Daniel 2:32–45

We may first notice that the Gentile kingdoms are seen as one whole. The point is not their order in history, and not their moral character toward God and man. All the kingdoms together form one figure standing before God — the man of the earth as God sees him, splendid and terrible in the eyes of men.

Another feature of the image is that it gets steadily worse from head to feet. The decline is not in the strength of the metals, but in their value. The strength of each metal shows how much land each empire ruled. The value of each metal shows the sovereign power of each empire. The last three world empires would rule far more land than the first. But in none of them was imperial power, which stands for the power of God, as clear as in the first empire — the head of gold.

The falling value of the metals showed a decline in the quality of the powers that followed. We may think it a hard saying, but rule by one supreme head is God's ideal in government. It will be seen in righteous yet kind perfection in the millennial reign of Christ. It is worth noting that in this chapter Daniel speaks more than once of "the God of heaven." This shows that this first Gentile ruler of supreme power held his authority as given to him from heaven. We believe this is the fact behind the Apostle's teaching in Romans 13:1.

There was a decline as the empires moved further from the source of power. It was God who gave imperial rule to Nebuchadnezzar. So the empire nearest the source is the one called "this head of gold."

God showed Nebuchadnezzar the Medo-Persian power as a chest and arms of silver, and called it "inferior" to his own (Dan. 2:39). This inferiority was not in the size of its lands, but in the character of its rule. Nebuchadnezzar was an absolute monarch — "whom he would, he killed, and whom he would, he kept alive; whom he would, he raised up, and whom he would, he humbled" (Dan. 5:19). The power that followed was more limited in this, since the princes and others played an important part in the government. So Darius could not save an innocent man from the den of lions, though he badly wanted to.

Alexander's kingdom is first spoken of as part of the great image Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream. It is pictured by the belly and thighs of bronze. That marks a drop in the character of the kingdom compared with the empires of Babylon and of the Medes and Persians, though it covered more ground: it "shall rule over all the earth."

Last of all in the vision, Nebuchadnezzar saw a stone cut out "by no human hand." He saw the coming of a Kingdom that man did not set up. We know this is the Kingdom of Christ. The stone falls on the feet of the image, but the whole image ends in ruin. The Kingdom of Christ will judge the final form of the last empire. In doing so it will set aside the whole system of government by the man of the earth, and set up a stable, world-wide government, like a great mountain that "filled the whole earth."

Another feature of the image is that its materials get worse from head to feet. This decline is not in the strength of the metals, but in their value. The strength of the metals shows how far the rule of each empire reached. The value of the metals shows the sovereign power of each empire.

The empires declined as they moved away from the source of power. It was God who gave imperial rule to Nebuchadnezzar. So the part nearest that source is the head of gold. In the Persian empire there is a bit more of what is human: the chest and arms of silver, a lesser metal. And so on down to the legs of iron, and the feet, part iron and part clay. It is quite plain from this that the further we move from the original grant of power, the more debased the rule becomes.

The fourth great empire to rise during the times of the Gentiles, pictured by the two legs of iron, is the iron empire, Rome. Here, then, is history written in advance. God, who knows the end from the beginning, revealed in this dream the course of the times of the Gentiles... Notice how the make-up of this image gets worse: gold, silver, brass, iron, and at last less iron, with clay taking a leading place. It shows that in political terms the times of the Gentiles are not improving.

The Roman empire did break in pieces and conquer the civilized world, and it lasted as one united empire for centuries. Its unity broke up, as we know. Yet the dream still treats it as existing in some form until its last stage at the end of its story, when it appears as ten kingdoms and clay is mixed with the iron. The result is a kingdom partly strong and partly brittle.

The mixture of clay and iron is a fitting symbol, for they are completely different in character. Iron is a metal, worth less than gold but stronger. Clay is not a metal, and Scripture uses it as a picture of what is human as against what is Divine: see Job 10:9 and Job 33:6, and the places where man is like clay in the hands of God, who is the Potter.

That metal stands for the original Roman element in its strength. The clay was a foreign ingredient, and it brought in weakness when it tried to fuse with the iron.

We see no reason to doubt a very common reading of the clay: it stands for popular, democratic forms mixed with absolute government. Absolute rule and the will of the people do not belong together. They can never be fully welded into one, and the very try at joining them becomes a source of weakness.

This final blow does not fall on the head of gold, the silver chest, the belly and thighs of brass, nor even on the legs of iron. It falls on the feet of iron and clay. This alone proves that the striking of the image is not the arrival and slow spread of Christianity, as many have supposed. It is a blow struck by divine power while the fourth empire is in its divided and mixed state.

The stone fell on the feet of the image. The stone is described as "cut out without hands" — that is, with man having nothing to do with it — not human but divine in origin. In prophecy the Lord Jesus is first called the Stone in Genesis 49:24. There old Jacob, while blessing his sons, broke off to exclaim, "from there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel." He appears under this figure again in Isaiah 28:16, and on into the New Testament.

Destruction comes only when Gentile supremacy exists in its last form. This final blow falls not on the head of gold, the silver breast, the belly and thighs of brass, nor even on the legs of iron, but on the feet of iron and clay. This alone proves what the striking of the image is not. It is not the introduction and gradual spread of Christianity, as many have supposed. It is a blow that divine power inflicts when the fourth empire is in its divided and mixed state. It existed in full unity and power for centuries after Christianity began.

From the iron we learn that there will be an imperial rule, while the clay points to ten separate kingdoms (Rev. 17:12-13). It is on the feet of the image that the stone falls... This event, still future, is the end of the "times of the Gentiles."

God's gospel is the revelation of Christ. The Spirit of God applies it to save sinners, Jews and Gentiles who believe. But the "little stone" stands for something else. It is a power, small in appearance, which at once destroys all that is high, great, and strong on the earth. Its first blow reduces the entire imperial system to powder. So trying to make the gospel out of it fails completely... It is plain that the "little stone" is not the gospel or the church, but the kingdom of God which Christ enforces when He returns.

The instrument of this destruction was not formed by the wisdom or the schemes of man. It is "cut out without hands." It does not act by a moral influence that changes the character of the object it acts on. It destroys that object by force. It is God who establishes it and gives it that force. The stone does not gradually increase in size to displace the image. Before it spreads, it destroys the image. Note that God does not destroy the image in some other way and then set up the kingdom. The kingdom He is establishing strikes the feet of the image as its first act.

He was the Stone, refused by the builders. The Lord Jesus went on to warn them, "The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him" (Matt. 21:44). These last words are close to those we have considered in Daniel 2:34. While in Daniel the emphasis was on the kingdom, here in Matthew it is very clearly on the Person of Christ... If the Lord Jesus had come in power to free the nation from Roman rule, it might have been different. But His lowly character and meekness exposed their hypocrisy. That did not suit them, and so they stumbled.

We know Him as the "Living Stone," and we have already come to Him, as 1 Peter 2:5 reminds us. We are His already, and we share His nature as "living stones." So we are built up, under His authority, into that spiritual house and holy priesthood. He is the King of that coming kingdom predicted in Daniel 2. When He falls in judgment, it will be to demolish completely. While we wait for that, we know His attractive power, and its effect is to build up.

The stone is a kingdom which is not built up or formed by the wisdom of statesmen, or founded on victories won by military leaders. No mortal hand carves out its destiny or builds up its power; it is set up by the God of heaven. It is the introduction of Christ, according to Psalm 2, where God says, "As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill."

An image is something on which the hand of man has worked; the stone is untouched by the hand of man. It is a kingdom altogether different from everything that had gone before it.

There is a sense in which even literal Babylon, Persia and Greece still exist. Persia exists to this day. So does Greece. This, I believe, explains Daniel 2:35. The four kingdoms are included here as sharing a common doom.

No statement could show more clearly that the proper kingdom of Christ does not yet exist.

Crushing the image of Gentile empires to powder is in no way and at no time the church's work. The once rejected but now exalted Stone will do it, as He declared in Matthew 21:44 and in other scriptures.

Christians pray, with more or less understanding and warmth, "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come." When the stone moves against the image, that will be the answer to this prayer. Christ is the stone. But the rejected stone has been raised up. And "when it falls on anyone, it will crush him" (Matt. 21:44). No other word is needed to show us who and what the stone is.

Daniel's answer comes in three parts. First, he explains where the revelation of the secret came from and why it was given. Second comes the dream itself. Last comes its interpretation. Daniel begins, in clear communion with the mind of God, by declaring that human wisdom is powerless... Daniel goes on to declare the source of the vision. "There is a God in heaven who reveals secrets," and this was Daniel's God, and he delighted to exalt Him in the presence of this absolute and idolatrous king.

He does not wait until God gives him the answer before he says that he would show the interpretation of the dream. He offers it at once. He is confident in God, and that is faith — a conviction founded on the known character of God... We have two great things brought out in Daniel: first, his confidence that God would reveal the thing to the king; second, his confession that he could not.

In verse 36 Daniel says, "This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation." He links his companions with himself before the king, just as he had already done before God in his thanksgiving. It is very lovely, and it says much about the unselfish humility and generous heart of this "man greatly beloved."

Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom was a direct gift from God. As Daniel said, "You, O king, are a king of kings, for the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory." No one could say that of the three kingdoms that followed. They come on the scene by God's providence. God permits them to govern the earth, and it happens according to His ordering. But their heads did not hold power directly from God, as Nebuchadnezzar did. He was nearest God in this outward sense, and his responsibility was therefore all the greater.

In Ezekiel chapter 1 the prophet had seen the glory of the Lord by the river Chebar. In chapter 11 he sees that glory leave Jerusalem. It departs from the house and from the city. It is a remarkable fact that the glory of the Lord has left its earthly throne. But more: at the same time this earthly power was transferred from Jerusalem to the Gentiles, and government entrusted to men. So we read in Daniel 2:36-38.

Babylon ruled for less than a century, then fell to the Medes and Persians. These in turn gave way to Alexander and his Macedonians. Later still, the Macedonians fell before the power of Rome... The next kingdom God sets up will be the kingdom of His Son. The fourth empire (Rome) will revive for a short period. Then God will bring the Lord Jesus once more on the scene, and He will take all the affairs of earth into His own blessed hands.

We need not go beyond Scripture to understand prophecy. It is the right, spiritual use of what is in the word of God. Take the simplest man who studies his Bible carefully in his own language and is led by the Spirit of God. He has the elements and the power of a true interpretation. But suppose a man hunts for an interpretation here and there, with the help of history, ancient records, newspapers and the rest. He is only deceiving himself and his hearers.

It is as "the God of heaven" that God acts in giving power to the Gentiles. As "God of the earth" His throne was at Jerusalem, and will be when He again makes Himself known that way. But His throne on earth has been set aside, because those who held His authority and acted for Him had sinned. So He now acts as "God of heaven," giving authority to the Gentile king.

It was not a question of his own prowess, nor of any special wisdom he possessed. If Nebuchadnezzar had been allowed to carry away these captives, and to triumph over the power of Egypt, it was the God of heaven who had given it to him.

Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that, as the representative of the Babylonian empire, he is the head of gold. Until now the earth had separate nations, each under its own king. Now, for the first time, a new form of government begins — government by imperial unity. Under it, one empire joins nations and their kings under an imperial head who is a king of kings.

The God of heaven gives Nebuchadnezzar the kingdoms of the earth. The Gentile kingdom soon widens into an empire such as Israel had never seen. Nebuchadnezzar is therefore a king of kings — a small image of Him who will be the "King of kings and Lord of lords," and something of an image too in the absolute authority he had. But there the resemblance ends. How different the character of the man who has this power, and how fast it decays!

Four imperial powers were to follow one another, and God set up Nebuchadnezzar himself as their great head. In certain respects they would grow steadily worse. To me, the special excellence of the head of gold is that it received its authority straight from God Himself. In fact the absolute authority of the first power rested on the gift of the God of heaven. The others came in by God's providence, and to them God was not the direct source of authority. Babylon was the authority God established.

He was nearest God in this external sense, and his responsibility was therefore all the greater.

God had given to the king "a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory" (Dan. 2:37). Despite God's gifts, and the striking way in which He had borne witness to Himself, the king had forgotten Him. The king, at rest in his palace and at the height of his prosperity, credits all his power and glory to himself, and uses his high position to exalt himself. Never was such great prosperity linked with such pride.

In this chapter Daniel speaks more than once of "the God of heaven." This shows that the first Gentile monarch of supreme power held his authority as something given to him from heaven. We believe this fact lies behind the teaching of the Apostle in Romans 13:1. The power in his own day was the fourth one, mentioned in our chapter. But the Gentile powers that exist, whoever they may be at any given moment, hold their authority as delegates of "the God of heaven."

It was not a question of his own strength, nor of any special wisdom he had. Egypt had wanted to dispute who ruled the world. If Nebuchadnezzar was allowed to carry away these captives, and to triumph over Egypt's power, it was the God of heaven who had given it to him... Clearly the Babylonian empire is meant.

This deterioration is not in the strength of the metals, but in their value. The strength of each metal shows how much land each empire ruled. The value of each metal points instead to its sovereign power. The last three world empires would rule far more land than the first. But in none of them was the imperial power, which stands for the power of God, as clear as in the first empire — the head of gold.

Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom was a direct gift from God... This could not be said of any of the three later kingdoms. They come on the scene through providence. God permits them to govern the earth, and they rise according to His ordering. But their rulers were in no sense direct holders of power, as Nebuchadnezzar was. He was nearest God in this outward sense, so his responsibility was all the greater.

Such dominion as Nebuchadnezzar had was never given to Israel. Not even Solomon's kingdom was anything like the extent of empire that Nebuchadnezzar had... No Gentile has ever realised this enormous gift. The largest empire that ever submitted to the rule of one man never took in the fullness of the gift as declared to the Gentile king. Yet, as it was, it was a weight of glory and power he was unable to bear; he was, as it were, crushed under it. There is a Man coming, the Man of God's right hand, who is able and worthy to bear it.

In Daniel 2:38 we read that the birds of the heavens were likewise given into his hand. In Genesis 1:28 we learn that the fish of the sea were also to come under man. But the fish are not named as part of Nebuchadnezzar's dominion. When Psalm 8 speaks of the dominion of the Son of Man, however, it takes in all of these — and its language covers much more besides.

Nebuchadnezzar was the head of gold: God had made him a king of kings, and the power and splendour of the kingdom centred in himself. Little is said of his kingdom; much is said of himself... The kingdom later comes into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar's son, and then into the hand of his grandson. Yet neither of them is the head of gold, and neither has any place in the vision.

Man now gets another trial. Supreme power is put into his hand... How then will he use it? Will it be to the glory and honour of Him from whom he had received it? The result is known. Lifted up in pride of heart, he makes himself a centre. He persecutes God's people for the sake of a religious unity built on idols, apart from God... He loses his moral reason and becomes a beast!

The verse mentions the second and third empires in the briefest way — the breast and arms of silver, and the belly and thighs of bronze. From later visions we learn that the second empire is the Medo-Persian (see Dan. 5:28 and Dan. 8:20) and the third empire the Grecian (see Dan. 8:21). Here we learn only that the kingdoms to come will be inferior to the empire of Babylon.

The Medo-Persian power was shown to Nebuchadnezzar as a breast and arms of silver, and pronounced "inferior" to his own (Dan. 2:39). This inferiority was not in extent of dominion, but in character of rule. Nebuchadnezzar was an absolute monarch — "whom he would, he killed, and whom he would, he kept alive; whom he would, he raised up, and whom he would, he humbled" (Dan. 5:19). The next power was more limited here, since the princes and others played an important part in the government. So Darius found himself unable to save an innocent man from the den of lions, though he badly wanted to. The next empire — the Grecian — was more military in character, and its generals had a strong influence over its ruler.

There was deterioration, as the empires departed from the source of power. It was God who gave imperial rule to Nebuchadnezzar. So the empire nearest that source appears as "this head of gold." More of what is merely human comes in with the Persian empire — "the breast and the arms of silver," an inferior metal — and so on down. It is quite plain from this that, as we descend from the original grant of power, there is a gradual debasement.

This deterioration is not in the strength of the metals, but in their value. The material strength of the metals sets out the extent of the dominions of each empire. The value of the metals signifies rather the sovereign power of each empire. The last three world empires would each stretch far wider than the first. But none of them showed the imperial power, which represents the power of God, as clearly as the first empire — the head of gold.

The Grecian Empire is called "a kingdom of bronze," as inferior to the Babylonian and the Persian: Dan. 2:39. It was not inferior in extent. Yet the verse says it "shall rule over all the earth"; but as an empire it was not consolidated, and hardly had any capital. An army had to be left in Greece under Antipater to keep the peace. When Alexander died the empire was not conquered by others, but fell to pieces of itself.

Who could have imagined an empire far wider than any before it, coming from the vain and quarrelsome Greeks, led by the despised Macedonians and their boy king? Up to that time, apart from Sparta, what were they but a cluster of jealous, divided states struggling for leadership? Only God could have led the king to dream, and the prophet to interpret, the Greek or Macedonian kingdom.

There is but little said in this chapter of the second and third empires. The chapter highlights the truth about the first kingdom, which received its dominion directly from God, and about the fourth. In the last days of the fourth, the whole structure will be set aside, with not a trace remaining.

Persia's might may look great, and Greece's too. Their disputes may fill up the history of the world. Yet God thinks little of them. He disposes of the records of centuries in a few words.

When we come to the fourth kingdom, its character is given in much more detail. That is not only because it is the last kingdom of the times of the Gentiles, but because it is the one kingdom Christ will deal with directly in judgment. This clearly marks the fourth kingdom as the Roman Empire. The world was under the rule of the Roman Empire when Christ came to earth. That empire clashed with Christ when He left the world. And it is the revived Roman Empire that Christ will judge when He comes again (Luke 2:1-2; John 19:10-11; Rev. 17:7-14).

But someone may ask, How do you know these things? It is not said that the second empire is Medo-Persia, or the third Macedonia, or the fourth Rome. I think it is. It may not be said here, but Scripture does not always hang the key right by the door. We do not often find the explanation of one part in the very next verse.

The main mark of the fourth kingdom is that it is "strong as iron." Iron is stronger than gold or silver or brass, but not as precious. In the pictures Scripture uses, gold always speaks of what is divine, and iron of what is human. In the fourth Empire there is a huge increase of all that is human, and a great loss of all that is divine. Its government will show more and more human wisdom, human cleverness and human resources, and less and less recognition of God. With that goes a growing loss of God's supreme and absolute power in government. As the times of the Gentiles come to their close, people will try more and more to rule the world without any thought of God, until the world is ripe for judgment.

Notice how the materials get worse—gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay. There is no loss of force, except in the clay, for iron is a tougher metal than gold. But there is a loss of glory shown in this way.

Here strength is the great feature of the kingdom, and the metal matches it. But it is the commonest sort of metal, not one of the precious ones. Perhaps this is because of what marked out the Roman empire: in name it was the people who governed. However harsh the emperor was, he always pretended, in theory at least, to consult the people and the senate. Even under the empire, the Romans still kept the look of their old republic, while in fact one man had taken all the real power for himself.

One well-known historian, when speaking about the empires, describes them in the liveliest imagery, derived from these very symbols of Daniel the prophet. He could find no figures so apt as those which the Spirit of God had consecrated to their use already, though every one knows it was from no lack of imagination, any more than from the wish to accredit Scripture.

This kingdom plainly continues until the kingdom of Christ is set up, so other Scriptures have to be consulted to understand it. In history, the Roman empire followed that of Greece, and, "strong as iron," it broke in pieces and subdued all things. Its power seemed unstoppable at the time, and it ruled most of the world then known. All this is history. But a question arises: if this Roman empire must exist on the eve of Christ's appearing, where is it now, and where will it come from when it appears again? The book of Revelation gives the answer. The outward form of this kingdom has plainly disappeared; to human eyes it does not exist. In God's eyes it does exist, but hidden for the moment, waiting to burst out and astonish the world by its return.

While the image represents the times of the Gentiles, from Nebuchadnezzar's day until the establishment of the kingdom of Christ, it is yet one image, and that the image of a man. It is thus, as has been strikingly observed by another, a representation of "the man of the earth"... and the man of the earth, it may be added, as expressed in government — in all the various phases, as will afterwards be seen, of his corrupt heart and unbridled will.

A third feature is that the fourth empire in the course of its history, will become divided and weakened. Daniel tells us that "the feet and toes" were "partly of potter's clay and partly of iron." This shows that "it shall be a divided kingdom," and weakened — or, as Daniel says, "partly strong and partly brittle."

That power was known above all others for its strength in beating down everyone who rose up against it... yet that very power is described here like this: "And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom." The Romans do not tell us this. History is not always a truthful speaker. Those who describe their own country's politics are usually not very trustworthy... but God tells it all out. So we find that the same empire, so famous for its amazing strength, would also show the deepest weakness inside itself.

The iron was the original material. The clay came in later, and did not really belong to the great metal statue. It was a foreign ingredient... I believe that in using the figure of clay, the Spirit of God does not point to the original Roman element, which had the strength of the iron. He points to the barbarian hordes that broke in later. They weakened the Roman power and step by step formed separate kingdoms. I can, however, only give this as my own judgment.

We see no reason to doubt a very common interpretation of the clay. It stands for the mixing of popular, democratic forms with absolute government — the joining of absolute rule with the popular will. These elements do not match, so they can never be welded together. The very attempt to unite them must become a source of weakness.

Now this is exactly what has happened to the once tightly united Roman empire. It has been "divided," but still "some of the firmness of iron" remains in it. In this sense the Roman empire still exists. It is no longer one undivided whole, but a set of broken pieces. Most of the strong nations of Europe are only broken portions of the old Roman empire. We believe that at the time of the end these fragments will come together again under a revived, or eighth, headship.

Before the age closes there will be a most remarkable union of two conditions that seem to contradict each other. There will be one head over the whole empire, and also separate independent kingdoms, each with its own king. That one man will be emperor over all these kings. Till that time comes, every effort to unite the different kingdoms under one head will be a total failure. Even then they will not be melted together into one kingdom... God has said they will be divided.

Note the expression, "in the days of these kings," especially as it follows verse 43. It gives us the fact... that the last kingdom of the four will be divided into ten kingdoms. It also marks the time when the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will displace — first destroy, and then displace — the last form of the Roman empire.

The Romans do not tell us this. History does not always tell the truth. Those who describe their own country's politics are seldom trustworthy. If something threatened to wipe them out, they were glad to hide it. They were just as ready to boast about anything that showed their boldness, strength and glory. But God tells it all. The same empire, so famous for its amazing strength, would also show the deepest weakness inside itself.

The first thing to note in this image is the falling value of the metals that stand for these kingdoms. It gives us God's estimate of the decreasing glory in the kingdoms of men. First we have the gold representing Babylon, the kingdom at its best as given to Nebuchadnezzar by God, v. 37. The silver represents the Medo-Persian. The brass represents the Grecian. The iron represents Rome past, and the iron and clay of the toes Rome future… Seven heads controlled the Roman empire in its original form, while ten horns or toes will control it in its future revival, Rev. 13:1.

We see no reason to doubt a very common interpretation of the clay. It stands for the mixing of popular, democratic forms with absolute government — the joining of absolute rule with the will of the people. These two elements do not belong together. They can never be fully welded into one, and the very effort to join them must become a source of weakness.

The iron was the original element. The clay came in later and did not really belong to the great metal statue. It was a foreign ingredient… I believe the Spirit of God, in using the figure of clay, does not point to the original Roman element, which had the strength of the iron. He points to the barbarian hordes that broke in at a later period. They weakened the Roman power and formed separate kingdoms step by step. I can, however, only state this as my own judgment.

Two facts become clear. First, the fourth empire will be divided and weakened by the mixture of clay. Yet it will always be true that some of the strength of the iron stays in it. It will never be pictured as clay alone. The government of the fourth empire will never be wholly democratic. Second, the iron and the clay may mingle, but they will never hold together. Democracy and sovereignty will always be opposed.

Authority that comes from God and authority that comes from man are as different as gold or iron is from clay. The two may be mingled. In our modern theory and practice of government they are partly mixed beyond untangling. But only weakness and brittleness result. Soon will come the death-blow delivered by the stone "cut out without hands."

This final blow falls not on the head of gold, the silver chest, the belly and thighs of brass, nor even on the legs of iron, but on the feet of iron and clay. This alone proves that the striking of the image is not the introduction and gradual spread of Christianity, as many have supposed, but a blow struck by divine power when the fourth empire is in its divided and mixed state. It existed in full unity and power for centuries after Christianity began.

The image in Daniel 2 has feet, "part of iron and part of clay." There is weakness as a result. That metal represents the original Roman element in its strength. The clay was a foreign ingredient, and it brought in weakness when it tried to combine with the iron. Later, swarms of invaders came down on the empire from the north and east, and it fell. Since then no hand has been able to gather up the broken pieces and put them firmly together again. Not that men did not want to; they have tried all sorts of methods — the sword, policy, intermarriage — but in vain.

The "they" of this passage seems to mean those who hold authority at the time. We have no hesitation in seeing here a prediction of the rise and spread of democracy in the last days. Authority that has its source in God and authority that has its source in man are as different as gold or iron or any other metal is from clay. The two may be mingled. In our modern theory and practice of government they are in part mixed together beyond separating. But this only produces weakness and brittleness, and soon the stone "cut out without hands" will deal the death-blow.

The mixture of iron and potter's clay changes the original character of the imperial Roman power. Something else enters it. The old character partly remains, but a new element is added. The energetic will of man is not there in an absolute way… There are two causes of weakness here — division, and the failure of the two elements to hold together… The "seed of men" is, I think, something outside of what marks the proper strength of the kingdom. But these two elements will never combine. It seems to me that this probably points to the barbarian or Germanic element, added to what originally made up the Roman empire.

The loss of what is of God and the introduction of the human element lead, as always, to division and weakness. The weakened governing power can no longer hold the empire together. The iron mixed with the soft clay shows the mingling of democracy with sovereignty. The clay, or democratic element, brings about the break-up of the empire.

Two facts, however, become clear. First, the mixture of clay will divide and weaken the fourth empire. Yet it will always be true that some of the strength of the iron stays in it. No time will ever come when it can be likened wholly to clay. The government of the fourth empire will never be entirely democratic. Second, the iron and the clay may mingle, yet they will never hold together. Democracy and sovereignty will always be opposed to each other.

Before the age closes there will be a most remarkable union of two conditions that seem to contradict each other. There will be a universal head of empire, and separate independent kingdoms as well, each with its own king. That one man will be emperor over all these kings. Until that time comes, every effort to unite the different kingdoms under one head will fail completely. Even then, no one will fuse them into a single kingdom. Each independent kingdom will have its own king, though all are under one head. God has said they shall be divided.

Nebuchadnezzar's image, though it had a head of gold, had feet of clay. The strongest man stands on feet of clay, and must crumble away in time; death will come at last.

Mark those words, "in the days of these kings." They are a complete answer to those who have tried to make this the birth of Christ. They call that moment the start of the kingdom of grace. At the time here spoken of, the empire is broken up and divided. Was that the case when the Lord was born? Nothing of the sort. Rome was then at its fullest power. There was not the smallest crack anywhere in the empire. There was only one ruler, and only one will in control... What then does the verse refer to? I believe it points to the closing scene of the Roman Empire: not to the time when Christ was born, but to when the Lord Jesus comes with divine power to judge. No doubt He is the stone; but this is a destructive stone, wiping out the kingdoms of the earth.

I differ from Mr. Myers in referring "these kings" (not to the four kingdoms, but) to the toes of the great image, that is, to the ten rulers of the revived Roman empire in the last days, existing at the same time, whose judgment makes way for the universal prevalence of God's kingdom, which Christ in person shall administer.

I am well aware that many expounders of the Word of God have tried to make out that this is the Gospel. I do not see how they make it out at all. I do not think the Gospel is very destructive, as this falling stone certainly is. And I ask you this: Did the Gospel ever smite the image? Never — the image smote Christ. It was the Roman power that killed the Lord Jesus. The Gospel has never set aside the civil power in this world. On the contrary, the Gospel has always suffered, and it will suffer right on to the end.

The little stone cut out without hands does not become a mountain until it has judged, broken in pieces and destroyed the image. And note: striking the image and then filling the whole earth is not the setting up of Christ's kingdom on the day of Pentecost. It is not an influence that changes the gold, the silver and the rest into the character of the stone. It is the sudden execution of judgment on the image — a blow that breaks it in pieces and leaves no trace of it behind.

The effort to find gradual and successive steps in Dan. 2:44, Dan. 7:26, and 2 Thess. 2:8 is unworthy of sound scholarship, and contradicts the plain object of the three texts, which describe nothing else or less than a sudden and complete extinction. Consuming in a slow way and by evangelical means is ruled out by the least approach to exact criticism, as well as by spiritual judgment.

It is as "the God of heaven" that God acts in giving power to the Gentiles. As "God of the earth" His throne was at Jerusalem, and will be when He again makes Himself known in that way. But His earthly throne has been set aside. Those who were responsible for holding and administering His authority acted wickedly. So He now acts as "God of heaven," giving authority to the Gentile monarch.

This kingdom set up from heaven is the kingdom of Christ (see Daniel 7:1-14). Its first act will be to break the "image" in pieces. Then, when Christ Himself formally establishes it in power, it will grow until it fills the whole earth. It will have no successor, for it will stand for ever.

The description of it as "a great mountain" suggests its permanence and stability... Sin has ravaged the world for centuries, and man has tried to dethrone God. In that same world there will be righteousness, peace and gladness.

Christians are called to live apart from the world, to suffer, to stay separate and to submit, like the crucified Lord here below. Now if Daniel 2:44 is wrongly applied to a kingdom already set up, the church has to subdue and destroy the imperial powers... Through that error the church becomes a rebel in Christ's name, instead of a holy sufferer, as Christ and His servants taught and practised.

Upon the feet of the image the stone fell. The stone is "cut out without hands" — that is, apart from man having anything to do with it. It is not human but Divine in origin. The first prophetic reference to the Lord Jesus as the Stone is in Genesis 49:24. When old Jacob blessed his sons, he broke off to say, "from there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel." He appears under this same figure in Isaiah 28:16, and so on into the New Testament.

The legs of iron and feet of iron and clay in the image represent the Roman Empire, and the stone is not cut out of them at all. It never had any place in them. An image is something on which the hand of man has worked; the stone is untouched by the hand of man. It is a kingdom altogether different from all that had gone before it.

The "little stone" symbolizes a power that looks small. At once it destroys all that is high, great, and strong on the earth. At the first blow it reduces the entire imperial system to powder. So the attempt to make the gospel out of it wholly fails. The "little stone" is not the gospel or the church, but the kingdom of God which Christ enforces when He returns.

I ask you this: did the Gospel ever strike the image? Never — the image struck Christ. It was the Roman power that killed the Lord Jesus. The Gospel has never set aside the civil power in this world. On the contrary, the Gospel has always suffered, and will suffer right on to the end.

Note those words, "in the days of these kings." They are a complete answer to those who have tried to make this the birth of Christ. At the time spoken of here, the empire is broken up and divided. Was that the case when the Lord was born? Rome was then at its fullest power. There was not the smallest breach anywhere in the empire… I believe it refers to the closing scene of the Roman Empire. It points not to the time when Christ was born, but to the time when God "brings the Firstborn into the world." Then the Lord Jesus comes, not as the Nazarene to suffer and die, but with divine power to judge.

A stone, cut out without hands, is to fall on the entire image, and to destroy it utterly (Dan. 2:45). This, we learn, is God's appointed end for every kind of human government, whether monarchy or democracy. The whole thing must give way to a kingdom of divine order, built "without hands." No element of human imperfection may have a place in it.

This destruction of Gentile power comes before the stone fills the whole earth. Describing it as "a great mountain" suggests its permanence and stability… No other kingdom will ever follow this one. Sin has ravaged the world for centuries, and man has sought to dethrone God. In that world there will be righteousness, peace and gladness.

At the close, Daniel added two things. First, he repeated that the great God had made known to the king what would come to pass. Second, he assures the king of the certainty both of the dream and of its interpretation. A revelation from God differs from what is of man in exactly this. Everything outside the Bible dares to compete with it and claim men's ears. It is only a sea, an unformed mass of opinions and reasonings. Think of a soul worn out in its search for stable ground to rest on in view of death and eternity. How welcome is the unchanging basis laid for faith in the infallible Scriptures!