And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth everything, and as iron that breaketh all these, so shall it break in pieces and bruise.
Nebuchadnezzar's dream image ran from a golden head down to legs of iron. Here Daniel reaches the last part of it. Two questions follow: which empire is meant, and why iron — the strongest metal in the image, and the cheapest?
Daniel never names the four empires here. One writer notes that this last kingdom is given far more detail than the others, and says why:
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).
One writer meets the obvious objection to naming these empires at all:
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.
Iron is the toughest of the four metals and the least valuable. That mix carries the meaning:
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.
So what declines through the image is not force but glory:
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.
Beyond hardness, the choice of a base metal has been read as a comment on how Rome was actually governed — power held by one man while the forms of the republic were kept up:
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.
The phrase about iron that breaks and crushes is not vague poetry. Writers observe that secular historians reached for Daniel's own images when they came to describe these empires:
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.
Since this kingdom lasts until Christ's kingdom is set up, its present disappearance raises an obvious problem, which commentators answer from Revelation:
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.
- Iron names Rome. Daniel gives no name here. But the empire that ruled when Christ came, clashed with Him when He left, and will meet Him in judgment is Rome.
- Iron is strong. The metal marks force, and Rome lived up to it, breaking and subduing most of the known world.
- Iron is cheap. The decline through gold, silver, brass and iron is a loss of glory, not of power; strength grows as value falls.
- Iron is human. Gold speaks of what is divine, iron of what is human. So this empire leans on human resources and gives God less and less place.
- Iron is not the end. This kingdom is hidden now, not finished. It is the one power Christ Himself will deal with when He comes.
And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter's clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
The great statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream ends in feet of iron mixed with clay. Here Daniel tells the king what that mixture means: the fourth empire, strong as iron, will become a divided kingdom. Commentators read the clay in more than one way. They agree on the picture — the world's last great power carries its own weakness inside it.
The feet come at the bottom of a figure that has been sliding downward from the start. One writer notes that the whole statue, gold to clay, is a portrait of man himself as ruler.
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.
Within the description of the fourth empire, this verse adds a distinct trait to those already given.
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."
The Romans never wrote this weakness into their own history. God did.
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.
Commentators differ on what the clay stands for. One reading takes it as an outside people who forced their way into the empire and broke it up.
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.
Others read the clay as a way of governing, not a group of people.
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.
The verse does not say the iron disappears. Some of its strength stays in the divided kingdom. That answers the objection that this empire vanished long ago.
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.
The final shape of this empire is unusual: one head over kingdoms that stay separate.
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.
The divided state is not the last word; it fixes the moment when a different kingdom arrives.
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.
- Divided. The feet show the fourth empire at a later stage: still iron, but now split, part strong and part brittle.
- Disclosed. No empire publishes its own flaw. God told the world of the strongest power's weakness long before it showed.
- Debated. Writers read the clay two ways: an outside people forced into Rome, or popular rule mixed with absolute rule. Both make it the point of weakness.
- Durable. Division did not end the iron. Its strength lives on in the broken pieces, which writers expect to be gathered again under one head.
- Displaced. Iron and clay never bond, so every effort to fuse the kingdoms fails. Then the God of heaven sets up a kingdom that displaces this last empire for good.
And [as] the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile.
Nebuchadnezzar's dream image does not end in a crash of strength — it ends in feet of iron mixed with baked clay. The questions the verse forces are simple: what are the toes, what is the clay, and why does the world's last great power carry a flaw it can never repair?
Rome was celebrated for its strength. Its own historians would never record the flaw God announces here.
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 image runs from gold at the head down to iron and clay at the toes. One writer matches each metal to its kingdom.
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.
One common reading takes the clay as the will of the people mixed into rule that was once absolute.
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.
Commentators differ here. Kelly takes the clay as something foreign, forced into the empire from outside.
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.
"Partly strong" is as much a promise as "partly brittle." Neither element ever swallows the other.
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.
One writer traces the clash to where each side gets its right to rule.
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."
The verse describes the exact condition the world will be in when God acts. That detail settles how the blow is to be understood.
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.
- Descent — the image drops from gold to iron, and at last to iron mixed with clay. Each stage is worth less than the one before, and the toes are its final shape.
- Disclosure — no empire records its own fatal flaw. God tells it out: the strongest kingdom of all carries the deepest weakness.
- Division — most take the clay as the will of the people mixed into absolute rule. Kelly takes it as a foreign element forced in from outside. Either way, the mixture splits the kingdom.
- Deadlock — iron and clay mingle but never bond. The kingdom stays partly strong, and never becomes one thing.
- Death-blow — the mixture is never repaired. The stone falls on this divided empire, and man's rule ends at a stroke.
And whereas thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron doth not mingle with clay.
Nebuchadnezzar's statue does not end in metal. Its feet mix iron — the strength of the fourth empire — with soft clay. This verse says why that mixture will never hold. (The writers below use the older wording of the middle clause: "they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men.")
The image is made of metals. Clay is not one of them. Its arrival is the point of the picture: something outside the empire's own nature enters it.
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 verse says "they" will mix, but it does not name them. Clay is not metal at all, and it points to a different source of authority.
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.
Commentators differ on what exactly the clay pictures. One reading is that it marks a change in the empire's own character.
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.
Others read the clay as the popular will pressed into sovereign rule. They trace the empire's break-up straight to it.
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.
Mixing is not bonding. Iron and clay can be pressed into the same foot and still refuse to stick.
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.
Refusing to fuse is not the end of the story. A union is still coming, but not the kind men keep trying to build.
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.
The image was also a mirror. What is true of empires is true of the men who build them.
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.
- Foreign. Clay never belonged to the image. It comes in from outside, and weakness comes in with it.
- Human. Name the clay how you like — an added barbarian element, or popular will mixed into sovereign rule. Either way it is authority that comes from man, not from God.
- Brittle. Iron and clay can be pressed together and still refuse to stick. Democracy and sovereignty stay at odds to the end.
- Divided. Every effort to weld the pieces into one kingdom fails. The final form is many kings under one head, not one fused empire.
- Shattered. What man cannot bond, God ends — the stone cut out without hands delivers the death-blow to the mixture.
And in the days of these kings shall the God of the heavens set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the sovereignty thereof shall not be left to another people it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, but itself shall stand for ever.
Daniel stands before the king of Babylon, explaining a dream about a giant statue of gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay — a picture of world empires that rise one after another. Verse 44 is where that dream ends, and it raises questions that still divide readers: when is this kingdom set up, who are "these kings," and is it the gospel spreading quietly or something else?
opening two very-hard sentences (grade 15 and 21)
The opening phrase fixes the date. One writer treats it as decisive against placing this verse at Christ's birth. (The ESV reads "those kings"; older versions, which the writers quote, read "these kings.")
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.
Commentators of the period disagreed over the identity of "these kings," and Kelly states his own view against others in the debate:
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.
One writer tests a popular reading against what the stone does in the dream:
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.
One writer notes what must happen before the stone becomes a mountain:
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.
Some have pressed the word "consume" to argue for a long, gradual wearing down of the empires. That reading is rejected on the grounds of the language itself:
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.
The title "the God of heaven" belongs to a particular moment in Israel's history:
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.
The verse promises what no empire in the statue could offer: a kingdom that cannot be destroyed and never passes to another people.
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 stone becomes a "great mountain" — a picture of what the kingdom will be like:
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.
Timing is not just theory. It shapes how Christians live now:
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.
- Stone first. The kingdom arrives by a blow, not by growth — the stone strikes the image before it ever becomes a mountain.
- Then timing. "In the days of these kings" points to an empire already broken up and divided. Rome was not like that when Christ was born.
- Then giver. "The God of heaven" sets it up. He takes that title after His throne at Jerusalem is set aside and rule passes to the Gentiles.
- Then reach. The old order ends with one sudden blow. Then the kingdom fills the whole earth with righteousness, peace and gladness.
- Then us. Until the stone falls, Christians suffer and stay separate. They must not seize the power this verse keeps for Christ.