Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 2:36-45
36 “This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation. 37 You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory, 38 and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold. 39 Another kingdom inferior to you shall arise after you, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. 40 And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things. And like iron that crushes, it shall break and crush all these. 41 And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,[c] but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. 44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”
________________________________________
After telling the king the dream, Daniel then interprets it.
We’ll just jump right into the text, looking first at Ellicott’s Bible Commentary and its note on verse 36:
(36) We—i.e., Daniel and his three friends, for to their intercession (Daniel 2:17-18) the revelation was due.
If you’re picturing this in your mind, the note here lets us know that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego should be included as well. Continuing on in Ellicott:
(37, 38) Interpretation of the vision. Nebuchadnezzar is the head; or, in other words, he is the first of the four kingdoms which are denoted by the image. His kingdom was the largest that the world had till then known; in fact, a writer cited by Josephus (Ap. i. 20), compares him to Hercules. We find a similar allusion to the beasts of the field as Nebuchadnezzar’s servants Jeremiah 27:6; Jeremiah 28:14. The title of “king of kings” is also ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 26:7). We are therefore left in no doubt as to what is meant by the first of the four empires. It is the Babylonian Empire, of which Nebuchadnezzar was in every sense the head, being the actual founder of it, and its mainstay during his long reign of forty-three years.
Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian Empire seem to be getting what feels like praise. It’s not only the head of this statue, it’s made of the most valuable material.
via bibletools.org
Nebuchadnezzar’s Image (Part One):
‘Head of Gold’by Richard T. Ritenbaugh
Forerunner, “Prophecy Watch,” May 1994[…]
The Head of Gold
The Bible gives us the interpretation of the head of gold in Daniel 2:37-38:
You, O king, are a king of kings. For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory; and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given them into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all—you are this head of gold.
Babylon had existed for centuries before this time, but only under Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 BC) had she reached her height. In a flurry of activity, he had conquered from Persia to Egypt, picking up the reins of power left unheld by the decline of Assyria. During this time he conquered Judah, taking its citizens into captivity to Babylon.
Not only did he rise quickly to world supremacy, but he also played a major role in beautifying and strengthening the city of Babylon. Covering 200 square miles, the city boasted 250 watchtowers and walls 87 feet thick. He laid out the city in rectangular blocks. Built of brick and faced with enameled tiles of blue, yellow and white, houses rose up to four stories and lined broad avenues, interspersed with parks and gardens. One 30-foot wide bridge over the Euphrates ran 660 feet. According to Diodorus Siculus, a 15-foot wide and 12-foot high tunnel under the river also connected its two banks. It was the largest and most magnificent city of the ancient world.
But Babylon was also a city of rank paganism. Within its walls stood 53 temples and 1,327 shrines to various deities. Dominating the skyline in every direction, Babylon’s famous ziggurat rose in seven stages to 650 feet, crowned with a shrine. Some think this structure, taller than the Great Pyramid of Egypt, is the Tower of Babel.
The city streets were named after the gods of Babylon. Cults to dozens of different deities flourished. In all, the Babylonian priests worshiped 4,000 separate gods, each with a specialized function. In the ninth century BC, an official census of the gods tallied 65,000. Even taxation was done in the name of their gods. Also a center of astrology and the occult, Babylon was the seat and prime example of this world’s religious confusion (Revelation 17:5).
Parallel in Daniel 7
In a parallel prophecy in Daniel 7, the prophet saw four beasts, the first of which represents Babylon:
The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. (Daniel 7:4)
The symbolism of the beasts matches that of the image. The lion is the king of the beasts, but it is a vicious and formidable beast. With wings, it is also very swift. This imagery describes the early years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, marked by war, captivity of defeated nations and destruction.
Later in his career, however, with his enemies subjected, his aggression declined, and he spent more time in cultural and building pursuits. It was also during this latter period that he was humbled and admitted God’s sovereignty (Daniel 4:28-37). Successive kings were also primarily interested in peaceful affairs until Babylon fell to Cyrus the Persian in 539 BC.
The lion imagery does not end with Babylon, however. When the apostle John “saw a beast rising up out of the sea,” it possessed a “mouth like the mouth of a lion” (Revelation 13:1-2). Like the empires that followed, qualities of Babylon will be found in the end-time Beast power. All of the empires symbolized in this image spring from one common way of life that is thoroughly contrary to the way of God.
In future articles, we will look into the succeeding empires of Nebuchadnezzar’s image.
There are also less clear – for lack of a better word – conspiracies regarding Babylon’s place in the world, even today, with many people pointing out that world leaders today claim ancestry that dates back to Babylon, including to predecessors of Nebuchadnezzar such as Nimrod. Many others argue that Babylonian gods continued to be worshipped even after Babylon fell, just under different names. I’ll share an example below (though I do not endorse this video’s view.)
As this is not spelled out overtly in the Bible, perhaps some of that is unnecessary speculation. Continuing in the text, in The Pulpit Commentaries:
And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. None of the versions presents any difficulties, or gives occasion for any remark, save the Vulgate, which inserts argenteum, as if reading כסף. The word used, “kingdom,” not “king,” shows, without possibility of reasonable dispute, that in identifying Nebuchadnezzar with the head of gold, the reference is not to him per-serially, but to him as representing his dynasty. 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. Not only does the inferior metal imply inferiority, but the inferior position dues so also. The metal is omitted here, but stated in the next clause, Another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. The metal is here referred to, but not the position; there is no need to say it is inferior—that is implied when it is said to be a kingdom of brass. We need only refer to what we have said above, as to the fact that “brass” here really means “copper.” As the inferiority stated in the first clause is omitted in the second, so the statement made at the end, which grammatically applies only to the third kingdom, applies also to the second. It is only as, in a sense, bearing rule over the whole earth, that any monarchy comes into this statue at all. When we look at these two, we find certainly the two arms suggesting and rendering emphatic a twofoldness of some sort in this power. The fact that, in the description of the statue, the word translated “belly” (מעוהי) is plural, suggests, along with the two thighs, the idea of four-foldness. Faintly is this suggestion made, but the exigencies of the figure must be considered.
The almost universal scholarly consensus is that this second kingdom, the one to follow Babylon, is the Person Empire – which is what conquered Babylon. Again though, that’s interesting if true. The Persian Empire, which conquered Babylon, is named as inferior to Babylon. We are not told why.
What is the significance of the Medo-Persian Empire?
via gotquestions.org
The Medo-Persians, led by King Cyrus II, invaded Babylonia from the east in June of 539 B.C. and captured its capital, Babylon, in July of the same year. In biblical chronology, this occurred near the end of the Babylonian exile. Within a short time, Daniel became a trusted adviser to the new Medo-Persian Empire. This kingdom of the Medes and the Persians was later ruled by Artaxerxes II, or Ahasuerus, who married Esther. Today, Persia is essentially synonymous with modern Iran, and this was not so different in ancient times. However, Persia as an ancient kingdom, especially when referenced along with Media, encompassed Egypt in the west to parts of India in the east, and included Asia Minor from the eastern border of Greece to Tajikistan.
The Medo-Persian Empire Foretold
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel all prophesied that the Medes and the Persians would overtake the Babylonian Empire. Isaiah quoted God as saying, “See, I will stir up against them the Medes. . . . Their bows will strike down the young men” (Isaiah 13:17-18). Another prophecy said that the Medes would expand beyond Babylonia and affect all nations (Jeremiah 51:28). Jeremiah also provides the reason for the Medo-Persian ascendancy: “to destroy Babylon” and gain “vengeance for [God’s] temple” (Jeremiah 51:11). Daniel interpreted a dream which also foretold the fall of Babylon.The Writing on the Wall
Daniel also warned of Babylon’s demise on the eve of its fall, as recorded in Daniel 5. King Belshazzar, called “king” because he was left in charge of political affairs while his father was away at war, was using the gold and silver utensils from the temple as drinking vessels in a night of debauchery. “Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall” (Daniel 5:5). The frightened king summoned Daniel to the banquet hall to interpret the writing. Daniel’s inspired interpretation was dire: God had pronounced judgment on Babylon, and the kingdom would be divided. By morning, “Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom” (Daniel 5:30-31).End of the Exile
Before the Babylonian exile even began, God told Jeremiah that Judah would “become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jeremiah 25:11). Ezra and others recorded that “in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia [539 B.C.], in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus” (Ezra 1:1), and Cyrus allowed all the Jews to return to Judah. Not only did Cyrus release the Jews, but he also returned the stolen temple articles and paid for the Jews’ rebuilding efforts from the royal treasury (Ezra 6:4-5). This was a monumental time in Israel’s history, as Jerusalem and the temple were rebuilt and the Law was reinstituted.Daniel
Daniel was prominent in the Medo-Persian Empire and a trusted adviser to King Darius. However, after being placed as head of the satraps (governors, of sorts), Daniel was hated by some of them for his quick ascent. They laid a legal trap for Daniel that should have gotten him killed, for he was thrown into the infamous lions’ den. He survived, however, by God’s intervention, and he continued to prophesy, rule, and provide counsel in that foreign land (Daniel 6:28).Mordecai and Esther
Another key event in the history of Israel also occurred in Persia. The book of Esther describes the origin of the Feast of Purim and how the Jews were spared mass destruction. When Cyrus released the Jews to their homeland, not all of them elected to return to Judah (Esther 3:8). King Artaxerxes (or “Ahasuerus,” as he is called in Esther) reigned from 404-359 B.C. and likely had little background on his government’s history with the Jews. So, when his top adviser, Haman, accused the Jews of being routinely disobedient to the king’s laws, Artaxerxes believed him and agreed to Haman’s plan of genocide against the Jews. Queen Esther, herself a Jewess, had been chosen queen of the empire without disclosing her origin. In a series of remarkable events, plainly evincing God’s providence, Esther was able to expose Haman’s vile motives. Not only were the Jews spared destruction, but Esther’s cousin Mordecai was given Haman’s place of honor.Conclusion
God uses individuals and empires to accomplish His will. Certainly, the Medo-Persian Empire is a case in point. God used this empire to set His captive people free, fund the rebuilding of the temple, and encourage His children that they are never forsaken.
I’ll stop here for a second to point out that this empire is associated with the end of the exile. We have seen, in very recent years, a person on the international stage be compared overtly to Cyrus the Great by the Israeli government.
Who is King Cyrus, and why did Netanyahu compare him to Trump?
Mysterious Persian ruler is credited for helping Jews return from exile to Jerusalem 2,500 years ago, rebuild the Temple
JTA — Before their Oval Office meeting on Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lavished praise on US President Donald Trump for, among other things, declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and vowing to fix or scrap the Iran nuclear deal.
In doing so, the Israeli leader likened Trump to Harry Truman, Lord Balfour — and Cyrus the Great.
What gives with Cyrus?
As Netanyahu explained in his remarks:
I want to tell you that the Jewish people have a long memory, so we remember the proclamation of the great king, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king 2,500 years ago. He proclaimed that the Jewish exiles in Babylon could come back and rebuild our Temple in Jerusalem. We remember a hundred years ago, Lord Balfour, who issued the Balfour Proclamation that recognized the rights of the Jewish people in our ancestral homeland. We remember 70 years ago, President Harry S. Truman was the first leader to recognize the Jewish state. And we remember how a few weeks ago, President Donald J. Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Mr. President, this will be remembered by our people through the ages.
What is known about Cyrus is as much myth as fact, although scholars agree that during his lifetime (c. 600-530 BCE) he ruled an empire that included the ancient Near East, Southwest and Central Asia, and the Caucasus.
But Jewish tradition has been consistent in treating him as a pagan agent of God’s divine plan for Jews to return to the Land of Israel from their exile in Babylon (modern-day Iraq). Cyrus shows up in Chronicles saying, “The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up, and may the Lord their God be with them.”
In Isaiah, God chooses Cyrus “to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor … so that you may know that I am the Lord, the God of Israel.”
The first-century historian Josephus also credits Cyrus with freeing the Jews from captivity and helping them rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
The idea that Trump is a modern-day Cyrus is particularly popular among evangelical Christians, in part to explain the gap between Trump’s, ahem, personal behavior and his support for policies that advance their agenda.
Coins bearing the images of US President Donald Trump and King Cyrus, to honor Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, are laid out at a private minting facility in Tel Aviv on February 28, 2018. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
In December, an evangelical leader explained this “vessel theology” in welcoming Trump’s move on Jerusalem. Mike Evans told the Christian Broadcasting Network that Cyrus “was used as an instrument of God for deliverance in the Bible, and God has used this imperfect vessel, this flawed human being like you or I, this imperfect vessel, and he’s using him in an incredible, amazing way to fulfill his plans and purposes.”
Some observers wonder if the comparison is just a convenient way for evangelicals to deal with Trump’s multiple divorces, his confessed womanizing, and the multiple accusations of sexual assault.
“I think in some ways this is a kind of baptism of Donald Trump,” John Fea, a professor of evangelical history at Messiah College in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, told Vox. “It’s the theopolitical version of money laundering, taking Scripture to … clean [up] your candidate.”
In addition to Netanyahu, at least one Jewish group has picked up on the notion of Trump as Cyrus: Last month, The Mikdash Educational Center, which promotes reverence for the temples that once stood in Jerusalem, started selling a coin with Trump’s silhouette superimposed over one of Cyrus. Its leader, Rabbi Mordechai Persoff, told The Associated Press that Trump, like Cyrus, made a “big declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of the holy people.”
Like most Israeli leaders, and maybe unlike rabbis and Christian activists, Netanyahu doesn’t need to reconcile a president’s personal behavior with his policies — he just needs a president who delivers the goods. Comparing Trump to Cyrus is another way of saying he’s just wild about Donald.
Trump – at least in some quarters – is so popular in Israel that many things there have been named after him. With others in the Israeli government, he is viewed as being permissive of overt antisemitism (so things are there as they are in the U.S.)
Comparing Donald Trump to the Persian King Cyrus is incredibly provocative, particularly as that discussion leads unavoidably to a discussion regarding the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple (where Islam’s The Dome of the Rock currently impedes that ambition. The year 2024, in fact, has been fraught with that topic in religious circles, and in world events, as the red heifer controversy has been cited as motivating factor for the Hamas attack on October 7. The year 2024 also saw Iran fire rockets at The Dome of the Rock, perhaps desiring to usher in a large scale regional war. The attacks were thwarted by Israel and other Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. It seems weird to say, but the American Presidential election of 2024 will have religious import to many people around the world.
The third section of the statue is generally associated with the Greek Empire founded initially by Alexander the Great. The verse says the third kingdom will rule over all of the earth Unlike as with the global flood, few scholars assert that this global empire must be literally the entire earth.
Make of it, what you will, that Alexander the Great died in Babylon and had planned to make that city his capital.
The most mysterious and perhaps interesting of the four sections of the statue starts in verse 40. Via TPC:
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. The version of the LXX. differs considerably here, “The fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, as iron which subdueth all things, even as iron cutteth down every tree.” It is evident that the translator has read אִילָן (‘illan), “a tree,” instead of אִלֵּין (‘illeen), “these.“ The last clause is due to וְתֵּרֹעַ (vetayroa‛) being written with the :א ותארע; however, ו(vav) is not unlike, in ancient Aramaic script, to כּ (kaph), although ל(lamed) is not like ת(tau), yet the phrase כָל־אֲרַע would carry the reader over every obstacle. Theodotion differs less from the Massoretic,” The fourth kingdom is that which shall be as strong as iron, just as (ὅν τρόπον) iron beateth small and subdueth all things, thus shall it beat small and subdue all things.” It may be observed that the clause, “and as iron breaketh all these,” is omitted from the text. It certainly appears to be an addition, indeed, has the look of a “doublet.“ This view is confirmed by the fact that the Peshitta also omits this clause. The Peshitta rendering is,” The fourth kingdom shall be strong like iron, and even as iron crushes and bruises all, thus even it shall beat small and subdue all.” The Vulgate rendering also omits a clause, “And the fourth kingdom shall be like iron, as iron beats small and subdues all things, it shall beat small (comminuet) all these.” For these grounds we feel inclined to regard the clause in question as an explanatory note, which has slipped into the text. Before we leave the consideration of the text, we must observe that the word for “fourth” assumes the Syriac, or Eastern Aramaic form, not the form in Chaldee, or Western Aramaic. That empire which was represented by the basest of the four metals, and occupied the lowest position in the figure, is that which is the most powerful. When we go back we find brass is the next in point of hardness and strength; it is the third, and of it, at all events, if not also of that which preceded it, it is said that “it shall bear rule over all the earth.” The inferiority indicated by the metals and by the position occupied in the image, did not indicate inferiority in power or in extent of dominion. An interesting theory has been formed by Dr. Bonnar (‘Great Interregnum’), that this degeneration was one of type. The monarchy as exhibited in Babylon, especially when the monarch was a man of genius, as was Nebuchadnezzar, was likest to the rule of the Almighty over the world: his authority was without limit, direct and absolute over every one subject to his sceptre The Medo-Persian monarchy had much of the Babylonian absoluteness, but there were, if Herodotus is to be trusted, the peers of the crown, and, above all, there were the satraps, with their almost independent position in respect to the central power. The third, in our author’s opinion, the Hellenic, had the monarchy limited, not only by numerous compeers, as the king in Antioch was balanced by the kings in Alexandria and Pergamus, not to speak of the monarchs of Parthia, but also by the autonomous cities with the semblance of freedom. The fourth, the Roman, was yet further removed from the old Divine-right monarchy of the Babylonian type. At their first intercourse with the Jews the Romans were Republicans. Their first conquest of Judaea was made by Pompey, the general of the Republic. To the last the emperor, whatever his power, was still theoretically the first magistrate of a republic. The feet and toes of mingled clay and iron, he held, were modern constitutional monarchies—monarchies built upon democracy and the will of the people. All this is doomed to be overthrown by the coming of the Messianic kingdom.
As stated in the note above, the next section of the statue – iron – is almost universally believed to be the Roman Empire. It is possible to argue that the Roman Empire (its Eastern part, at least) did not fall entirely until 1453, when the Ottoman Empire reclaimed what was then Constantinople.
It is also arguable that the world has been largely ruled by the former pieces of the Roman Empire in the centuries since its fall. That leads us to verse 41:
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. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall he partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest 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 is not mixed with clay. The version of the Septuagint is worthy of notice here, “And as thou sawest (hast seen, ἑώρακας) its feet and toes were partly of potter’s clay, and partly of iron. Another kingdom shall be divided in itself, as thou sawest the iron mingled with the miry clay, and the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, part of the kingdom shall be strong, and part shall be broken. And as thou sawest the iron mingled with the miry clay, there shall be mixings (συμμιγεῖς) to the generation (γένεσιν) of mankind (ἀνθρώπων), but they shall not agree nor be well affected one to another, just as (ὥσπερ) iron cannot be compounded with clay.” It may be observed here that a clause is omitted from Daniel 2:41, “but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron.” In the forty-third verse the difference is due to זְרַע as infinitive of the verb “to sow,” that is to say, the translator must have read למזרע instead of להון בזיי. The addition of ἄλλη has had its origin in a false idea that the feet and toes of the image represented a new world-dominion. Theodotion renders, “Because (ὅτι) thou sawest the feet and the toes part of potter’s clay, and part of iron, a kingdom shall be divided, and there will be in it from the iron root in like manner as thou sawest the iron mingled with the potter’s clay. And the toes of the feet were partly iron, and partly clay, part of the kingdom shall be strong, and part of it shall be broken (being broken, συντριβόμενον); because thou sawest the iron mingled with the potter’s clay, there shall be mixings with the seed of men: but they shall not adhere one to another, even as iron is not mingled with clay.” Neither in Syriac nor Chaldee has netzab the meaning “to be firm;” nitzebthah means, in later Aramaic, “a seedling.” Originally, however, it meant “to confirm,” “to set up,” “to strengthen,” as the Hebrew יָצַב (yatzab) and נָצַב (natzab). This meaning had been lost sight of by the time Theodotion wrote, or possibly before the translation was made which he revised. The Peshitta does not call for remark, save that it agrees with Theodotion in translating נצבתא (nitzebathah) “root.” Jerome renders it plantarium. This new development of the image is to be regarded, not as another empire, but as the outgrowth of the fourth kingdom. This is clear from the fact that there is no new substance introduced of which the feet and toes are wholly made up, but the iron is mingled with a new and inferior substance, potter’s clay. The numerical mark “ten,” which is to be regarded as the peculiar distinctive sign of the fourth empire, is in the toes. This last empire, whatever it may be taken to be, is one that splits itself up into approximately ten parts or sub-kingdoms. Further, there shall be a foreign element introduced which shall not harmonize with the original material. Professor Bevan is certain that the reference is “to the marriages of the Ptolemies with the Se-leucidae.” Notwithstanding that Professor Bevan states this view as if it could not be doubted, it is evidently false. Both the Lagids and the Seleucids were Macedonians, and there was no natural incompatibility. If marriage is intended here, and if the fourth monarchy were the Hellenic, more sensible would have been the suggestion that it referred to the Hellenizing of South-Western Asia—the miscegenation of the peoples inaugurated by Alexander the Great, only it did not proceed very far. Further, it did not signalize the end of the Greek rule, but really the beginning of it. We admit certainly that the LXX. translates in a way that suggests the marriage of a superior with an inferior race. But there is no reference in reality to marriage, but to the mingling of two distinct culture-elements, the infusion of barbarous races into the midst of a civilized; and the barbarians taking on some of the outward forms of civilization would represent better the thing indicated. But to take this as referring to the marriage of the Seleucids and Lagids is certainly as wrong as wrong can be, although it is held by Moses Stuart, Hitzig, Ewald, as well as Professor Bevan. Not one of them shows which, the Seleucid or the Lagid, is “the clay,” “the seed of men,” and which the governing power or race that mingles with them. Yet the inferiority of the clay is an essential element in the symbolism. Hoffmann’s idea, that there is reference to the marriage of the Emperor Otto II. and the Russian grandduke Wladimir with the daughters of the Byzantine emperor, is equally far-fetched. Certainly the intrusion into the Roman Empire of the Germanic tribes on the. one side, and of the Arabs and Turks on the other, is an interpretation much closer to the real meaning of the symbol. A good deal can be said for Dr. Bonnar’s theory, that it is the effort of monarchy to rest on democracy. As to the number, ten, it is not to be made absolute; it may be more than ten or fewer than ten. All that is necessary is that the number be considerably more than four, and not so numerous as to suggest an indefinite multitude. The fact of “the toes” occupying the same portion of the image, seems to signify that these ten divisions were simultaneously existing. What is symbolized is clearly a state of matters not unlike what was in Greece after the defeat of the Persians, and before the Macedonian domination—a number of separate states forming part of one system. Such, to a certain extent, was the empire of the Diadochi, or successors of Alexander, only they were not generally more than four, five, or six—mainly four, the Seleucids, the Lagids, the Attalids, and the Anti-gonids. Such was the state of matters under the Holy Roman Empire, when what are now the six great powers were gradually separating themselves off. A similar state of matters existed at the same time among the Mohammedan powers, which acknowledged a certain suzerainty in the Caliph of Bagdad, but warred with each other with great freedom. While we have said that there is an appearance of simultaneity given to these monarchs or dynasties, candour compels us to acknowledge that they may be successive. We would not desire to anticipate what we say below in a special excursus on the four monarchies of Daniel; yet we may be permitted to indicate two senses in which the number ten may indicate Rome. There were ten emperors to the capture of Jerusalem, and the end of Judaism as a civil power, and the consequent independence of the Church from the trammels of Judaism. Further, a fair case might be made out for the different magistrates that exercised authority, more or less supreme, in Rome—consuls, praeto
No one is entirely certain what is meant by the mixing of iron and clay. As the note points out, one might read into that a mixing into the people of the original empire a different people. The problem with that rendering, in my opinion, is that the Roman Empire was highly diverse ethnically. What can be meant by this then? I think it’s probably better to simply read into the clay and the iron feet that rather than unity, we see inherent division. We know the Roman Empire broke apart before it fell and that even those parts broke apart later, becoming countries such as France, Spain, Italy, and others.
It is interesting to note that the word for “mix” and “mingle” here is “Arab.” So the feet and toes are… Arab. I think it’s certainly possible to read too much into that, but it would also be a mistake to overlook this if searching for the dream’s meaning.
mixed = עֲרַב ʻărab, ar-ab’; (Aramaic) corresponding to H6148; to commingle:—mingle (self), mix.
There’s an additional… weird… element as part of verse 43. I’ll highlight it below:
43 As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.
It’s probably a good idea to provide the NKJV translation here as well:
43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.
That verse, and its reference to marriage / mix with the seed of men, implies either a racial or tribal mixing is in play.
Ellicott also addresses verse 43 in a note:
(43) Seed of men.—The great obscurity of this verse is partially cleared by a reference to Jeremiah 31:27. Daniel appears to be contrasting what man is endeavouring to accomplish by his own efforts with that which the God of heaven (Daniel 2:44) will carry out. Man will form his plans for uniting the discordant parts of this empire, by encouraging marriages between the royal families that rule the various component kingdoms. (Comp. Daniel 11:6; Daniel 11:17, Notes.)
I’m not sure that this note really clears things up much, either. Perhaps we need to ask a different question. “They” will mingle with the seed of men. “They” refers to the aforementioned iron, but doesn’t this also seem to imply that “they” is not human? Not necessarily. As mentioned, this passage is obscure. You might render it “with the seed of other men” as well. Some translators will argue that mix and mingle does not necessarily imply marriage, in the way that the ESV renders the translation.
They will = הָוָא hâvâʼ, hav-aw’; (Aramaic) or
הָוָה hâvâh; (Aramaic), corresponding to H1933; to exist; used in a great variety of applications (especially in connection with other words):—be, become, behold, came (to pass), cease, cleave, consider, do, give, have, judge, keep, labour, mingle (self), put, see, seek, set, slay, take heed, tremble, walk, would.
combine with one another = עֲרַב ʻărab, ar-ab’; (Aramaic) corresponding to H6148; to commingle:—mingle (self), mix.
in the seed = זְרַע zᵉraʻ, zer-ah’; (Aramaic) corresponding to H2233; posterity:—seed.
of men = אֱנָשׁ ʼĕnâsh, en-awsh’; (Aramaic) or אֱנַשׁ ʼĕnash; (Aramaic), corresponding to H582; a man:—man, whosoever.
I think there are a couple of most likely interpretations here (though I am open to other alternatives):
- The original Romans grew their empire, mixed with other races to grow their empire, but in-so-doing they weakened the empire’s cohesiveness. The Spanish part of the Roman Empire over time had less and less in common with the eastern part, because the “Romans” themselves became increasingly different due to marriage, unshared customs, etc. (This is the most likely interpretation, in my opinion.) This also kind of includes offshoot empires in the Roman one.
- Daniel is making a veiled and perhaps cryptic reference here to human and non-human mixing. Have we seen that before in the Bible? Arguably yes… in Genesis 6. Jesus also makes a reference to Noah’s time in Matthew 24 when teaching about the end times:
Matthew 24: 36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
The problem with that interpretation is that it’s extraordinarily tenuous. Jesus – when mentioning Noah – is not referring to the Nephilim, he’s referring to the uncertain date of His return. Is the reference suggestive? Absolutely. Noah’s days were apocalyptic. The Second Coming is believed to be an apocalyptic event. Noah’s days including human and non-human mixing (or so many text scholars believe.) Daniel’s verse regards a kingdom near the end of time and seems to refer to a mixing of some type.
Perhaps we will revisit this later in Daniel. For now, we’ll move on to the next verses. From TPC:
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never he destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever, Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. The Greek versions differ from the Massoretic text only in the order in which the materials of the statue arc recorded. These are arranged in the reverse order in which they are first mentioned, that is to say, we have first the clay, then the iron, and so on, to the gold. This is the order followed by Jerome. On the other hand, the Peshitta follows the Massoretic order. The reason for the order adopted in the Septuagint. Theodotion, and the Vulgate is evidently a symmetrical one, and therefore more likely to be the result of emendation than the somewhat haphazard order of the received text. It is, however, not impossible that the similarity of sound has led to ḥaspa, “clay,” being brought out of its proper place at the beginning of the list and placed in juxtaposition with kaspa, “silver.“ Ewald thinks that the order of the Greek versions is to be preferred. Professor Bevan is doubtful, and refers to the order of the metals in Daniel 5:4, which begins with “gold” and ends with “stone.” In the days of these kings. This must refer to the kings who made up the last dynasty, especially the kings of the sub-dynasties represented by the ten toes. If the traditional interpretation is correct, these days are still future. It is not impossible that all the dynasties of the vision are implied, and that the kingdom of heaven is preparing during the whole period; only the natural meaning is that we have assumed. Shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom. It may be noted that, while in the rest of this chapter the Septuagint renders this title, Κύριος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ or Κὐριος ὁ ὕψιστος, here the rendering is, ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. This is a clear statement of the Messianic hopes of the Jews on one side—a Messianic kingdom and Messianic times. This new kingdom is on a different plane from those that preceded it, which go to make up the mysterious image. It is explained to be from the direct interference of the God of heaven that this new kingdom is intruded upon history. When we look at the material, it is inferior to all that had gone before—inferior even to the fire-baked clay of the potter, which formed the toes of the image. This way of representing the Messianic kingdom would have appeared inadequate to an ordinary Jew. Waiving the fact that he regarded the Messianic empire to be another such as the empires of Assyria and Babylonia, only greater, the Jew would certainly have declared that the Messianic kingdom of heaven was a precious stone, not an ordinary piece of rock that goes to build up the framework of the mountains. It is impossible to deny that it is strange that the symbol should be thus a less precious material than even that of the lowest and weakest kingdom of the worldly system of dynasties. When we look at a metal, how homogeneous it is! With rocks, again, begins individualism. The more precious metals, with their extreme ductility, seem to be further removed from this individualism than the baser, such as copper and iron, and clay is still less removed than iron. But simple rock is furthest removed of all from metallic homogeneousness: the grains that compose it, unlike the chemical atoms of the metal, are visible to the naked eye. The process of degradation, which had proceeded through kingdom after kingdom, had now reached its lowest point. Wherever the setting up of this Messianic kingdom is placed, whenever it is held as occurring, it is certain it fits most naturally the Christian Church. The old civilization, represented by the Assyrian monarchy, had only one free man in the state, and that was the king. The Persians had nobles whose power rendered the king’s supremacy less absolute than it had been in the Assyrian days. In the days of Greek and Roman supremacy the freedom of citizenship was, even in the republics, possessed only by a few, the rest were slaves. Still, the freedom was much more widely spread than in the Persian and Assyrian monarchies; only the Church, the kingdom of heaven, made of slaves citizens. It is the very acme of individualism. Looked at from without, the kingdom of heaven was a thing to be despised—a thing for freedmen and slaves, for poor workmen and peasants. In the Assyrian form of government the king was the state; so the royal metal, gold, is used. In the Persian the nobles rule; so we have silver. In Greece it is the free citizens, therefore the artistic but less noble metal, copper, or, perhaps, its composite form as bronze, is used. In Rome, in imperial times, it is the soldiery, and therefore iron is the metal that symbolizes them. Shall we step over the intervening centuries of retrogression, and see in the clay the modern mercantile and manufacturing interests? To the ordinary eye of the world, there is a progressive degeneracy here. The lowest point is reached; not even the rich, not to speak of the noble and learned, but the poor and the ignorant, form the kingdom. Another contrast in the symbol is that these metallic empires remained stationary; they reached a limit, then could go no further—not growth, but stationariness, is represented by their symbol; but this stone cut out of the mountain “grows,” and ceases not till it has filled the earth. Further, the kingdoms which went to build up the dream-statue endure only for a time; this rock-built kingdom is an ever-lasting kingdom. It is not limited either in extent or duration. This, again, suits only the Church of Christ; fitted and intended to fill the earth, it also has an unending duration. The world itself may end, hut the Church does not. We do not mean to assert that Daniel foresaw this distinctly; the very idea of the prophetic office implied that the speaker often did not know the full import of his own words. It shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. The silent, disruptive influence of Christianity is exhibited in regard to slavery, which was the foundation of the ancient state. Without opposing slavery, to appearance, it laid down principles which rendered slavery impossible. The supreme dignity it gives to the individual, as bearing the image of God, affirms the claims of democracy, and so affirms them that the modern state must disappear. Forasmuch as thou sawest the stone teas cut out of the mountain without hands. Nothing could be more silent or unobserved by the men of the world, or more unlikely to form the beginning of a new world-power than Christianity. If Judaism was regarded as “the mountain of the Lord’s house,” then this new kingdom was cut from it, as Christianity was from Judaism. And that it brake, etc. The reason why Nebuchadnezzar had seen all this—the growth of this kingdom, the way it destroyed all other kingdoms—was now to be made known. The great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter; or, as it ought to be rendered, a great god. The word, as observed by Professor Bevan, is not in the status emphaticus; see Ezra 5:8, אלחא רבא (elaḥa rabba). Daniel thus recognizes the fact that, to his heathen master, all that in the first instance he can convey to him—the only idea he can give him—of the greatness of Jehovah is that he is very great, not that he is the solely Great One in the universe (see Behrmann). Zöckler, Ewald, Keil, and Kranichfeld assert that the fact of the words “great god” (elah tab) being in the absolute, not the emphatic state, is due to the elevation of pectic language. In the first place, this is not poetry, and, in the second place, neither of these writers gives any example of such a change of construction taking place. Made known to the king. Why was it to “the king”? One objectsecured by making this revelation known to Nebuchadnezzar himself was that it secured its publicity. Had the vision been made known to Daniel himself, he could not have announced that the empire of Babylon should pass away, without running the risk of being condemned for treason. The king’s action had made both dream and interpretation perforce public in a way they could not otherwise have been. What shall come to pass hereafter; literally, which shall be after these things. This does not mean in the immediate future, but after the state of matters at present existing—the domination of the world by great powers after the system of great world-empires has passed away, then will the Lord’s kingdom be set up. And the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure; or, literally, to bring out the emphasis, certain—established—it is the dream, and sure—faithful—the interpretation. This is not a mere assertion of the fact that he, Daniel, had given an exact account of what the king had seen in his dream, and a correct in
Note: Before the kings from the statue have been destroyed, an eternal kingdom will first be set up. The text says “in the days of those kings,” not “after the days of those kings.”
This eternal kingdom is represented in the dream by the uncut stone that smashes into the statue. This verse presents some problems for some sects of Christians who believe that the Church was completely subverted for a long period of time (Protestant or other sects who deny the validity of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches after about the 3rd century.)
Daniel 2: 44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
When Daniel finishes, he tells the King that God has made known both the dream and its interpretation to him. Like Joseph in Genesis, this leads to a good outcome for Daniel – as we will see in the next set of verses.
