 20:28).

God entrusted the world to the kings Daniel saw in his vision. Each of these rulers was supposed to take care of the earth and its inhabitants, as a responsible steward, honoring the God of heaven and walking on the path of love and righteousness. Unfortunately, they did not want to fulfill this sacred duty. That is why they were removed and others were put in their place, in the hope that these new rulers would govern the world as God desires: with love, mercy, and righteousness.

Almighty God reigns supreme over all nations, and all the rulers of the earth belong to him. He is Lord over them all and Owner of all their lands and possessions. If they do not recant and submit themselves to God’s supreme authority, he removes them and makes others stand in their place, for “the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever he will” (Dan 4:17).

At the same time, God is full of mercy and slow to anger, always giving the kings of the earth time and opportunity to repent of their evil ways. However, when they refuse to repent and they fill up their measure of iniquity, then the time comes for them to be deposed from power—”for the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” (Isaiah 9:12)

22: He reveals deep things and hidden things; he knows what is in darkness, and light rests with him.

23: To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom and power; and now, you caused me to know that which we have sought from you, for you caused us to know the king’s matter!”

24: On this whole account, Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon; he went and thus said to him, “Do not destroy the wise men of Babylon; bring me before the king, and I will tell the king the interpretation.”

25: Then Arioch in haste brought Daniel before the king, and thus said to him, “I have found someone among the sons of the exiles from Yehud who will tell the king the interpretation.”

26: The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, “Are you able to make known to me what I saw in the dream and its interpretation?”

27: Daniel answered before the king and said, “The secret that the king is asking, neither wise men, enchanters, scribes, nor fate-tellers are able to tell the king.

28: However, there is a God in heaven, a revealer of secrets, and he made known to king Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in the days ahead. This is your dream and the visions of your head upon your bed.

29: As for you, O king, your thoughts ascended upon your bed concerning what will happen after this, and the Revealer of secrets made known to you what will happen.

30: As for me, this secret was revealed, not because there is more wisdom in me than in all of living beings; but for the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that you might know the thoughts of your heart.

31: You, O king, were seeing, and behold, a single great statue. This statue, enormous and of surpassing brightness, was standing in front of you; and its appearance was terrifying.

32: This statue, its head was of good gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of copper;

33: its legs of iron, its feet, part of them of iron and part of them of clay.

34: You were seeing until when detached itself a stone, which was not in hands, and it struck the statue upon its feet, which were of iron and of clay, and ground them;

35: then the iron, the clay, the copper, the silver, and the gold were ground as one, and they became like chaff from the summer threshing-floors, and the wind carried them away, and not a trace of any of them could be found. And the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled all the earth.

36: This is the dream, and its interpretation we will tell before the king.

Part 2: On the Four Kingdoms

Reading time: 25 minutes

37: You, O king, are king of kings, for the God of heaven has given you the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory;

38: and everything that is inhabited by the sons of man, animals of the field, and birds of the sky, he has given into your hand, and has caused you to rule over them all—you are this head of gold.

You are this head of gold. The head of gold represents the king of Babylon and, by extension, the kingdom of the Babylonians.

Nebuchadnezzar is Babylon, and Babylon is Nebuchadnezzar. This figure of speech, in which a kingdom is represented by its king, occurs frequently in the Bible and in the Book of Daniel.

Daniel will say that after Nebuchadnezzar will arise “another kingdom” (the silver), followed by “a third kingdom” (the copper), and then “a fourth kingdom” (the iron). Based on this, we can see that, for Daniel himself, the gold represents the first kingdom.

Still in this chapter, Daniel will also say that the iron represents a kingdom, and then he will say that this same metal represents a king. This shows that the terms “king” and “kingdom” are used as having the same meaning.

Therefore, the head of gold, by representing the king of Babylon, represents the kingdom of the Babylonians.

39: And after you will arise another kingdom, one more earthly than you, and another, a third kingdom, which is the copper, will rule over the whole earth.²

And after you will arise another kingdom. Had the Babylonians lived according to the light they received through Daniel and other godly men God placed among them, practicing what is right and submitting to the God of heaven, their dominion over the world would have lasted.

Throughout the Book of Daniel, we witness God’s intervention through marvelous acts in Babylon, even before kings and Gentile authorities. Mysteries of the heavenly kingdom were revealed, and efforts were made for the conversion of Nebuchadnezzar and his subjects. Ultimately, the haughty Babylonian king bowed to Jehovah, the Lord of kings, acknowledging the power and great authority of the God of heaven over all rulers. He recognized that all God’s actions are true and that all His ways are just, leading him to bless, praise, and glorify the God who lives forever. “But you, Belshazzar, his grandson, have not humbled yourself, though you knew all this.Instead, you have set yourself up against the Lord of heaven. […] God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. […] your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” (Daniel 5:22-23, 26, 28)

By this statement, Daniel says that the Medes and Persians succeeded the Babylonians, thus becoming the kingdom represented by the breast and arms of silver.

It is important to emphasize that, even before dethroning the Babylonians and ascending to world domination, the Medes and Persians were under one and the same government:

The Medes and the Persians merged with each other, and because of this “co-fusion,” “the Greeks regularly spoke of the Persians as Medes (οἱ Μῆδοι, τὰ Μηδικά).” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)
In the historical account of the First Book of Maccabees, it is said that King Darius III was “king of the Persians and the Medes” (1 Maccabees 1:1). Therefore, the Medes and the Persians had one and the same king. They were one kingdom, the kingdom of silver.
“[…] the Persians and Medes were peoples of the same race and the same faith; […]” (J.B. Bury, A History of Greece).
The Medes and the Persians had the same law, “the law of the Medes and Persians.” (Dan. 6:15)
The Medes and the Persians had the same army, “the army of Persia and Media.” (Esther 1:3) “… he [Darius the Mede], with his kinsman Cyrus [the Persian], had put an end to the dominion of the Babylonians, […]” (Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews)
Daniel does not say that the kingdom was given to the Medes alone, but “to the Medes and Persians.” (Dan. 5:28) “[…] the Medes were regarded abroad as the people ruling with and beside the Persians.” (Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament)

Therefore, the Medes and the Persians rule together, as a single government. Together they succeeded the Babylonians, thus becoming the kingdom represented by the breast and arms of silver.

The period of the Babylonians is over, and the time of the Medo-Persians has come. Like their predecessors, the Medo-Persians would also go through a period of test. Their continuance as rulers of the world depended on their adherence to righteousness and submission to the God of heaven, the supreme Governor. Should they deviate from this path, the same God who has the power to change the times and periods would remove them from power and put another people to take care of the world and shepherd its inhabitants.

[A kingdom] more earthly than you. The Medo-Persian kingdom is represented on the colossal statue by the breast and arms of silver. “The next dynasty is said to be inferior, that is to say, nearer the ground אָרְעָא (ar’a), which is certainly true of the shoulders in relation to the head.” (Pulpit Commentary)

Thus, the kingdoms following Nebuchadnezzar would be more earthly (as opposed to heavenly) than its predecessor, showing greater opposition to the authority of the God of heaven and a greater unwillingness to acknowledge that “the heaven rules.” (Daniel 4:26)

The fulfillment of this is a reality that we can see in the following kingdoms, each of which becomes even more base, worldly, and corrupt than its predecessor. “The expression [more earthly] would denote that there was a general decline or degeneracy in the character of the monarchs, and the general condition of the empire.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible) “Meaning, the Persians who were not inferior in dignity, power, or riches, but were worse with regard to ambition, cruelty, and every type of vice, showing that the world would grow worse and worse, until it was restored by Christ.” (Geneva Study Bible)

“It is true that the character of Cyrus is worthy of the highest commendation, and that he was distinguished not only as a brave and successful conqueror, but as a mild, able, and upright civil ruler. […] But he was succeeded by a madman, Cambyses, and by a race of kings eminent among princes for folly and crime.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible)

And there came a time when the iniquity of the Medo-Persians reached its full measure, which meant that God had to put an end to their period of domination. Their wickedness and disregard for God’s law reached such a critical point that it became necessary the rise of another kingdom to govern the earth in their stead: a third kingdom—which would also have its period of test.

A third kingdom, which is the copper. As made evident by the verse we are now examining, the very materials of the statue represents kingdoms. Notice that Daniel says that the copper itself is the third kingdom: “a third kingdom, which is the copper” (Dan 2:39). Therefore, we have the following: the first kingdom, which is the gold; the second kingdom, which is the silver; the third kingdom, which is the copper; the fourth kingdom, which is the iron.

Furthermore, at the end of this chapter, Daniel will say that the kingdom of God “will grind … all these kingdoms” and that this is shown in the fact that the stone “ground the iron, the copper, the clay, the silver, and the gold.” Notice that Daniel says that the things that were ground were kingdoms. So, according to the prophet, these materials themselves represent kingdoms.

And another, a third kingdom, which is the copper, will rule over the whole earth. “After Alexander of Macedon, the son of Philip, had come from the land of Kittim and defeated Darius, the king of the Persians and the Medes, he succeeded him as king, in addition to his position as king of Greece. He engaged in many campaigns, captured strongholds, and executed kings. In his advance to the ends of the earth, he plundered countless nations.” (1 Maccabees 1:1-3)

So the reign of the Medo-Persians also passed away, and in their stead, the God of heaven raised up the kingdom of the Macedonians. The Lord held Alexander by his right hand, to subdue nations before him. He girded Alexander, though he did not know Him.

The kingdom represented by the copper continued to stand and maintained its dominance over the world after Alexander’s death, as the power remained in the hands of the same people. The rulers who succeeded Alexander in his kingdom were also Macedonians. Therefore, “this third kingdom must be considered as comprehending not only Alexander, but likewise the Macedonian princes who succeeded him.” (Joseph Benson’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, Dan. 2:39)

But their wickedness surpassed that of the Medo-Persians, and their rulers “caused many evils on the earth” (1 Maccabees 1:9). Consequently, God removed the Macedonians and gave the rule over the world to another people: “The arms of the Republic, sometimes vanquished in battle, always victorious in war, advanced with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the ocean; and the images of gold, or silver, or brass, that might serve to represent the nations or their kings, were successively broken by the iron monarchy of Rome.” (Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [p. 512]).

40: And a fourth kingdom will be strong as the iron, all of because the iron grinds and smashes the whole thing; and as the iron crushes all these, so it will grind and crush.

A fourth kingdom. In Daniel 2:44, the prophet points out a certain aspect that sets the kingdom of God apart from previous kingdoms: “its sovereignty will never be left to another people”. This implies that, with the removal of one kingdom and the rise of another to rule in its place, dominion is taken from one people and given to another.

Iron and copper are different metals. Therefore, the copper represents one kingdom and people, while the iron represents another.

“The metal is here different, and consequently likewise the nation must be different from the preceding. For the four metals must signify four different nations; and as the gold signified the Babylonians, the silver the Persians, and the brass [copper] the Macedonians, so the iron must necessarily denote some other nation: and it may safely be said, that there is not, and has not been, a nation upon earth, to which this description is applicable, but the Romans. The Romans succeeded to the Macedonians, and therefore, in course, were next to be mentioned.” (Joseph Benson’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, Daniel 2:40)

Following the third kingdom, the kingdom of the Romans emerged as the dominant power, thus becoming this powerful fourth kingdom of the prophecy, which “ground,” “smashed,” and “crushed” all peoples.

Daniel will also describe iron as a resistant material that does not shatter easily, symbolizing the firmness and unbreakable unity characteristic of the kingdom of the Romans. “The empire of Rome was firmly established by the singular and perfect coalition of its members. The subject nations, resigning the hope, and even the wish, of independence, embraced the character of Roman citizens; […]” (Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)

“The Roman Empire was a united civilization, the prime characteristic of which was the acceptation, absolute and unconditional, of one common mode of life by all those who dwelt within its boundaries. It is an idea very difficult for the modern man to seize, accustomed as he is to a number of sovereign countries more or less sharply differentiated, and each separately colored, as it were, by different customs, a different language, and often a different religion. […] Now the men living in the Roman Empire regarded civic life in a totally different way. All conceivable antagonisms (and they were violent) were antagonisms within one State. No differentiation of State against State was conceivable or was attempted. From the Euphrates to the Scottish Highlands, from the North Sea to the Sahara and the Middle Nile, all was one State.” (Hilaire Belloc, Europe and the Faith)

Part 3: A Divided Kingdom

Reading time: 20 minutes

41: And based on the fact that you saw the feet and the toes, part of them of clay of a potter, and part of them iron, it will be a divided kingdom; and part of the firmness of the iron will be in it, all based on the fact that you saw the iron mingled with clay of the mud.³

The feet and the toes, part of them of clay of a potter, and part of them iron. The word translated as “clay” means clay in its hardened state, such as that found in clay vessels and bricks. In contrast to iron, it is a material that crumbles easily and does not hold together. “The addition of דִּי־פֶהָר, ‘of the potter,’ to חֲסַף, ‘clay,’ strengthens the conception of weakness and lack of power which is implied in that term. The same idea results from the genitive combination חֲסַף טִינָא “miry clay, potsherds,” which occurs at the end of the verse; it designates the finished work of the potter (Vulg. testa), which, as sherd, is capable of being easily broken.” (Lange Commentary on the Holy Scriptures)

To discover what this new element, the clay, represents, we should first consider what the prophet says about the clay and the other materials found in the statue.

The clay is listed among the materials that were ground (“the iron, the copper, the clay, the silver, and the gold”) and were referred to as “these kingdoms.” This shows that the clay represents a kingdom, too.
Although the other materials representing kingdoms are metallic, this does not mean that a non-metallic material, such as clay, cannot represent a kingdom. Daniel also shows that the stone, another non-metallic material, represents a kingdom (compare Dan. 2:34-35 with Dan. 2:44).
Regarding the characteristics of clay that illustrate the nature of the kingdom it represents, clay is depicted as fragile and prone to breakage (verse 42). This contrasts with iron, which is described as a firm, resistant material (verse 41).

By putting together the information provided by Daniel, we can see that the clay represents another people and kingdom—one that is weak in power and prone to fragmentation. Even when joined with the Roman Empire (as iron was mixed with clay), this people represented by clay would not effectively assimilate into it, as indicated by the fact that “the iron does not mingle itself to the clay” (Dan 2:43).

The people that fits the description given in the text is the Germanic people.

The Germanic people had a weak government compared to the empires we have seen so far. Historian and medievalist Patrick J. Geary describes Germanic society before their migration as a society marked by the absence of a strong, centralized government.⁴ “[…], the whole north of Europe was occupied by that great Germanic race, from which the nations of modern Europe more immediately derive their origin. […] The government of the Germans, so long as they inhabited their own country, was the freest of which we have any record.” (J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Fall of the Roman Empire: Comprising a View of the Invasion and Settlement of the Barbarians)
The unity of the Germanic people was easily broken, contrasting with the iron firmness that kept the Roman Empire united under one mind and government. “They [the Germans] had no one ruler like the Roman Emperor, but were broken up into many tribes, each of which had its own leaders;” (Ephraim Emerton, Introduction to the Middle Ages) According to historian Patrick J. Geary, conflict within Germanic tribes was the norm, kinship ties were loose, and unity between them was easily broken. Power was dispersed among local leaders and chiefs, and tribes operated more independently rather than under a unified national leadership. According to Geary, all these traits contributed to the constant instability that characterized the Germanic people. The Roman historian Tacitus reports that “a family likeness pervades the whole, though their numbers are so great […]. Their kings have not an absolute or unlimited power.”
The Germanic people were incorporated into the Roman Empire, a fact symbolized by the feet of the statue, which were partly iron and partly clay. “The historians of the second, third, and fourth centuries, Dio Cassius, Herodian, the writers of the so-called Augustan Histories, Eutropius, Aurelius Victor and Ammianus Marcellinus […] occasionally and incidentally mention Germans within the empire and acquaint us indirectly with the wholesale peaceful immigration of barbarians into Roman territory;” (Carlton Huntley Hayes, A. M., An Introduction to the Sources Relating to the Germanic Invasions) Historian Bruce L. Shelley explains that during the third century, the Roman Empire invited Germanic tribes to settle in its western regions. The Romans also recruited a large number of Germanic individuals to serve in the empire’s military forces. By the end of the fourth century, Shelley notes, most of the army and its generals were composed almost entirely of individuals of Germanic origin.⁵
Nevertheless, the Germanic people did not effectively assimilate into the Roman Empire, as indicated by the fact that “the iron does not mingle itself to the clay” (Dan 2:43). “[…] you can hardly imagine two peoples more different than were these on opposite sides of the Rhine-Danube frontier.” (Ephraim Emerton, Introduction to the Middle Ages) “It is clear that when two peoples like the Germans and Romans came into contact […] and were forced to live side by side on the same soil, their differences in customs and traditions would come out very strongly and would often give rise to serious troubles.” (Ephraim Emerton, Introduction to the Middle Ages)

“The attitude of the Goths, and of the Germans generally, towards the Empire was the direct result of the gradual Germanisation. They did not regard it as a foe to be defeated, but as a great institution in which they had a natural right to have a place, seeing that men of their own race had already a large part in it. […] Alaric did not feel a stranger in a realm in which Germans held the highest posts and might even intermarry with ladies of the imperial house; […]” (Bury, J. B.. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians) “Very many of the soldiers who held the highest posts in the last part of the fourth century were of German origin. This is an exceedingly important point. There was in fact a process of Germanisation going on during that century, and it constituted a grave danger. Looking back we can see that the Emperors adopted too liberal a policy in allowing Germans to occupy posts of supreme command.” (Bury, J. B.. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians)

Thus, we reach the feet of the statue, which are made of iron (Romans) and of clay (Germans).

It will be a divided kingdom. Historian Guy Halsall, specialising in Early Medieval Europe, describes in his book Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West (376–568) how the change in the nature of imperial rule caused “political vacuums” in parts of the empire, particularly in the barbarian territories within the empire. According to him, these vacuums opened up space for these Germanic powers to emerge and reshape the social and political landscape of the empire. Germanic commanders filled these vacuums, assuming the political, social, and military roles that the Roman authorities were no longer able to effectively maintain.

The Roman Empire failed to integrate the Germanic people—akin to the inability of iron to mix with clay—and the Germanic people did not effectively assimilate into this fourth kingdom, which led to the formation of more or less independent enclaves within it. This lack of integration caused division and led to “the establishment of practically independent ‘kingdoms’ on the soil of the empire.” (Carlton Huntley Hayes, A. M., An Introduction to the Sources Relating to the Germanic Invasions)

The integration of the people represented by clay weakened the structure of the powerful iron kingdom. In fact, there was “a generally admitted weakening of government, at least in the western provinces [precisely where these Germanic troops settled].” (Carlton Huntley Hayes, A. M., An Introduction to the Sources Relating to the Germanic Invasions)

And part of the firmness of the iron will be in it, all based on the fact that you saw the iron mingled with clay of the mud. Historian Guy Halsall mentions that the strong government of emperors like Claudius II and Aurelian was able to re-establish part of the empire’s unity. He highlights the reign of Diocletian (284-305) and his colleagues and successors as a period of particularly strong government. He concludes by saying that, although diversity ultimately triumphed over the political and cultural unity of the Roman Empire, it was still a period of strong government.⁶

Considering what we have seen so far, the biblical text now turns our attention to the Germanic people (represented by clay) and the Roman people (represented by iron). We must therefore turn the focus of our study to these two peoples, who initially developed and coexisted in the western part of the empire (western Europe).

The eastern region that was once part of the Roman empire gradually ceased to be truly Roman, becoming Greek. As historian Thomas E. Woods points out, this region came to be governed by authorities who were not in fact Roman, and it never succumbed to the Germanic people.⁷ (Furthermore, this region was eventually taken over by the Turkish-Ottomans.)

Again, considering what we have seen so far, the biblical text turns our attention to the Germanic people (clay) and the Roman people (iron). We must therefore turn the focus of our study to these two peoples, who initially developed and coexisted in the western region of Europe. These two peoples would remain in power until, according to the prophecy, God himself destroys them (due to their wickedness) and raises up his own kingdom to rule the whole earth.

Part 4: Firm and Brittle

Reading time: 25 minutes

42: And the toes of the feet, part of them of iron and part of them of clay: some part of the kingdom will be strong, and some part will be brittle.⁸

The toes of the feet, part of them of iron and part of them of clay. “The passing of Italy and the western provinces under the sway of Germanic kings was accomplished, as we have seen, by the settlement of large numbers of barbarians in the conquered territories. This necessitated a division of the soil and a definition of the status of the Romans with respect to the invaders, who were everywhere less numerous than the native population.” (Arthur E. R. Boak, A History of Rome to 565 A.D.)

Until the end, these two societies would share the power, because the kingdom would be partly iron and partly clay.

Theodoric “governed two races at the same time, Romans and Goths [a Germanic troop].” (Excerpta Valesiana, Excerpta II 59-60) “In the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul the Goths and the Romans lived side by side as separate peoples, each enjoying its own laws, and the Romans were not regarded as subjects having no rights against their conquerors.” (Arthur E. R. Boak, A History of Rome to 565 A.D.) “These were for many generations the chief divisions of the Franks [a Germanic troop]. The population of Austrasia was almost wholly Germanic, that of Neustria very largely Romanic.” (Ephraim Emerton, Introduction to the Middle Ages) “The Frankish kings did not hesitate to appoint Romans to important positions in the government and in the army, just as the Romans had long been in the habit of employing the barbarians.” (James Harvey Robinson, An Introduction to the History of Western Europe)

Part of them of iron. Over time, the Roman people were ruled by different types of leaders: kings, consuls, dictators, and emperors. “After the great emperors came the great Pope. […] Only in the Papacy was the old Roman tradition of universal monarchy rightly upheld.” (Thomas Frederick Tout, The Empire and the Papacy: 918-1273)

The Roman Church was an institution that was part of the imperial government in the days before its decline. “As Roman citizens there was no conception in their minds of the spiritual government of the Church independent of the imperial power.” (Alexander Clarence Flick, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church and Its Influence on the Civilization of Western Europe from the First to the Thirteen Century) “According to Roman ideas, religion and its ministers were a part of the state and hence under the control of the government. When Constantine made Christianity a legal religion the state took the same attitude toward the new religion that it had toward the old. The emperor assumed control over the Christian clergy, and the view soon prevailed that they were officials of the state. Their duties, which were at first purely spiritual, were soon extended to secular matters. […] During the invasions of the barbarians the secular functions of the bishops were greatly increased.” (Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, A Source Book for Mediæval History)

Western Europe, abandoned and left without emperor, saw the leader of the Roman church assume the role of the emperor in this divided kingdom. He would “make Europe the United States of the Church and treat its greatest monarchs [Germanic monarchs] as satraps [local rulers] of the Papacy.” (Joseph McCabe, Crises in the History of the Papacy)

“And in the days of the barbarian invasions, when the representatives of the imperial authority were driven from the provinces, the bishops became the leaders of the Roman population in their contact with the barbarian conquerors.” (Arthur E. R. Boak, A History of Rome to 565 A.D.) “Deserted by their master, the Romans of necessity attached themselves to their pontiffs, who were generally Romans, and meriting such attachment. […] They [the Popes] reconciled, or set at variance around them, the princes of the earth;” (Pierre Claude François Daunou, The Power of the Popes)

“Pope Gregory the Seventh, about the year one thousand and fifty, has made use of the following language, and proclaimed it as the doctrine of the Romish Church: ‘[…] He [the Pope] alone ought to wear the tokens of imperial dignity; all princes ought to kiss his feet; […]'” (William Hogan, Popery! As It Was and as It Is. Also, Auricular Confession; And Popish Nunneries) Pope Innocent III declared, “It is the business of the pope to look after the interests of the Roman empire, since the empire [after its decline] derives its origin and its final authority from the papacy.” (Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, A Source Book for Mediæval History) “[Pope] Boniface VIII […] shouted to the throng of loyal pilgrims: ‘I am Cæsar—I am Emperor.'” (Alexander Clarence Flick, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church)

We also saw that Daniel describes iron as a resistant material that does not shatter easily, symbolizing the firmness and unbreakable unity of the kingdom of the Romans. This characteristic of the Roman people has also been maintained by the Roman congregation: “But that which we are above all concerned to remark here is, that this church system, demanding a more rigid uniformity in doctrine and organization […], maintained and propagated afresh the feeling of a single Roman people throughout the world.” (James Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire) There should be absolute and unconditional acceptance of a single belief and way of life by all the subjects of the Bishop of Rome. Everyone should follow the Roman traditions. From the American continent to the far east of Asia, from the Nordic countries to the jungles of sub-Saharan Africa and beyond, they were all one Roman people, the Roman church.

Popes might have disputed the Roman throne among themselves, conspired against each other, and even reigned simultaneously. Even so, the Roman system remained one, as was the case with the Roman Empire before the popes: “Emperor might succeed Emperor, in a series of civil wars. Several Emperors might be reigning together. The office of Emperor might even be officially and consciously held in commission among four or more men. But the power of the Emperor was always one power, his office one office, and the system of the Empire one system.” (Hilaire Belloc, Europe and the Faith)

Some part of the kingdom will be strong. So, although the Germanic rulers weakened the kingdom, part of it would remain strong due to the continuation of the power represented by iron. “They [the churchmen in the West] then proceeded themselves to assume many of the duties of government, which the weak and disorderly [Germanic] states into which the Roman Empire fell were unable to perform properly.” (James Harvey Robinson, An Introduction to the History of Western Europe)

“The [Roman] Church had, in a way, taken the place of the Roman Empire by holding the various peoples of western Europe together under the headship of the pope and by assuming the powers of government during the period when the feudal lords were too weak to secure order and justice. Organized like an absolute monarchy, the Church was in a certain sense far the most powerful state of the Middle Ages.” (James Harvey Robinson, An Introduction to the History of Western Europe)

As the strong, Roman monarch of this divided kingdom, the Pope also regulated the European domination of the globe, determining how and where these Germanic rulers would govern. “The Spaniards were first in the field [overseas settlements]; they claimed dominion over the whole of this new world of America. Very soon however the Portuguese asked for a share. The Pope—it was one of the last acts of Rome as mistress of the world—divided the new continent between these two first-comers, giving Portugal Brazil and everything else east of a line 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde islands, and all the rest to Spain (1494). The Portuguese at this time were also pushing overseas enterprise southward and eastward. In 1497 Vasco da Gama had sailed from Lisbon round the Cape to Zanzibar and then to Calicut in India. In 1515 there were Portuguese ships in Java and the Moluccas, and the Portuguese were setting up and fortifying trading stations round and about the coasts of the Indian Ocean. Mozambique, Goa, and two smaller possessions in India, Macao in China and a part of Timor are to this day [1922] Portuguese possessions. […] In the end the Japanese came to the conclusion that the Europeans were an intolerable nuisance, and that Catholic Christianity in particular was a mere cloak for the political dreams of the Pope and the Spanish monarchy—already in possession of the Philippine Islands; […]” (H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World)

The Italian historian Gregorio Leti made the following observation in the year 1667: “The Popes […] have so increased the glories of Rome, that there is scarce a corner in Europe, not a place in Asia, not a desart in Africa, nor a hidden solitude in America, where the name of the Pope hath not penetrated, and where there is not some discourse of Rome.” (Gregorio Leti, Il nipotismo di Roma, or, The History of the Popes Nephews, translated by William Aglionby)

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream has prophesied the powers that would dominate the world until the end of the age, with the peoples represented in the toes of iron and clay being no exception. Just as Babylon was granted dominion over “everything that is inhabited by the sons of man” (Dan 2:38), and the other kingdoms represented in the statue held that same power “over the whole earth” (Dan 2:39), the Germanic people and the Romans also rose to power over the world. Every corner of the globe fell under the domination of powers of Germanic origin united to the papacy, and many of the modern nations were once European colonies. Europeans migrated to other lands, spreading and often imposing the Western way of life, and we have engrafted their laws, institutions, languages, manners, and beliefs.

“The creation of the British Empire has been simply a part (though, perhaps, the greatest part) of that outpouring of the European peoples which has, during the last four centuries, brought the whole world under the influence of western civilisation.” (Ramsay Muir, The Character of the British Empire) “In the nineteenth century, and especially after the coming of the steamship, the stream of European emigration to the new empty lands of America and Australia rose for some decades to the scale of a great migration. So there grew up permanent overseas populations of Europeans, and the European culture was transplanted to much larger areas than those in which it had been developed.” (H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World)

And some part will be brittle. As we saw, unlike the centralized rule of the Roman emperor or eastern monarchs like Nebuchadnezzar, the “government of the Germans, so long as they inhabited their own country, was the freest of which we have any record.” (J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Fall of the Roman Empire: Comprising a View of the Invasion and Settlement of the Barbarians) “They [the Germans] had no one ruler like the Roman Emperor, but were broken up into many tribes, each of which had its own leaders;” (Ephraim Emerton, Introduction to the Middle Ages)

So, even before migrating south and to other lands, the Germanic people were loosely governed and their power was dispersed among various local leaders and chiefs. This decentralized structure persisted in the Germanic kingdoms that emerged within the Roman Empire, where division and fragmented power remained defining characteristics. “Military life amongst the German people had produced feudalism, and with it a terrible anarchy. Royalty was powerless. Authority had not, so to speak, any centre; it was cut up and subdivided throughout the nation.” (P. L. Jacob, Military and religious life in the Middle Ages and at the period of the Renaissance)

“The principle of division of rule, which was practised before the time of Charles the Great, and endorsed by him, produced five divisions of the [Germanic] Empire within thirty years. […] Before the ninth century closed, the territorial unity of the Empire of Charles the Great was broken up.” (Alexander Clarence Flick, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church)

“[…] the [Germanic] Empire was never more than a half-realised theory; and while the world had theoretically one master [the Germanic emperor], it was in reality ruled by a multitude of petty feudal chieftains.” (Thomas Frederick Tout, The Empire and the Papacy: 918-1273)

Even the Germanic overseas settlements broke up and became independent countries. “These new communities bringing a ready-made civilization with them to these new lands grew up, as it were, unplanned and unperceived; the statecraft of Europe did not foresee them, and was unprepared with any ideas about their treatment. The politicians and ministers of Europe continued to regard them as essentially expeditionary establishments, sources of revenue, ‘possessionsʼ and ‘dependencies,ʼ long after their peoples had developed a keen sense of their separate social life. And also they continued to treat them as helplessly subject to the mother country long after the population had spread inland out of reach of any effectual punitive operations from the sea.” (H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World)

Even “the British Empire, the greatest dominion that has ever existed in history, which covers a quarter of the earth’s surface [1917], and in which a quarter of the earth’s population is subject (at any rate, in form) to the rule of two small European islands”, had a loose government and did not keep its overseas possessions united. “As we shall try to show, this word [the word ’empire’] is really misapplied to the British realms. The character of their government and of the bond which holds them together would be much better expressed by a phrase which is now being widely used in Britain—the British Commonwealth of Nations. Of course, that title also begs the question in a way. But the reader is asked, at the outset, to keep in his mind, while he reads, the question, ‘Is the title Empire, or the title Commonwealth of Nations, the truer description of this extraordinary aggregate of lands and peoples?’ […] [The British people] had the habit and instinct of self-government in their very blood and bones. And the result was that, wherever they went, they carried self-government with them. Every colony of British settlers, from the very first, was endowed with self-governing institutions. […] It was this independent spirit, nurtured by self-government, which led to the revolt of the American colonies in 1775, and to the foundation of the United States as an independent nation. […] In the new empire which she began to build up as soon as the old one was lost, it might have been expected that she would have fought shy of those principles of self-government […]. But she did not do so; the habits of self-government were too deeply rooted in her sons to make it possible for her to deny them self-governing rights in their new homes.” (Ramsay Muir, The Character of the British Empire)

“There remained indeed no common political idea in Europe at all; Europe was given over altogether to division and diversity. All these sovereign princes and republics carried on schemes of aggrandizement against each other. Each one of them pursued a ‘foreign policy’ of aggression against its neighbours and of aggressive alliances. We Europeans still live to-day [1922] in the last phase of this age of the multifarious sovereign states, and still suffer from the hatreds, hostilities and suspicions it engendered.” (H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World)

After the devastating consequences of World War I, a certain historian of that time concluded his book with the following words: “Can we doubt that presently our race will more than realize our boldest imaginations, that it will achieve unity and peace, that it will live, the children of our blood and lives will live, in a world made more splendid and lovely than any palace or garden that we know, going on from strength to strength in an ever widening circle of adventure and achievement?”⁹

Then the Second World War broke out and nations started killing each other again.

(We need to understand this: The nations will not stay united. Our position in the image of Nebuchadnezzar is represented by the toes of iron and of clay, a crumbling material that will not hold together, as well as in the most worldly and secularized part of the statue: the feet. We need not, and cannot, expect union among the nations; it simply will not happen. Our focus and hope must lie solely in the eternal glories of the kingdom that God himself is about to raise up, not in the powers from this world.)

The Pope declared, “After World War II, the attempt was made to lay the foundations of a new era of peace. But, unfortunately – we never learn, right? – the old story of competition between the greater powers went on. And, in the current war in Ukraine, we are witnessing the impotence of the Organizations of the United Nations.”¹⁰

“Winston Churchill, a former army officer, war reporter and British Prime Minister (1940-45 and 1951-55), was one of the first to call for the creation of a ‘United States of Europe’. Following the Second World War, he was convinced that only a united Europe could guarantee peace. His aim was to eliminate the European ills of nationalism and war-mongering once and for all.”¹¹ “With the aim of ending the frequent and bloody conflicts that culminated in the Second World War, European politicians begin the process of building what we know today as the European Union.”¹²

Despite its name, the European Union is not a unified power like the Roman Empire was. It is not a reunification of the fourth kingdom. There is no fiscal federalism and each country is an independent power from the other. “Widespread political opposition to the creation of anything approximating a large, unified executive bureaucracy in Brussels has long-since ended hopes, for the few who harboured them, of creating a European superstate.” (Kelemen, R. Daniel; Tarrant, Andy (2007). “Building the Eurocracy”)

Part 5: Mingling but not Clinging

Reading time: 45 minutes

43: And based on the fact that you saw the iron mingled with the clay of the mud, they will be mingling themselves with the seed of man; and they will not be cleaving this to this, just as the iron does not mingle itself to the clay.¹³

Based on the fact that you saw the iron mingled with the clay of the mud, they will be mingling themselves with the seed of man. In the previous chapter, Daniel mentioned the “seed of the kingship” (Daniel 1:3). “The word rendered ‘men [in ‘seed of man’]’ (אנשׁא ‘ănâshâ’) is employed in Hebrew and in Chaldee to denote men of an inferior class – the lower orders, the common herd – in contradistinction from the more elevated and noble classes, represented by the word אישׁ ‘ı̂ysh. See Isaiah 2:9; Isaiah 5:15; Proverbs 8:4.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible) The iron feet and toes would be mingling with those who did not belong to the imperial people and government (in this case, Germanic barbarians).

“the [Roman] Emperor Theodosius II […] had German blood in his veins.” (Bury, J. B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians) “Stilicho had married the niece and adopted daughter of Theodosius, and had given his own two daughters successively in marriage to Honorius.” (Ephraim Emerton, Introduction to the Middle Ages) “Germans held the highest posts and might even intermarry with ladies of the imperial house;” (Bury, J. B. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians)

In Roman-Germanic kingdoms, “intermarriage between the two peoples [Roman and Germanic] was sanctioned, […].” (Arthur E. R. Boak, A History of Rome to 565 A.D.) Contrary to the belief that intermarriage between Romans and Germans was prohibited in some Roman-Germanic kingdoms, “Fustel de Coulanges has made some clever explanations to the contrary. After calling attention to a large number of marriages which did take place, according to the narrative sources, between Germans and Romans, he sums up his contention: […]” (Carlton Huntley Hayes, A. M., An Introduction to the Sources Relating to the Germanic Invasions)

While the word rendered “mingling” can refer to the mingling that occurs in marriages between people from different societies (Ezra 9:2), it is not limited to this context.¹⁴ The word can include any kind of mixing or fusion. Like its Hebrew equivalent, the word is also used for cultural mixtures (Psalm 106:35; Judges 3:5-7), political alliances (Isaiah 36:8; Proverbs 24:21), and other associations (Proverbs 20:19), not just marriages. All these uses of the word apply to the mixture that occurred between the Roman people and the Germanic people.

Basically, the people represented by iron and the people represented by clay would mingle, since the iron was mingled with the clay.

According to historian Bruce L. Shelley, the two peoples, the Germanic and the Roman, gradually began to blend and fuse, both culturally and by blood. “[…] a new race of men [the Germanic people] took possession of the regions we now inhabit, […]. The intermixture of the two races [Roman and Germanic] was not accomplished till after long sufferings, […]. It was, however, this intermixture which made us what we are: we are heirs of the doable inheritance of the Romans and the barbarians; we have engrafted the laws, institutions, manners, and opinions of the one race on those of the other.” (J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Fall of the Roman Empire: Comprising a View of the Invasion and Settlement of the Barbarians)

“The civilization of the Middle Age was in the main the result of the union of Roman and German elements. This union was brought about by the invasion of the Roman empire by the tribes of German blood that lay along and back of the frontier of the empire.” (Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, A Source Book for Mediæval History) This union of Roman and Germanic elements laid the foundation for the modern world. In his book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, historian Thomas E. Woods recognizes not only the Roman Church but also the Germanic people as a formative influence on this civilization.

And as we saw, the term translated as “mingle” also applies to political alliances, such as the political alliance in which the Roman Church (iron) mingled with the Germanic civil power (clay). “This alliance between the most powerful representative of the Germanic world and the leader of Roman Christendom in the West was one of the most eventful coalitions in the history of Europe. […] It created a new political organisation in western Europe with the Pope and German Emperor at the head.” (Alexander Clarence Flick, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church)

“The history of all Christian Europe is in some degree interwoven with this Holy Roman Empire. Though the Empire was neither holy nor Roman but altogether secular and Teutonic [another word for ‘Germanic’], […].” (Madison Grant, The passing of the great race; or, The racial basis of European history) “[…] starts the idea of the ‘Holy Roman Empire,’ which affected so deeply the whole secular and religious life of the Middle Ages. […] the new empire represented a close and conscious union of Church and State for the advantage of both. It started with the conception that the emperor should be the protector and overseer of the Church: by an unhappy development it ended in making the Pope the overseer of the State.” (Charles Oman, The Dark Ages, Period 1, 476-918)

And they will not be cleaving this to this, just as the iron does not mingle itself to the clay. As we saw, the Germanic people and the Roman people often had many disagreements with each other. “[…] you can hardly imagine two peoples more different than were these on opposite sides of the Rhine-Danube frontier.” (Ephraim Emerton, Introduction to the Middle Ages) “It is clear that when two peoples like the Germans and Romans came into contact […] and were forced to live side by side on the same soil, their differences in customs and traditions would come out very strongly and would often give rise to serious troubles.” (Ephraim Emerton, Introduction to the Middle Ages)

Over the centuries, in the relationship between the Pope and the Germanic rulers, this tension persisted. “We shall find that, instead of making themselves feared at home and building up a great state, the German emperors [clay] wasted their strength in a long struggle with the popes [iron], who proved themselves in the end incomparably the stronger, and eventually reduced the [Germanic] Empire to a mere shadow.” (James Harvey Robinson, An Introduction to the History of Western Europe)

The Pope “formulate and put forth the claim that the pope was master of the [Germanic] emperor and the real ruler of the world even in temporal things. Before 1073 there was occasional friction between the empire and the papacy, but this did not develop into a real and definite struggle for world supremacy until Gregory VII became pope.” (Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, A Source Book for Mediæval History) And popes were deposed and put into power, as were Roman emperors before them in this divided kingdom of iron and clay: “The barbarians wandered hither and thither pretty much at their pleasure, and the German troops in the service of the [Roman] Empire amused themselves setting up and throwing down puppet emperors.” (James Harvey Robinson, An Introduction to the History of Western Europe)

The Germanic confederation that eventually became known as “Holy Roman Empire” was originally referred to as “Roman Empire.” The term sacrum (“holy”) was added in 1157 by the Germanic emperor Frederick I, who sought to rule his empire free from the interference of the Roman leader.¹⁵ Additionally, the imperial claims of this Germanic ruler did not please the Roman Pontiff: “We excommunicate and anathematize Frederick, the so-called emperor, because he has incited rebellion in Rome against the Roman church, […] We excommunicate and anathematize him because he has hindered the recovery of the Holy Land and the restoration of the Roman empire. […] We absolve all his subjects from their oaths of fidelity to him, forbidding them to show him fidelity as long as he is under excommunication.” (Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, A Source Book for Mediæval History)

In short, “The great struggle of Popes and [Germanic] Emperors […] was the central event of the Middle Ages.” (Thomas Frederick Tout, The Empire and the Papacy: 918-1273)

After the Middle Ages, the lack of cohesion between iron and clay naturally persisted. Different Germanic countries adopted different forms of Protestant Christianity in opposition to the Roman Christianity. “[…] there were many rulers who saw their advantage in breaking the religious ties between their people and Rome. They sought to make themselves in person the heads of a more nationalized religion.” (H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World) “In general, those regions (except England) which had formed a part of the Roman empire remained Roman Catholic in their belief. On the other hand, northern Germany, a part of Switzerland, England, Scotland, and the Scandinavian countries sooner or later rejected the headship of the pope and many of the institutions and doctrines of the mediæval Church, and organized new religious institutions.” (James Harvey Robinson, An Introduction to the History of Western Europe)

“All that part of the West which had rejected the authority of the See of Rome began to appear as a separate territorial region permanently divided from the rest; all that part of Europe which had retained the Authority of the See of Rome began to appear as another region of territory. The line of cleavage between the two was beginning to define itself as a geographical line, and nearly corresponded to the line which, centuries before, had divided the Roman and civilised world from the Barbarians.” (Hilaire Belloc, The French Revolution)

As we saw, the Pope had determined which part of the globe would belong to Spain and which to Portugal. However, some of the other Germanic powers began claiming territories for themselves without the Pope’s authorization. “The nations excluded from America by the papal settlement paid little heed to the rights of Spain and Portugal. The English, the Danes and Swedes, and presently the Dutch, were soon staking out claims in North America and the West Indies, and his Most Catholic Majesty of France heeded the papal settlement as little as any Protestant. The wars of Europe extended themselves to these claims and possessions.” (H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World)

And the disagreements between the Pope and Germanic powers persisted: “The last and the most important of the aspects which the French Revolution presents to a foreign, and in particular to an English reader, is the antagonism which arose between it and the Church. […] It was certainly true that Catholicism had for so many centuries been bound up in the framework of the State that the Parliament must therefore do something with the Church in the general settlement of the nation: it could not merely leave the Church on one side. […] The orthodox clergy were everywhere regarded by this time as the typical enemies of the revolutionary movement; they themselves regarded the revolutionary movement, by this time, as being principally an attempt to destroy the Catholic Church.” (Hilaire Belloc, The French Revolution) “And the whole vast property of the church was seized and administered by the state; […]. in addition the choice of priests and bishops was made elective, which struck at the very root idea of the Roman Church, which centred everything upon the Pope, and in which all authority is from above downward. Practically the National Assembly wanted at one blow to make the church in France Protestant, in organization if not in doctrine. Everywhere there were disputes and conflicts between the state priests created by the National Assembly and the recalcitrant (non-juring) priests who were loyal to Rome.” (H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World)

“For some time the French thrust towards Italy was hung up, and it was only in 1796 that a new general, Napoleon Bonaparte, led the ragged and hungry republican armies in triumph across Piedmont to Mantua and Verona. … Unhappily for France and the world a man arose who embodied in its intensest form this national egotism of the French. He gave that country ten years of glory and the humiliation of a final defeat. This was that same Napoleon Bonaparte who had led the armies of the Directory to victory in Italy. … His utmost political imagination carried him to a belated and tawdry attempt to restore the Western Empire. He tried to destroy the remains of the old Holy Roman Empire, intending to replace it by a new one centring upon Paris. … he made himself Emperor of France in 1804 in direct imitation of Charlemagne. He was crowned by the Pope in Paris, taking the crown from the Pope and putting it upon his own head himself […].” (H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World)

“The downfall of the ’empire’ of Napoleon III, the establishment of the new German Empire, pointed men’s hopes and fears towards the idea of a Europe consolidated under German auspices. For thirty-six years of uneasy peace the polities of Europe centred upon that possibility.” (H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World) And iron and clay continued not to cling: “At this time all other questions were thrown into the shade by the great conflict with the Roman Catholic Church on which the [German] Government had embarked. Looking back now, it is still difficult to judge or even to understand the causes which brought it about. Both sides claim that they were acting in self-defence. […]. He [Bismarck], however, insisted that the struggle was not religious but political; he was not moved by Protestant animosity to the Catholic Church, but by his alarm lest in the organisation of the Roman hierarchy a power might arise within the Empire which would be hostile to the State. […] In undertaking this struggle with the Church he had two enemies to contend with—the Pope and the government of the Church on the one side, on the other the Catholic population of Germany. He tried to come to some agreement with the Pope and to separate the two; it seemed in fact as if the real enemy to be contended against was not the foreign priesthood, but the Catholic Democracy in Germany. All Bismarck’s efforts to separate the two and to procure the assistance of the Pope against the party of the Centre were to be unavailing; for some years all official communication between the German Government and the Papal See was broken off.” (James Wycliffe Headlam, Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire)

When Adolf Hitler rose to power in 1933, the Pope initially saw potential in the new German leader, particularly because of Hitler’s strong anti-Communist stance.¹⁶ According to historian David I. Kertzer, Hitler made a series of conciliatory gestures and promised to guarantee a privileged place for the Roman church in German society in order to gain its support. Hitler knew that the Pope’s support would strengthen his credibility both domestically and internationally. Those assurances convinced Germany’s Roman bishops to support the new government, and this understanding was formally solidified with the signing of a concordat between Germany and the Roman Church in 1933. “It does not seem possible to me that Signor Hitler has forgotten that, barely seven months after his arrival in power, when diffidence and hostility surrounded him both internally and externally, the Holy See extended its hand to him, contributing with its great spiritual authority to increasing faith in him and strengthening his prestige.”¹⁷ However, they did not cling to each other. Hitler soon began persecuting Roman Catholics and restricting the activities of the Roman Church to purely religious ones, which led the Pope to oppose him.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI emphasized that there is an urgent need for “a true world political authority,” echoing the sentiments of his predecessor, Pope John XXIII (Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate, section 67). In 2020, Pope Francis further stated that such a world authority should, at least, promote more effective global organizations (Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti, section 172), showing that the call for the existence of a world authority remains a consistent theme among recent popes.

The Roman Church has historically merged with civil powers, and behind the scenes, the papacy remains a powerful force in global affairs. As we shall see, the Book of Revelation describes a final union between a certain power of Germanic origin and the Roman monarch that will take place shortly before Jesus returns to earth. Although these two powers (iron and clay) do not adhere to each other—one being primarily Protestant and founded on Protestant principles, the other Roman Catholic—they will mingle with each other. The Roman church will mingle with Anglo-America (the USA, more specifically), and the latter will then compel all the nations of the earth to obey the ruler of the Roman congregation, the Pope.

We will explore the development of this union in more detail throughout this series, following what the biblical prophecies say. This point is mentioned in advance to show that, until the time of the end, these two opposing powers that would rule the world would remain in power and would continue to mingle with each other. The knowledge of this final union between these two powers is of great importance for mankind, and its significance will become clear as we progress through this series.

44: And in their days, when these are the kings, the God of heaven will cause to arise a kingdom, which for ages will not be destroyed, and the sovereignty thereof will not be left to another people; it will grind and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it is the one that will stand for the ages—¹⁸

45a: all based on the fact that you saw that from the mountain detached itself a stone, which was not in hands, and it ground the iron, the copper, the clay, the silver, and the gold.

When these are the kings. That is, during their turn to reign (remember that God has been changing the times and the periods, removing kings and raising up kings [Dan 2:21]).

At this point in the prophecy, the previous kings (gold, silver and copper) are no longer rulers of the world. God removed the copper from power and, in its place, raised up iron, which later came to share power with clay.

This verse says that God’s kingdom will be raised up at a time when more than one king is in power (“in their days”, “when these are the kings”). Iron and clay are the only kings who share power and rule at the same time. They are the only ones who coexist as holders of power. Therefore, it would be in the days of iron and clay that God would raise up a kingdom that will never be destroyed.

And in their days, when these are the kings, the God of heaven will cause to arise a kingdom, which for ages will not be destroyed. This is the time in which we find ourselves, from the decline of the Roman Empire to the present day. There is, therefore, now nothing between us and the rise of the kingdom that will never be destroyed. Daniel made the interpretation about when the kingdom of God would arise based on the fact that the stone, representing the kingdom of God, first struck the statue upon its feet of iron and clay. Only after the stone strikes the feet and finishes grinding the iron and clay does it start to destroy the other parts of the statue (see verses 34 and 35).

God would not destroy these kingdoms until the clay came into play—until the Germanic people began to share power with the Romans, mingling and having conflicts with them. The rest of the prophecy had to be fulfilled. The days of iron and clay, when they would be the kings, had to come.

And we have reached the lowest and most earthly part of the statue: the feet. Rome did not become a church; instead, a church became Rome. Unfortunately, the Roman church deviated from the teachings and example of Jesus, engaging in wars and conflicts for supremacy, control, and worldly power. “The prosperous sensuality of the new Europe infects an immense proportion of the clergy: war, luxury, and display entail a vast expenditure, and the more thoughtful clergy and laity deplore the increasing sale by the Popes of sacred offices and spiritual privileges. […] The Papacy is fiercely criticized throughout Europe, and the resentment of its moral complexion leads to a discussion of the bases of its power.” (Joseph McCabe, Crises in the History of the Papacy)

But the iniquity of these kings is not yet full.

The final acts of these kings were prophesied, as we will see. In the near future, the Pope and the nations of the earth will fill their measure of iniquity, and then the time will come for King Jesus to take over.

The exact day when God will set up his kingdom, however, was not revealed to us, and it is not for us to know: “But of the times and the periods, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.” (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2) And Jesus advises us: “And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.” (Luke 21:34-35)

And the sovereignty thereof will not be left to another people. The sovereignty of the kingdom will not be left to another people, for the nation that serves God will remain forever and will never be destroyed (Isaiah 9:12). “Now it shall be, if you diligently obey Jehovah your God, being careful to do all his commandments which I am commanding you today, that Jehovah your God will put you high above all the nations of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 28:1) “Righteousness exalts a nation, […]” (Proverbs 14:34)

The fact that the sovereignty of this kingdom will perpetually remain in the hands of the same people, the people of God, makes this kingdom wholly unlike all its predecessors. “not … left to other people—as the Chaldees had been forced to leave their kingdom to the Medo-Persians, and these to the Greeks, and these to the Romans (Mic 4:7; Lu 1:32, 33).” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)

The fact that these other kingdoms will be destroyed does not mean that every individual from those nations will be destroyed with them. “God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.” (Acts 10:34-35) All those who want to leave the path of rebellion and become citizens of the kingdom of God will be welcomed with open arms by God, and he will forgive every rebellion. He knows the plans he has for us, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give us a future and a hope. So come out from among them, and be you separate, and touch not what is unclean, and he will receive you. The God of heaven will be your God, and you will be united to his holy people.

It is only those who persist in rebellion against God’s authority that will be destroyed—”for the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” (Isaiah 9:12)

It will grind and put an end to all these kingdoms. In this verse, it is stated that the kingdom of God will grind the kingdoms represented in the statue and put an end to them. In the dream, it is the stone that performs these actions. Therefore, the stone represents the kingdom of God.

This verse also provides us with additional evidence regarding how this kingdom of God will destroy the kingdoms we saw and when it would be set up:

The expression “it will grind” implies the use of brute force and violence against the other kingdoms. “The language here would seem to imply some violent action; some positive crushing force; something like what occurs in conquests when nations are subdued. Would it not appear from this that the kingdom here represented was to make its way by conquests in the same manner as the other kingdoms, rather than by a silent and peaceful influence?” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible) Therefore, God has not yet initiated the destruction of these kingdoms.
The stone—which was not in hands—was moved to “hammer” the feet of iron and clay in a supernatural manner: without hands. The blows were made by a divine being’s direct action. This demonstrates that this kingdom destroys the others without any involvement from us.
In Daniel’s account, the stone becomes a mountain only after it has smashed the statue into dust. It is only after the extinction of these kingdoms that the stone becomes a mountain, not before. While it is destroying the other kingdoms, it remains a stone, unchanged in size. Therefore, the kingdom of God would expand over the earth only after completing the destruction of the other kingdoms.
With the setting up of the kingdom of God, all the kingdoms of the world are destroyed and extinguished—”and not a trace of any of them could be found” (Dan. 2:35). These kingdoms still exist, which means that the kingdom of God has not yet been set up.

By considering all this information, we can see that this eternal kingdom has not yet been set up, but that this setting up is an event that is yet to happen.

And it is the one that will stand for the ages. “the it is emphatic.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges) The other kingdoms would be transient, but this is the kingdom that will remain forever. There will be no more rise or fall of kings, because the One who will sit on the throne of this eternal kingdom is righteous. Indeed, “a throne is made firm by righteousness” (Proverbs 16:12).

Jesus the King remained faithful to God in the midst of the most terrible trials and temptations. In this rebellious and corrupt world, Jesus was not bought or sold; Jesus is, in his inmost soul, true and honest; Jesus did not fear to call sin by its right name; his conscience was as true to duty as the needle to the pole; Jesus stood for the right even though, for this reason, the world raged against him and the rulers of the earth gathered themselves together against him and his God and Father. “Here is my Servant,” declared the God of heaven, “whom I support—my chosen one, with whom I am pleased.” (Matthew 12:18)

And Jesus laid down his life for mankind, and he was resurrected by God, and he ascended to the highest heavens, where he will soon receive the kingdom from God. In the days of the king of iron and the king of clay—in our days—he will suddenly and gloriously return, with all his regal authority, and destroy the evil and rebellious kingdoms of the earth.

Yes, to his messiah Jesus of Nazareth, the God of heaven will give the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory; and everything that is inhabited by the sons of man, animals of the field, birds of the sky, and fish of the sea, he will give into his hand, and he will make him rule over them all. With kindness and love, Jesus will shepherd all the inhabitants of the earth, honoring the God of heaven and working for the good of them all. Under his rule, they will at last dwell in peace and safety, and he will wipe away every tear from their eyes. That is why his reign will never end, and this will be a perpetual testimony that “love and truth keep a king, and with love he maintains his throne.” (Proverbs 20:28)

45b: A great God made known to the king what will happen after this. And correct is the dream, and reliable is its interpretation.”

46: Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and paid homage to Daniel, and said to pour out present and sweet things to him.

47: The king answered Daniel and said, “Of a truth your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, since you have been able to reveal this secret!”

48: And the king magnified Daniel, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over all the province of Babylon and chief of the prefects over all the wise men of Babylon.

49: And Daniel requested of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon. And Daniel was in the gate of the king.¹⁹

Would you like to support our work?

Your support will help us produce more content and reach more people.

Contribute

Bibliography

Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, translated by William Whiston.

Carlton Huntley Hayes, A. M., An Introduction to the Sources Relating to the Germanic Invasions

Patrick J. Geary, Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World

Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Fall of the Roman Empire: Comprising a View of the Invasion and Settlement of the Barbarians

Dr. Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language

J.B. Bury, The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians

J.B. Bury, A History of Greece

John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe

Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376–568

Arthur E. R. Boak, A History of Rome to 565 A.D.

Hilaire Belloc, Europe and the Faith

Ephraim Emerton, Introduction to the Middle Ages

James Harvey Robinson, An Introduction to the History of Western Europe

Alexander Clarence Flick, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church and Its Influence on the Civilization of Western Europe from the First to the Thirteen Century

Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, A Source Book for Mediæval History

Thomas Frederick Tout, The Empire and the Papacy: 918-1273

Pierre Claude François Daunou, The Power of the Popes

Joseph McCabe, Crises in the History of the Papacy

William Hogan, Popery! As It Was and as It Is. Also, Auricular Confession; And Popish Nunneries

James Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire

H. G. Wells, A Short History of the World

Gregorio Leti, Il nipotismo di Roma, or, The History of the Popes Nephews, translated by William Aglionby

P. L. Jacob, Military and religious life in the Middle Ages and at the period of the Renaissance

Thomas E. Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

Kertzer, David I. The Pope at War: The Secret History of Pius XII, Mussolini, and Hitler

Charles Oman, The Dark Ages, Period 1, 476-918

Hilaire Belloc, The French Revolution

James Wycliffe Headlam, Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire

Cite This Study

APA Style

Rodriguez, P. (2024, April 18). Light in Babylon: A Commentary on Daniel (Chapter 2). The Bloodstained Banner. Retrieved from https://thebloodstainedbanner.org/the-book-of-daniel-chapter-2/

Chicago Style

Rodriguez, Peter. “Light in Babylon: A Commentary on Daniel (Chapter 2).” The Bloodstained Banner. Last modified April 18, 2024. https://thebloodstainedbanner.org/the-book-of-daniel-chapter-2/.

MLA Style

Rodriguez, Peter. “Light in Babylon: A Commentary on Daniel (Chapter 2).” The Bloodstained Banner. The Bloodstained Banner, 18 April 2024, https://thebloodstainedbanner.org/the-book-of-daniel-chapter-2/.

License & Copyright

This work by Peter Rodriguez is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this content non-commercially, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms. When republishing on the web a hyperlink back to the original content source URL must be included. Please note that content linked from this page may have different licensing terms.

Questions & Answers

If your question about this chapter is not answered in this section either, please send it to our email address: questions@thebloodstainedbanner.org

What are the kingdoms in Daniel 2?

The materials in the statue are identified by Daniel as kingdoms (Dan. 2:44-45), and the stone is in parallel with the divine kingdom (Dan. 2:44-45). Knowing these things, and following the prophetic sequence and the historical chronology, the kingdoms portrayed in Daniel 2 are:

The kingdom of the Babylonians (gold)
The kingdom of the Medo-Persians (silver)
The kingdom of the Macedonians (copper)
The kingdom of the Romans (iron)
The kingdom of the Germanic people (clay)
The kingdom of God (stone).

Who is the stone in Daniel 2?

It is stated that the kingdom of God will break in pieces the kingdoms represented in the statue and put an end to them. In the dream, it is the stone that performs these actions. Therefore, this stone represents the kingdom of God.

Light in Babylon: A Commentary on Daniel (Chapter 2)

Published by Peter Rodriguez on April 18, 2024April 18, 2024

The Book of Daniel – Chapter 2

Part 1: A Prophetic Dream

Part 2: On the Four Kingdoms

Part 3: A Divided Kingdom

Part 4: Firm and Brittle

Part 5: Mingling but not Clinging

Bibliography

Cite This Study

APA Style

Chicago Style

MLA Style

License & Copyright

Questions & Answers

What are the kingdoms in Daniel 2?

Who is the stone in Daniel 2?

Light in Babylon

Light in Babylon: A Commentary on Daniel (Chapter 1)

Light in Babylon: A Commentary on Daniel (Chapter 2)

Published by Peter Rodriguez on April 18, 2024April 18, 2024

The Book of Daniel – Chapter 2

Part 1: A Prophetic Dream

Part 2: On the Four Kingdoms

Part 3: A Divided Kingdom

Part 4: Firm and Brittle

Part 5: Mingling but not Clinging

Bibliography

Cite This Study

APA Style

Chicago Style

MLA Style

License & Copyright

Questions & Answers

What are the kingdoms in Daniel 2?

Who is the stone in Daniel 2?

Related Posts

Light in Babylon

Light in Babylon: A Commentary on Daniel (Chapter 1)